Monday, 23 February 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, as a courtesy I wish to advise the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will be absent from Question Time today on government business. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will respond to any questions relating to Mr Kerin's portfolio. In addition, any questions today relating to the portfolio of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), or to his role as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs or as Minister representing the Minister for Education in the House should also be directed to the Minister for Transport. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the honourable gentlemen to the fact that interest payments on Federal government debt, which stood at $3.378m in the last Howard Budget, have risen over the four Keating Budgets to $7.514m, an increase of $4.136m, due to excessive government spending and borrowing and the government's high interest rate policy. Is it not a fact that the additional interest bill run up by this Government is equivalent to a tax cut of $12 a week for each Australian taxpayer? Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, I would not be certain about the veracity of the calculation at the end of the question. The appalling underlying character of the question is that somehow the major imbalance in fiscal policy-that is, taking it from the order of $2 billion to $3 billion to the order of $9 billion to $10 billion-was somehow the responsibility of this Government. Of course, it was the responsibility of you know who-the man who played footloose with journalists in the last week of the election campaign of 1983, J. W. Howard. That is where the $9.6 billion came from. What this Government has done at a time of-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Well, if honourable members like, I will get out Mr Stone's minute and confirm it again for them. I am quite happy to get it and to table it yet again. This Government, unlike many governments around the world, has reduced Australia's fiscal Budget deficits dramatically, from the order of 4.5 or 4.6 per cent of gross domestic product in prospect in 1983-84 to something approaching 1 1/2 per cent of GDP in 1986-87. I might contrast that very rapid decline in the deficit as a proportion of GDP with that of many other countries. For instance, at the same time as this Government was appointed to office the United States of America had a Budget deficit of 5 per cent of GDP. It still has a Budget deficit of 5 per cent of GDP. In Australia, by contrast, the Australian Commonwealth public sector deficit has been reduced to 1 1/2 per cent of GDP. In fact, recently a European banker said to me that one of the points not well understood by investors abroad is the speed of the decline of the fiscal imbalance of Australia. In other words, he was saying: `You have done more in this country to cut the deficit than many people abroad realise'. That is, of course, entirely true. We have reduced the deficit not by some easy resort to the lazy oil money of Bass Strait, which for this Government has been actually declining, but by a combination of growth and cuts in public sector outlays. In other words, we have done the very thing which the former Government could never do. We have brought the Budget deficit down to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product at the time of our current account problem and a rapid fall in our terms of trade; at the same time we have provided the largest tax cuts in the history of the income tax system. I noticed that the honourable gentleman never mentioned the $4.5 billion of tax cuts currently under way in the context of a deficit in prospect of 1.4 per cent of GDP. If this is supposed to be a tough question I can only say that there is a total pointlessness about referring to the state of fiscal policy now when the honourable member failed to recognise in his question the fact that the responsibility for the deterioration was the responsibility of the Government that he belonged to. This Government has done what very few governments around the world have done-it has reduced markedly its Budget deficit so as to promote a better climate for interest rates and a higher level of activity by the private sector which, of course, has happened over the last four years. Mr CLEELAND —Is the Prime Minister aware of recent criticisms of flat tax proposals? Can he inform the House and, in particular, the tax illiterates in the National Party of Australia, of the effect on working families of a 25 per cent flat rate of tax? Mr HAWKE —Recent criticism-- Mr Ian Cameron —What about-- Mr HAWKE —My straight man is back. Recent criticism of the National Party's 25 per cent flat tax rate has come from none other than the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Spender —Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —I notice that one honourable member behind him said `Hear, hear'. I do not think the honourable member for Denison will. He is an exponent-- Mr MacKellar —He is not here. Mr HAWKE —I know that he is not here, but if he were he would be opposing the Leader of the Opposition because he is in favour of a flat rate tax. I do not know whether the honourable member for Maranoa will interject again, but let us hear what the Leader of the Opposition said about Joh's proposal for a 25 per cent flat tax. I ask honourable members to listen carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said about Joh's proposal. He said: It means the 20 per cent at the top, the rich, will get a big tax cut and the other 80 per cent will be left for dead. That is not a tax policy on which I would ever campaign. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. I have no quibble at all with the Leader of the Opposition's claim that a flat tax would provide an enormous benefit to the rich at the expense of ordinary Australian working families. He is right. But I have a very severe quibble with the extraordinary double standards exhibited by the Leader of the Opposition. Let us look at what the Leader of the Opposition promises in his tax policies, as far as we can ascertain them. Let us look at how they are loaded in favour of the poor ordinary middle class and against the rich. This is what he would do: He promises to reinstitute the tax free company cars, the deductions for the private school fees and the entertainment allowances-at a cost of $900m. He promises to reinstitute the tax free lunches at a cost of $320m. Most amazingly of all, he promises to abolish the capital gains tax. All those things which he proposes, of course, would restore the tax free privileges to the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle income family in this country. I ask the House to take note, in particular, of the impact of his proposal to abolish the capital gains tax. Let us look at what has happened in the Sydney Stock Exchange alone. Let us look at the Sydney stock market in the period since September 1985. The proposal of the Leader of the Opposition-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I remind you that, despite the latitude which is given to the Prime Minister, the underlying principle in Question Time is that Ministers are required to answer questions and may answer questions only on matters for which they are responsible to parliament. Questions or answers of the kind that go on to Opposition policy statements have been ruled out of order in this House before, as you would know. For example, on 12 October 1977, a question was ruled out of order by the then Speaker in these terms, as reported at page 1893 of Hansard: I rule the question out of order as it ceases to be in order at the point where it seeks comment on a statement by and a policy of the Leader of the Opposition. Once the Prime Minister gets into that area in answering a question, once he seeks to comment upon a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, he is consequently out of order regardless of what latitude may ordinarily be shown to the Prime Minister. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, on the point of order-- Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. You do not need assistance from the Minister to help you make up your mind. Sit him down. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House is commenting on the point of order. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, it would be beyond belief to have questions to the Prime Minister of the day thus restricted. Any member who has been in this House for any length of time knows that every member of the Opposition and the Government has an opportunity to ask questions of the Prime Minister of the day on matters of public consequence. The honourable member for North Sydney could hardly argue that taxation is not a question of public consequence at the moment. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. In the light of the intervention by the Leader of the House, I think it is worth while drawing your attention to page 428 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 19 February 1975, when one of your predecessors, the then Mr Bill Snedden, asked a question of Speaker Cope about the length of an answer of a Prime Minister. Mr Speaker Cope responded: I will answer this point of order as I have answered similar points of order on previous occasions: The Chair has no jurisdiction over the length of an answer but I ask the Prime Minister, as I have asked Ministers previously, to be as brief as he possibly can. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that in the light of that ruling and many subsequent rulings, including those of your immediate predecessor, Speaker Jenkins, Prime Ministers as well as Ministers have an obligation, by convention if not otherwise, to keep their answers as brief as possible. Mr Young —Madam Speaker, on the point of order now raised by the Manager of Opposition Business, I should also point out that questions raised about ministerial answers by the Opposition when I was a member of the Government in 1975 were referred to a committee and the Manager of Opposition Business at the time refused to participate in changing any of the procedures. I should also point out, if we are going to use 1975 as a precedent for doing things, that on 11 November this House carried a motion of no confidence in the newly installed Fraser Government, of which it took no notice. Madam SPEAKER —Order! In regard to the point of order raised by the honourable member for North Sydney, the Prime Minister was asked to give the House a rundown of what the impact of a flat tax would be if it were implemented. I find him quite in order to do so. In regard to the point of order raised by the Leader of the National Party, again I suggest that the House has recourse to the Procedure Committee. It can, if it wishes, instruct the House that there will be, say, 15 questions in Question Time or request a time limit for Ministers to answer each individual question. Again, I say: The ball is back in your court. You have the Procedure Committee through which you may proceed, and I will leave it at that. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I have spoken for a very brief amount of time and I will not be going for much longer. But I want to point out that in regard to the position of the Leader of the Opposition and his intention of abolishing the capital gains tax, the abolition of the capital gains tax would allow $87 billion worth of paper profits on the Sydney stock market alone since September 1985 to escape untaxed. This man poses as the friend of the poor against the rich. He would also repeal the assets test and pay pensions to the millionaires. This is the man who is against the rich and for the poor. That would be a return to the callous days over which he presided when a married pensioner couple with two kids-in the seven years of the previous Government-had their benefits cut by 7 per cent in real terms. That is the friend of the poor! In addition, he would have a wage freeze and prices going through the roof. In other words, this friend of the poor-the man against the rich-would attack the ordinary people of this country with higher taxes, a wage freeze, higher interest rates and higher prices. The honourable member for Boothby summed it all up in a comment on 28 January. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that when the honourable member for Boothby said what I am going to quote he was not directing his remarks at the Premier of Queensland, he was directing his remarks at the Leader of the Opposition. These were the words of the honourable member for Boothby-- Mr Spender —I take a point of order. The point is very clear and that is that it is not a question of the question being asked but it is a question as to how it is answered. If the Prime Minister diverts himself by quoting from whomever, even somebody outside the House, that is not in accordance with the way in which Standing Orders have been interpreted before. He is not competent to comment on what has been said in an Opposition policy statement or in a statement by the honourable member for Boothby or anyone else. That is clearly borne out by past rulings of Speakers in this House. That is one of the reasons why in the past, I suggest, more questions were answered than is currently the case. Madam SPEAKER —Certainly there were more questions at some times in the past. I suggest that the Prime Minister conclude. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Boothby, who I understand-despite perhaps the wishes of the honourable member for North Sydney-is still in the House, had this to say of the Leader of the Opposition: `We cannot lubricate an Opposition vehicle with snake oil'. That is the judgment of the Opposition's own members about the snake oil policies being put up. The Leader of the Opposition is not only, as the Premier of Queensland said, a silly little boy; he is a hypocritical little boy. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will withdraw the last comment. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw and say that he is a five bob each way little boy. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Fisher. Government members interjecting- Mr SLIPPER —It really is quite pathetic the way the Australian Labor Party tries to divert attention from its own factional problems. My question is addressed, once again, to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the figures released yesterday by the Real Estate Institute of Australia on home loan affordability. Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Fisher to restart his question. No one was able to hear the early part of it because of the noise in the House. Mr SLIPPER —The Government is frightened, Madam Speaker. My question is directed to the outgoing Prime Minister of this nation. I refer him to the figures released yesterday by the Real Estate Institute of Australia on home loan affordability. Is the Prime Minister aware that since the 1984 election average monthly home loan repayments have increased in New South Wales from $472 per month to $678 per month, in Victoria from $405 per month to $609 per month, and in the other four States by amounts ranging from $97 per month up to $207 per month? What is the Prime Minister's excuse for this staggering increase in the cost of home loan repayments? Mr HAWKE —This is about the fourth run of this question. I will repeat to the House the reasons-not the excuse-that I have given before. The Government acknowledges that because of high interest rates the repayments of many home buyers now form a higher proportion of income than a couple of years ago. But on several occasions in answering similar questions I have pointed out to the Opposition, and attempted to instruct it on, the role of monetary policy in the current economic environment. We on this side of the House understand that economic facts are something alien to the Opposition's analysis of any political situation. This Government will not walk away from the facts. We will make the unpalatable decisions which are necessary to face up the undoubted economic problems imposed upon this country. The honourable member, in asking his question, referred to some observations that have been made in the last couple of days about housing and interest rates. In that context I remind the House of what was said today on the Macquarie network on the 12.30 Report in an interview with Mr Brian Stott, the General Manager Bank Operations, Retail Banking, at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Against some suggestions that there would be a further lift in home loan interest rates, this is what Mr Stott had to say: . . . our current thinking is that we have no intention whatsoever of lifting home loan rates at the present time nor do we consider it related to the market oriented rate of prime. He said: I'm a little at a loss to understand what their strategy is- he is talking about the National Australia Bank Ltd- or what they are getting at. He suggests that it might be trying to set the stage for putting some pressure on the Government in regard to a housing package rate, but in conclusion he said: But at the present moment on the market as it is we would see no need to adjust home loan rates at all. It is a great pity that this Opposition first of all refuses to face up to the facts of the economic situation which require, unfortunately, the sort of monetary policy which gives the interest rate levels which we have. No government in its right mind wants high interest rates for a day longer than is necessary. We would like to have them lower. But what we say, as distinct from honourable members opposite, is that we will not engage in what the honourable member for Boothby properly refers to as snake oil mixtures. That is the language of the honourable member's so-called coalition partners. Does the honourable member remember that he is in coalition with them? What the honourable member for Boothby is saying is: `A plague upon your snake oil', and all credit to the honourable member for Boothby for describing the honourable member and the Leader of the Opposition-for that is what he is doing-as snake oil merchants. The honourable member can go on flogging his snake oil and he will finish up where he deserves to be-deeper and deeper in the economic and political mire. Mr TICKNER —I ask whether the Treasurer can inform the House of the extent to which the base broadening measures in the tax reform package paid for the personal income tax cuts of 1 December last and 1 July this year. What would the effects be on the Commonwealth Budget deficit if the Government were to drop these new revenue measures, restore deductibility for business lunches, restore negative gearing, and abandon the indexation of excises? Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable gentleman in the last part of his question said: `What would the effect be if . . .'. That is clearly hypothetical. Questions are not to contain hypothetical matter and should be ruled out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is asking the Treasurer for information. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —It is interesting that the honourable member for North Sydney and others think their Leader is so weak that they must protect him each day by this frivolous and stupid attempt to limit Question Time through the Standing Orders when they know that in these areas they have no ground whatever. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to expose and parade his weakness by the minute, that is fine so far as I am concerned. In response to the honourable member for Hughes, could I say that the base broadening of the tax reform measures is very profound. The broadening of the base is the first substantial broadening of the direct income tax base in the history of the income tax system. The base broadening measures provide $1.5 billion of the $4.5 billion of tax cuts, $3 billion of which is financed by cuts in outlays. But many of these measures would be put asunder if Opposition members were in a position to be the government of this country. It was very amusing that last Friday afternoon Senator Messner, the Opposition spokesman on taxation, in publishing a ready reckoner on tax, slipped into the public debate a document which purported to junk some of their tax commitments, but to list costing of current commitments at $870m. It will be recalled that last week I detailed commitments of $14.715 billion, and what is interesting about Senator Messner's latest proclamation is that so many of the computations of mine, such as substantiation-the former commitments of the Opposition-are no longer referred to. What we are led to believe is that substantiation is now dropped. Tax deductibility of entertainment expenses is not referred to. Restoration of negative gearing for property investment is not referred to. Implementing income splitting, $2.85 billion-not referred to. We have heard so much about the family-- Mr Blunt —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week I raised with you a point of order that you yourself took in relation to a previous Speaker of this House. You said to the then Speaker: The Minister will answer the question and not engage in irrelevancies, such as contrasting the Government and the Labor Party. My recollection of the question posed to the Treasurer was that it contained a request for information, in your words, about changing certain government policies. It did not ask him for any information concerning the policies of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question would have been out of order if it did so, because Opposition policy should not be mentioned in questions. However, these policies can be mentioned in answers provided that they are relevant to the answers the Treasurer is giving. I think they are relevant in accordance with the information he is giving the person who posed the question. I might add that no Speaker in this House has ever felt slavishly bound to follow his or her predecessors' rulings. I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —We have heard so much hollow talk from the Opposition about the family-that is other than the 700,000 families it threw on the unemployment queues. We find that the income splitting promise of $2.8 billion, which underpins all this talk about the family, was not mentioned on Friday-it is out. Repeal of the wine sales tax-all the commitments by the Deputy Leader of the National Party in his farm industry and rural economy speech of 1 February, which he said have the endorsement of the National Party, have been knocked back into history. I refer to fully rebating the excise on fuel, abolition of automatic fuel excise indexation, abolition of meat inspection charges, repeal of the wine tax-all of those things were not mentioned. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —The Leader of the National Party was out at the weekend currying favour with certain constituencies and the Liberal Party is then denying these promises in the Parliament under scrutiny. Introduction of child care rebate-not mentioned. Abolition of indexation of fuel excise-not mentioned. Restoration of income equalisation deposits-not mentioned. Reinstatement of immediate write-off for conserving and conveying water-not mentioned. Abolition of the sales tax on oil and lubricants-not mentioned. Abolition of the excise on brandy-not mentioned. The personal income tax rate scale, $6.65 billion-not mentioned. The interesting thing is that when the office of the Leader of the Opposition was contacted late on Friday-of course, we all understand about late Fridays, accountability and what falls into the newspaper on Saturday, do we not-the Press Secretary of the Leader of the Opposition was asked whether the list was a full costing of the Opposition's promises. He answered: `I suppose not'. So the tax spokesman has issued this derisory list-$870m down from $14 billion-but, when asked whether it was a complete list, the answer was: `I suppose not'. But on the weekend the Leader of the Opposition stated: My chief concern . . . has been the integrity of the Liberal Party and presenting . . . a credible alternative-- Mr Reith —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. As late as last Friday you advised the House: I suggest to the House that the Chair has no authority to shorten the answers, but I can give advice that questions and answers are becoming quite long. It might be an idea if we cut them back. I submit, Madam Speaker, that this would be an appropriate direction to give today. Madam SPEAKER —The House is given the same advice. We will get through more questions and answers if the answers are not so long. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has no right to make a ruling; I have told honourable members this often enough. I give advice. Mr KEATING —So $14 billion of tax promises fell to $870m on Friday night, but Mr Howard's office said: `I suppose it is not a full list'. But on the weekend the Leader of the Opposition stated: My chief concern . . . has been the integrity of the Liberal Party and presenting . . . a credible alternative to the Hawke Government. In an article in the Age he is reported as saying: If we lapse into populism the future of this country will be at risk. Well, how about that! Australian politics is really at a low ebb when a leader of an opposition can campaign on $14 billion of commitments and then talk about lapses into populism. Three weeks ago-and this, of course, amongst other things, was an attack on the Premier of Queensland-he said: the policy principles . . . which he has advocated- that is, Bjelke-Petersen- are virtually identical to what I have advocated and supported during the seventeen months I have been Leader of the Opposition. But, according to the Australian on Saturday he stated: The essence of his- Bjelke-Petersen's- economic approach is that of a populist offering a miracle cure. What we on this side of the House want to know is: What is the Opposition's tax policy? Is it $14 billion of commitments or has it diminished in regard to all these things? Is income splitting still there, or is it not still there? Are all of these other commitments, such as-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will bring his answer to a conclusion. Mr KEATING —The Opposition is an absolute mess. Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer will bring his answer to a conclusion. Mr KEATING —It does not have a thread of-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Quiet! Mr KEATING —It is innumerate and indecent. Madam Speaker, we have descended to this level: A documented and authenticated list of Opposition commitments is then driven to $870m on a Friday night, but the Leader of the Opposition says: `No, it is not a comprehensive list'. We wish to know, in the interests of the people, who do not want populism, but who want decent economic policy, whether substantiation is there, whether entertainment expenses are there, whether negative gearing is there, whether income splitting is there, whether a wine tax is there-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order! Mr Howard —Sit down, you mug. Mr KEATING —You're a mug, my friend, and a very little mug at that. Madam SPEAKER —The House will come to order! Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker-- Mr KEATING —The Speaker is on her feet, you idiot. Madam SPEAKER —Do you mind? I am standing. The Treasurer will bring his answer to a conclusion. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I ask the Treasurer to withdraw. You would not give Kristine a lousy thousand dollars, would you-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —To pay for the wedding expenses. That is you, you mug. Madam SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for O'Connor. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for O'Connor be suspended from the service of the House. A division having been called and the bells having been rung- Mr Tuckey —I have been named before I have even been warned. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to resume his seat. He ignored the Chair. I warned him that if he kept on going-- Mr Tuckey —You did not. Madam SPEAKER —I warned the honour- able member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —No, you did not. Madam SPEAKER —I did warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —You were not heard, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair went through the proper procedure. The honourable member for O'Connor was shouting so loudly that he may not have heard me. He would not heed the Chair. I warned him and named him under standing order 303e. Mr Tuckey —You did not warn me and you did not-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Hansard and the tape will show that I warned the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —I did not hear you. You did not warn me. And what about the Treasurer? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I did not warn the Treasurer. I advised him to bring his remarks to a conclusion. Mr Tuckey —And he did not. Same as he rang you up and told you to take things out of Hansard. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Sit down! You are quite out of order, totally out of order. Mr Tuckey —One side for me and one side for him. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. N. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. N.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Dawkins, J. S. Dobie, J. D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is therefore suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for O'Connor thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr KEATING —I conclude the answer by saying that the Government has to make the numbers add up, so does the Opposition, and we will not be intimidated by these frivolous points of order, regardless of how long the questions or answers take. Mr WEBSTER —My question is directed, with respect, to the Prime Minister, and I hope it serves to reinforce the matters already mentioned by the honourable member for Fisher. I ask: Is the Prime Minister aware that one Australian bank is charging interest of 17.5 per cent for some new home loans? Is the Prime Minister also aware that since his re-election at the end of 1984 some new bank home loan rates have risen from 11.5 per cent to 17.5 per cent? Finally, does the Prime Minister regard this increase in housing interest rates of a massive 52 per cent as being a reflection of successful housing policies? If not, what is his excuse? Mr HAWKE —Let me just make two points very briefly. Firstly, as I have said before in this House, even under the exigencies imposed upon the Australian economy in the conduct of economic policy by external circumstances, interest rates under this Government have not reached the peak that they reached under the previous Government. Mr Spender —In real terms. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, the economic genius from North Sydney says: `In real terms'. I suppose he understands that what determines the real term interest rate is the level of inflation. He should go back to his own office and work out why there are differences in real interest rates in terms of inflation under this Government and under his own. If he does the work-if he is capable of doing it-he will find out the answer. The simple fact is that interest rates under this Government have not reached the peak that they reached under the previous Government. I repeat, Madam Speaker, as briefly as I can, that this Government will not shrink from making those economic policy decisions, including those in the area of monetary policy, which are necessary to deal with the economic problems confronting this country. Of course, if we could get interest rates down tomorrow, we would love to do so. But we are not going to become, like honourable members opposite, snake oil merchants. If their policies were applied, it is certain that we would lose the exchange rate and that interest rates would go through the roof. They are regarded by all economic commentators in this country in the same way as they are regarded by their own member for Boothby-as snake oil merchants. They should get it into their heads that, while they may peddle snake oil policies, this Government is not going to. Mr WRIGHT —Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to last night's 60 Minutes program in which the Government was criticised for not compelling Mitsubishi Australia Ltd to recall all of its Valiant vehicles for rectification of a seat slide defect? Will the Minister advise what action the Government has taken on this important issue? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I commend him for the very strong interest he has displayed over the years in matters of consumer interest. I am aware of the report that was displayed on the 60 Minutes program. Let me say that the subject of the report is not something new. It has been a matter that has been the subject of Press coverage on a number of occasions over the years. In fact, it first arose in the life of the previous Government. I want to say at the outset that it is ludicrous to suggest that there was some secrecy about how the issue was dealt with by this Government. The tests that were carried out in respect of the vehicles concerned were always carried out in the presence of representatives of the Australian Automobile Association. As I have said, there have been a number of Press reports over the years. There have also been injunctions at various stages on the release of information. I notice that in the television coverage reference was made to a letter I signed referring to disclosure of the report. As the recipients of the letter would well be aware, that related to the possibility of legal action for defamation were the contents of the report to be distributed. But all those who were involved were well aware of the matters involved and the background to them. So, as I said, there is very little that is in any way new. The problem arose out of a dispute about an interpretation of what a design rule meant in connection with a vehicle built some years ago. The dispute relates to a time when the Federal Government did not have any power to order the recall of vehicles. When we came to government some tests were carried out on the vehicle and a report was prepared. Under the voluntary recall procedures at the time, the Mitsubishi company was asked to recall the vehicles. It disputed the interpretation of the design rule and declined to recall the vehicles. Subsequent to that, some further tests were carried out by other parties. I should make the point that the critical thing in vehicle recall is whether the alleged defect will or may cause injury. In relation to the Valiant issue, after additional work had been done it became very doubtful whether it could be proved that any additional injury could be sustained by seat slide failure. All of those matters, all of the information that had been gathered and all of the tests that were carried out were examined at some length by the State road authorities responsible and by Federal and State Transport Ministers. It was the unanimous decision of Federal and State Transport Ministers that no further action be taken in the matter. I make the point that I, as Federal Minister for Transport, have no power to order a recall of vehicles. As a result of the initiative of this Government and the priorities given to road safety generally and as a result of an amendment to the Trade Practices Act, the Attorney-General has the power, on my advice, to order the recall of vehicles manufactured after 1 July 1986. But we do not have any retrospective power in respect of the vehicle which was the subject of the report that was broadcast last evening. As I have said, the story is not new and the issue is not new. To suggest that there was some secrecy on the part of this Government is ludicrous and all the parties involved are well aware of that. I can add no more to the issue than the information that I have provided to the House and I commend the honourable member for his interest in this matter. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —On behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs I table a copy of the Menzies report and other documents relating to the dismissal of the Director of the Australian War Memorial. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —by leave-On 25 September 1986, report No. 254 of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts was tabled. It reported the Committee's findings and recommendations on proposed computer acquisitions for Department of Defence. I report today the Government's response to the principal recommendations. The Committee recommended that the computer requirements of the Office of Defence Production should be tendered for separately from those of the rest of Defence. This is accepted and action is in hand. It also recommended that a separate contract for small systems be not proceeded with. That recommendation too is accepted. In respect of the major proposal for standardised equipment to be bought under project DESINE-the defence electronic data processing systems integrated network environment-the Committee supported the strategy but not the proposed method of acquisitions in pursuit of that strategy. It was concerned that there was insufficient opportunity for Australian industry, and that a prime contractor for five years was too restrictive. The Government notes the Committee's concern for Australian industry. My colleagues, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) and I have arranged that the request for tender for project DESINE should make it clear that the prime contractor can be an Australian company, and that Australian content will be monitored throughout the life of the contract. Because of the urgency of Defence's needs, the Government has now agreed to the issue of the request for tender for the range of hardware and software products for project DESINE. I present the following paper: Proposed Computer Acquisitions by the Department of Defence-Ministerial Statement, 23 February 1987. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-The Opposition notes with interest the statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). However, a number of aspects in it need to be commented on. Certainly, policies encouraging Australia's involvement, particularly in high technology areas, would have the support of those on this side of the House. The real question, however, with respect to automation in the services comes more from personnel and acquisition procedures. It is in that sector that the Minister has said and done nothing. In fact, it is in this area more than anywhere else that the Minister's administration, deplorably, has been moving further and further away from reality and creating enormous problems for the future. The Auditor-General's efficiency report into the Department of Defence entitled `Principal Item Stock Control and Entitlement System' dated November 1986 was most damning of the Army's computer organisation. One of the critical problems is that personnel management policies do not equate with acquisition objectives. The programmers are often inexperienced; many are straight from university. They come in as captains with no systems or organisation experience and the result is seen in projects such as the PISCES project, which was an absolute shambles. Current computer methodology invariably takes several years to complete which, more often than not, is more time than that of any one posting. In other words, servicemen and servicewomen are posted to these positions and moved on before the computer methodology for a particular project can be adequately developed. There is an absence of continuity in personnel, and that prejudices the speedy and most cost effective completion of projects. Too many non-technical people are posted to technical positions and this certainly relates back to the top heavy nature of the Department of Defence, which the Minister has encouraged to develop. Because financial delegation is too narrowly assigned, no one really vets what the Department is paying for. To live within the bureaucratic limitations, middle level officers break up their project needs so as to keep responsibility for the control of the project and financial control in their hands. That finishes up with inefficiencies. Big projects being broken up into a series of unco-ordinated little projects inevitably also leads to severe cost overruns. In an area such as computing there is a need for tight project definition. Under the present organisation, the by-productis often seen in inoperable systems. No one really knows what the other guy has been doing. People are transferred, the whole system has been an absolute disaster, and yet the Minister blithely tells us that under this new system we will encourage Australian differential contracts with the Office of Defence Production of the Department of Defence and everything will be okay. In fact too often the Department of Defence lumbers the Services with equipment that has been sold to it by fast talking computer salesmen. The result is that the Department of Defence has been caught with equipment that does not best suit the needs of the Services. There is a need for a coherent acquisition strategy with prime input from the users themselves. But because so few of them are there long enough, it is very difficult for those users to define exactly the requirements and to place before those who are the suppliers of both hardware and software the exact best way by which they could operate. There is much to recommend a prototype strategy whereby the users and builders get together to work out how best to meet the needs of the armed services. This would be far preferable to the demonstration model approach that is currently used by the Department of Defence whereby it buys off the rack and then amends its needs to suit the equipment it has in stock. Computerisation has the capability of saving Australian taxpayers many millions of administrative dollars which could be put to other uses. However, computerisation, if maladministered, has the potential to cost many millions more than it saves. Unfortunately, this statement omits more than it says. Elements of it certainly encourage Australian design and development which, of course, have to have our support. But unless the Minister can change his posting obligations and his selection processes, and unless he can move to a prototype strategy instead of a demonstration model, as in so many areas under the Minister's administration the taxpayers' dollar, I am afraid, will continue to be wasted. Mr Beazley —It's a terrible life. Mr SINCLAIR —It is so true though. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the anomalous Fringe Benefits tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the anomalous Fringe Benefits Tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits Tax legislation. by Mr McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until 6 August this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that: We the undersigned small business people and supporters wish to draw attention to and protest against recent tax changes and the horrific administrative burdens which will be placed upon small businesses by these changes. We request that `Fringe Benefits Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Dividend Imputation, Negative gearing, Foreign tax credits, and Substantiation legislation be immediately repealed. We also request that the proposed legislation yet to be tabled in Parliament in respect of self assessment be discontinued. To make up the shortfall in revenue as a result of these requests, the promised personal tax cuts should be deferred until such time as they can be funded by pruning government expenditure. Unless the above action is taken immediately the private sector of the economy will contract and Australia will be further down the road to becoming a banana republic. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the Superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the 1986 Census deprived housewives of the right to record their occupation and instead forced them to give the negative response: ``No, did not have a job''. That the 1986 Census could have been used, at no extra cost to taxpayers, to give a genuine ``Fair Go'' to all women to record their views on the government's National Agenda for Women. That coinciding with the 1986 Census, the Office of the Status of Women is conducting a costly, selective survey titled: ``A Fair Go for Women''. This survey requires no identification of respondents, making the results of the survey highly suspect since it is known that various groups and individuals have obtained bulk supplies of the brochure, while the majority of women are not aware that their views are being sought by the Government. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will restore to the Census a category for Housewives, and that the ``Fair Go for Women'' survey will be recognised as a costly exercise of dubious value in determining the real views of Australian women, as this should be done through the Census, or a Referendum held in conjunction with the next Federal election to minimise costs, and to give all women a genuine ``Fair Go''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal of the above said bill ``National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use''. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of the above said Bill ``National System for Therapeutic Goods for Human Use''; and (2) Continue to allow the free availability of vitamins, minerals homoeopathic remedies, biochemic remedies and herbal remedies to the general public through the present distribution outlets. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will remove the freedom of independent small business to- (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create impossible working conditions which will include the payment of- (a) union superannuation (b) compensation (c) payroll tax (d) annual leave loadings (e) public holiday loadings (f) PAYE tax deductions (g) limited incomes (h) inflexible awards and conditions; and (i) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c. per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly object to the Government's decision to sell Australia's uranium to France and elsewhere particularly in view of all dangers to humankind inherent in the nuclear industry continued nuclear bomb testing in the Pacific by France. We regard the Government's proposed action as a complete negation of its stated policy for a Nuclear Free Pacific and demand that the uranium is not sold and that all uranium mining cease forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. 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: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that persistent rumour suggest that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-service men and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Ruddock. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear; Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishments of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia plead that the Parliament retain the Rescue and Firefighting Service at Tamworth Airport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. by Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: Despite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights statement that ``the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State'', the present Australian tax system penalises families with children at every level of income. The tax system discriminates in particular against families with large numbers of dependants. This may be one reason why, according to Professor Bettina Cass, only 27 per cent of married couple families with children had three or more children in 1985, in contrast to almost 35 per cent in 1969. Fair levels of family allowances and taxation benefits are the reasonable entitlement and expectation of parents. Such a change in government policy may help to arrest the sharp decline in Australian births with beneficial results for our country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. That the taxation system cease to discriminate against families. by Mrs Sullivan. 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: The mining and export of uranium increases the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust which the children of Australia and the world will inherit. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government take immediate and forceful action to stop the mining and export of uranium. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Wannon electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western State University as recommended in the Parry report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State university in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Hawke-Keating Government, because of its high interest rate and high taxation policies, to address the critical housing situation facing millions of Australian families. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr BEALE(Deakin)(3.03) —In each of the last five sitting days the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has completely failed to answer questions put to him about Australia's housing crisis. Last Tuesday, in response to a question on why new dwelling commencements had fallen from 153,000 two years ago to the current level of 118,000, he talked about company bankrupt- cies in Queensland. On Wednesday, when asked why home loan repayments as a percentage of median family income had increased by 45 per cent in the past two years, he responded by talking about the Opposition's economic policies. I welcome the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) to this matter of public importance. On Thursday, when the Prime Minister was asked whether he intended to continue the savings banks $145m subsidy for home loans he resorted to personal abuse. On Friday, in responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) about housing prospects he claimed that he had already answered the question. Today we had it twice more. When asked a question about the Real Estate Institute of Australia figures on home loan affordability he admitted that high interest rates were hurting the housing industry. He then went on to more personal abuse. When asked about interest rates he tried to give us a history lesson. This utter failure by the Prime Minister to respond to questions in the Parliament brings me to ask him the same question as I will be asking the Minister for Housing and Construction-who is now sitting at the table-a number of times throughout this matter of public importance. I say to the Prime Minister in regard to his failure to answer questions on Australia's housing crisis: `What is your excuse for that?'. This matter of public importance is about the failure of the Hawke-Keating Government to address the critical housing situation facing millions of Australian families because of its high interest rate policy and its high taxation policies. All I need do is draw the attention of the House to the Housing Industry Association Press release of 19 February, which starts off: With mounting problems in the housing sector . . . The situation in housing throughout this country has again reached a crisis. Following the introduction of the so-called housing package on 2 April 1986, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Housing and Construction promised there would be 135,000 housing starts in the 1986-87 financial year. The Indicative Planning Council, the Government's own advisory body on housing, has repeatedly downgraded that number-first to 130,000, then to 125,000, and currently to 122,500. I use the word `currently' because the leaked report of the Indicative Planning Council Advisory Committee in New South Wales last week forecast an even greater drop, not only for the current year but for next year as well. Industry sources say there will be only 118,000 starts this year compared with the Minister's forecast of 135,000 starts. I say to the Minister for Housing and Construction, who is at the table: `What is your excuse for that?'. No doubt the Minister, in his response to this matter of public importance on the Government's deliberate high interest rate and high taxation policies, will refer to the low level of starts in 1981-82 under the previous coalition Government. I remind the Minister that that level of housing starts occurred in the trough of the worst world-wide recession since the Great Depression and in the middle of one of the worst droughts Australia has ever faced. I further remind the Minister that the current level of housing starts, when adjusted for population and demand growth, is not much different from the level in 1981-82. I say to the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?'. Bank lending for housing remains at relatively low levels and increasingly this lending is for larger homes for more affluent buyers trading up into more expensive, existing housing. Over the last six months funds for new dwellings have declined from 26 per cent of total housing lending to 21 per cent of total housing lending, reflecting the fact that more people are using their money for existing homes and alterations and additions. If the Minister's objective is to house Australians, how can he explain away this increasing diversion of funds from new dwellings into existing houses, and I say to the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?'. It is the Government's deliberate high interest rate policy that is murdering the housing industry in Australia. I remind the Minister of what Mr Walker, the Labor Minister for Housing in the New South Wales Parliament and a factional colleague of the Minister at the table, said last week. He said that 1986 was a bad year for housing, primarily because of high interest rates and problems with Federal taxation policies. I ask the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?'. Furthermore, this leaked report says that the Committee believed that housing starts in 1987-88 could be 5 to 10 per cent lower than originally forecast. I ask the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?'. Over the past two years new home loan interests rates have risen from 11 1/2 per cent to 15 1/2 per cent. Banking sources now say-despite what the Prime Minister told us at Question Time today-that this general level of 15 1/2 per cent is more likely to rise than to fall over the next few months. In fact, in one case, that of the National Australia Bank Ltd, 17 1/2 per cent is already being charged for certain housing loans, as my colleague the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) pointed out today. Thus, housing interest rates have risen from 11.5 per cent to 17.5 per cent, a massive 52 per cent increase. I say to the Minister, a Minister who has repeatedly promised that interest rates would come down; `What is your excuse for that?'. It is now clear that housing package mark I has failed. The $145m bribe given by the Government out of taxpayers' funds to the savings banks has not worked. I challenge the Minister to tell the House again that he believes that the housing package has been successful when it has demonstrably failed, and I say to him: `What is your excuse for that?'. In March 1986, 21 per cent of median family income was spent on home loan repayments. In the figures released yesterday, as my colleague the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) has pointed out, one sees that that figure has jumped from 21.3 per cent to a massive 26.7 per cent. This is a massive 51 per cent increase in the amount that families are spending on home loan repayments around Australia, and again I ask the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?' This 51 per cent increase is a shocking condemnation of the Government's housing policies and is testament to the fact that this Government has deserted its constituency. The Government's deliberate and continuing high interest rate policies are hitting at the heart of every Australian family, and more particularly at those lower income earners who simply cannot afford home loan repayments at their current levels. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the Government's own home mortgage insurance company, in its recently released annual report has confirmed a sharply increasing level of defaulting home owners and a sharply increased provision of funds for their customers in arrears. The Minister at the table is the Minister responsible for the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and in view of that Corporation's poor performance last year and of its increased provision for home loan defaulters, I ask the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?' No doubt in his response to this matter of public importance dealing with the failure of the Hawke-Keating Government's housing policies, the Minister will have some words to say about the first home owners scheme. Let me remind the Minister that because of its stringent eligibility criteria, the current first home owners scheme is now lending at significantly lower rates not only than last year but lower than forecast in the current Budget, and I say to the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?' Every week the newspapers are ablaze with stories about the crisis in the private rental market. In the last two years during this Minister's tenure vacancy rates have trended downwards and rents have been increasing by amounts higher than inflation, and I ask the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?' Furthermore, investors in rental housing have declined from 25 per cent to 9 per cent of the market over the life of the Hawke-Keating Government reflecting the Government's taxation policies. The Hawke-Keating Government's capital gains tax and its policies on negative gearing have struck at the heart of the private rental market. There can be no sustained recovery in housing, and no relief for housing renters, until the Government's deliberate high interest rate policy has changed and until it repeals the capital gains tax. So that the Minister and the housing industry have the message firmly in their minds, let me say without qualification that the coalition in government will repeal the capital gains tax. Because new dwelling commencements are running well below the underlying demand and because of rental market difficulties, public housing waiting lists have increased from 100,000 when the Hawke Government was first elected to 160,000 now, and I say to the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?'. The Minister will no doubt tell us, in his reply to this matter of public importance on the Government's failed policies on housing, about all the taxpayers' money he is giving to the States for public housing. Why, then, are public housing waiting lists increasing? Why, then, are an additional 60,000 people seeking home purchase assistance? How can the Minister justify this increased spending on public housing if it is not having the desired effect of putting Australians in houses and bringing the waiting lists down? I ask the Minister: What is your excuse for that? Furthermore, in a report commissioned for the Minister's Department, it was documented that 40,000 in our community sleep outdoors every night and another 60,000 sleep outdoors intermittently. I ask the Minister: `What is your excuse for that?' This matter of public importance reflects the failure of the Hawke-Keating Government's housing policies because of its high interest rate and high taxation policies. The Minister at the table has been asked to give us his excuses for the low level of housing commencements, which are down by 20 per cent since he took over the Department; for the subdued level of bank lending for housing; for the fact that more of those funds are being channelled into existing dwellings than into new dwellings compared with six months ago; for the fact that new home interest rates have gone up from 11 1/2 per cent to as much as 17 1/2 per cent; for the rundown in the first home owners scheme; for the crisis in the private rental market that has arisen because of the Government's capital gains and negative gearing policies; for the increase in public housing waiting lists, from about 100,000 when the Hawke-Keating Government took office to the current level of 160,000; for the 400,000 Australians who live in caravans, in most cases not because they want to but because they have to as they cannot afford housing; and for the 100,000 Australians who from time to time sleep outdoors. The Minister in his reply will no doubt talk about housing starts during the worst recession year since the Great Depression, about the disappearing first home owners scheme and about increased funds being given to the States for public housing. He will do this Parliament and the people of Australia a favour if he gives us his excuses for his appallingly bad performance, rather than concentrate on the mess to which I have just referred. If he does not give us his excuses, I will return to the question I asked the Prime Minister earlier, and which we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister about his Minister for Housing and Construction: `What is your excuse for that?' Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.18) —The Opposition spokesman on housing, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), has just read a prepared diatribe, attacking the great record of this Labor Government in housing. But one might ask at the outset: Where is the Opposition's policy on housing? Come to think of it, where are any Opposition policies at all? Where is the Opposition's policy on taxation? This matter of public importance talks about that issue. The fact is that it has been delayed because the Opposition cannot produce its policy on taxation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) wants, of course, to introduce a consumption tax, to increase indirect taxation. Of course, that policy has been vetoed by an octogenarian outsider from Queensland, who has simply cut a swathe straight through the preparation and timing of the release of Opposition policies. I ask at the outset, in regard to taxation: How do the figures shape up now, given that the consumption tax has been vetoed? What about figures? Where will the expenditure cuts fall? Will they fall on housing? Will the Opposition present a policy of cutting housing programs to the bone? It has already been stated, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) pointed out during Question Time, that approximately $14.6 billion would be involved in expenditure cuts and taxation cuts. How will the Opposition finance this? A consumption tax of 8 per cent would probably produce only about $3.8 billion of revenue and it would certainly not go anywhere near covering the $6.6 billion which would be required to implement two tax rates of 25 per cent and 35 per cent, let alone cover the other $8,000m worth of expenditure cuts that the coalition has said, one way and another, that it will introduce. I refer to such matters as the removal of the fringe benefits tax and substantiation at a cost of $900m. I refer also to the restoration of full tax deductibility on entertainment expenses at the cost of $320m. The Opposition reckons that it will also repeal the wine sales tax at a cost of $115m; introduce child care tax rebates at a cost of $115m; and abolish the indexation of fuel excise at a cost of $340m. Should I go on? It all adds up to $14.6 billion and even with a consumption tax of 8 per cent, the coalition would still only raise $3.8 billion. Of course, the Premier of Queensland has already ensured that the coalition will not be allowed to introduce a consumption tax. Therefore it will be saddled with this huge bill of $14.6 billion. In those circumstances I am entitled to ask just where the cuts will be made. Will they be made in housing policy? Will housing policy be changed? Will the coalition abolish the first home owners scheme, as the honourable member for Deakin mentioned in his contribution? Will it terminate the tied programs, such as the pensioner rental program, the Aboriginal rental program, the mortgage and rent relief scheme or the crisis accommodation program? Will it terminate the local government and community housing program? In fact, some sections of the coalition-particularly those in the National Party of Australia-have already called for the total abolition of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and its expenditure for public housing, yet at the same time the honourable member for Deakin, who is the Opposition spokesman, is complaining about the extent of the public housing waiting lists. A significant section of his own coalition is calling for the abolition of the public housing agreement. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, $1.3 billion is contributed by the Federal Government-$700m by way of grants and $600m by way of cheap loans. If I have time, I will illustrate later the way in which this helps to alleviate housing-related poverty. Let me turn now to interest rates. The Opposition spokesman was critical of our position on interest rates. Let me make some comparisons. In June 1982, Commonwealth 10-year bonds were 16.4 per cent. The two-year bonds were 16.4 per cent. Commercial 180-day bank bills were 18.35 per cent and 90-day bills were 18.75 per cent. Today the Commonwealth 10-year bills are 14.1 per cent and two-year bills 14.8 per cent. The bank bills are 16.6 per cent for 180-day bills and for 90-day bills. The latter figure compares with 18.75 per cent in June 1982. The coalition as it now stands-and I do not know how much longer it will continue-is well aware that the deficit on the current account is caused primarily by the deterioration in the terms of trade. The Government's response is to run a tight monetary policy and keep interest rates at a level which will protect the Australian dollar and prevent a further rundown on the current account. Indeed the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that here today. We also are continuing to run tight fiscal policies and tight wages policies. When the Opposition criticises our level of interest rates, is it saying that it would act differently? Would it allow a sharp and sudden drop in bank bill rates and the bond rate in order to precipitate a fall in housing interest rates? Or would it simply let fiscal and wages policies blow out? It criticises interest rates at their present level, but at the same time, by inference, it apparently agrees with what we are doing on fiscal, wages and monetary policies as being necessary. Yet it is not prepared to follow those policies to their logical conclusion. In other words, it is prepared to resort to the politics of political quackery; that is what it is saying. On one hand it is saying that it supports the Treasurer's monetary, fiscal and wages policies, and by inference it is showing concern about the current account deficit and supporting high interest rates so that the value of the dollar will not fall. Yet on the other hand it is trying to get some cheap political kudos by criticising the resulting level of interest rates when it supports the policies which have generated those interest rates. The Opposition knows, as well as the Government does, that if it were to facilitate a sharp and sudden reduction in interest rates that would put further downward pressure on the dollar and also upward pressure on the current account deficit and, of course, place further pressure on fiscal and wages policies. Why does the Opposition not come clean and tell this Parliament and the Australian people just what it really stands for? Before very much longer I just might get a question in Question Time from the Opposition's spokesman for housing. He has done everything except direct questions to the Minister. He has simply got people on the Opposition back bench to direct questions to the Prime Minister, but this session he has not yet directed any questions on matters of detail to the Minister. Mr Hawker —Naughty boy! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Wannon should refrain from interjecting. If he wants to make some other contribution he might return to his seat. Mr WEST —I have said that this Government will adhere to its responsible macroeconomic policies. At the same time we recognise the importance of the housing sector and will deliver the highest possible sectional assistance to housing, as we have done in the past, commensurate with the balance of priorities of other portfolios and other areas. If one looks at what we have done one will see that it relates to ownership assistance programs, measures to stimulate investment in the private rental market and expenditure on public housing. Let me quickly deal with the April housing package of last year with regard to subsidies to the savings banks. Of course we pegged and will continue to peg the 13 1/2 per cent rate for those who took out savings bank loans prior to last April. I point out for the information of the House that there are something like 900,000 of those loans, which probably indicates that about one and a half million Australian voters are involved. We also deregulated new loans, and the savings banks and many building societies have been able to continue with loans at around 15 1/2 per cent. The success of that package can be judged by the fact that growth in savings bank deposits in March 1986 was running at an annual rate of 2 per cent, and in December 1986 savings bank deposits were increasing at an annual rate of 13.2 per cent. With regard to lending, the December figures for all significant lenders showed that lending for housing was running at an annual rate of $13,000m and that savings bank lending was running at an annual rate of $9,000m. We have successfully protected the position of people who had loans before last April. To assist the position of people who are still seeking housing loans, against a very tight budgetary situation we have been able to continue with the first home owners scheme. That has been highly successful. So far, 230,000 approvals have been made and over $1,000m has been made available. Of course, the scheme, unlike the previous home deposit assistance scheme of the former Government, does not require a savings record and an interest subsidy as well as a lump sum is paid out. It is a highly successful scheme. The current rate of approvals is running at approximately 700 to 800 a month and I expect that that is about the average that will continue over the next few months. Everyone in the industry-the builders, the first home seekers, the trade unions and the State governments-except the Opposition, accepts the fact that the first home owners scheme has been the most successful home ownership scheme in our history. As far as further assistance to first home seekers is concerned, we have been pressing the banks, under the guidelines of the package, to offer low start loans, particularly to first home buyers. Let me again point out that an interest rate of 15 1/2 per cent on a $50,000 loan involves a monthly payment of $676. Repayments on the same amount on a low start-say, a Commonwealth Savings Bank low start loan with a reference rate of 9.5 per cent-can be reduced in the early years to $522 a month. That is a measure of the assistance that we are attempting to give to first home seekers during a time of necessarily high interest rates. I think the figures speak for themselves as far as the private rental market is concerned. If one looks at vacancy rates in March 1982 and compares them with the current vacancy rates, one sees that in two capital cities the vacancy rate currently is tighter than the private rental market. I refer to Sydney and Perth. The comparative rates in other capital cities are: Melbourne, one per cent then, 2.1 per cent today; Brisbane, 0.9 per cent then, 4.2 per cent today; Adelaide, one per cent then, 2.8 per cent today; and Canberra, 1.9 per cent then, 4.7 per cent today. That is not to say that there is not a problem in Sydney and Perth regarding investment in the private rental market. I want to see an increase in investment in the private rental market. We have offered a 4 per cent depreciation allowance. If the equity of the investor is high enough, and I would suggest it should be somewhere around 30 to 50 per cent, it is possible to get a return that can equal what would have been received prior to the tax changes back in 1985. The 4 per cent depreciation allowance is extended to those who wish to invest in new construction. I urge those investors across Australia who may be considering their position to take proper account of the 4 per cent depreciation allowance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mr Staples —Sir Joh! Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(3.33) —I thank the honourable member. What an unconvincing performance by an ineffective Minister. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) cannot even read what we are supposed to be discussing in this matter of public importance. I remind him and the House that the topic is the failure of the Hawke-Keating Government, because of its high interest rate and high taxation policies, to address the critical housing situation facing millions of Australian families. The shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), very effectively and very obviously put forward the matters which are concerning the Opposition and the people of Australia. He drew to our attention how the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has day after day after day in this place refused to answer pertinent questions. He pointed out that earlier in this sitting the Prime Minister refused to tell us why new housing commencements have dropped from 153,000 two years ago to the current level of 118,000. He has also refused to tell us why home loan repayments as a percentage of median family income have increased by 45 per cent in the last two years. He has failed to come to grips with the real problems facing this nation and the housing industry in particular. The Minister was his usual evasive and ineffectual self when he stood up in this House and responded to the shadow Minister. Labor's housing interest rates and taxation policies have failed dismally. Everyone knows that they have failed dismally. The nation is calling for a solution and an explanation, but what is coming forward? We are getting more pious platitudes from the Minister. Hardship is being experienced by all sectors of the community, particularly the disadvantaged among us who are supposedly looked after by the policies of socialist governments. Interest rates have gone up and up; home loan repayments have consequently gone up and up. Today, the Prime Minister failed to tell the House and the people of Australia why this has happened. He has ignored the question again and again. The rental market is a problem. People cannot find homes to rent and the private rental market situation is continuing to worsen. Vacancy rates are down and rents are increasing to levels that people are not able to afford. Over the past disastrous four years of socialism, investor housing has declined from 25 per cent to 9 per cent of the market and this, in part, is reflecting the Government's anti-investment policies. The Government's capital gains tax policies-- Mr Braithwaite —And the fringe benefits tax. Mr SLIPPER —Yes, and the Government's fringe benefits tax policies are hurting business in so many ways-but the Government's negative gearing policies are frightening investors out of the market. When we return to office we will throw the Government's capital gains tax out the window lock, stock and barrel. Dr Theophanous —So you can help the rich. Mr SLIPPER —Let us look at the ballooning of the public housing waiting lists. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) claims that we wish to help the rich. Why cannot the Government help the poor? The waiting list for public housing has gone up from about 100,000 four years ago to virtually 160,000 today. Where will it all end? This Government is a complete and abject failure; this Government is on the skids, and this Government is on the way out well and truly. The Government stands before the people of Australia and promises the world. Let us look at the Prime Minister's 1984 policy speech. When referring to the first home owners grant, he said: We introduced the first home owners scheme to bring home ownership within the reach of thousands of young Australians of limited means . . . He continued: and we are going to keep it that way. The whole situation has become a joke because of the Government's emasculation of the scheme. The Prime Minister went on to say: . . . and beyond the next year, we will maintain at least this level of housing activity and ensure that our housing industry never again slumps into the contraction and despair of the year before we were called to office. The shadow Minister pointed out that that last year was a year of international recession and, indeed, a year of one of the worst droughts this country has ever faced. This Government, with the tremendous opportunities which were available to it, has failed. Its policies have been a charade. The Government is discredited and it does not seem interested in ordinary average Australians. The former shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), said: The Hawke socialist Government has betrayed the first home owners of Australia. With premeditation they have torn up their election pledges and cut the throats of their own scheme. This Government has a lot to answer for. This Government will not tell the people of Australia why it will not improve the situation. The Government's promises regarding interest rates are another thing that we should look at. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have told the people over and over again that interest rates will come down. Not long ago the Prime Minister said: At present the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. He also said: We will continue our work of putting the public finances of this nation back in order and creating the conditions where further interest rate reductions can occur. Mr Hunt —When did he say that? Mr SLIPPER —Not long ago. He went on to say: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. He then continued: We've ploughed the field and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop. What a barren crop the Government has reaped! What a barren crop for the people of Australia! The Minister for Housing and Construction has failed to answer the questions asked by the honourable member for Deakin. The Minister has run away once again in a cowardly fashion. The Minister had the opportunity to tell us what was wrong and why the Government will not fix up the mistakes of the last four years. So we find more inactivity and we find more Australians thrown out on to the streets because they are unable to pay the current high repayments on housing loans. In 1986 the Courier-Mail stated: The Government must tackle high interest rates now. Australia is facing a crisis of mammoth proportions. Marriages are being destroyed and the family unit is being threatened. People are being thrown out on to the streets. People have to sleep under the stars every night because this Government is not assisting them to obtain accommodation. Alternative housing numbers continue to climb with almost half a million people living in caravan parks and up to 100,000 Australians permanently or temporarily homeless. The Government's policies have failed. The Government is a dismal disaster. The shadow Minister for housing asked the Minister to give to the House his excuses for the low level of housing commencements-some 20 per cent down since he took over the Department-for the subdued level of bank lending for housing, and for the fact that more of these funds are being channelled into existing dwellings rather than into new dwellings compared with six months ago. The Minister was asked why new home loan interest rates have risen from 11 1/2 per cent to 15 1/2 per cent and, in some cases, to 17 1/2 per cent. He has been asked to give a reason for the rundown in the first home owners scheme, for the crisis in the private rental market, and so on and he has not given any reasons. The Government is a disaster. The Government is in trouble. The Government stands condemned in the eyes of all Australians. Its record is shocking. Its mismanagement has affected the living standards of millions of Australians. The housing industry is in crisis and the situation is critical. In conclusion, I ask the Minister: What is his excuse for all this? Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(3.43) —Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you would have noticed and as everybody else who was interested would have noticed, when the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) rose to speak the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia and right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), rushed into the House. Some honourable members would have thought that they rushed into the House just to support their back bench colleague. But they were really coming into the House to check up on what the honourable member for Fisher was going to say. They thought that the honourable member for Fisher might have been going to announce Joh's new housing policy. It would have been a real change because we do not have a housing policy from the Opposition. At least one policy would have been a start because the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has not produced his housing policy. But such is the level of concern, disarray, disruption, distrust and paranoia on the other side of the House that these senior people had to rush in to make sure that we were not getting a new policy from one of the other sectional parties that are starting up. What is this new game that we have heard about? The honourable member for Deakin continually asked the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West): `What is your excuse for that?' Is Reg Grundy running the show for the Opposition now? Is he giving Opposition members all their lines? Is this a new television game that they have thought up? Perhaps it is something like Family Feud. That is something that all honourable members opposite have been playing very well lately. In Family Feud the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Bennelong could be two very good participants. The right honourable member for New England and the Premier of Queensland or perhaps the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) could take part in that game. But are members of the Opposition playing another television game such as Perfect Match by asking: `What is your excuse for that'? What a perfect match the honourable member for Kooyong and the Premier of Queensland would be. Or perhaps members of the Opposition are playing a television game such as Sale of the Century. What about the Opposition's privatisation policies? It wants to sell off the assets of the Australian public. What will it sell Telecom Australia for-$7? Do I hear $8? What about Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, or perhaps the Commonwealth Bank of Australia? Now we are talking big bikkies. Let us look at last year's profits of the Commonwealth Bank-the people's bank; the big Australian bank. It had a 55 per cent profit increase. That would be a good one to sell off, would it not? The Opposition would get $10 for that on Sale of the Century. That is what we are into now. The Opposition is down to the level of playing television games. What is the excuse for that? Why did the Opposition put forward a matter of public importance on housing policy today? What has prompted it? It has no policies. We did not hear a word about its housing policies here today. The Opposition has the most terrible and disastrous record on housing that this country has ever seen and it has no social or economic solutions to what it has put forward. This debate is just a smoke-screen-we on this side of the House have seen through it and the people of Australia will easily see through it-to attempt to cover the disarray and the disruption on the other side of the House. Members of the Opposition are a disgrace to democracy. I think one of the things that we should be discussing as a matter of public importance to the Australian electorate is the fact that the Opposition is a disgrace to democracy. Let me say something to members of the Opposition. We have been talking about games. Honourable members opposite should lift their game as an opposition. They have to do a lot better than they are doing now. This matter of public importance is a very dangerous tactic on the part of members of the Opposition. It is a symptom of their desperation. Honourable members opposite are a very desperate opposition-a rag-tag, rag-bag collection of parties and splinter groups. Members of the Opposition have been exposed today. They got up in the House and talked about what the Government is not doing or what it is doing badly. They did not say anything about what they are going to do. They have no policies, yet they hand out all this glib clap trap around the place about the billions of dollars that they will cut in one area and the billions of dollars that they will spend in another. They have no policies on interest rates that will stick, that will be cohesive, and that will produce a stronger economy and security for all Australians. They have about four or five policies on taxation at the moment-I must give them that. Every couple of Opposition members has a policy on taxation. But that is no use. Honourable members opposite have exposed themselves by bringing on this matter of public importance today. It shows that they have no policy, that they are in total disarray and that they have nowhere to go. We heard from the Opposition's last speaker about its housing and construction policy only by chance. It fell off the back of a truck in May last year. Its draft policy No. 9 was dated 17 February 1986-by my calculations a year and a week ago. For goodness sake! That is the last that we heard about the Opposition's housing policies. What is going on over there? If housing is so critical what has the Opposition been doing over the last three or four years? What has it been doing in the housing area since 17 February last year? Nothing. It has no interest rate policies and it has done nothing in the housing area. It led Australia into the worst recession it has had in 50 years and into the highest unemployment, yet it talks about our housing record. When the previous Government left office there were 105,000 housing starts in 1982-83. Yet members of the Opposition are complaining to the Minister, who has done a tremendous job in the housing area, that he may get that figure to only 118,000 housing starts. By my calculations that is 13,000 more housing starts than when the previous Government left office. If honourable members opposite reckon that that is bad, what is so good about their policies and what will they do to make them better? They did not tell us; they cannot tell us. They have ideas going everywhere and nowhere. The Minister for Housing and Construction has answered all the comments of the honourable member for Deakin, such as `What is your excuse for that?'. He laid it out. I advise honourable members opposite that if they really want to find out what housing is all about, if they really want to find out about housing policy, if they really want to lift their game and do something for their country, they should read the Minister's speech and listen to what the Minister for Housing and Construction has to say to the Opposition. What will the Opposition do? Will it abolish the first home owners scheme? This Government has put over $1,000m into the first home owners scheme, and that has helped 230,000 Australians into homes. Yet the Opposition will throw that scheme out of the window. It cannot be serious. It cannot expect the people of Australia to believe that. The honourable member for Fisher-he would have us believe that he is the great champion of low income people, poor people and pensioners-and the honourable member for Maranoa, who sits next to him, think that the way to solve the country's problems is to freeze pensions. That is what the honourable member for Maranoa has been saying. What has the honourable member for Fisher been saying? He has said that we must help the pensioners. What is the Opposition's policy? It does not call these bits of paper policies; they are discussion papers, because, as we read in the papers, the Opposition can discuss a lot of things but it cannot decide on a policy. The Opposition says that it will throw out the tied grants from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, the mortgage and rent relief scheme and the crisis accommodation program. Where does the Opposition think those people will stay? Where does it think the people who do not have roofs over their heads will get shelter from now? They get it from the crisis accommodation program that the Opposition would throw out. We are all concerned about public housing. When the Opposition was in government after the Whitlam years it cut that spending to $264m. That is 40 per cent lower than the funding in the Whitlam years. We have increased funding; it has been increased 42 per cent in real terms since this Government came to power. We have a very good record on housing. We have allowed the States to get more money from the Loan Council and nominated funds at bargain basement interest rates-at 4 1/2 per cent-so that they can lift their game and put their money where their mouths are. That is a bit different from what honourable members opposite said. The States will get stuck into it because they have a lot of work to do as well. Today in Question Time I thought the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) summed it up beautifully. He talked about the snake oil salesmen opposite. What this Government is doing is setting Australia back on its tracks, setting Australia up for the twenty-first century in industry policy, employment, the social security system and almost every area. We challenge the Opposition to question this Government on any area. We will lay the Opposition out flat because it has no policies. This Government is about putting people into housing and it is also about getting this economy going. We do not have time for the Opposition's little games of `What is your excuse for that?'. The next election will be fought not on whether this Government has been a good government; the next election will be fought-members of the Opposition had better get this through their heads-on what this Government offers and what the Opposition offers. At this stage the Opposition offers absolutely nothing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is concluded. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —In response to the new standing order 28AF, which was adopted by the House on 9 October 1984, I present on behalf of the Committee of Members' Interests the report on the operations of the Committee for 1986. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate will be allowed covering this Bill and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1987. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(3.55) —Today I am continuing the remarks that I made earlier on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. Mr Hand —I am here to hear you. Mr SHIPTON —I am pleased to see in the chamber the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), a member of the Socialist Left in the Government, because this legislation-- Mr Hand —I always come in to listen to you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. If the honourable member for Melbourne has some contribution to make, he might do it from his own place. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you for your support, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am not providing the honourable member for Higgins with any support; I am simply providing him with some protection. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. The interjections of the honourable member for Melbourne show the deep sensitivities and the division in the Australian Labor Party about this legislation. The Government is deeply divided. It has come to the House with this legislation to replace the Atomic Energy Commission with a new authority. The interjections of the honourable member for Melbourne and other members of the Socialist Left show that members of that faction in the Australian Labor Party do not want this legislation to go ahead at all. In fact, they want to close down the nuclear research facilities at Lucas Heights. I see another member of the Left in the House, the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh). An examination of speeches of members of the Government will show the deep divisions in the Government on this issue. Honourable members of the Socialist Left are trying to cover up. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who spoke earlier in this debate, is a living example of the dilemma. The honourable member for Hughes, as a member of the Socialist Left, is being dragged in screaming and forced to support the Government in this legislation. But the Lucas Heights reactor, owned by the Commission and transferred to the new authority, is in his electorate. The honourable member for Hughes stated in his speech: As the local Federal member, one of my aims has been to stimulate and promote government, scientific, trade union and community debate-informed debate-about the future of the Lucas Heights establishment. He has people in his constituency who work at the establishment. He subsequently criticised the then Atomic Energy Commission. He stated: I felt deeply saddened when, in the wake of the tragic Chernobyl accident, the Commission, with the wisdom of hindsight, purported to speak with authority about the dangers and faults of the Soviet nuclear power reactors. That is exactly what the Atomic Energy Commission should have been doing; it is exactly what the new authority should be doing. But people such as the honourable member for Hughes have rejected in Caucus amendments that the Opposition put up in the Senate which would give people the right to contribute to the education debate on nuclear energy by putting out information about the value of the peaceful purposes of nuclear energy. This whole debate is about the ability of this new organisation to be the vehicle for Australia to fully participate in research and development aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Government has neutered the power of this new nuclear authority. It has refused to give it power to allow it to fully participate, as should a country such as Australia which has massive uranium reserves. It has neutered its capacity to fully particpate in the nuclear fuel cycle. It has put so many restrictions on it that it will, in effect, be a neutered authority. I hope that the media will focus attention on the divisions and differences in the comments in this debate of the speakers on the Government side because their contributions have already shown them. Honourable members yet to speak include socialist left members, the honourable member for Phillip, the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton)-who, I think, was one of the honourable members who walked out on the Government of which he is a member on Budget night when the Government announced that it would resume sales of uranium to France. We will see, by an examination of their speeches-we have already seen it in the speech of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell)-the deep divisions within the Government on this issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(4.00) —This Government makes no apology for caring about restrictions on the nuclear industry. In rising to speak on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill I commend the Government for one restriction that it has removed in these Bills; that is, the restriction on free speech. The Government here is removing those severe and offensive security provisions of the old Atomic Energy Act-the sorts of things that the Opposition approved of. These provisions have been a blot on the statute books of the Commonwealth since the Act was introduced in 1953, when we were in a cold war situation and Australia was a testing ground for the development of British nuclear weapons. The Atomic Energy Act not only could publish the disclosure of accidents in the uranium mines of the Northern Territory and machinery malfunctions at Lucas Heights but also made it impossible for many persons who might be prosecuted under the Act even to present a defence. In other words, the Act reversed the onus of proof and relied upon guilt by association just to deem guilty a person who published disclosures about the nuclear industry. These security provisions contained in Part IV of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 should be repealed if for no other reason than that they no longer reflect government policy or practice concerning the development of the uranium industry in Australia. Of course, a better reason to repeal them is that they encroach upon the fundamental civil rights of free speech and the due process of law. That is the sort of restriction that we lift in this legislation. The Government should also be commended for introducing the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985, which explicitly prohibits ANSTO from undertaking research into the design or production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosives devices. This is specifically prohibited by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which Australia signed in 1973, and reinforced by the South Pacific nuclear free zone legislation. Let us look at what ANSTO provides for. It is to be governed by an executive of up to seven members, a majority of whom will be required to be drawn from outside the Organisation. It is to be hoped that a trade union representative will be included in this executive. The ANSTO Nuclear Safety Bureau will be directly responsible to the Minister for monitoring and reviewing the nuclear safety of any nuclear plant operated by the Organisation. The present unit with this function is self-regulated and reports only to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. It has been subject to much criticism, as was acknowledged by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). The functions of the ANSTO Nuclear Safety Review Committee will include the present functions of the AAEC Safety Review Committee to periodically review and assess the effectiveness of the safety procedures of the Organisation. It would be very useful if this Committee could engage in community and local government consultation. The ANSTO Advisory Council of up to 11 members will provide independent advice to the Minister and the executive. This Council is to include at least one staff elected member but the majority of the members are required to be drawn from outside the Organisation-including ANSTO user groups. In setting up the Organisation in this way the Government has attempted to bring about some form of public accountability which simply has not existed before. Let us look at the history of our only nuclear reactors, which are located at Lucas Heights, a southern suburb of Sydney. The Atomic Energy Commission was formed in 1953 with its primary task being to promote the rapid development of Australia's uranium resources. Because it was recognised that this role required a research establishment with a range of facilities including a research reactor; the establishment at Lucas Heights was begun. The first chain reaction took place in the hifar reactor in 1958. It is hard to imagine now why Lucas Heights was chosen as a site for the reactor. It was selected because of its remoteness from residential areas. Only 5,000 people lived within 4.6 kilometres of the site. The population was confined within a 20-degree sector. The rest of the area was greenbelt land under the County of Cumberland planning scheme-not to become residential. Also, it was selected because of its ability to drain noxious waste and because of its proximity to the universities of Sydney. It gave the experts, who were nuclear physicists, ease of travel and an attractive living environment. There was also plenty of room for expansion. The then Liberal Government, under the Ministry of Sir Howard Beale, the Minister for Supply and Development, authorised the development. It was opposed at the time by progress associations from all adjoining suburbs, by residents who had to close farms and market gardens and by oyster growers, because all cultivation of food products was immediately disallowed within three miles of the reactor. None of these people received any compensation. Concern by the authorities in those days resulted in severe restrictions: No further land to be rezoned residential within three miles of the reactor; no food processing; no institutions; and no development within three miles. These restrictions were imposed by none other than the Hon. P. Morton, a member of the Askin Liberal Government. It appears that the Liberals too were concerned about the safety of Australia's only nuclear reactor-and it was then only a few years old. Let us look at the situation now that the reactor is over 28 years old. The zoning restrictions no longer apply. The population of Sutherland has mushroomed. By the year 2000, the population of Sutherland Shire is expected to be 200,000. A population of 60,000 is planned for the Menai area, the location of the reactor. As I said before, when the reactor was built, only 5,000 people lived within 4.6 kilometres of the site. Over the past two years, large tracts of land have been released within the three-mile buffer zone, just 1.6 kilometres from the reactor. This 28-year-old reactor has a history of leakages and shutdowns due to coolant problems. In fact, there have been 544 reported accidents since 1978 involving workers and others inside the establishment. In July 1984 there was a release of uranium hexafluoride at Lucas Heights. The State Pollution Control Commission and the Radiological Advisory Council were not directly advised of the accident. It took a whole month for the public at large to be informed that there had been an accident at Lucas Heights. This new legislation is designed to make sure that that does not happen again. There have been continual reports of leakages of radioactive material, gaseous and toxic emissions and vandalism, operational faults causing a nine-month shutdown and, of course, bomb threats. A thousand spent fuel rods remain stored on the site. They will continue to be produced. Four hundred and fifty of those spent fuel rods will be transported through suburbs in the Sydney metropolitan area en route to the United States. Road transport will be used to take the spent fuel from Lucas Heights to the docks in Sydney and this will be carried out under strict security arrangements in accordance with the requirements of the Australian Safeguards Office. But no matter how strict the arrangements are, and how much evidence the nuclear industry produces to convince us that the transport of spent fuel is efficient and safe, the best guarantee that it is possible to give about the trans- portation is that `preparations for the Australian shipment will ensure that it poses minimal risk to life and environment'. That is the conclusion of Mr David Coleby, assistant editor in a `Forum' article in Nuclear Spectrum. So there is good reason to have concern and to impose the most stringent safeguards possible. Minimal risk is not good enough. Residents in the surrounding area have every right to be concerned. It is no use people saying that Lucas Heights is not Chernobyl. There was a terrible accident at Chernobyl, as there was at Three Mile Island, which showed the world what can happen whenever there is a nuclear reactor. Lucas Heights is a much smaller proposition than Chernobyl; it is just that it deals in the same material. The transportation of fuel rods and other radioactive substances requires Federal and State legislation to cover the consequences of any injury to persons or property. It is a very complex question and one which will need a great deal of informed debate. I am pleased to know that the Minister's Department has already started to develop a paper on this matter. Liability in these matters is a problem world-wide. Who accepts the responsibility? Is it the Government? Is it the industry? Is it the insurance companies? The accident at Three Mile Island showed us that this problem has not yet been resolved. Is it any wonder that the residents of Sutherland Shire are extremely concerned about living with a nuclear reactor? It would be foolish of any government or authority to dismiss their concerns as being trivial or emotional. Thirty years ago the problems were recognised by the authorities and restrictions were imposed. That is not quite the case today. Those restrictions do not remain. The nuclear industry has been shrouded in secrecy for years. Lack of information has hindered the public in making appropriate responses and it has hindered governments as well. I was appalled at the way in which the concerns of the people of Sutherland were treated in the debate in the Senate earlier this week. The residents of the shire of Sutherland are concerned, intelligent and extremely well informed people who have spent years asking questions and who still have some questions unanswered. The people of the area are understandably worried that this establishment has the potential to be dangerous and harmful, and it is important, in the setting up of the new committees under this legislation, that recognition be given to community representatives who represent their interests and not those of the nuclear industry alone. Personally, I would like to see the nuclear related research phased out at Lucas Heights. That is my personal position, which all honourable members are well aware of. This legislation, of course, does not permit that. It does, however, make provision for research on other matters to be carried out as the Minister directs. I hope that in the future we see our research efforts directed to work on high technology applications for industry, and alternative energy research in co-operation with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-research programs that are designed and developed to suit the long term industrial needs of Australia. Such programs could retain all existing staff and utilise existing research facilities. Employment retention and opportunities are of deep concern to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), and there is plenty of scope for employment opportunities. I say again that I will not see the residents of Sutherland disparaged as having groundless fears. In a recent report on safety in the nuclear industry it was shown that evidence pointed to the need for more research on the effects of low level radiation-and I certainly hope that more research is done in that area in Australia. The Commission's research facilities at Lucas Heights are noted as being among the best equipped in Australia at the present time. Much of this industrial research and engineering equipment, its laboratories and its highly trained staff could, without too much difficulty, be redirected into undertaking important research work on industrial processes and product development in such important high technology applications as advanced ceramics and the silicon chip, optical fibre and telecommunications industries. Such important research is central to providing the necessary support to proposed new developments in the Australian manufacturing and raw material processing sectors. Advanced ceramics is an area which holds out promise for new applications in fields such as silica, alumina and zircon, all of which Australia has readily available. In fact, at present we are the world's leading exporter of zircon and alumina. The Materials Division already operates a ceramics laboratory which contains facilities for the manufacture of and research in industrial ceramics. Because these minerals are the building blocks of a new growth industry from which the Government can expect to benefit in terms of increased employment, taxation revenue and export earnings, there should be an immediate commitment to a program of encouraging investment in and the development of this industry. An important component of this program is to provide our local industry with the ability to produce high technology goods which we otherwise have to import at great cost. The research establishment at Lucas Heights is a ready made, virtually custom built research facility for this purpose. It has been estimated that only 25 per cent of materials and equipment on site are suitable for nuclear research. Seventy five per cent of the facilities could easily be used for other purposes, leading to stability of employment in the area and a winding down of Australia's involvement in the nuclear industry. It is hoped that this legislation will be able to accommodate this important non-nuclear related research, as that would be a very positive and welcome consequence of this Bill. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.13) —I must take issue with the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) in relation to just some of her comments on this important Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill. I do respect her strength of feeling on matters nuclear and her decision to specialise in this area and to follow it through at great length. But I believe the House has just been treated to a somewhat emotional and blinkered vision in respect of the nuclear question, with particular reference to the operation of the establishment at Lucas Heights. For example, the honourable member for Phillip failed to mention the extensive role fulfilled by the Lucas Heights establishment in the provision across Australia of isotopes to carry out essential medical work such as cancer treatment and examinations of patients. This is a role which is much valued by thousands of Australians. Indeed, it is a role which is saving Australia from importing these isotopes, although, even so, we still have to import some. It is a role which has saved lives in Australia; and it is one which should be properly highlighted for balance. I know the honourable member for Phillip is a very reasonable member who likes to examine questions in detail. I therefore know that she would want me to point out to the House a balancing item in respect of her reference to Lucas Heights and to highlight to Australia the fact that Lucas Heights plays a vital role in facilitating medical examinations across Australia and medical treatment for certain cancers and the like with the isotopes and starters which are made there. I might add that the proximity of Lucas Heights to Mascot airport is also significant in this regard because the life of some of these isotopes is very limited indeed. They require to be moved quite quickly from Lucas Heights to Mascot and then to be flown to other capital cities around Australia where they are then issued to the hospitals-all under the stringent safety requirements associated with the movement of these isotopes. This would be much more difficult if, for argument's sake, the Lucas Heights establishment were to be located at Darnick in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), between Ivanhoe and Broken Hill, which was a site that was briefly considered by the New South Wales State Labor Government for the disposal of Hunters Hill radioactive soil some years ago. Similarly, it would be much more difficult if the establishment were to be located at Pooncarie in the western end of my electorate of Farrer, near the South Australian border, or some other location. There are good and proper reasons for the operational location of the Lucas Heights establishment in terms of the production of these isotopes, and I think it is only fair that the House be reminded of these in its consideration of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill. The honourable member for Phillip also referred to the need for a trade union delegate on the Board. I point out that the Bill provides that: The Board shall consist of the Executive Director and not fewer than 2 nor more than 6 other members. To my knowledge it does not specifically provide for such an appointment. It is merely the honourable members' hope that the Government will appoint a trade union representative. I suppose that is fair enough. It is my hope that the Government will also appoint someone from the medical field who is involved fundamentally with the work of Lucas Heights in the provision of isotopes so that that aspect can be properly represented on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation which, as honourable members would know, is to replace the existing Australian Atomic Energy Commission and which will provide new directions for Australia's number one nuclear body. Considering all the matters associated with this Bill-to which the coalition is not opposed but in respect of which certain amendments have been brought forward-I would like also to highlight to the House that despite or perhaps because of all that happened at Chernobyl, a tragedy that must register with every nation in the world, during 1986 21 new nuclear reactors were connected to electricity grids in various countries. That brings about a world total of 394 nuclear power reactors providing about 15 per cent of the world's electricity. Perhaps I should also say to the House that some countries, such as France, now generate the majority of their electricity through nuclear power. It now has to be said that France, which has had a socialist President for the last few years, has gone on with a very strong expansion program in respect of its nuclear reactors for the reason that it has no other choice. If the world were perfect, if the availability of resources in terms of coal and other fossil fuels was such that we could get by without nuclear power, that would be an optimal thing. But we must be realistic. If France and West Germany denied themselves nuclear power, in the recent freezes thousands of Europeans would have died as a direct consequence of the cold. There would have been a complete breakdown in the energy infrastructure of both those countries. One has to be realistic enough to recognise that nuclear power is here to stay and that the world has to be very careful indeed in utilising nuclear power in all its facets. I appeal for some balance, common sense and a realistic approach in considering nuclear energy, and indeed all questions relating to nuclear issues. Though I do not want to see one more test of a nuclear bomb in the southern hemisphere, or for that matter elsewhere, one must look at the question in a balanced way. I reiterate my strong commitment to peace through security. I wish to focus on clause 5 (1) (d) of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill. It states that the Organisation's functions are: . . . to act as a means of liaison between Australia and other countries in matters related to its activities. This in many ways is the international dimension of the Bill. To some extent the Organisation will have a monitoring and advisory role to the Government of the day-to the Minister for Science and other Ministers in the Cabinet-in relation to all matters nuclear. During the summer recess-sadly, across the Christmas week period-I had the privilege to travel to Antarctica for the first time, as part of an all-party group of four members of parliament, with my colleagues the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) to see first hand the Antarctic environment. We had wide-ranging discussions with the scientists on questions relating not only to the Antarctic environment but also to the sub-Antarctic environment. Until my visit, I had always thought that I, along with the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), represented a part of Australia that is our highest mountain. However, I have to tell the House that Mount Kosciusko is not Australia's highest mountain; that Big Ben on Heard Island, a territory of Australia between Perth and Antarctica, is higher. I have no plans to climb Big Ben, even though I climbed Mount Kosciusko in January again for the third time as part of a very successful Tumbatrek tourist promotion of Tumbarumba Shire Council. I commend the climb to members and staff, a number of whom have on occasions climbed Mount Kosciusko. It is a wonderful experience, and one sees splendid vistas associated with the western side of Kosciusko National Park, and especially the walk out from the top of the mountain down direct to Geehi. That route avoids one having to drive on the shocking Alpine Way between Thredbo and Khancoban on the western side. There is a great deal for the tourist there. However, not to digress from the Bill, I would point out that Heard Island is very close to the Kerguelens, and Kerguelen Island in particular, which is French territory. The reason arises from historical events and is associated with the visit of Dumont d'Urville to that area many years ago. The four members of Parliament who travelled to Antarctica comprised the largest delegation to travel by sea to that area ever. We travelled on the MV Icebird, a German ship chartered by the Antarctic Division. I welcome to the gallery of the House Mr Gunther Schulz who owns the MV Icebird and is involved in considering all aspects of the transport problems between Australia and Antarctica and the reasons we must facilitate that transport. If we do not do so the Territory and its servicing will fall apart. I take this opportunity to pay tribute not only to those on the Icebird and the Nella Dan, but also to the very dedicated Australians who serve the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science in Antarctica in the four permanent bases, Casey, Davis and Mawson and Macquarie Island, and in the various summer camps. They carry out most important work mainly of a scientific nature in maintaining our presence in Antarctica. I have nothing but praise for this commitment and dedication. One of the works associated with that scientific thrust of our efforts in that area relates to meteorology and monitoring the atmosphere and radiation. The ways in which this work is carried out in the ground stations in that area could not be done through the use of satellites. Kerguelen Island is alongside the Heard Island territory where a summer camp was established this year again. This points to our interest in Antarctica. More significantly I would highlight to the House that so much of our weather, especially for the southern half of Australia, comes from the circle of atmospheric lows which surround Antarctica, there being more or less a permanent atmospheric high sitting right on the South Pole and then a series of lows around the continent-a continent that is about twice Australia's size. There is an average thickness of one kilometre of ice sitting on Antarctica. I come to the thrust of the matter concerning this Bill. If the French Government starts carrying out any form of nuclear testing on Kerguelen Island, it would do so at great risk to the sub-Antarctic environment, to the environment of Antarctica and to the polar cap, and to the risk of all Australians who would suffer from any massive radiation spill, given the prevailing winds from Kerguelen Island, located some 3,200 kilometres south-west of Perth. I am utterly and totally opposed to the French Government in any way developing its scientific station on the Kerguelens to facilitate the testing of atomic weapons or bombs in any shape or form. I do not equivocate on this matter, and I might add that the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and my coalition colleagues are of the same mind. It is high time that the French got out of the southern hemisphere in terms of their nuclear testing. It is high time that the French declared absolutely that they will not commence testing on the Kerguelens located to the south-west of our continent. I would seek to draw the attention of the House to some of the reasons why we are justified in fearing the intentions of the French. Dr Abraham Behar, who is a biophysics professor at the Curie Institute in Paris, said recently that 22 years of nuclear weapons testing at Mururoa in the South Pacific have seriously damaged the atoll's volcanic base and that they are now looking for other areas. He said: . . . informants in the French army and scientists from its nuclear program believe that a move was imminent-either to another isolated Polynesian atoll or to the south-Antarctic Kerguelen Islands, south west of Western Australia. In addition, the possibility of atomic tests on the Kerguelens was first raised as early as 1961 when it was reported that France was planning to explode her first hydrogen bomb on the Kerguelens, which was headed off at that time. Subsequently, France established a scientific station on the Kerguelens with 100 people, and in 1981 the French weekly magazine VSD said the French nuclear testing would switch to the Kerguelens sometime after 1985. I can only say again that we must reject absolutely any French Government intentions to utilise the Kerguelens for atomic testing and the Federal Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the range of other departmental weaponry should be utilised to ensure that the French do not proceed with this development in the Kerguelens. I warn the House that, as has been pointed out in a comprehensive article recently in the West Australian, there is a school of thought to the effect that the ultimate location of French testing will be the Kerguelens. I believe that the new Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, under this charter to act as a means of liaison between Australia and other countries in matters related to its activities, should also take a forefront role in seeking to preclude the French from proceeding with nuclear testing on the Kerguelens. Australia recently sent a visiting team to the area. I believe it needs to continue to send such teams. Under the Antarctic Treaty, we have a capability of visiting adjoining stations, especially those on the continent itself, such as some of the Russian stations, to carry out mutual visits and inspections to see that those stations are being used entirely for scientific purpose and endeavour and not for any military or nuclear purpose. Nuclear testing of any kind which took place in the Antarctic proper, or the sub-Antarctic, as I said a moment ago, could lead to a massive change in the make-up of the polar shelf. It could lead to a massive meltdown of the huge amount of ice in Antarctica. If that were to happen, it could affect the electorates of those members who represent coastal seats, because the level of the sea could be permanently altered by such a meltdown. Whilst I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to dwell unduly on this topic, because the contents of the Bill relate specifically to the setting up of ANSTO, I felt it was my duty to point out to the House at this most appropriate opportunity the real fears and the real dangers associated with atomic testing on Kerguelen Island and to spell out to the House the need for the Australian Government, through all its organisations concerned with this question, to oppose the French all the way in respect of their developing any capability for nuclear testing to the south west of Australia. I join my colleagues in their comments on the Bill and in respect of the proposed amendments to the Bill regarding the setting up of this Organisation. In conclusion, I say to the House that Australia should be mindful, in all its legislation, particularly in terms of agriculture, that not only does much of our weather research take place in the Antarctic area, but also a lot of other good work is being carried out there in regard to our future environment, including glaciology work. Drilling of the polar ice cap is revealing the state of the atmosphere of the earth 200, 400, 600 and 800 years ago. It shows that we had a much cleaner atmosphere and a very low proportion of carbon dioxide many years ago. But since the Industrial Revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the percentage of carbon dioxide has risen rapidly, and there is the so-called greenhouse effect. In addition, work is being done by some very dedicated scientists and their assistants on moss beds. They are looking particularly at the skin of the moss which, in turn, has important relevance to developing breeds and varieties of wheat, oats and barley whose skin might be more resistant to frost damage, utilising the mechanism of the skin of the moss in the way it keeps out the permafrost which occurs in so much of Antarctica. In regard to the legislation that is before the House, and the setting up of this Organisation, I hope that the new Organisation will be very conscious of its function under clause 5 (1) (d) and that it will act as a proper means of liaison between Australia and other countries to ensure that nuclear testing is not developed around the perimeter of Australia and, least of all, on the French territories known as Kerguelen Island. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.34) —I will speak only for two or three minutes, because much of what needs to be said about this legislation has been said by previous speakers. I strongly support what my friend and colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) has said about testing on Kerguelen Island. I strongly support his remarks and his concern about any possible nuclear testing on the Island. I want to know about the environmental effects of what the French are doing and am raising the matter, in response to calls from people who are worried about the French intentions, with the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), the Ambassador for France and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I believe that the issues that he and other are raising at this time are very important. France must be confronted about its intentions. It is government policy that Australia should not become involved in any stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, other than the mining and milling of uranium and the disposal of waste. This legislation establishes the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. The Organisation will focus on commercial applications of research and development and, at the same time, allow non-commercial work. For example, the investigation of the occurrence of the rare cancer lymphoma among workers in the Huntley Colliery on the New South Wales south coast, is the type of non-commercial work we ought to continue. Some ANSTO programs which are important carry on the work of the former Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Synroc, a well-known Australian initiative, will be persevered with and, I am sure, will return a dividend to Australia and to nuclear safety. There are nuclear physics research programs, including nuclear fusion programs. There are plenty of lay people who see great potential in nuclear power development, yet cannot support it for safety reasons. Those people hold out hope for nuclear fusion as a far safer alternative to nuclear fission. The honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) pointed out the research and development alternatives for Lucas Heights, the importance of maintaining jobs and the proper use of investment. To that end, full account must be taken of the future of employees in the nuclear industry. I compliment the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) for his active interest in the employees at Lucas Heights and on his availability and accessibility to the work force. Research and support for uranium mining and milling activities will also bring improved safety measures, which will reassure those of us who are at present critical of safety. ANSTO will focus its activities on medicine, science, industry and agriculture, all of which could do with nuclear research and development to raise their contribution to the social and economic well- being of Australia. They follow the work of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which has developed nuclear medicine to a high level, supplying 100,000 patient doses of radiopharmaceuticals each year. ANSTO will expand that number when the national cyclotron facility comes on line, with a larger range of products. It is with pleasure that I support this legislation. It represents a realistic assessment of what Australia can and should do in the area of nuclear research and development. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.38) —As we know, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1987, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1987 are designed basically to restructure Australian science and technical resources in the field of nuclear energy. While the Opposition does not oppose the Bills as such, we do have most serious misgivings about the limitations to be placed on Australia's future involvement in the development, particularly, of the nuclear fuel cycle. We must remember that, in the heyday of the need to explore the benefits of nuclear science to Australia and mankind, the Australian Government legislated to establish the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, with a research establishment at Lucas Heights. I believe it was a very wise move. I know that radical sections of the Government, the various factions and the various spurious protest groups that they live off, think otherwise. For a very long time, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Australian Labor Party dithered about it. But clearly, in government a more responsible evaluation is necessary. I can recall very vividly a person who has been described as an avid political opportunist, Mr Frank Walker from the New South Wales Cabinet, trying to mobilise community hostility to the work at Lucas Heights in order to get the facilities shut down. I think it was a spurious excursion by the New South Wales Left to stir the Federal Government into submission. But I am glad to say that wiser counsels prevailed. Why did these wiser counsels prevail? Prominently, among other reasons, is the contribution made by Lucas Heights to medical diagnostic science. The use of radio-isotopes produced at the reactor makes possible early diagnosis of soft tissue cancers and the like. These isotopes have a very short life, calculated in hours. Therefore, they have to be in place on time at the diagnostic centre and their availability locally is a crucial advantage. There is also an economic benefit. Local production is not only preferable for reasons of availability, but production here also relieves some of the burden on the balance of payments. Although as a single item on our import account this may not be prohibitive, the work here is an illustration of what we should be doing in other areas and it provides a leading edge of incentive to other areas of technical enterprise. It is very sad that this Parliament finds difficulty in appraising and predicting a confident future for Australian science and technology. I notice incidentally that some journalists and some of the Government's minders hope to derail the impact of the Queensland Premier's activities by pooh-poohing the administration of Queensland. Well, I make no comment on that except to point to one thing which should give them pause for thought. Despite all the criticisms that can be made of the Queensland Government, the Queensland Cabinet has given more direction to scientific and technological leadership to industry than the present Cabinet in Canberra. I say that notwithstanding the valiant efforts by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) and his officers to produce some top-level impact. But the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Cabinet team generally have scarcely addressed the issue. This legislation amends legislation brought in by the Menzies Government. Let us not run around with the idea for the moment that this is some great initiative. It is not. It is more a reaction to efforts by left wingers of the Australian Labor Party to discredit the work at Lucas Heights. So when will the Prime Minister give real leadership on the role that science and technology can play in industrial recovery? When will he do what the Queensland Government has done? That Government has appointed, as anyone who goes into this area will know, first class people to head up the Queensland Innovation Centre. A former product research manager for Proctor and Gamble gives excellent leadership. The setting up of a technology park on the Gold Coast, the new Bond Technical University proposal and the Expo 88 project, which was rejected by the Wran New South Wales Government, are initiatives which seem to me to tell a different story from the one Labor Party members are putting about. This shows that State governments-in this case Queensland-have done something positive to try to build up science and technology around Australia. The present Government in Canberra will probably answer that the Australian Industry Development Corporation will offer a lead at Federal level. But will it? Most of its funds have been put into hotels and buildings, such as the Price Waterhouse building, and initiatives which scarcely call for any venture into science and technology have received assistance. Thus, the organisation set up to create a venturesome process now calls itself a development bank and works in traditional areas. That is a pity. Unfortunately, this legislation introduces a credibility gap. Having resisted the temptation to give in totally to the clamouring of its left wing, the Government intends to cancel all study of the nuclear fuel cycle. This proposition hides one of the significant achievements of the Lucas Heights organisation. Anyone studying the atomic energy legislation will recognise the enormous power conferred by the Act on the Atomic Energy Agency to protect technological secrets. The reason was practical enough-nuclear energy technology in the wrong hands could do great damage. There would be a national and natural reluctance on the part of other governments to allow scientists free discourse with Australians if there were to be too easy a passage of information to third powers. So we were prepared to make security a feature of any knowledge sharing arrangement. Quite properly so. As a result, Australia built up a significant understanding of the evolution of the technology for power reactors. We even had a specially accredited senior official on liaison with the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Those officers and others were at the forefront of Australia's role in developing international safeguards to prevent the flow of nuclear technology and materials raised for peaceful purposes from leaking into military use. Our role was dominant, as any historian will show. So dominant in fact that Australia provided, in the person of Mr Alan McKnight, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. His tenure was in place at a crucial time when the relationship between the non-proliferation treaty and the work of the IAEA was at its most sensitive. In the debate of safeguards I hope to say more on this and on the political aspect of peaceful uses for atomic energy. Let me, however, focus on the negative aspects of this legislation. It is legislation which has no vision and is essentially a defence against uninformed attacks. One negative provision which we all accept is that there can be no role left for ANSTO to undertake research and development into the design of nuclear weapons and devices. But there is a further and quite separable prohibition mounted in this legislation. I quote from the Minister's second reading speech about the policy. He said: . . . Australia not become involved in any stages in the nuclear fuel cycle other than the mining of uranium. That in effect, means that Australia will no longer house its own experts in the technology of the nuclear fuel cycle. It is a very important aspect that we will no longer house our own experts in the technology of the nuclear fuel cycle. The excellent contribution that Australia has made in the field of safeguards will not continue with the same degree of creativity. Lawyers who draft provisions for treaties or regulations must have their hands held by experts. They are lawyers, not scientists. Those experts are men who know and understand the latest technological trends, who interact with other scientists involved at the frontiers of science. Therefore, how tragic the decision, made wilfully as a result of uninformed clamour, to deliberately deprive ourselves of these skills. It is irresponsible as well. Let us not forget that as an exporter of uranium we need to be thoroughly responsible for the role that Australian-mined uranium plays throughout the world. Is the Government saying that there are no new technological issues arising in the production of nuclear energy which will require Australia to contribute to the technological preparation of safeguards policy? That would be a nonsense. The Government knows that it cannot give that undertaking. It knows that the decision not to have expertise in the nuclear fuel cycle will put Australia in the position of a second rate contributor to those issues. Why do we always end up with second rate and derivative attitudes in the science field? Because we have a government like this one, without a vision for the role of science and technology and absolutely terrified of the clamour from the protesters and the Left about anything at all to do with nuclear energy. It is ludicrous that this Cabinet, which spends so little time on these concerns, should attack a State Cabinet which is prepared to have a bicentennial expo and give active consideration to a program to create an Australian role in space technology. The essential thing to remember is this: We will continue to export uranium and we will continue to have a responsibility for safeguards arrangements. Therefore, we need to have and should accept a responsibility for training people in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle so that our own people in their consultations and discussions with other governments and the representatives of other governments can do so on an equal basis; not with their scientific hands tied behind their backs. That is what this legislation will bring about. It shows a degree of shortsightedness which unfortunately, in the science field as in so many other fields, is becoming characteristic of the present Government. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.50) —The House is presently considering nuclear energy legislation comprising three Bills, namely the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1987, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1987. I intend to concentrate my contribution in this debate on the provisions of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill which deal with the need for a greater emphasis on the commercial aspects of the Organisation. In this respect I read with great interest the contributions made in the debate in the Senate on the Bills on Tuesday of last week. In that debate comments were made by a number of honourable senators on food irradiation. I was rather disturbed to find that Senator Puplick appears to have made up his mind that the irradiation of food by nuclear isotopes is a safe process. I would remind honourable members, in case Senator Puplick may have been speaking on behalf of the Opposition, that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation is presently undertaking an inquiry into food irradiation to ascertain whether the process involves dangers to human health. As honourable members will know, I am Chairman of the Standing Committee, and I was pleased to note that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, made it clear that he had no intention of pre-empting the report of our Committee or pre-empting the soon to be delivered report of the Australian Consumers Association on the same issue, as Senator Puplick was apparently prepared to do. However, despite the Minister's assurance, it was perhaps a little unfortunate that in some of his remarks he appeared somewhat partisan in support of food irradiation, although he did at least agree: There may be issues deserving the justification of further research and report. As the Standing Committee's inquiry is well under way, I will say no more about food irradiation except to suggest to honourable members that they await the presentation of our report in November before jumping to conclusions. A matter of great concern to me has been how the debate on the Bills has progressed in this House. Last week and today members of the Opposition and, regrettably, at least one member on our side of the House enthusiastically supported the development of nuclear power. A number of honourable members described nuclear power as the cleanest method of energy production yet devised, a claim which is complete poppycock and which indicates an abysmal lack of knowledge about the by-products of nuclear power. In fact, the nuclear industry is responsible for the greatest repository of poisonous waste the world has ever seen, far more deadly to human beings, for example, than the noxious fumes resulting from energy produced from coal or oil. Members of this House must appreciate that currently there is in operation no known method to dispose safely, either permanently or in long term retrievable storage form, of the dangerous radioactive wastes produced by the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry is now over 40 years old and has found no permanent solution to its waste problem. We must recognise that, even if there were a complete and immediate shutdown of the whole nuclear industry, there would still remain the major problem of the nuclear waste stockpile to be dealt with. In this respect the success or otherwise of the synthetic rock synroc as a means of waste encapsulation is a vital issue. I will deal in more detail with synroc later in my speech. Suffice it to say that it is not being unrealistic or alarmist to say that what we do with radioactive wastes will have a major impact on the future of this planet and, as such, is an issue which cannot be left to the nuclear industry, which has a vested interested in minimising the problem. It is about time that the honourable members on the Opposition benches realised that the abhorrence of nuclear power which is held so strongly by many honourable members of this side of the House is based on cold, hard facts. I will have more respect for the speeches of the pro-nuclear members in this House when they give some recognition to the fact that a severe problem is presented by nuclear waste. In October last year I, with other members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, took the opportunity to visit the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's organisation at Lucas Heights. The high flux Australian reactor, or hifar as the Lucas Heights reactor has been called, became active on Australia Day in 1958. So it is a very aged nuclear reactor indeed. Whilst it was clear to me during the inspection that the staff are most sensitive about the safety procedures, it is understandable that many local residents would like to see the nuclear reactor closed down and the operations of the highly qualified work force diverted to non-nuclear activities. It is in this particular respect that I welcome the legislation presently before the House, because it permits a wider application of the scientific and technical work of the organisation to research which is not so closely related to the nuclear fuel cycle. (Quorum formed) Once again, we find the Opposition wasting the time of this House, calling quorums quite unnecessarily. Let me make my position clear. Whilst I recognise the great value of nuclear isotopes in, for example, the detection and eradication of disease in human beings, I am totally opposed to the mining and processing of uranium and to the nuclear industry in general. I do favour, however, the establishment of a cyclotron which could perhaps be constructed on the Lucas Heights site after the decommissioning of the hifar reactor, which because of its age cannot be far away. I have noted the remarks of the Minister for Resources and Energy in the Senate about the limitation of cyclotrons in the production of certain nuclear isotopes but remain unconvinced that we need a nuclear reactor in order to produce those isotopes which are in greatest demand for medical uses. My visit to Lucas Heights served to arouse my interest in the alternative employment opportunities which can be offered to the staff at Lucas Heights with the acceptance of this legislation by the House. I understand that approximately 1,215 people are employed by the Government at Lucas Heights. In addition to the large reactor which I inspected there is also a much smaller reactor, although much of the nuclear research is carried out in laboratories, some of which are located a kilometre away from the large hifar reactor. The research facilities at Lucas Heights are notable as being amongst the best equipped in Australia. The highly trained staff, comprising scientists, engineers and technical, trade and clerical workers, with the use of the industrial research, engineering equipment and laboratories, could be re- directed into vital research work on important high technology industrial processes and product development. Examples would include advanced ceramics, silicon chip, optical fibre and telecommunications. Research in such developments is vital in providing the necessary support for Australian raw material and manufacturing processes. There is no doubt that one of the main reasons for high unemployment in Australia is that we have, because of the economic mismanagement of successive Liberal-National Party Governments, failed to develop manufacturing industries which can process our raw materials. Conservative governments were foolish enough to believe that Australia would always survive on the export earnings of our mining and primary industries. The Australian Nuclear Service and Technology Organisation is custom built for expansion into these value-added areas of development research and a move away from research into uranium enrichment, nuclear reactor design and nuclear fusion technology anticipates that in time the new non-nuclear research activities would mean a gradual lessening in the involvement of the work force in nuclear research, the de-commissioning of the two reactors and the phasing out of all nuclear research activity. However, I do support one activity which is related to the nuclear fuel cycle and that is the development of the synthetic mineral, synroc. I have spoken about synroc in the House on a number of occasions, mainly to criticise those people, including Ministers, who attempt to portray synroc as the answer to all the problems of the alarming world accumulation of high level radioactive waste. Synroc is not the answer but it does appear to be a process which may be used to dispose of some of the most dangerous of radioactive wastes. Let me remind the House that a 1983 report prepared for the United States Environment Protection Agency estimated that by the year 2,000 the civilian nuclear power industry in the United States would have produced 800 million litres of high level waste. The world-wide figure would be roughly three times that amount, amounting to 150 litres for every man, woman and child in Australia today. If military high level waste were included, there would be almost one litre of this toxic and life destructive waste for every human being on earth. I noticed that in Tuesday's Senate debate the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, scathingly referred to emotional comments in uranium debates. I hope that he has the opportunity to note the facts on high level radioactive waste which I have presented to the House. There is nothing emotional in my comment, just cold hard facts, and I have made no mention of the even larger quantities of low level and medium level wastes which are constantly being produced by the nuclear industry. It is irresponsible of the supporters of nuclear power, both inside and outside this House, to ignore the nuclear waste problem. I hope, in the next few weeks, to produce an up-dated edition of the January 1986 paper entitled `Radioactive wastes and nuclear accidents: Unresolved problems of the nuclear industry, jointly produced by Chas Collison, one of my research assistants, and me, which will cover in some detail why, in my opinion, the nuclear industry should be wound down. Suffice to say that the facts contained in the paper are most alarming. Whilst I have, as mentioned previously, been critical of the extravagant claims made that synroc will solve the radioactive waste problems, I believe that the Australian Government should support its development in view of the serious accumulation of high level waste. I take the opportunity to point out that even if the nuclear industry were to cease its operations around the world immediately, the grave danger to human life presented by the ever-growing stockpiles of radioactive wastes is so great that synroc, if proved successful, can deal only with some of those dangers. Incidentally, while I had the opportunity to inspect the demonstration plant at Lucas Heights which is producing synroc, I was unable to ascertain whether current experiments were indicating the more refined synroc material could successfully contain high level radioactive wastes. Research in Japan includes encapsulating high level waste in synroc as well as borosilicate glass and szedite ceramics. The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute will incorporate high level waste from spent fuel elements into small synroc specimens in 1987-88 for testing purposes. In Britain, high level wastes from spent fuel elements have also been encapsulated in small samples of synroc at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell. It is reported that testing will commence soon. Here in Australia at Lucas Heights, low level radioactive waste has been encapsulated in small laboratory scale specimens of synroc and the product tested with reported excellent results. Let me emphasise that whilst synroc is being tested by Japan, Britain and Italy as well as us, it is still at the experimental stage. Even if synroc is proved to be a suitable repository for high level radioactive wastes, there is a problem of what happens to the waste while it is stored in cooling systems for some 20 to 60 years to allow partial decay and to reduce the heat energy being given off. Where is the waste to be stored and what about the cost of eventual encapsulation in synroc? Some people have suggested that this waste could be transported from the cooling ponds to Australia. I point out to them that that is virtually impossible. There is no safe and known method by which that material could be transported by ship. Let nobody be fooled into thinking that the development of synroc means that the nuclear industry should be allowed to continue its operations while it produces the most deadly and harmful wastes known to human beings. I hope that I have said enough in this House to make it clear that we can only hope that synroc is proved to be successful as it is most necessary to help to clear up some of the dangerous mess that already exists. But make no mistake, the cost will be phenomenal. People in those countries using nuclear fuel should be asking who is going to meet the cost of the clean up. The large multinational corporations using electricity derived from nuclear power will, I am sure, not be paying their share. It will be the taxpayers as, indeed, taxpayers are already paying for the cost of developing synroc. The nuclear industry should be paying for the development costs of synroc and the other radioactive waste containment costs, not ordinary taxpayers. Let me emphasise again that the nuclear industry is now over 40 years old and has found no permanent solution to its waste problem. Up until the late 1970s nuclear power was considered vital to our future and the natural successor of fossil fuel in power generation, despite the unresolved problems of plant safety, waste disposal and links with nuclear weapons proliferation. The 1980s have seen mounting opposition from environmental and peace groups to the nuclear industry and the bold economic claims for cheap electric power have proved to be ill-founded. Furthermore, the controversial waste disposal issue has raised more questions and provided fewer answers over the last decade. We must recognise that even if there were a complete shutdown of the whole nuclear industry today, we would still have a major problem to deal with-the waste stockpile. In this respect, the success or otherwise of synroc as a means of encapsulation is a vital issue. Let me also add that so far no site for permanent disposal of high level waste has been selected anywhere in the world. There is no general consensus as to what geological formation should be used, nor are there any plans to retrieve the waste for treatment and reburial should something unplanned happen at the permanent disposal site, such as a major leak or a geological disturbance. How do we leave details for future inhabitants of this planet, warning them of what we have hidden beneath the earth's surface? What kind of language would need to be used for those messages? Remember those messages have to be read by somebody perhaps 100,000, 200,000, or 300,000 years, and maybe even longer, into the future. All these questions need to be answered before we can say that the waste problem is solved. Approval of the Bills before the House means that the successor to the Australian Atomic Commission, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, can diversify its highly skilled research activities into non-nuclear research and the legislation, accordingly, has my strong support. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.08) —I do not claim to have a technical understanding of synroc. Mr Campbell —Don't let that stop you. Mr REITH —I will not let it me stop me. I say to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) that if in fact a detailed technical grasp of every subject which came before this Parliament were a requirement, I suppose most of us would be better off out of Parliament. When I was in Japan last year I had an opportunity to talk to some of the Japanese scientists involved with synroc. The difference between the member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and me is that basically his argument is that until every answer is provided to these technological issues we should go no further. Really, I think that is a very pessimistic approach. My attitude is that this is a great country, there is nothing that we cannot do as a society and as a community, there is no challenge too great for us and that there is in fact no limit to our potential. It is no argument to say that it is difficult. That is an argument which is essentially based on pessimism. The trick is really to get our act together and to make the best uses of the resources that we have. We must release the energies of all Australian's so that they can get on with the job of providing security for their families, their children and their grandchildren. I think we need to be outward looking. We need to be confident of our abilities and not be sidetracked by emotional claptrap. We should not be sidetracked by the prophets of doom and gloom-those who have as their basic premise a pessimistic outlook. Nuclear applications for peaceful purposes are of increasing importance to mankind and are distinct from the issues of nuclear non-proliferation. Although the Opposition does not oppose this legislation let me make it clear that we do not embrace the Government's head in the sand approach to this issue. In the words of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), this legislation: . . . is to create an organisation which reflects the Hawke Government's policy on nuclear activities. ANSTO's functions will reflect the realignment of these activities away from work on the nuclear fuel cycle. I found a definition of the nuclear fuel cycle in an article in Search in June-July 1984 by Professor Don George who said: . . . every aspect of the handling of uranium, from the mining of its ores, through conversion and enrichment, the manufacture of fuel elements and finally the disposal of waste products after the fuel elements have been reprocessed at the end of their useful working life in a power reactor. That is a definition of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, amongst its other activities, will continue its involvement with synroc and the Government has given the green light on Roxby Downs which will be one of the biggest uranium mines in the world. Sales to France have been resumed but development on Jabiluka, Koongarra, Beverley and Honeymoon has been vetoed. Effectively, we have a sort of half-in, half-out policy emanating from the Government on the question of the nuclear fuel cycle. I do not think there is any doubt that that is as a result of an uneasy compromise between the factions. It is a classic schizophrenic policy, recently described by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen as the barbed wire syndrome. Ms Jakobsen —We are fighting Joh, are we? Mr REITH —It is not praising Joh, it is simply reflecting on the awkwardness of the position that honourable members opposite find themselves in. This position was well described by Senator Siddons, the first National President of the Australian Democrats and their Deputy Parliamentary Leader. Of course, he has resigned and, in the process, the Democrats have been taken over by leftist elements. But the issue is the same. He woke up on his resignation last year and he said: The present leadership has concentrated on single issues and ignored the fundamental fact that the economy and these issues cannot be separated. What he said of his former colleagues is equally applicable to those in the Australian Labor Party responsible for this legislation. He said that his former colleagues paid lip service to democratic economic policies yet voted against them `rather than upset powerful pressure groups in the community'. How pertinent that was. This legislation embodies that barbed wire syndrome. We have that payment of lip service to the greenies on the one side and the very occasional decision in the national interest on the other. We have 25 per cent of the Western world's uranium resources. Our involvement allows us to contribute to and strengthen the non-proliferation regime under bilateral safeguard agreements and the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Uranium is increasingly important to many communities. Take, for example, the French. They are expected to be generating 70 per cent of their electricity requirements from nuclear power and the 394 nuclear power reactors around the world are providing something like 15 per cent of the world's electricity requirements. Realistically, we cannot have a policy which denies these things which are happening in the world around us. A policy to deny access by others to our energy resources will only be misunderstood. Because of our economic situation we cannot afford to leave uranium in the ground. We cannot afford to have a policy which stops mining in the Northern Territory and allows Roxby Downs to open in South Australia just because a State election is on and we have to pander to the various factional groups within the ALP. Do Labor members of parliament not realise what their policies are doing to this country? Do they not realise why ordinary Australians are paying 22 1/2 per cent on their bankcards and why home loan rates have gone up from 11 1/2 per cent to 15 1/2 per cent and, as we have heard today, in some cases 17 1/2 per cent for people who want to buy their first homes? Do Labor members of parliament not realise that prime rates for business are up from 13.5 per cent to 18.25 per cent and small overdraft rates are up from 14 1/2 per cent to 20 1/2 per cent. Ms Jakobsen —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask you to draw the speaker back to the Bill before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —It has been a fairly wideranging debate to date. I think the honourable member for Cowan is just a little sensitive. I will note with interest the honourable member's contribution and draw him back to the Bill if necessary. Mr REITH —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The answer is clear. We have only to look at this week's and last week's newspapers to see that our balance of account deficit was about $101.4 billion as at September 1986. If I speak for 10 minutes, in that time our national debt will have gone up $770,000. It goes up $1,300 every second. We cannot continue to buy more from overseas than we sell, otherwise we will go broke. We should be building up uranium exports, cutting back on foreign debt and easing the pressure on the dollar; then the Government might find itself in a position to be able to relax crippling high interest rates. Contrary to the constant bleatings of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the Opposition has no policies, let me spell out what our policy is in this area. We support the mining and the milling of uranium subject to health and safety standards. We believe that exports should be permitted subject to stringent conditions of supply designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime under the bilateral safeguards agreement and the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We believe that we ought to be encouraging the development of proven deposits and we should be encouraging further exploration. Free world consumption could double by the year 2000 and between 1984 and 1993 uranium for Australia could be worth a potential $6 billion. When we have a national debt of $100 billion that is something that ought to be looked at. We also believe and we have as a policy that we ought to co-operate with industry in assessing the feasibility of establishing a commercial uranium enrichment industry for peaceful purposes under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. My attitude is that if private enterprise wants to get into this field, subject to safeguards, there is no reason to oppose a proposal that will provide investment and jobs for Australia. This does not mean that we would be making bombs because a commercial plant could not produce material for weapons grade uranium. Many people say that we should not use up our mineral resources by just digging them up and sending them overseas without any processing. If we can process raw materials, add to the value of our exports and provide jobs in Australia then, subject to commercial realities, we should do so. I think two other elements of our policy are worth noting. We believe that we should encourage continuing research and development in Australia of the technology of safe disposal of nuclear wastes. That is being done and synroc symbolises the high standards of that work. We also believe in building up the efficiency and effectiveness of the international Agency's operations. This debate exhibits the contradictions in the Government's policy on this issue. Some members of parliament are appealing to emotions on the nuclear weapons aspect even though it is irrelevant, whilst others take the official line that because nuclear electricity generation is currently not economically feasible in Australia we should run away from the issue. My view is that we should not run away from the issue. We need to be involved in the nuclear fuel cycle. Let us throw out Labor's pessimism and build policies based on a vision of Australia with an economy where all the opportunities that we have are taken with both hands to build up standards of living for all Australians. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(5.21) —The basic purpose and rationale for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill have been well canvassed already. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation will, effectively, supersede the Atomic Energy Commission. Because it will supersede an existing body it is not anticipated that there will be any great re- venue effects arising from this legislation, at least in the short term. A number of aspects of the original legislation governing the Atomic Energy Commission, the Atomic Energy Act, which was passed in 1953, require some substantial revision in the light of changed community and government attitudes. Originally it was envisaged that the Atomic Energy Commission would be actively involved in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, not merely the mining and export of uranium. The original legislation even had some provision for work in defence related nuclear technology, which, arguably, left the door open for the Atomic Energy Commission-at least when it was governed by the original legislation-to become involved in the development of nuclear weapons. Consequently, within the original legislation were fairly draconian penalties. For example, the penalty for the unauthorised dissemination of information, irrespective of the person's intent in so disseminating that information, far exceeded those which would obtain under other legislative or legal procedures. Obviously, since the early 1950s we have had a very substantial revision of community attitudes towards nuclear energy generally. The overwhelmingly benign view as to the safety and viability of power generation by nuclear energy has come to be challenged, or significantly modified, amongst large sections of the community. As a result, it is therefore appropriate that the original legislation which governed the Atomic Energy Commission needs to be looked at in the light of all of these developments, and that is what it is intended that these Bills will do. The proposed new organisation will have a different set of objectives. The precise nature of those objectives has yet to be determined. It will be the first job for the incoming board of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. The review committee's report on the Atomic Energy Commission-which was tabled, I think, in November last year-brought down a recommended interim set of objectives which placed emphasis on the application of various forms of nuclear science and technology. It also placed emphasis on giving support to government efforts in fields of arms control and disarmament and providing technical advice of the highest standard to the Government to facilitate those processes. It also envisaged a rather more commercial orientation for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation than was the case with the Atomic Energy Commission. As I have said, those interim objectives are the recommendations of the review committee on the Atomic Energy Commission, which had the job of looking at what aspects of the Atomic Energy Commission's existing organisational structure, including objectives, may be applicable to the future Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. I make the observation that it is a well established complaint about research and development in this country that looking at basic research, pure research, Australia has a substantial and well regarded capacity. The key failure has persistently been a lack of preparedness to put basic scientific research and basic breakthroughs to work in applied fields. Clearly that deficiency is recognised in the legislation to establish ANSTO and, hopefully, the emphasis in ANSTO's operations will be much more on techniques that have applicability in industry, agriculture and medicine, which is not inconsistent with an on-going pure research activity, although there certainly needs to be a tipping of the balance towards more applied research. ANSTO will be looking at a number of specific matters. For example, one is the whole issue of nuclear waste disposal. Whether or not it is possible to develop methods of safety and permanently disposing of high level nuclear wastes has been a very major part of the debate about nuclear power generation. We have had the development of synroc, which has been regarded as a possible viable way of disposing of high level nuclear wastes. It is intended to work by embedding the radioisotopes in the crystalline structure of a rock. It is thought by the developers of synroc that that would provide a permanent and safe method of getting rid of high level nuclear wastes and that it would be viable for millions of years. Frankly, I am not quite so optimistic about that. I will refer to a number of aspects about that matter. There has never been any hard evidence to substantiate that a crystalline structure of the form that is in synroc will remain stable over time when a high proportion of radioactive nuclei is part of that crystalline structure. I refer to an article by Dr Brian Martin, who is a researcher in applied mathematics at the Australian National University. He is somewhat critical of the idea that synroc provides the definite solution to the problem of high level nuclear waste. I will quote briefly from a paper that he wrote. He stated: To start with, Synroc contains a much higher percentage of the elements in radioactive waste than is found in natural rock. There have been no experimental tests of the long term stability of rock crystals of the Synroc type. Natural rocks for the most part contain impurity elements which are nonradioactive. Synroc will contain radioactive varieties (isotopes) of these elements. Full testing has not yet been done with radioactive isotopes of the elements in radioactive waste. Therefore the physical changes in Synroc caused by radioactive decay over long periods of time remain to be determined. He went on to discuss further possible deficiencies in the synroc approach. I am not one who argues, because of the reservations I might have about nuclear energy, that research into nuclear waste disposal ought not to proceed. The reality is that we have in existence a nuclear energy industry. We have significant amounts of high level and other levels of nuclear waste. Research has to go on into how we deal with that problem. So I personally have no argument with continued research aimed at developing effective methods of disposing of high level nuclear waste. However, it is important that we have a realistic perspective on this and not be bedazzled into thinking that synroc, which is arguably the most promising approach to the disposal of high level nuclear waste, provides a definite answer to the problem of nuclear waste disposal-that the problem is substantially solved. We are not anywhere near a state where that can be said. I also note in passing that Senator Sanders, who moved a series of amendments to this legislation in the Senate, accepted the need for continuing research into high level waste disposal. So while I have been and continue to be a critic of Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, it is necessary to continue research into high level waste disposal. Another aspect of the future Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's work is the question of a national medical cyclotron. At last we are seeing some action by an Australian government for Australia to acquire a cyclotron. This is a good development. Cyclotron technology has to be distinguished from reactor technology. There is no real comparison between the two. There are no waste products or potential for the development of nuclear weapons arising from cyclotron technology. What cyclotrons can do is produce radioisotopes and radiopharmaceuticals for a range of applications, the most significant of which are in nuclear medicine. At the moment we have the capability to produce quite a few of those radioisotopes in the reactor at Lucas Heights, but a number cannot be produced in a nuclear reactor and need to be produced in a cyclotron. The real problem arises with isotopes with relatively short half lives; that is to say, half lives of less than 24 hours. Obviously these cannot be imported because of the shortness of their half life. If we are to produce them here-and one example of a radioisotope of which I am thinking is iodine 123, which has an application in diagnosing thyroid disorders-and make them available for Australian patients we need a cyclotron in Australia. In the last Budget the Government allocated $200,000 for preliminary work on the development of a cyclotron and its installation. Over the next four years it is envisaged that $14.2m will be spent to get it installed in the grounds of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney. Once this is done there will be available to Australian patients a range of additional diagnostic and other services, including those in the promising area of positron emission tomography, which is one particularly significant area. Nuclear medicine techniques have the advantage of being non-invasive; that is, one does not have to cut people open to make effective diagnoses. That whole area is very promising. To the extent that a cyclotron will be able at least in part to supersede the role of hifar and the nuclear reactor in producing an adequate range of radio-isotopes, those concerned about the hifar reactor should not be displeased. It is important for other reasons for Australia to have a substantial capability in nuclear research and technology. During the debate on whether to mine and export uranium one of the arguments adduced by those who favour the mining and export of uranium was that if we do not continue to sustain a high level of capability in this field we risk losing our position on the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. At the moment we have status as a member of the Board of Governors by virtue of the fact that we are deemed to be the country most advanced in nuclear technology, including the technology of source material production, in the South East Asian and Pacific region. So there is an argument by those who favour uranium mining that we have to continue to mine and export it. (Quorum formed) I was saying that concern was expressed during the debate on uranium mining and export about Australia's ability to retain its status as a designated member of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. What I was going to say is that at the time we did not adequately canvass the possibility of retaining that status by enhancing our capability in areas of nuclear technology other than the production of source material and the nuclear fuel cycle. I would like to have seen a much more systematic look at our capabilities and the capabilities of other countries in the South East Asian and Pacific region to see whether we could preserve our status by enhancing our activity in areas such as the medical application of radioisotopes. For that additional reason I believe it is important that ANSTO pursue quite actively areas of technology other than the nuclear fuel cycle. I will conclude simply by saying that I am pleased that my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) has just walked into the chamber. I know he takes a very active interest in this legislation and in his own electorate, which includes the Australian Atomic Energy Commission establishment at Lucas Heights. I know how concerned he is about the preservation of employment opportunities there and how actively involved he has been in working out proposals to enable the preservation of employment within his electorate for people currently employed at the Atomic Energy Commission establishment. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(5.40) —The House is debating the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill and related measures. This is a very important package of measures. Among other things it has significant implications for the future economic development of this country. On the face of it-as was pointed out by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), who has just resumed his seat, in the course of his calm and knowledgeable remarks-these Bills constitute an apposite and constructive package of legislation to bring the structure and rules of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission up to date. However, the truth of the situation is that they will have the effect of constraining the economic growth and wealth of Australia to below what it could be. One may well ask: What sort of a policy is that in the situation which confronts us? Mr Ruddock —Absolutely. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —My colleague underlines the point. The context of the situation that confronts Australia-a quite desperate and perilous situation indeed-is one of mounting international debt; our yawning balance of payments deficit, which leads to it; the fallen Australian dollar; the increase in the rate of inflation to the high level of 10 or 12 per cent, four or five times that of our trading partners; and interest rates at unconscionable levels, some seven to 10 percentage points higher than practically anywhere else, with all the implications that has for the viability of business, particularly small business and, even more particularly, for the rural sector. So this legislation is quite important legislation. Beyond those implications for the economic development of the country, the legislation will have the effect of depriving Australia of the skills, techniques and understanding that would enable us to take an effective part in the world to make for a stronger non-proliferation regime, a safer world and a more peaceful world. I stress that latter point. It is a sad day, in that sense particularly, for Australia, and only this Hawke Government, dominated by its left wing, would have brought in such a measure. As I said, specifically these Bills provide for the replacement of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with a new organisation, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and they repeal certain outmoded provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the people in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission who have given so much great service to Australia in many fields over many years. My close friend and relative, Mr Bob Carter of West Pennant Hills, recently retired, was one such person. I also say to the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and the honourable member for Sydney that I recognise the importance of the nuclear waste problem and I also take the opportunity in this context to pay tribute to Professor Ringwood for the development of synroc and the important further research being done in that area by the Atomic Energy Commission as well as places overseas. I recognise that there is still a good deal of work to be done in that area. I hope it will not be suggested that the Opposition fails to recognise the considerable concern within the Australian community about the future development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. This has no doubt been exacerbated by the accident at Chernobyl in April last year. As the international journal the Economist said, attitudes to the nuclear industry can never be quite the same after Chernobyl. Since then there has been a great deal of more thorough investigation and greater understanding of the circumstances of that accident and its implications for the future. Indeed, since that time there has been a good deal of progress towards greater international co-operation through the International Atomic Energy Agency, and I also note that there has been a report of the Government of the Soviet Union to a meeting of that Agency which has clearly revealed the nature of, and the reasons for, that disaster. It was one of the most interesting and important events of the last year-certainly in the whole history of nuclear power development in the world-- Mr Slipper —A tragedy. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Chernobyl was a tragedy, but I am saying that the way in which that accident has been looked into in a co-operative international way since that time is a very important episode in the whole history of nuclear power development in the world. The fact is that the Soviet Union attended a major conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency and gave a very great amount of detail about the whole incident. I believe this augurs very well for the future of international co-operation in this area and certainly it has done a great deal to allay the fears that were so irrationally expressed by so many people about the likelihood of similar disasters occurring in quite different, far more modern and far safer nuclear reactors. Following the Chernobyl incident the shadow Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Peter Durack, in the other place issued a statement calling for rational and informed consideration and debate about the disaster. But he went on to stress the point that, whatever we in Australia do by way of closing mines or preventing the development of new ones, such simplistic proposals only divert attention from the real problem. He went on: We must work in conjunction with the rest of the world to enhance our control over nuclear power. We cannot just wish it away. Of course, the facts speak for themselves. Whether we like it or not, the nuclear industry is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Mr Webster —Forever. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Forever, as my colleague says. Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world depend on nuclear energy for their electricity needs and, indeed, their standard of living. So the demand is more likely to grow than to diminish. In the face of some of the things that have been said, particularly by honourable members opposite from the Left, I would assert that this country has indeed a moral obligation to further the development of our uranium reserves. Mr Hand —What about the waste problem? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I have already made reference to that. If the honourable member had been listening to what I had been saying rather than engaging in continuous conversation on the other side of the chamber he would have heard me. Mr Hand —No, that is not true. I always listen to you. I listen to everything you have to say. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I would hear the honourable member better if he were in his right seat. As I was about to say we have a situation where Australia, with 0.3 per cent of the world's population, has just short of 30 per cent of the world's high grade, low cost reserves of uranium, and I suggest that we have an obligation to develop those resources in the interests particularly of the energy needs of that upwards of two-thirds of the world's population in developing countries. I will come back to that. As I said, the demand is more likely to grow than to diminish, and the latest information from the International Atomic Energy Agency reveals that nuclear power now accounts for over 15 per cent of the world electricity production. There are 394 nuclear power reactors already connected to electricity grids around the world in 26 countries. During 1986 21 new reactors were connected. The coalition supports the further development for peaceful purposes of the uranium and nuclear industries in Australia, and our concern with this legislation is that the functions of this new organisation, ANSTO, should be broad enough to provide adequate government support for that development. The functions of the new Organisation are described in very broad terms in the legislation. Under clause 5 (3) of the Bill ANSTO is required to have regard in its activities: to the national science and energy policy objectives of the Commonwealth Government. The fact of the matter is that the policies of this Hawke Government would prevent research and development into, for example, uranium enrichment and power generation and further developments of the nuclear fuel cycle generally. I make it clear that this is directly contrary to the Opposition's policy which supports further development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia for, of course, peaceful purposes. We would argue that the Government should immediately implement all the recommendations of the Australian Science and Technology Council report that was drawn up under the chairmanship of Professor Slatyer on the nuclear fuel cycle. That report is an independent and objective survey and assessment of policies and practices in respect of the Australian uranium and nuclear industries. I emphasise that the comprehensive and highly professional report was commissioned by the Hawke Government itself. It is properly described as a reasoned reference point in the wide, and unfortunately often uninformed and illogical, public debate on nuclear issues in Australia. The Government's response to the ASTEC report was predictably doctrinaire. Of course, the Government rejected recommendations relating to the mining and export of uranium beyond what it is permitting at present, a policy which in itself is totally irrational, and the recommendations regarding the further development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. The Government's policy perpetuates a general lack of knowledge about the uranium industry, Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle and international safeguards. For example, it does not recognise the link between our uranium industry and an effective international involvement in global energy security and nuclear non-proliferation, among other matters. All these matters were authoritatively discussed by Professor Slatyer and the ASTEC report. In speaking to this measure in the other place the shadow minister, Senator Peter Durack, took the opportunity to assert that on return to government the coalition will implement the recommendations on the nuclear fuel cycle in the ASTEC report. I take this opportunity to repeat his statement in this House because it is important that these things be said. Mr Webster —And understood by the people. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —And understood by the people out there. I take this opportunity to state that we support the mining and milling of uranium, subject to stringent Australian health and safety safeguards. We support the export of uranium. It should be permitted subject to stringent conditions of supply designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime under our already existing bilateral safeguard agreements and the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We should be encouraging, not vetoing, the development of proven uranium deposits such as those at Jabiluka, Koongarra, Lake Way, Beverly, Honeymoon and so on and we would support exploration and the discovery of further commercial uranium deposits, subject of course to environmental laws. We would co-operate with the industry in assessing the feasibility of establishing a commercial uranium enrichment industry in Australia for peaceful purposes and, of course, under IAEA supervision. We would encourage continuing research and development in Australia into the technology of safe disposal of nuclear wastes, which the honourable member for La Trobe, who I see is temporarily occupying a seat on this side of the House, stressed earlier, is a most important activity and we give the Government credit for agreeing to it. We would promote improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the IAEA safeguard operations. We would maintain an active role in seeking higher international standards of safety and surveillance which, of course, is already under way through the International Atomic Energy Agency and has been accelerated since Chernobyl. We would advocate an extended safeguard system incorporating the most stringent safeguards which are part of the existing bilateral agreements. The way in which the Government in drawing this legislation has in effect, ruled out many of these activities is, I believe, an ostrich-like act, turning us away from fruitful further involvement in the peaceful development of the nuclear fuel cycle and is a futile and unwise act. I recognise that the great increase in the price of oil led to a rapid increase in the number of nuclear reactors until recently. However, as a result of various factors, including safety occurrences such as at Windscale, Three Mile Island and most recently Chernobyl, there have been some cancellations and delays. That is understandable. But as against that I take this opportunity to make the point that acid rain from coal and oil burning power stations, particularly in Europe, constitutes a serious and growing threat of atmospheric pollution, and to the widespread destruction of flora and fauna, and a menace to human health. The case is well made that, even though there may be problems for the world with nuclear energy and nuclear power generation, the uninhibited use of coal for energy generation is even more serious. In addition to the acid rain problem, there is the so-called greenhouse effect caused by increasing carbon discharge from fossil fuel burning power stations, which is raising the earth's atmospheric temperature and threatening to so heat the upper atmosphere that it will adversely affect the world's ecology. I would confidently assert that the world will become increasingly reliant on nuclear energy if it is, as all people want, to maintain and improve standards of living. The demand for uranium is likely to double by the end of the century, and with that there are very great possibilities for increased exports of Australian uranium. However, I do not want to conclude on that purely economic note. That is not what this is all about, although I believe that the left wing of the Labor Party will never acknowledge that. As I said before, there is the whole issue of the moral obligation that we in this country-extremely rich by comparative world standards, though falling in relative position under the ministrations of this Government-with 0.3 per cent of the world's population and blessed with nearly 30 per cent of the world's high grade, low cost uranium have to contribute towards meeting the current and future energy needs of the world. I refer particularly to the more than two-thirds of the world's population in the developing countries-several billions of people, many hungry, most of them in poverty on a scale that most Australians have very little understanding of, and even less care about. Linked to that is what the country may also contribute to the success of the non-proliferation regime. We are of course a signatory of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. There is a high obligation on us to work in that context by way of good example and the maintenance of high standards, and to exert the leverage brought about by the ability to supply uranium, reliably, in large quantity and at low cost, and thereby to encourage other nations to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This Government by its left dominated, ideologically short-sighted policy reflected in the restrictions in this Bill, not only deprives Australia of major economic benefits in a situation of great peril for the Australian economy, but also of further opportunities for this country to contribute significantly and in a practical way to the success of the non-proliferation regime, and thus to world peace. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —by leave-I present a corrigendum to the explanatory memorandum to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1987. The clause numbers in the explanatory memorandum were appropriate as the Bill was presented to the Senate, where it originated. But after amendment by the Senate, the clauses should have been renumbered in the explanatory memorandum. I apologise to the House. I hope it does not mean that honourable members want to start the debate all over again. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(6.01) —The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), when introducing the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill in the Senate on 6 November 1985, amongst other things, said: This legislation replaces the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with a new organisation to be known as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, or ANSTO, and repeals the draconian provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1953. The Atomic Energy Act was, of course, drafted in the Cold War period and contained repressive security and penal provisions. This obsession with secrecy has been the hallmark of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and was most clearly illustrated in the cover-up of, the lies about, and the intimidation of Australian civilian and military personnel involved in, the British atomic tests at Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga. The new organisation, ANSTO, must not be allowed to continue this obsession with secrecy. This will in great measure be reliant on the Minister responsible for that Organisation. The Minister responsible, Senator Evans, must also be a responsible Minister. It cannot be said that his irresponsible attack on concerned consumers who do not want food irradiation in Australia was an intelligent response, let alone a responsible response. In order that honourable members can understand and appreciate the reasons for my critical response to the Minister's speech in the Senate, let me quote his dismissal of the anti-food irradiation lobby. The Minister stated: The kryptonite lobby is much in evidence in any uranium debate, but I have never seen it more in evidence than in the context of food irradiation. That attitude will set the new organisation, ANSTO, in a climate which is no better than the Cold War atmosphere that surrounded the introduction of the Atomic Energy Act in 1953. The proponents of the nuclear industry have an obsession that they, and they alone, are right. That arrogance must be broken down. The Minister would do well to educate himself on how the consumer public feels about food irradiation. Over 40,000 petitioners from every State in Australia are calling for a ban on the import of cobalt 60, which is used in the food irradiation process. The Minister has confirmed that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is involved up to its eyeballs in the sponsorship and implementation of food irradiation programs. The Minister said: There is no intention of withdrawing from the involvement in these programs at this stage. No doubt the Minister intends this involvement to continue under ANSTO. At a time of severe economic restraint, I think it is totally irresponsible to be spending several hundred thousand dollars through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission on this extremely controversial process of food irradiation which is unsafe, unnecessary and unwanted by Australian consumers. I ask the Minister: What is the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's expertise on, firstly, the nutritional value of foods before and after cobalt 60 gamma ray irradiation; secondly, the loss of vitamins in food after irradiation; and, thirdly, the production of carcinogenics after irradiation. A cognate debate involving three Bills-the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill-is, of course, more wide ranging than a debate on a single Bill. Of course, the debate becomes even more encompassing when one is responding to the earlier debate involving the Minister responsible for the introduction of the Bills. The Minister has declared that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has been involved in the sponsorship and implementation of food irradiation programs. For the record, these statements are to be found in the Senate Daily Hansard of 17 February 1987 at page 96. The Minister stated that those who are opposed to food irradiation belong to the kryptonite lobby. The kindest response to that comment would be that it reflects an ignorant, biased mind. However, the Minister, Senator Evans, compounded the statement by saying that the AAEC was involved in food irradiation sponsorship and implementation and that ANSTO would continue down that track. In the most outrageous of all positions, the Minister said that the onus of proof lies with those who oppose food irradiation. If it were not so serious, it would be funny. Here we have the Minister responsible for the ANSTO Bills saying, on the question of food irradiation, that, firstly, opposition is from the kryptonite lobby; secondly, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, and now ANSTO, will continue to promote and sponsor the introduction of food irradiation; and, thirdly, the AAEC knows best, and that the onus of proof otherwise is on the kryptonites. What arrogance and what stupidity! It is a return to the Cold War attitude that surrounded the introduction of the Atomic Energy Act in 1953. The introduction of these Bills needs to be set in an atmosphere in which the community will know and understand what the new body, ANSTO, is up to. Community concerns should be treated with understanding and should be listened to. I say with total conviction that the consumer public is very concerned about what might happen to its food if the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, and now ANSTO, have their way in introducing gamma ray zapping of their food. Let me turn to some worthwhile references. The source of the references is far more qualified than those which were referred to in the original debate in the Senate by the Minister who introduced the Bills. I refer to an article in the Food and Chemical News of 28 July last year. Under the heading `Cancer Research Scientist Opposes Irradiation of Food', the article states: Meanwhile, Cancer Research Scientist George L. Tritsch has opposed food irradiation in Letters to the Editor appearing in the July 20 New York Times and the July 21 Chemical & Engineering News. Tritsch, who is with the Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, argued in the letter to the New York Times, `To expose growing children to irradiated foods should not be permitted without clear demonstration that it is not accompanied by a late increase in cancer.' In the letter to the Chemical & Engineering News he contended `that a dose of radiation sufficient to cause changes in food pathogens to result in their death must cause comparable changes in the food itself, i.e. alterations in nucleic acids and in membrane lipids'. `The actual dose of radiation is irrelevant, since a single carcinogenic insult is all that is needed to produce a malignant neoplasm a decade or more later,' Tritsch wrote, suggesting, `Thus, irradiated food should be safe only for individuals with life expectancies of a decade or less'. He urged `that irradiated food not be made available to the general public until we have indisputable evidence that this will not increase the cancer incidence two decades later.' I am concerned because this issue has been raised in the Parliament for some considerable time and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has engaged the Australian Consumers Association to conduct an inquiry into food irradiation. In addition, my colleague the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) and his Committee, the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, are also inquiring into the matter. Yet the Minister responsible for these Bills has the audacity to say that this is a kryptonite lobby which complains, that the onus of proof is on the consuming public to say that the process is unsafe. I wish to pass on another message to this House, which I hope will take a far more responsible attitude to this question. A committee of the European Parliament, called the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, recently released a report on the irradiation of foodstuffs. It is dated 15 October 1986, so it is of recent vintage. In the summary and conclusions the report says: (1) Despite decades of research, it is not possible to prove that food irradiation causes no harm to health. (2) Practically all scientific studies admit a considerable degree of uncertainty as regards effects on human health. (3) It is not possible to prove that food has been irradiated. There is not technical means of checking. (4) As a method of conservation, radiation is no better or cheaper than other methods. Technological improvements to certain foods are of interest to manufacturers but not to consumers. (5) The use of the technology involved is potentially more dangerous than with other types of conservation. Employees are exposed to considerable risk. This could lead to problems particularly in the Third World. (6) Irradiation could be used to deceive consumers as regards freshness or ripeness of food. (7) The microbiological effect of irradiation varies considerably and may even lead to an increase in germ cells. (8) All the desired objectives of food irradiation can be achieved by other methods. Radiation does not provide greater protection for consumers against spoiled food. (9) The use of ionizing radiation to conserve food is potentially more dangerous than conventional methods. Workers in radiation plants are exposed to greater risks. This may lead to major problems, particularly in the Third World. (10) The construction and operation of radiation plants lead to even greater geographical spread and circulation of radioactive materials. I submit that all these issues I have raised are extremely relevant to the Bills going through the House today because, as I said earlier, the Minister has made it clear that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has been involved up to its eyeballs, that ANSTO will continue, that people who oppose are merely the kryptonites and that the onus of proof is on us. I think that the Minister is clearly out of court. He is out of his depth and I wonder who gave him the briefing on this subject. It concerns me that in trying to get to the heart of this issue in Australia, I have had to put several hundred questions on the Notice Paper to try to flush out the truth. To date, the truth still has not come out. I ask the question of this House, of my colleague the Minister and other members of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation just who is responsible for the legislation and regulation covering food? Who is better qualified? Is it the Health Department or the Atomic Energy Commission? I believe that on this issue we have seen members of the atomic energy group or club trying to grab a corner for themselves to keep themselves occupied and to ensure that they will have adequate Budget allocations. This is so much a waste of time in that the proper authority to deal with this area is obviously the Department of Health. Because I have had trouble in obtaining information from the Health Department, I must ask which department is leading which Minister by the nose. I have never seen such an exposure of the Yes Minister syndrome as I have on this matter of food irradiation. I realise that I am being critical of my own Government and various departments, but until the truth comes out the consuming public will be very suspicious of what is going on. I do not believe that the two Ministers concerned fully realise the feeling outside among consumers. I would hope that the message would get across to them fairly soon. (Quorum formed) As I began by saying, the old Atomic Energy Act was drafted in the cold war days and, hopefully, ANSTO will have a better birth, a better opportunity to carry out its work, and confidence that the community knows exactly what it is about. At an earlier point in my speech tonight, I referred to the secrecy surrounding the British atomic tests at Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga. I played a fairly significant part in trying to uncover that secrecy and those who followed that particular case will recall what was subsequently revealed as the Pearce report. I have a copy of that report, which was in the closets for many years. It contains the secret burial places of the radioactive substances which the British Government left at Maralinga in particular. On a map it sets out the burial sites and the materials that were buried at those sites. These include plutonium, beryllium, cobalt 60, natural uranium and various other elements used in the dirty bomb. My reason for raising this matter is the secrecy that surrounded those tests and the concern it gave Australian citizens, both civilian and military, in not knowing whether they had been affected by the tests at those sites. It was only after this Government set up the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963 and opened the closets that we found out what had been going on. We found that instead of the eight or nine atomic tests that were reported, there were some 100-odd tests, including what were called the minor trials. The trauma that civilians and military people went through because of the Crimes Act and the Atomic Energy Act-those draconian days of the secrecy provisions-is something that will never be properly estimated. I have had the opportunity to meet many of those people who went through those atomic tests, and I have seen the scars and marks on them. I plead with the Minister responsible that he ensure that the ANSTO Bills do not become a replica of the Atomic Energy Act. We have a much more enlightened community and, quite rightly, a more demanding community that needs to know and has a right to know what the Government is about and particularly what departments are about. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.21) —The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1987, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1987 relate to the restructuring of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Unfortunately, I think they have been born in obsession and certainly from a doctrinaire point of view so far as the Government is concerned, and I think it has given us Bills which are neither fish nor fowl. The impact that they are likely to have upon our national economy is likely to be significant in ensuring that we remain in a very disadvantaged position in terms of our national trade. As we have heard in the speeches that have been delivered by those members of the Left opposite, the Bills in no way appease their obsession about the nuclear fuel cycle and its likely impact; the Bills in no way compromise those members in terms of their objection to the fuel cycle. We hear speeches such as that which we have heard from the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), which I think give very much that view on behalf of the Left. We know that they are concerned about the use of the nuclear fuel cycle. Senator Sanders endeavoured to put into the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill amendments that were designed to put a Left perspective, but he lost that opportunity in the Senate. We can see why this Bill must be very difficult for Government members. I have very strong objections to it on a personal basis, largely because I think it is not in any way adequate for ensuring that Australia is able to utilise its nuclear fuel capacity to the fullest extent. I recently had the opportunity of visiting Japan. I visited the city of Hiroshima, which is one of the two cities in Japan that have felt the nuclear bomb. I saw much of the devastation that occurred. I was able to appreciate-I think in a first-hand way, and a very emotional way-what people in Japan went through when that bomb was let off in their territory. In no way do I want to see nuclear war nor do I want to see a situation in which nuclear bombs are let off in this world for the purposes of hostilities or in the pursuit of those hostilities. Nevertheless, Japan is a nation that has experienced the nuclear holocaust, but it is still realistic enough to recognise that the nuclear fuel cycle has a very valuable role for peaceful use. Yet we have legislation that is designed to abandon the Atomic Energy Commission, which was established in 1953 for the purpose of enabling Australia to undertake a great deal of original research and which would enable us to look at a number of opportunities for Australia to get value for its uranium resources. One of those was the uranium enrichment research projects which were based upon centrifuge technology and in which the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was involved over a long period. From the speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) we know that the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the new organisation which is to be the successor of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission-that is, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO-will have a much more limited charter. The package of Bills also implements transitional arrangements and repeals those parts of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 which the Government deems it no longer appropriate to have in place, those relating to securing the secrets of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. It also provides for a new organisation with functions which, it is stated, will accord with government policy. I am pleased that at least it permits of government policy of the day because I would like to make it very clear that the policy of any new government in relation to atomic energy will be very different from the Australian Labor Party policy that we have entrenched through this legislation. This legislation is to reflect, as the Government says, the realignment of the Atomic Energy Commission activities away from work on the nuclear fuel cycle towards greater emphasis on the application of radioisotopes and radiation in medicine and industry. In other words, the purpose of this legislation is to narrow the scope of the activities of the Atomic Energy Commission. It provides for a governing board of directors and an advisory council of 11 people; it also provides for a statutory basis for the Nuclear Safety Bureau and the Safety Review Committee, the functions of which are to be expanded on those of the present Atomic Energy Commission Regulatory Bureau and Safety Review Committee respectively. Of course, it is noted in the explanatory memoranda that this new Organisation will not have what the Government cares to describe as the repressive security provisions of the present Atomic Energy Commission Act. That is the nature of this legislation, but if one wants to see something of the way in which it is likely to operate I think it is reasonable to look at the Minister's second reading speech. He makes it clear: While moving away from nuclear fuel cycle activities, in line with the Government's policy, which is that Australia not become involved in any stages of the nuclear fuel cycle other than the mining and milling of uranium and the disposal of waste, the Atomic Energy Commission has continued to apply its substantial expertise to research activities into the uses of radio-isotopes and radiation. However, the Commission's research program has been without firm legislative directions for the future. So the firm legislative directions are designed to ensure that that body now has a very narrow charter indeed. They are particularly designed to ensure that under government policy any role in the area of uranium enrichment cannot be pursued. As the Minister says in his second reading speech: The Government recognises that nuclear technology, when applied to areas such as medicine, science, industry and agriculture, can make an important contribution to the social and economic well-being of Australia and accordingly these are the areas in which ANSTO will focus its activities. Those are key words in this speech because I believe that what is important is that in this legislation we should be looking at the social and economic well-being of Australia. I do not believe that the social and economic well-being of Australia is served well by narrowing the scope of this Organisation. It is important to recognise that we in Australia now face extraordinarily difficult economic times. We have an enormous debt as a nation, and we will have to endeavour to trade our way out of the difficulties that we face. That is the social and economic environment in which we as a nation find ourselves. It is at the very time when the steps that should be taken by Australia to overcome our economic problems are the expansion of our trading activities and ensuring that when we have products such as uranium we obtain full value for those products. We are limiting the scope for Australia to ensure that we further refine that product, add value to it and obtain for Australia an economic advantage. When one recognises that what the Government has done is to ensure that the new body will not be able to play a role in enhancing Australia's capacity to play a part in uranium enrichment, one will recognise the way in which our social and economic well-being as a nation is being significantly disadvantaged. I plan to talk a little more about that matter, but it may be convenient to resume my remarks at 8 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr RUDDOCK —I must say that I am having difficulty in grappling with the new title ANSTO-the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. However, the Government, in restructuring the old Australian Atomic Energy Commission, said that it recognises that nuclear technology when applied to areas such as medicine, science, industry and agriculture, can make an important contribution to the social and economic well-being of Australia and that it saw those as being the areas on which this new body, known as ANSTO, should focus its activities. I was making the point before the suspension of the sitting that in my view the social and economic well-being of Australia would be better served if ANSTO was able to undertake a wider brief. It seems to me that with so many people arguing that the only prospect that Australia has in the short term of reasonably trading itself out of its present balance of payments difficulties is to take the products that we now produce-in this case uranium but in other cases perhaps iron ore or some of our agricultural products-and ensure that there is a value added component. That is, what we export should be refined to some extent in Australia before it is sent to some other country. The way in which that is most likely to happen in the area of uranium, where in fact we are selling yellowcake to Europe and to other countries which have nuclear reactors, is to sell an enriched product, a product which we could produce in Australia. We would get a better price for such a product. That is the simple answer. If we are concerned about Australia's immediate social and economic well-being, why should we not be selling enriched uranium which we could produce in Australia? It seems to me that the Australian Labor Party has introduced a Bill that effectively does not stop uranium mining. It does not stop the production of uranium-based products around the world but it will limit Australia's capacity to sell what it has got at the best price. As I said when I first addressed the House, this Bill is neither fish nor fowl. It is an attempt on the part of the Labor Party to appease its left wing by producing a bill which limits nuclear activity but which does not go the whole way. The legislation seeks to prohibit ANSTO from undertaking any research or development in the design or production of nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. While I might quibble about that, I do not believe that we were undertaking this sort of research through the old Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the particularly important aspect of which, I think, was in the area of endeavouring to get for Australia the specific skills in uranium enrichment. In any event, one finds that countries which have had a nuclear experience-countries such as Japan which has experienced the effects of a nuclear bomb-have no fear about the use of uranium in terms of supplying the needs of their own communities. When those needs are great, as they are in Japan with respect to electricity and the like, the countries concerned see those needs as very important and the available technology is used. This Government has particularly tried to restrict that availability by limiting the functions of ANSTO. Clause 5 (1) states: The functions of the Organisation are- (a) to undertake research and development in relation to- (i) nuclear science and nuclear technology; (ii) the production and use of radioisotopes, and the use of isotopic techniques and nuclear radiation, for medicine, science, industry, commerce and agriculture; and I might mention this- (iii) such other matters as the Minister directs; When we look at the functions that are then qualified, we find that sub-clause (2) states: The Organisation shall not undertake research or development into the design or production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devises. Sub-clause (3) states: In undertaking its functions the Organisation shall have regard to the national science and energy policy objectives of the Commonwealth Government. The Bill contains some further limitations in relation to functions which I do not think are pertinent. Although limitations are placed on the Organisation, the Minister can direct it to carry out certain types of research and development. That is a very important point which is qualified by the direction that in undertaking its functions the Organisation shall have regard to the national science and energy policy objectives of the Commonwealth Government. I suspect there is some element of pragmatism in that, and that again gives further weight to the argument that I have already mounted that this Bill is neither fish nor fowl. It gives no positive commitment to wider uranium research and development, but obviously wider activities can be undertaken when one looks at those clauses. I welcome the fact that the Government has not closed off all of the options. But I suppose, in a sense, that is probably the reason that the Opposition is, in a pro forma way, allowing this legislation to proceed unopposed. I make the point very strongly that when there is a change of government in this country in the near future, as undoubtedly will occur, the policy objective of the incoming government will not be the policy of the present Government. In respect of clause 5 (3), one should note that the policy of the Opposition will be to implement the recommendations of the 1984 Australian Science and Technology Council report on Australian involvement in the nuclear cycle. This will be a priority. We will also support the mining and milling of uranium subject to stringent Australian health and safety standards and we will remove the veto on the development of new uranium projects. The export of uranium will be permitted subject to existing safeguard agreements which were put in place by the Fraser Government. More importantly-and I have made this point in terms of Australia's economic and social well-being-we will co-operate with industry in assessing the feasibility of establishing a commercial uranium enrichment industry in Australia for peaceful purposes under international agency supervision. I make the important point that if we in Australia are to have any form of realistic future in a very difficult world and if we are going to turn our economy around, we cannot be cutting off our nose to spite our face. It seems to me that the legislation that we have before us is part of this ostrich in the sand mentality of the present Labor Government. The Government is trying to limit the clear opportunities that are before us rather than widen them by encouraging Australians to think about the ways and means by which we can create export opportunities and overcome the present difficulties that we face in the economic sphere. I very much regret that we have legislation of this sort before us that is designed to limit Australia's involvement in an area in which we have very considerable expertise and very considerable capacity to be able to put on to the world markets a product which could be very much more valuable than it is at present. I think the Government would be well served by changing its rhetoric and becoming much more supportive of rational policies in this area. It is trying to involve itself in these intellectual exercises to appease the Labor Left instead of concentrating on the major economic issues that face the nation. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(8.10) —Tonight I want to make a very short contribution to the debate on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (Transitional Provisions) Bill and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. I am very pleased that the Government has changed the name of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. I will respond to a few remarks made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). I, too, had the pleasure of visiting Hiroshima, of viewing the museum, and of being able to get a limited feel of the horror of the citizens who suffered that bombing raid. Whilst I would not want to go into the pros and cons of the decision to bomb Hiroshima, I certainly walked away with the feeling that mankind must never allow that sort of thing to happen again. I guess on that point the honourable member for Dundas and I share a common objective. I really think the Opposition has failed to understand the depth of feeling in the community. It is all to readily wanting to classify opposition to the export of uranium as the party pandering to the Left. Certainly, I have noticed amongst the young people in my electorate and quite a few non-involved women that there is a great concern about what the future of the world will be if we allow uranium and nuclear energy to be over-exploited. I confess to being one of those who share that concern, so I really resent this caricaturing of the Opposition. I think these Bills are a very important series of Bills. I am very pleased to see that we are not just making a superficial change to the name of the AAEC but trying to rationalise nuclear research and development programs. I am particularly delighted that we are prohibiting research into nuclear weapons; I think that is long overdue. We are recognising that nuclear technology can be applied to areas such as medicine, science, industry and agriculture and that it can make an important contribution to this country. In response to the remarks of the honourable member for Dundas about what Australia needs to do in terms of the competitive world environ- ment that it faces, I really do not believe that the future rests in uranium enrichment programs. I think Australia has a whole raft of opportunities that we ought to seize upon rather than having to get into such a controversial area. But my own interest in nuclear matters arises from a defence installation in my electorate-St Marys munitions factory. One of the great initiatives of the Opposition, when in government, was to house nuclear waste. Let me explain for the benefit of honourable members where this munitions factory is. It is in Penrith City Council, which has a population of 140,000 which is adjacent to Blacktown City Council, which has a population of 200,000. I have had quite a number of assurances about how safe this material is. I am prepared to accept the advice that has been given to me, but my point, and the point of so many of my constituents, is that we ought to run a zero risk as far as housing this waste is concerned and that it ought to be moved away from a centre housing about 340,000 citizens. I note that the present Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has taken a keen interest in this; in fact a committee has been established. Until my election to this House that committee had met three times-once in the term of the previous Parliament. What is really holding it up is a lack of commitment, even by some Labor Premiers, to establish suitable sites. The Minister is unable to offer me any short term solution but I am hoping that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) will be able to provide an alternative location. Mr Martin —A good Minister. Mr PRICE —He is an excellent Minister-a Minister in whom I have a great deal of faith. This munitions factory should not be placed in the middle of a working class area which is housing 340,000 people. If the Minister is in any difficulty, I offer my services to find a suitable defence establishment in good, Liberal electorates and perhaps we could move it there. The point I am trying to make is that many citizens, such as myself, were completely unaware, even though it was a matter of public record, that these materials were housed at the St Marys munitions factory. But it has been a matter of public record for some time. Indeed, I might add that the local newspapers picked it up in the last week of the election, which amused me no end. I will be keenly pursuing the issue of having this waste removed. I think it is an issue that all Australians should be concerned about because we have peaceful uses of radioactive material but we have a problem when we try to dispose of it. Whether it be Sydney, Wollongong, Hobart or wherever, I suggest that these places are entirely inappropriate for the storage of such material and it is a matter of some urgency that we find a suitable location. Madam Speaker, I commend the Bills to you and to the House. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(8.17) —I wish to participate in this debate to support fully the Government's moves in relation to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill and cognate Bills. I believe that the legislation is well timed. As we have heard today and on other days in this chamber this debate will have a great impact on the nuclear industry, and it will produce different views from all sides of politics. In speaking to the legislation before the House I would like to quote from an article that I found in Nuclear Engineering International that relates to a report by the House of Commons Environment Committee headed by Sir Hugh Rossi. He said: The first, over-riding, all pervading, impression which presents itself at every stage . . . is the enormous and seemingly unbridgeable gap which exists between the perception of the problem by the professionals and the anxieties expressed by representatives of the general public. Scientists, in every country . . . assure us, time and time again, that the knowledge and technology exists with which to harness the enormous forces of nuclear power and to render mankind safe from the wastes it produces. With almost equal consistency elected and non-elected representatives of the general public expressed deep-seated fears. This dichotomy of perception has led the nuclear industry into a defensive secretiveness about its work which serves only to heighten public anxiety. Those words are very true. One will find quite a staggering difference between the northern hemisphere and Australia in debates on the nuclear industry. A few years ago I was privileged to spend a month in the United Kingdom. While I was there I had the opportunity to look at the nuclear industry and I also visited Sellafield, the waste disposal plant in that country. The report from which I quoted-the House of Commons Environment Committee's first report-came out recently. Some of the messages in that report are quite serious. The difference in the debates in the United Kingdom, for instance, and in Europe from those in Australia is that the northern hemisphere has a general commitment to nuclear power for peaceful purposes. It is an accepted proposition and there will be no going back from it. It is pleasing that we in Australia are not in that position; our general public will never be placed in that position. Because of our fossil fuel reserves we have no need for nuclear power and it is government policy not to go down the path of developing nuclear power in Australia for electricity purposes or to be involved in anything to do with nuclear weapons. This legislation covers waste disposal and the mining and milling of uranium as well as other measures that are carried out by the Atomic Energy Commission. However, this report is from the point of view of the United Kingdom, which sees nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel. Over there the debate hinges on not only nuclear power but also fossil fuel, acid rain and all other problems with the environment. The Committee has also come out with some scathing comments in relation to that. The all-party Committee, whose members represented a wide political spectrum and who hold a wide range of views on nuclear power, produced a unanimous report on the basis of examining over 70 witnesses and visiting six countries. The Committee expressed amazement that the British nuclear industry is pressing ahead with increased reprocessing in the absence of properly engineered facilities for the disposal of radioactive waste. As well as proposing a reappraisal of the need for oxide reprocessing and THORP-which is the big processing plant there-it recommends, among other things, that there be an investigation of the costs involved in the Magnox fuel processing plant, and that classification of waste should be modified to take into account half lives and alpha content with particularly toxic radionuclides being excluded from the lower level categories. The report further stated: UK industry should go for ``Rolls-Royce'' solutions to waste problems to help it gain public acceptance. In Australia the Atomic Energy Commission has been working on the synroc process. While I was in the United Kingdom two years ago the new glass vitrification operation was being built at an enormous cost and it is hoped that it will be in operation by 1989. It will process the high level waste which is stored at present in what one would call very heavy bunkers. I was able to visit the United Kingdom at the time when the seventh waste disposal unit was being constructed. I had the opportunity to walk right inside it and look at how it was done. It was a fascinating process. In the one area were stored some 30 years production of high level nuclear waste from the industry in the United Kingdom and other parts of the world. Of course, all precautions have to be taken in this process because we are talking about the real high level waste-3 per cent of the processing plant. The walls of the container are some three foot six inches to four feet thick and are made of solid concrete. There is a 12 foot space between that wall and another one of similar proportions. The inside container has four foot thick concrete walls, a four foot thick concrete base and a four foot thick concrete roof which is lined with one inch stainless steel up to a height of six feet around the walls and right around the floor. At the time I was there the containers cost about #100m each to build. Into the two stainless steel containers, which were made of similar thickness stainless steel, was being built a cooling system which had back-ups to the extent of one working at a particular time with three complete back-ups in the system. So the liquid waste fluid that was put into that container had to be kept cool-because if water was not flowing through it to keep it cool, over a very short period the container would start to heat. As the heat generated, the container would melt even though it was enormously thick and eventually it would probably split and spill its contents on to the floor. So there were three back-up systems in what was called an almost fail-safe procedure to keep the liquid waste cool. This was the seventh facility that was being put in place. Six were already in full operation and fully enclosed. I asked the question: `What would happen if the three systems broke down?'. I was told that there is a further back-up system. The four foot concrete floor of the container is covered by one inch of stainless steel, draining another central point, which has another back-up pumping system. In the same room, a spare #100m container, identical to the one the waste is in, would pick up any spills from the first container and pump it straight back into the second one. There would have to be a complete break down of the process the second time in order for there to be a spill. So an enormous cost is involved in storing high level liquid waste. In spite of all of those costs, the United King- dom is still going ahead with the storage facilities based on the fact that it would be the last that it would put into place. It would then move towards disposing of the waste into a glass vitrification process where, it was claimed, once it was put into it all that was required was air circulation for the next 50 years until it had cooled. It is in this area that the synroc proposals have been looked at. The Commission, under this legislation, will continue to develop the synroc concept for the immobilisation of high level nuclear waste. Of course, we also need to investigate methods of disposing of the radioactive waste generated in Australia from the use of radio isotopes in industry and medicine, and to study the migration of these wastes in groundwaters to improve the understanding and possible behaviour of buried nuclear waste. Regardless of what is said in this debate on this industry around the world-it is a worldwide issue-we have for the last 30 years developed nuclear high level waste which has to be disposed of permanently. Whilst I came away from my visit to the Sellafield plant fairly satisfied with the approaches that have been taken, and although we keep being told by the experts that we have the technology to dispose of this waste in the long term, at this stage there is nowhere in the world where it has been done. It was clearly explained to me that when 30 years production of high level wastes are stored in the United Kingdom in a room which would not be any bigger than this parliamentary building, one can see that if they can be stored in glass or, as we are trying to develop in Australia, stored through a synroc process, the urgent need to dispose of it underground will not occur. The report from the House of Commons was very scathing in that the United Kingdom has not at this stage moved towards anything like a safe depository anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it is not likely to do so. That is of great concern. If the United Kingdom is to have enormous reprocessing facilities for nuclear fuel and if the waste is not placed in stable and permanent places in the future, we will have a serious problem on our hands. I believe that the developments towards the synroc process are very important. It is very important that we continue these developments because we have a responsibility, while we are selling uranium, to take an active interest in the world scene as far as this matter is concerned. We need to develop a process, and perhaps the synroc process, which is well down the track now, could be the answer in the long term. It was explained to me that there was no anxiety in the United Kingdom at this stage that high level waste should be put underground until the year 2020. At about that time the quantity that the United Kingdom will have stored in this glass process will need to be disposed of underground. Also it is believed that over the 50 years the heat in the waste will be at a level at which the glass can be stored satisfactorily deep in the earth in safe depositories. It is an interesting and very important subject and one for which I believe Australia has a great responsibility. I believe that we have taken the right steps with this legislation in concentrating on those things in Australia which are important to us-that is, the mining and milling of uranium, the development of a process whereby we can completely immobilise high level nuclear waste in the long term and, of course, continuation of those great works that are being carried out by the Commission in industry and medicine. So I have great pleasure in supporting the legislation before the House. I have been very interested in listening to the debate. The words by Sir Hugh Rossi with which I opened my remarks are very true; that we seem to have a dichotomy of opinion-two extremes-in the debate around the world. The more information that is made public by the nuclear industry, getting out of its defensive and secretive position, the more it will be for the good of the world in the long term because I do not believe that there is any possible hope of stepping away from nuclear power in the future. Certainly the Northern Hemisphere is not in a position to do that. Whilst in Australia we do not have the necessity to become involved in nuclear power, because of our natural resources, we have to monitor that industry and work towards better efforts in the areas in which we do so well. I commend the legislation to the Parliament. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(8.31) —in reply-This has been a cognate debate and, as usual, it has been very wide-ranging. About the only thing common to every speech is that the word `nuclear' has appeared somewhere. I will not take the time of the House to answer at length all the points made but I should identify some major ones. The contribution by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) raised the question of Commonwealth ownership of uranium. The Northern Territory Government does not have executive authority for the granting of mining titles for the development of uranium, unlike the States, where titles can be issued without reference to the Commonwealth, although the Commonwealth export control powers are a de facto control on development in the States. In the Government's view transfer of ownership of and executive power over uranium-prescribed substances-to the Northern Territory would not be consistent with its policies. The Commonwealth's ownership of prescribed substances in the Northern Territory was preserved under the provisions of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act in 1978, brought in by the Fraser Government of blessed memory-which, in retrospect, looks like one of the great radical reforming governments of our time-which recognised the special significance of uranium and decided that continued ownership was appropriate for the full implementation of its policies. That is a view to which this Government subscribes. Additionally, any transfer proposal would be inconsistent with the Government's policy of prescribing the development of additional uranium mines, which is a general policy applying to all prospective developments, irrespective of their location. The Government accepts that the Northern Territory does not have the same rights as State governments with respect to ownership, but that in itself does not prevent the development of new uranium mines in the Territory. The essential element is that the Government's uranium policy prevents further development. This policy applies equally whether uranium prospects are in the States or the Northern Territory. There was some discussion of supply and demand and what the industry's prospects were in the long term. The latest projection in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development red book shows that annual uranium production in WOCE countries-for a reason that I do not quite understand the acronym WOCE actually means `world outside centrally planned economies', which really should be WOCPE, but it is not-is now in line with annual reactor demand, but that stocks held by utilities still represent three to four years of reactor demand and world production capability is likely to remain above requirements until around 1990. The market for uranium is confined by announced plans for new nuclear reactors. In that context, the Government believes that its three mines policy is appropriate, having regard to the high inventory levels and the availability of uranium from other sources. The Government's position has never been that there is no market for uranium but rather that the share of the market which Australia could reasonably expect to obtain in the immediate future can be supplied from the expansion of Ranger to 6,000 tonnes of uranium 308 per annum and Olympic Dam production from 1988 to around 2,000 tonnes of uranium 308 per annum. These two mines provide the basis for a twofold increase in Australian exports from around the turn of the decade. I refer to the issue of uranium enrichment. During the term of the previous Government a private consortium called the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia, UEGA, was studying the feasibility of a commercial uranium enrichment industry in this country. It selected the centrifuge technology of the European consortium, Urenco-Centec, for further study. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission's centrifuge technology was regarded as being too far behind other commercial rivals; so, under the previous Government, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission became an adviser to industry rather than a serious technology competitor. At the time when the present Government withdrew the AAEC services, UEGA was still engaged in the market study, and it was by no means certain that a commercial industry would have eventuated. Particularly with the world oversupply of enrichment services and the advent of laser technology, it is perhaps fortuitous that the UEGA study did not proceed. This legislation does not proscribe enrichment but the requirement to comply with the Government's energy and science policy should ensure, in a bout of-- Mr Braithwaite —Can't you read your own writing? Mr BARRY JONES —In this case it is not my writing. Anyway, we need a rush of realism to the head. There has been much exaggeration about the economic benefits that would flow automatically from enrichment. A question was raised earlier by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) about food irradiation. He asked to what extent there was competence on that issue inside the AAEC. The Atomic Energy Commission has been involved in research for over 20 years, in recent years with particular reference to participation in international projects. Mr Scott —But what does it know about food irradiation? That was the question. Mr BARRY JONES —It has a considerable record of expertise in this matter. I draw the honourable member's attention to something which is one of those weird coincidences in which life abounds. This very day I tabled the Atomic Energy Commission's report. I draw the honourable member's attention to pages 45 and 70, which describe some of its work in food irradiation. The AAEC is involved in the International Atomic Energy Agency's Regional Co-operative Agreement research into aspects of food irradiation in Asia. As the honourable member knows, in Australia the regulatory authority essentially rests with the States, and the National Health and Medical Research Council has recommended model regulations. The subject is currently under review by the Australian Consumers Association, it having been directed to do this by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). It can be said that the AAEC has scientists in the area who have international recognition and credentials. Mr Scott —That does not go to the quality of the food after it has been irradiated. It does not have any expertise there. Mr BARRY JONES —I hope that when the ACA carries out its research it takes advantage of some of the considerable expertise inside the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, in that area. That information is freely available. As with the question of uranium enrichment, it may be that market forces-and we have heard a lot about market driven responses-will mean that food irradiation may have a seriously detrimental effect on the quality of the food. I can understand that some products like mangoes that come down from Queensland could have a more extended shelf life for a few days. That might be quite a serious factor for the Queensland suppliers. Whether it will mean that strawberries, raspberries or other succulent fruit will be in demand if they are seen into the winter months when people know they do not normally have a long shelf life remains to be seen. It may be that there is a considerable buyer resistance, unless they compare favourably with fruits in season. Mr Scott —But the Atomic Energy Commission does not have the expertise. Mr BARRY JONES —The AAEC has people with exquisite taste buds. That is one of the reasons they are chosen. Finally, a number of honourable members have referred to synroc. Synroc is a great scientific achievement by one of Australia's most eminent scientists, Professor Ted Ringwood, FRS, of the Australian National University. The question, of course, is whether the potential consumers of synroc, the customers who are looking for a safe disposal of nuclear waste, are prepared to pay a higher price for a higher degree of security. The answer is, of course, not yet known. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(8.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill will give legislative effect to all of Australia's international non-proliferation obligations which require domestic legislation and provide a legislative basis for the operations of the Australian Safeguards Office. This Government has consistently pursued a firm policy of nuclear non-proliferation and of commitment to nuclear safeguards. This has been demonstrated by Australia's taking a leading role at the 1985 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, our active participation in other international meetings dealing with non-proliferation and safeguards matters and support of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. Nuclear non-proliferation is concerned with the control of fissile nuclear material, sensitive nuclear technology, such as enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing and certain materials of use in the nuclear fuel cycle, such as heavy water and reactor grade graphite. Australia's commitment to non-proliferation has been enshrined in a number of international agreements. These are the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, our Agreement with the IAEA and Australia's bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements. The NPT is the major international Treaty concerned with non-proliferation and contains several interrelated undertakings. Essentially it is a three-way bargain among the over 120 countries which are parties to the Treaty, in which those countries without nuclear weapons undertake not to acquire them and to accept safeguards in order to verify this undertaking; the nuclear weapon states agree to work towards nuclear disarmament; and the developed nations agree to help the less developed ones obtain the benefits of nuclear energy. Australia became a party to the Treaty on 23 January 1973. In pursuance of its NPT obligations Australia signed an agreement with the IAEA on 10 July 1974 accepting IAEA safeguards on nuclear material in all nuclear activities carried out in Australia. Under this agreement a safeguards system has been established, whereby all nuclear material within Australia is controlled and accounted for by the Australian Safeguards Office which reports to the IAEA. The IAEA, for its part, verifies the reports by regular inspections of nuclear material held in Australia. The system of safeguards operated by the IAEA and national safeguards bodies, such as the Australian Safeguards Office, is designed to verify the performance of international obligations, to deter any possibility of non-performance, and to provide assurance that those obligations are being met. Safeguards measures include maintenance and verification of detailed nuclear accounting and record keeping, and use of physical inspections, surveillance devices and special seals at nuclear installations. The Government permits exports of Australian uranium only to countries with which Australia has a bilateral safeguards agreement. These agreements provide a detailed set of safeguards requirements designed to provide assurance that Australian origin nuclear material not only remains in the civil nuclear fuel cycle but that Australia can at all times account for it. This is achieved by ensuring that Australia's safeguards requirements apply to all transfers, processing and use of Australian uranium or derived material equivalent to the amount of uranium supplied by Australia. Currently Australia has in force 12 nuclear safeguards agreements. Apart from the agreement with the IAEA, there are 10 agreements with individual countries, and an agreement with the European Community's nuclear agency, Euratom. Several aspects of Australia's obligations under the IAEA agreement and the bilaterial agreements require domestic implementation through control of the possession and transport of nuclear material, nuclear equipment or nuclear technology. Until now Australia did not have domestic legislation to enforce these obligations and has relied on the Customs Act and related regulations and on co-operation from holders of nuclear items. This approach has been successful and there has never been the slightest suggestion from our bilateral partners nor from the IAEA that Australia has not complied with its nuclear safeguards obligations. However, I am sure no-one will disagree that this area is of such fundamental importance that our national safeguards system should be placed on the firmest legal footing without further delay. It should be noted that Australia's nuclear industry is quite limited in scope compared to other industrialised countries. We are, of course, a major producer of uranium but the processing of this uranium is limited to the production of yellowcake for the export market. The activities of the mining companies, in so far as they involve the possession and transport of uranium, will be covered by the proposed legislation. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission operates two research reactors and carries out nuclear research into the uses of radio-isotopes and radiation. It also produces radio-isotopes commercially. These activities will be continued by the Commission's successor ANSTO. Australian policy prohibits the development of further stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia and, as I have stated in the second reading speech on the ANSTO Bill, future research and development activities by ANSTO will be directed towards peaceful application of nuclear science and technology other than the development of the nuclear fuel cycle. Most of this research will not involve safeguardable equipment or technology. However, any materials, equipment or technology that come under safeguards obligations will be strictly controlled and the present Bill is directed to this purpose. The uranium mining companies and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission will be the bodies chiefly affected by the proposed legislation. Elsewhere in Australia, use or possession of safeguardable nuclear material or technology is very limited. Radio-isotopes in common use, for example, are not safeguardable and the legislation will not apply to them. However, depleted uranium which is in use in a variety of non-nuclear areas, such as shielding in radiography cameras, as counterweights in the controls of some aircraft or as ballast in technologically advanced yachts, does fall into the ambit of the Bill. The Australian Safeguards Office is currently examining how obligations relating to depleted uranium can be met with minimum inconvenience to those using this material. I take this opportunity to invite any bodies which have, or think they may have in their possession, any safeguardable nuclear material, equipment or technology, as defined in this legislation, to get in touch with the Australian Safeguards Office to see whether they might require a permit for that item, particularly for people who light up at night. The Bill is divided into five parts. The first part contains the formal provisions of the Bill, including those relating to the constitutional basis for the Bill and the definitions. This part of the Bill also deals with commencement of the legislation. Substantive provisions are to come into force by proclamation. It is intended that, once the Bill is passed by Parliament, most of the provisions of the Bill will be brought into force as soon as the administrative procedures required to implement the legislation are put into place. However, Division 2 of Part III of the Bill, providing for the enforcement of the Physical Protection Convention, depends for its constitutional validity on Australia's ratification of the Convention, and it is intended therefore that this portion of the legislation will be brought into force contemporaneously with the ratification of that Convention. The main constitutional basis of the legislation is the external affairs power. However, several other areas of Commonwealth constitutional powers are also relevant and these are enumerated in clause 8. I draw the attention of honourable members to the definitions clause of the Bill, especially the definitions of nuclear material, associated material, associated equipment and associated technology because those definitions circumscribe the items to which this legislation will apply. Nuclear material is defined to have the same meaning as in the agreement between Australia and the IAEA. The agreement defines nuclear material to include all material of potential proliferation significance and provides for the application of safeguards to such material. The legislation, by adopting the same definition, provides for the domestic enforcement of Australia's obligations under that agreement. The agreement with the IAEA primarily applies to use of nuclear material, and does not provide expressly for the control of equipment, technology and material usable in nuclear applications. As examples, I might quote equipment for the enrichment of uranium, nuclear reactor technology and heavy water, which is vital material for the operation of some types of nuclear reactors. However, these items are covered by Australia's bilateral agreements and therefore are required to be controlled by this legislation. The definitions in the Bill ensure that the necessary items are brought within the coverage of the legislation. The key element in the scheme to control nuclear items within Australia is the requirement to have permits to possess and to transport nuclear items. These provisions are set out in part II of the Bill. The permits are to be issued by the Minister while the administrative details are to be handled by the Director of the Australian Safeguards Office. The permits would be issued subject to conditions which would cover such matters as duration of the permit, the location in which the item may be kept, the uses to which the item may be put, the persons who may have access to the item, transport, transfer and disposal conditions and so on. The intention is that every aspect of the possession, use and transport of nuclear items should be strictly controlled and that nothing could be done without appropriate authorisation. In addition to the permit requirements, special authorisation is required to communicate information, strictly defined as information primarily applicable to enrichment or reprocessing of nuclear material, production of heavy water or the making of nuclear weapons, being information that is not in the public arena. Part II of the Bill also includes a provision allowing the Minister to exempt certain material from the provisions of this legislation. Such an exemption may be made only where safeguards in relation to the nuclear material have been terminated in accordance with the IAEA Agreement. This could arise where, for example, the nuclear material has been transferred out of the country, has been consumed or diluted or is to be used in non-nuclear activities. Any exemptions under these provisions are to be tabled in Parliament and are therefore subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. Part III of the Bill creates offences. Division 1 sets out the offences related to the administration of the controls established by the legislation. These offences include the possession and transport of nuclear items without a permit, breach of a condition of a permit, unauthorised communication of sensitive information and action interfering with the proper exercise of the functions of inspectors and the Director of the Safeguards Office. Appropriate monetary penalties and terms of imprisonment are provided for these offences. Division 2 creates offences required to comply with our obligations under the Physical Protection Convention and to underscore the severity of such offences. Very substantial penalties are provided for these offences. As I mentioned earlier, this portion of the Bill will be brought into force when Australia ratifies the Physical Protection Convention. Part IV of the Bill deals with administrative matters. A statutory position of Director of Safeguards is created by the Bill and the Australian Safeguards Office is established by statute. The Director is to be appointed by the Governor-General for a period of up to five years while the Director's staff are to be departmental officers. This arrangement will give the Director the desired amount of independence without incurring the expense of a statutory authority. The functions of the Director shall be essentially twofold. On the one hand, the Director will be responsible for ensuring the effective operation of the system of accounting for and control of nuclear material and items within Australia as required by the IAEA Agreement and our bilateral safeguards agreements. On the other hand, he or she will be responsible for keeping account of Australian origin uranium in other countries and monitoring the compliance of our treaty partners with the terms of the bilateral agreements. These functions have been carried out to date by the Australian Safeguards Office without legislative backing and a highly efficient and effective accounting system has been established. I would like to say, at this stage, a word of praise for the Australian Safeguards Office which has been carrying out its job most satisfactorily and, I am certain, will continue to do so under this legislation. In addition to these primary functions, the Director will have the function of providing advice to the Minister on safeguards matters and providing a technical input into policy formulation by the relevant Departments. The Director will also be responsible for carrying out and co-ordinating research related to nuclear safeguards. Australia is a very strong supporter of the IAEA and, in addition to its mandatory contribution to the Agency, provides voluntary financial assistance to the continued search by the Agency to improve safeguards. This assistance usually takes the form of research done in Australia or the provision of experts to the Agency in Vienna at no cost to the Agency. The technical aspects of such assistance are carried out and will continue to be carried out by the Australian Safeguards Office in conjunction with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and its successor the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. The Director will be required to furnish an annual report to the Minister to be laid before each House of Parliament. Under an amendment in the Senate accepted by the Government, the report will include information on transfers of Australian origin nuclear material to other countries. It had been intended that information of the kind contemplated in the amendment would be included in the report and the Government is happy to formalise the position. Publication of this information will serve to increase public confidence in the operation of the safeguards system and Australia's network of bilateral safeguards agreements. The Director will be assisted by inspectors whose functions will be to carry out inspections as required to ensure compliance with the provisions of the legislation and permit conditions. The inspectors will have rights of entry with the consent of an occupier of relevant premises, in accordance with an agreement or in pursuance of a warrant. They will also have the right of seizure of nuclear items in certain circumstances. The Bill also outlines the functions of IAEA inspectors. Under the agreement with the IAEA Australia is under an obligation to allow inspection of all nuclear material subject to the agreement. These inspections are carried out by IAEA inspectors who visit Australia regularly for that purpose. The IAEA inspectors are accompanied by Australian Safeguards Office inspectors on all their inspection visits and entry to nuclear establishments is arranged by the Safeguards Office. The legislation will provide the Safeguards Office with the necessary powers to ensure that Australia is able to comply with its obligations to the IAEA in respect of entry by IAEA inspectors. Part V of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions. Attention is drawn to clause 70 which provides that any powers or functions under the legislation are to be exercised in accordance with relevant international agreements. The international agreements which this Bill is intended to implement spell out in some detail Australia's international obligations. Some of these obligations require domestic law for their implementation. The scheme adopted by this Bill is not to attempt to spell out these obligations but to confer fairly general powers on the Minister and the Director which would enable them to enforce Australia's domestic obligations in so far as they required enforcement by domestic law. Clause 70 is designed to ensure that the Minister and the Director act in accordance with Australia's international obligations in carrying out their duties. I commend the Bill to the House and I tender the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I understand that it would suit the convenience of the House to proceed to the second reading debate forthwith. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(9.03) —The Opposition supports the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986. The Bill implements policies which the Opposition strongly supports and which have been developed by previous governments as well as by this Government. Australia's commitment to non-proliferation has been enshrined in a number of international agreements. They are the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and our agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, both under the nuclear non-proliferation regime and Australia's bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements. The purpose of this legislation is to give effect in Australia's domestic law to Australia's international obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The Bill addresses the international obligations arising under the nuclear non-proliferation regime, specifically in the Non-Proliferation Treaty ratified by Australia in 1973, and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the instrument which enforces the obligations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty throughout the world. It also gives effect in Australian domestic law to the bilateral safeguards agreements in respect of the export of Australian uranium oxide or yellowcake. Although Australia has been a prominent supporter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime for many years and is a member of the governing council of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and although we have the Atomic Energy Agency and all the bilateral safeguards Bills pioneered by the Fraser Government, so far we have been able to get by under this international regime without legislation of the kind that is now before us, and we have been able to satisfy those international obligations. Indeed, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in his second reading speech said that this approach has been successful and there has never been the slightest suggestion from the bilateral partner or from IAEA that Australia has not complied with its nuclear safeguards obligations. One must ask why-I do not think the Minister for Resources and Energy has said why-it is necessary to have this legislation on the books. The Government may feel it is desirable for political reasons. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation because it gives effect to policies supported by the Opposition. But there is a tendency for the Government to believe that there are some benefits per se in passing legislation. Certainly the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is in charge of this Bill, is a great proponent of the belief in legislation for its own sake. I do not know whether this legislation is in that category. I would like some further explanation from the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, as to why we are putting on the statute books a long, complicated and difficult piece of legislation which contains draconian penalties. As I said, the principal purpose of this legislation is to give effect in Australian domestic law to Australia's international obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons prohibits the transfer by the nuclear weapons States to any recipient whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. It prohibits the assistance, encouragement and inducement of any non-nuclear weapons state to manufacture or otherwise acquire such weapons or devices. It prohibits the receipt by non-nuclear weapons states from any transferor whatsoever, as well as the manufacture or other acquisition by those states of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Under the Treaty, non-nuclear weapons states undertake to conclude safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency-IAEA-with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful purposes to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The International Atomic Energy Agency is the watchdog and policeman of this regime throughout all the nations which are parties to it. The signatories also undertake to facilitate the exchange of equipment, material and scientific and technological information for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to ensure that potential benefits from peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear weapons parties to the Treaty. The parties undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament. In short, the Non-Proliferation Treaty is an agreement under which signatory non-nuclear weapons states, in exchange for access to peaceful nuclear technology, undertake not to develop nuclear weapons. The purpose of this Treaty is to prevent the diversion of nuclear material from use for peaceful purposes to the development of nuclear weapons. The international importance of this regime, if not almost universally acknowledged, certainly should be. Unfortunately, as we know, a number of nations are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Obviously, the more nations which sign this Treaty and which can keep control over the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes, the more likely it is that the nuclear non-proliferation regime will be successful. As I have said, the Opposition supports the Bill that is before the House. The Bill gives legislative effect to our safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under this agreement a safeguards system has been established whereby all nuclear material within Australia is controlled and accounted for by the Australian Safeguards Office, which reports to the IAEA. The IAEA, for its part, verifies the reports by regular inspections of nuclear material held in Australia. This system is designed to verify the performance of international obligations. The legislation also gives effect in Australian domestic law to the bilateral safeguards agreement in respect of the export of Australian uranium oxide or yellowcake. The Government permits exports of Australian uranium only to countries with which Australia has a bilateral safeguards agreement. These agreements provide a detailed set of safeguard requirements designed to provide assurance not only that uranium of Australian origin remains in the civil nuclear fuel cycle, but also that Australia can at all times account for it. This is achieved by ensuring that the safeguards requirements apply to all transfers, processing and use of Australian uranium or uranium derived material. In addition to the safeguards agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Australia now has 11 bilateral safeguards agreements. These agreements were pioneered by the Fraser Government and will be continued and developed by the coalition parties when we are returned to office at the next election. Mr Maher —Ha, ha! Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am glad that some note is being taken of this by members on the other side of the House. It is rather interesting that there are only three members on the Labor benches who appear to have an interest in this matter. The international non-proliferation regime does not begin at the uranium mining stage. In other words, it does not apply to the monitoring and checking of yellowcake production and sale. But our own bilateral safeguards agreements require that control, even at the production stage. It is a condition of our export of uranium under those agreements that these safeguard arrangements should apply. They give an added dimension to the safety and control of the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes in which Australia participates by the mining, milling and export of uranium. Thus these bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements extend further, in a more developed and sophisticated way, the obligations that Australia has under the International Atomic Energy Agency Statute and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As we have already seen in last Thursday's debate on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, unfortunately as a result of this Government's policy, Australia has only a limited nuclear industry, which is constricted even further as government policy is maintained. At that time I made a comparison with the development of the nuclear industry in Canada, which has basically the same conditions. Canada has the reserves, does the mining and has the technology. It is able to put its nuclear power to use for peaceful purposes in a country which desperately needs that type of energy, particularly with the difficulties being encountered through traditional methods of using other energy resources. Australia is mining and exporting uranium from only three mines and this is the contrast with Canada. One of these mines has a very limited life, but the Government's policy will not even allow that mine to be replaced by another. Indeed, there seems to be some doubt about the extent to which the Government will allow Queensland Mines Ltd to continue to pursue reserves elsewhere. The Australian uranium industry is very small and under this Government it has little growth. The Opposition is most concerned about the Hawke Government's irrational policies on the development of uranium mines and the nuclear industry in Australia. In fact, Australia has few industries available to it which offer such scope for growth and development. We should not delay the opportunity for further development of the uranium industry in Australia. The Opposition supports the mining and milling of uranium, subject to stringent Australian health and safety standards, and we would remove the veto on the development of new uranium deposits. Most importantly, from a trade point of view, the export of uranium would be permitted subject to existing stringent safeguards agreements put in place by the Fraser-Anthony Government. Australia has low-cost uranium resources totalling 530,000 tonnes-a staggering 28 per cent of the world's low-cost uranium resources; more than a quarter of those resources throughout the world. The Northern Territory alone possesses 350,000 tonnes of this. The value of the existing Northern Territory uranium is more than $30 billion. I would like honourable members to consider the amount which would be available in the light of Australia's foreign debt at the moment, which is more than $100 billion. If ever there was a case where Australia needed extra dollars on the export market, it is here-it is this industry at which we should be looking. It could help to alleviate the grave situation which we now face. With more than one quarter of the Western world's estimated uranium resources, Australia should be a major force in the international market, rather than the minor player that it is. The possible returns of additional exports, under stringent safeguards, are several times our existing earnings from uranium. The longer we keep our uranium in the ground, the more difficult it will be for our producers, both current and potential, to expand their exports. Therefore, we are denying ourselves one further support for our bleeding balance of payments. Several aspects of Australia's obligation under IAEA agreement and bilateral agreements require domestic implementation through control of the possession and transport of nuclear material, nuclear equipment or technology. This Bill addresses these aspects. The Bill really applies only to the mining companies and, of course, to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. However, it would also apply to universities; particularly to independent research into the nuclear fuel cycle in those universities. It may have implications for academic research. I am told that is does not apply to the production of radio-isotopes as a by-product of the Lucas Heights reactor, but it does apply to the use of depleted uranium in several commercial activities. The Bill imposes draconian penalties for those who possess or transport nuclear materials without the permits that are required under this legislation. The Minister for Resources and Energy indicated in his second reading speech that the Government had widely advertised the possible application of this legislation so that those people who may be caught by it will almost certainly be alerted and will be able to obtain the necessary permit. Fortunately, there is no evidence in Australia of any misuse of nuclear material by way of diversion to weapons production. Nevertheless, the legislation could apply to quite innocent people who are going about their affairs in a lawful manner and who may not know it. The Opposition would like to know the result of those advertisements. Does the Government believe that its efforts to alert people to the dangers of the possible application of this Bill to them have been successful and does the Government feel that innocent people will not be affected by the application of the legislation? The scheme of this Bill requires a permit for the possession and transport of nuclear material and associated items. The term `associated items' is widely defined to refer to equipment designed for use in nuclear activities, such as the enrichment of uranium, and nuclear reactor technology. It also covers documents containing information other than that contained in lawfully available publications concerning such equipment, material or processes. Heavy penalties are imposed on people or institutions which do not acquire the necessary permits for possession of this equipment or who may exchange information. Again, there seems to be real concern that academic researchers going about their ordinary endeavours of pure scientific research may well be caught by the extended definitions in this Bill related to associated items unless there is the necessary publicity. This could be a considerable concern to people in universities. It could affect scientists in independent institutions and the Atomic Energy Commission itself, although I presume that the Commission will be sufficiently alert to the provisions to ensure that it is not caught by them. Nevertheless, this could happen. I urge the Government to give some attention to this aspect of the legislation. I feel that there is a serious problem here in terms of academic freedom and research in the fact that the permission of the Minister will be required for such research to be carried out in relation to associated items connected with nuclear material. The question must be raised whether this in itself will add to the `brain drain' from Australia associated with the shortsightedness of this Government in this and other research fields. I would also like an explanation on how the Government sees the legislation being administered sensibly, not increasing the paperwork, red tape, bureaucracy and general irritation that people feel flowing from the extended regulations that this Government seems continually to impose on the Australian electorate. By that I mean the additional cost of compliance to the people who wish to work under this Bill in this area of research. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill before the House also contains provision to give effect to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which Australia has signed but not yet ratified. Perhaps the Government will give some indication of its plans for the ratification of this Convention. The Convention is aimed at the unlawful acquisition of nuclear material by theft, fraud, robbery, et cetera. Of course, in this day and age it is not fanciful by any means to suggest that this could occur. Therefore, strict international rules should be implemented, as far as possible, by all nations, and most certainly by all of those which are parties to this Convention. Another thing that this Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill does is to upgrade the status of the Australian Safeguards Office to that of a statutory authority, with the Director of the Office being appointed by the Governor-General. The role of this Office is to act as a nuclear policeman within Australia, as the agent of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and to police our safeguards agreements in relation to exported Australian uranium. This is a very important and significant role. The Opposition supports giving that Office this additional status. I will be proceeding to move amendments in the Committee stage of this Bill. The Opposition is seriously worried about the extent to which this Bill could be used by a government to prevent the operation of the defence arrangements with our nuclear allies. The Bill in general requires a permit for the possession or transport of nuclear material, but it would be almost impossible to administer this legislation literally when it comes to our existing defence arrangements. It is clear that under the ANZUS Treaty and within our traditional Western alliance we have in our defence arrangements allies who are nuclear powers and who do not, as a matter of policy, state whether their warships carry nuclear weapons. The ANZUS Treaty and other less formal but traditional alliances with our other allies are very important to the defence of this country. The fact is that some of these countries possess nuclear weapons. They have ships that carry nuclear weapons; they have nuclear powered ships and so on; and, as far as these international agreements are concerned, they quite lawfully possess that material. Whether or not some people like it, it happens to be the Government's policy to allow those ships to come to Australia, and indeed to welcome them. It is certainly the Opposition's policy to do so also. As we well know, a number of people in Australia take very active steps to protest about these visits. A very small and probably declining element in the Australian community is prepared to take very extreme steps to make its objections to this known and, I suggest to the Government, would even be prone to taking legal steps to try to prevent this from occurring. It seems to me that we could well have a situation in which the interpretation of this legislation could be put in question by certain people in Australia for very political reasons. If this situation arose I think there would be a difficulty. There may well be a difficulty in explaining to a court exactly what is intended by this legislation and by the international instruments to which it gives effect. I am concerned that we should make it explicit that this legislation does not apply to our defence arrangements, particularly our defence arrangements dealing with our nuclear allies. The suggested amendment seeks to insert in the legislation a provision which makes it quite clear that this Bill and all the international instruments with which it deals will not apply to our defence arrangements, and in particular to those arrangements with allies who are nuclear armed. Not only is it not intended that the legislation should apply to those defence arrangements but also as a matter of law it will not apply to them. The fact that the Government, through Senator Gareth Evans in the Senate, has confirmed this is some comfort for the future, and hopefully will add to the strength of the otherwise powerful legal argument that would be advanced in courts by the Government if the eventuality that I fear did occur. I still believe it would be wise for this Parliament to make its view crystal clear, and not leave it to the discretion of some court in the future. One aspect of the proposed second amendment, which may be more controversial than the first amendment, is that it deals with proceedings before a court relating to an alleged offence under this proposed Act; that is, the offence of possessing or transporting nuclear material. As our allies may not wish to confirm or deny that nuclear arms are being carried on their warships or on their aircraft when they come into Australia, this Bill could potentially have a very serious effect on those defence arrangements. In court proceedings in relation to an offence against this proposed Act, involving matters which may relate to visiting ships, aircraft, equipment or members of an allied force, the court should be closed. I know there is a clause in the legislation which will give the courts powers to have a hearing in camera in relation to proceedings under this legislation. However, the Opposition's objection to that is that it is giving a discretion to the courts. As I have already said, the Opposition is not happy about the way in which such discretion might be exercised by some judicial officers. Therefore, I think it ought to be quite clearly laid down in the legislation in this way. With the reservations I have outlined, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill before the House. We would like to have assurances from the Government on the various matters that I have raised. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.25) —The former member for Hughes, Mr Johnson, told me that many years ago when he was a young member of this Parliament a group of members went to the Northern Territory to inspect what I think was the Mary Kathleen mine. Mr Braithwaite —No, that is in Queensland. Mr MAHER —In Queensland. One of the managers of the mine said `There is nothing wrong with yellowcake, no matter what they say', and he plunged his arms into a big barrel of yellowcake and let it run down them. I remember Mr Johnson saying: `I wonder where he is now'. I hope that this Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 would do something about stopping such a performance because uranium, yellowcake and other nuclear materials are dangerous substances which can kill and which have enormous potential for evil. I hope that this legislation will control the handling of yellowcake and limit such demonstrations in future. My attitude to this legislation is one of great hope. I am pleased that the Government is legislating to enshrine in an Act of this Parliament the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. For no other reason, I would say to the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) that the Government is also legalising and codifying the work and the role of the Australian Safeguards Office. I would also say to the honourable member that, while he may consider it essential or desirable that we have an extension of the uranium industry and a greater area of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia, when the coalition was in government no action was taken to extend it. There was some talk of having a nuclear reactor at Nowra, but nothing proceeded. The honourable member also talked about there being not much growth in the sales of uranium, but it is an industry in which I understand there is an oversupply of uranium. The Australian Science and Technology Council report, produced by Professor Slatyer, I think, in 1984 pointed out that there is an oversupply of uranium and that in no way can Roxby Downs be cranked up to sell uranium to solve our balance of payments problem. All this uranium would flood the market; the world price of uranium would fall; and we would have nothing to gain. The honourable member also touched on the issue of the brain drain from Australia. Having a wife who is a scientist, I can assure him that, if anything, our scientists are coming back to Australia. People who were attracted to the United States in the 1960s or 1970s are now trying to get back to Australia. The exciting thing about it all is this codification in the Australian law of Article IV and Article VI of the Treaty, which says: Each of the Parties to the Treaty- 133 separate states have ratified the Treaty- undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race . . . Unfortunately, the area of arms control and disarmament is not one in which the Treaty has been a great success to date. However, it has been successful in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. That was the American and Russian idea when this Treaty came into being in 1970. The critics of the Treaty say: `Well, a lot of countries have not signed it'. Some countries have not signed it. Nevertheless, the Treaty has stopped the spread of nuclear weapons. No one really knows whether Israel, Pakistan or India have nuclear weapons. A smaller treaty covers the countries of South America. But Article IV of the Treaty requires that countries which have nuclear material such as uranium make that material available for peaceful purposes to countries that do not have it. In that sense it discourages countries from entering the nuclear fuel cycle. It encourages them to obtain supplies of uranium for use in nuclear power stations which are being operated for domestic purposes and for industry. These countries can obtain uranium from countries such as Australia or Canada. We have a legal obligation to supply uranium. We know that nuclear weapons are disastrous and that they could destroy the earth with a destructive force which is quite unknown and almost unimaginable. Perhaps Chernobyl is an example of what could happen if there were a nuclear explosion. We hear talk of the possibility of a nuclear winter. People are frightened by talk about nuclear power. They mix up nuclear weapons with the domestic use of uranium for the generation of electricity. Last year I had the opportunity to visit Finland and for the first time in my life to visit a nuclear power station. I was able to see how it was run and directed and the security precautions that were taken. I visited the power station in January when it was extremely cold. It was minus 28 degrees outside. It is only when one is in a country such as Finland in the winter that one appreciates the demand for electricity and power in a European winter. Finland is a typical northern country in that it generates about 40 per cent of its power from nuclear fuel. It has four big power stations-two built by the Russians and two by the Swedes. The Finns have appalling problems from acid rain produced by the coal-fired power stations to the south and to the west. The acid rain has killed their lakes. It has driven the fish out of the streams and is killing their trees. Acid rain is an environmental nightmare which is produced by the fossil fuel burning power stations, the type of power station that we have in Australia. But Australia is lucky. We have great quantities of coal on the mainland and Tasmania has water with which to generate hydroelectricity. We are also blessed in that we do not have severe winters. The whole purpose of Article IV of this agreement is to allow the Government of this nation, legally by Act of Parliament, to make uranium available to nations which are signatories to it. Australia has 10 bilateral agreements on nuclear safeguards with Finland, the Philippines, Korea, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Sweden, Japan and Euratom. Euratom covers a number of other countries-Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The Australian newspapers were full of criticism when last year the Government sold uranium to France as a result of a Budget decision. The Australian Government and the French Government have bilateral agreements. France, which is also part of Euratom, complies with the requirements of the international atomic energy authorities. The Australian uranium sales are quite significant in Europe. The report of the Australian Science and Technology Council has projected that there will be continuing amounts of uranium sold by Australia for use in electricity and power generating plants in countries throughout the world that have no fossil fuels. I have looked at this whole question of the use of uranium for peaceful purposes. I know that uranium is a dangerous substance and one that does not break down easily as waste. The spent fuel rods have to be kept away from contact with human beings for years-perhaps hundreds or thousands of years. But many substances do not have even a half life. Uranium has a half life and eventually, in the fullness of time-not in our time-it will break down. But as I said, many substances do not have a half life. Europe has great problems in getting rid of its poisons-arsenic and all the residues from the production of plastics and chemicals. We in Australia have no conception of these problems. The Europeans also have the problem of storing nuclear waste. I was impressed with the safeguards that were adopted by the Finns in relation to the storage of spent fuel rods. The Finns told me that they use Australian uranium. Of course, they are one of the countries with which we have an agreement. In fact, much of Australia's high quality paper-probably some of the paper in front of me that I have written on-was made in Finland by companies that buy their power from the nuclear power stations. I believe that the Government has acted very positively in legislating for the enactment of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I feel that in general people in the community have a fair way to go in appreciating the differences between the production of uranium for use in military weapons, which the Government is doing everything to stop, wind down and discourage, and the use of uranium to generate electricity overseas. The honourable member for Dawson touched on alleged problems with our allies in defence. I find it very hard even to conceptualise what he was talking about. Does he feel that an American warship visiting Garden Island in the middle of Sydney Harbour will suddenly offload nuclear armaments on to the wharf? Does he feel that nuclear armaments will be offloaded in the electorate of Wentworth opposite the Domain Baths where my children sometimes swim on a Sunday afternoon? It is silly to propose that some situation like that will happen. American forces are very welcome to come to our ports. The American Navy has always been welcome in Australia. Many streets in my electorate, at Five Dock, are named after the American Fleet that came out here at the turn of the century. The Australians have always welcomed our American allies. They are our major ally, our ANZUS partner, and I feel that many of the comments by the honourable member for Dawson were quite irrelevant. I again commend the Government for legislating for this Treaty. I hope that the Department of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) will mount a public campaign to highlight the differences between use of uranium for nuclear weapons, which we oppose, and the use of uranium for peaceful purposes. Also, we should adopt a policy of conserving use of our fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have uses in pharmaceuticals and medicines. They have a lot of important uses but once they are mined they are gone forever. We will be in great trouble if Australia's resources continue to disappear at the rate they are approaching. During the last election campaign I attended a meeting which was also attended by the Australian Democrats candidate and the Anti-Nuclear Party candidate, but not by the Liberal Party of Australia candidate. Everyone supported the Non-Proliferation Treaty but I was the only one who supported the sale of uranium for power generation. I said: `You have to support the sale of uranium if you support the Non-Proliferation Treaty because Article IV says so'. That is what the Treaty is all about-to stop countries taking up nuclear arms but to encourage and facilitate the sale of uranium and know-how for peaceful purposes. Article IV talks about peaceful purposes without discrimination. So one cannot pick and choose once one has an agreement. One has to sell the know-how or the yellowcake to countries that wish to proceed to use nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes for generating electricity. I will not delay the House. I commend the Minister for Resources and Energy for bringing this legislation forward. I know that the only contact that most Australians have with nuclear matters is perhaps through a nuclear medicine department in a big public hospital. The uses of nuclear fuel are increasing and it is important at this time. I believe that the Australian Government has legislated to cover this field totally, particularly as we signed the agreement way back in 1973. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.41) —The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill sets up the Australian Safeguards Office as a statutory office. The terminology `nuclear safeguards' readily communicates an understanding of the subject denoted by the term. But safeguards are best thought of as the measures or the arrangements which are set in place to prevent the wrongful use of nuclear materials, such as uranium. The great issue is to prevent the flow of materials produced for peaceful uses from being misappropriated for military purposes. The activity of making such arrangements has been going on for decades. There is nothing new, except to make doubly sure that any Australian government can make good the assurance to the Australian people that Australian exported uranium is not contributing to military purposes-those of either friend or foe. This legislation is about making good the assurance that Australian uranium will not supply a military program. Earlier today I made remarks on the legislation for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and I pointed out that Australian scientists and officials have played a most significant and creative part in the international program to develop international safeguards to limit any leakage to military use of nuclear materials dedicated for peaceful purposes. The destructive power of nuclear energy is a force which we and future generations have to contend with. It is a terrible and frightening technology when dedicated to military use. We have seen the dangers of international competition to gain a predominant use of that power. We have seen that technology for military purposes used increasingly to drain away resources which would be better used, and are tragically needed, for the betterment of mankind. We have seen political leaders impotent in their efforts to get out of this human predicament. Arms control negotiations have been exhaustively pursued; not made easier, one might add, by the terrible record of the Soviet Union in its handling of international issues. So there is no doubting the legitimacy of those fears that embrace all of us. So terrible is the issue that it has become an obvious theorem of super-power relationship that neither side should allow its relationship to develop into confrontation. The terrible drain on the public purse and international stability of the arms race in nuclear weapons have given great credibility to all those groups that seek to raise political concerns in Australia. There has, however, been one fundamental confusion-a confusion which, I believe, creates its own special form of disaster-and that is the argument that nuclear energy is the bad thing, not just the military use of it. I beleive that the Soviet Union found it convenient, through instrumentalities such as the World Peace Council, to confound the argument in this way. It reckoned that, if Western public opinion was manipulated to oppose nuclear energy in all its forms, as a spin-off the pressure would complicate the whole Western defence system. It would be easier to mobilise political objections to military deployment. We can see so readily how this system has worked in New Zealand. I remind the House that significant trade unions in New Zealand are affiliated with the World Peace Council and they make it mandatory for the New Zealand Government to follow a policy which has had the effect of banning of United States ships in New Zealand ports. Mr Cleeland —Down with peace. Mr MacKELLAR —This Government fell into the trap of appeasing the same forces by developing a nuclear free zone treaty in the Pacific, against United States objections. The point I am making is that a very great mischief has been done by the campaign to condemn all forms of nuclear energy. I am sure that the honourable member for McEwen, who interjected, has not really considered these matters. He is just a tool of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Cleeland —I just like peace. Mr MacKELLAR —Do we not all like peace? How to obtain it is the essential argument. I have said that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics saw advantage in this program and its supporters were amongst it strongest advocates. I will not dwell on this point further except to draw attention to an article last week written by Mr Mark Baker, the Age diplomatic correspondent. This article, which is entitled `Nuclear-free Pacific has high price', points out that, as a result of this Government's initiatives, the Pacific Forum may denounce the United States. It is clear that this Government made the mistake of going against United States advice and, as a result, the United States has had to criticise the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Mark Baker said: The confirmation two weeks ago that the US will not ratify the relevant protocols of the Treaty has raised the prospect of even deeper enmity in a community whose security and unity the whole process was intended to enhance. Mr Hand —Shame on them! Mr MacKELLAR —The honourable member says: Shame on Mark Baker for saying that it has brought about this problem with the United States. Mark Baker has been utterly realistic in what the results of this treaty have been in real terms-something that the Left has not really considered. The article is written with a keen sense of criticism of the United States, but the fact remains that this kind of response to nuclear power derives from the Soviet-inspired campaign to blackball all nuclear energy. Mark Baker also said: Yet again the Soviet Union has picked up a diplomatic windfall without cost. The simple fact is that the concerns about all forms of nuclear energy lie at the heart of this Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The Hawke Government wanted to export uranium and, rather than confront its left wing, it chose to press on with the Nuclear Free Zone Treaty which the Age now depicts as a diplomatic disaster. But this legislation before the House is a different thing. It proceeds on the premise that the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is of benefit to mankind. It is practicable for Australia to contribute to the world's supply of nuclear energy and thereby contribute to the betterment of mankind. Earlier I placed on record my concern that the Australian Government was imprudently reducing the future technological contribution Australia should be making to the future in this field. We will do this by denying ourselves any research effort into developments in the nuclear fuel cycle. We will no longer be in a position to contribute as effectively in the future as we have in the past to the development of creative policy making in this field. If the left wingers on the Government side think that is a good thing, let that be on their consciences. Mr Hand —It is a good thing. Mr MacKELLAR —The honourable member for Melbourne said that it is a good thing that we can no longer contribute creatively to efforts in this field. In the course of time our Safeguards Office, instead of being first rate will become second rate and that is a characteristic of second rate left wing thought. That seems to me to be inevitable. So often we fail to realise that diplomacy in the field of international regulation has to have high grade scientific backup I have not heard that argued for one moment by the apologists for the Left in this Parliament. Why have they not addressed this fundamental problem? Of course, in the future this is where the gap will show. We will be seen to be a second rate nation in the area of technology. The distinguished contribution that Australia has made in this field in the past owes much to those Australian scientists who spent their professional lives at the frontiers of knowledge. I believe that it is illusory to think that the generalist skills of the Public Service will function adequately in a technically ill-served environment. Honourable members should not be surprised for a moment if the greenies come up with specious arguments which become difficult only because we have run down our scientific expertise. All honourable members on the Government side who have no inclination or understanding of the scientific detail required in this area should go out and gain a bit of knowledge. Again, this potential decline in our expertise is as a result of the decision of the Government to trade off to the Left Australia's involvement in monitoring the nuclear free cycle. The Left sees all nuclear energy as a bad thing. The Government would be better advised to use its not inconsiderable resources for intervening in the market-place of public opinion by taking the argument by the scruff of the neck and showing it for the dangers that it courts. The issue is to accept the reality that nuclear fuel creates very serious new problems. One cannot, as a matter of public policy, evaluate those problems except in the context of the alternative. The first reality is that modern industrial economics can function only if they have access to large resources of energy. Oil and coal, fossil fuels, have been the major source of much industrial power. Nuclear energy is a major option because the high use of fossil fuels leads to accelerated exhaustion of supply. Let me remind the House again that these supplies are finite. It is calculated that oil will be exhausted by the middle of the next century. We have heard just in recent weeks of the problems of the dwindling reserves of oil that have supplied this country. Excessive use of coal is creating a separate, but associated, problem. It is simply that there is an excessive quantity of pollutants which are destructive to the upper atmosphere. Let me deal with that matter for a moment. The upper atmosphere gets very poor attention by the political hippies of the Left who crusade against the sale of uranium. Yet the upper atmosphere protects our planet from destruction by maintaining a reasonable stability in our climatic patterns. But there is a serious possibility that the effects on the upper atmosphere may produce a fundamental global environmental crisis. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) made this clear in this House last year. He drew attention to the problems in relation to the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere caused by the fossil fuel pollutants, such as carbon dioxide. I remind the House that the effect of that is to heat up the upper atmosphere, causing what is called a greenhouse effect. The Minister for Science said that even now Australia should be taking action to minimise the onset of problems for coastal areas over the next decades. Nuclear energy decreases the incidence of fossil fuels polluting the upper atmosphere and that is simply a fact. A further fact is that even if the use of nuclear energy were undesirable, which I do not believe it is, there would be no way in which the nuclear power generating systems presently operating could be replaced. The fact is that while it is a matter of economic common sense to export uranium, it is also vital to ensure that adequate arrangements are made to prevent its misuse. The essential point is that adequate arrangements are made to prevent its misuse. The actions of the Government in this House this day are decreasing that possibility because they are undermining the scientific backup which must be available for those people entering into arrangements. It has been available in the past and it will simply not be available in the future. Mr Hand —That is not true and you know it. Mr MacKELLAR —It certainly is true, and the honourable member has not even argued it. I believe that Australia has a duty to clarify public opinion on the issue that nuclear energy is making energy systems which avoid an accelerating damage to that most vital part of our existence on earth-the upper atmosphere. We know, too, that grave problems are facing the northern hemisphere from the pollutant acids issuing from the effluent of coal-driven power stations. The loss of great forests and the consequence for present quality of life standards can only grow worse if this mindless attack on nuclear energy for power generation continues. I ask honourable members opposite who continue to interject to see for themselves the effects of acid rain on the forests of Europe. They should look at the effects of acid rain on the lakes in Sweden, where lime has to be dropped in to reduce the acidity of the water. They should look at the effect which is already taking place and then start to argue against the pollutant effects of fossil fuels being used to the exclusion of all else. There is no excuse for the protest movement against uranium not to take on this point, and if it were honest it would. But, of course, that is too much to hope for. It has been well illustrated and dramatised by the media. It is about time that spokespersons-honourable members should notice the term `spokespersons'-of the Australian Conservation Foundation changed their tune and mended the ways of those who have followed this organisation's diatribes of recent years. The Australian Conservation Foundation, in this matter, has done itself no credit and should now use its resources to heighten public concern about the problems posed by atmospheric pollution. That is a challenge that this Government could put before the Foundation, which, of course, is a major recipient of government funds. If the Government put that challenge before the Conservation Foundation it would, in my view, be a much more honest presentation than is presently the case. The Nuclear Safeguards Office will provide the function of reassurance about the export of Australian uranium. It is important that it functions in the framework of a positive evaluation of nuclear energy, and I believe that this Government should do more on that matter. If it does not, if the Australian position is undermined by lack of high grade scientific back-up, our position in terms of negotiations, our position in terms of strength of argument, will be seriously undermined. That is not a laughing matter; that is not a matter which one can simply shove to one side; that is not a matter for party polemics. It is a matter of fact. If the Government is to enter into negotiations with other governments, it needs the effective back-up not only of highly qualified public servants but also, behind that, it needs to have the back-up of well organised scientific opinion and expertise which can stand up against those people being put forward by the countries with which Australia is negotiating. This legislation, together with the legislation introduced earlier in this House by this Labor Government, will diminish Australia's possibilities and Australia's capabilities in that respect. Because of that, the whole nation, and the whole world, will be ill served. It is a matter which should be put aside from sheer factional differences, from party political differences; it is a matter of great international moment. To set it aside cavalierly in order to appease some form of radical Left or some group which says that it is important to denigrate nuclear energy as well as anything else to do with the nuclear cycle, is really to put this country in a position of great disadvantage and to diminish in a very real way the work that we can do and the influence that we can command on the world stage. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(9.57) —The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) dealt rather lightly with the problems of nuclear power and somewhat more dramatically with the problems of fossil fuels. One would not know from what he said that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill results from a three-way bargain among 120 countries which are party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear Non-Proliferation is concerned with the vitally important control of fissile nuclear material, sensitive nuclear technology, such as enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing, and certain materials of use in the nuclear fuel cycle such as heavy water and reactor grade graphite. Australia's commitment to non-proliferation has been enshrined in a number of international agreements. These are the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, our agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Australia's bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements. The honourable member for Warringah and the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher)-the previous two speakers- quite rightly spoke about the need to consider nuclear energy as an option. One must concede that most energy producing resources in the world are fairly finite, as was stated by the honourable member for Lowe. It is true that if we could use nuclear power we would be harnessing almost infinite resources. One of the big problems is that we have not yet come up with safe ways of using nuclear power, through either fission or fusion. However, I point out that through the fusion process, where atoms are forced together, not cracked apart, there is somewhat more safety. Unfortunately, in the cases of both fission and fusion, the operating plants can be adapted to the production of weapons materials. Only three or four years ago-in 1984-the Queen opened the Joint European-Torus JET-laboratory at Culham, which cost the equivalent of about $300m at the time and was designed to test the viability of harnessing nuclear fusion. The project brought together scientists and funding from about 10 European Community countries and two of their partner nations at the time, Sweden and Switzerland. They expressed the hope that by the mid twenty-first century, when oil and coal reserves would be running low, the world would be able to turn to fusion for virtually unlimited supplies of safe energy. Multi-million dollar projects are also under way in the Soviet Union, the United States and Japan testing that theory and developing the fusion technology. Unlike fission-the atom cracking process which fires nuclear power stations-fusion taps the energy generated when atoms of a particular kind are forced together. Certainly the fusion process is safer. One of the problems is that the neutron emission which occurs penetrates the whole of the machine or container of the process. So leaktightness is extremely important because virtually all the materials used in the construction of the reactor become radioactive. There is a similar problem with fission reactors, but with fusion there is more choice in the materials used, thus there is more control over what radioactive species are produced as a result of the reaction. Most of the radioactive products in a fusion reactor have shorter half lives than in a fission reactor. This is also a benefit. A visiting lecturer, G. W. K. Ford, who visited the University of New South Wales during 1985, stated: A pure fusion reactor would have no possibility of a nuclear criticality accident, and a fissile-breeding hybrid would be of such a geometrical arrangement that such an accident would be almost inconceivable. However, even in pure fusion reactors, induced radioactivity will impose a need for shutdown-heat removal and emergency core cooling to prevent melting; hybrids would have at least some of the shutdown cooling problems of fission reactors. There is good evidence that the Earth contains virtually infinite resources of fusion fuel materials for reactions based on the isotopes of hydrogen. They are very large even if the ocean resources are excluded. If, as seems most probable, it eventually proves economic-- (Quorum formed) I was just comparing fusion with fission in the nuclear process. I said: If . . . it eventually proves economic to extract lithium from seawater, where it exists at a concentration of something over a part per million, the energy resource is sufficient for the needs of mankind- for humankind, I should say- for many millions of years. Consequently world interest has concentrated on the- deuterium tritium- system but there are small groups studying fusion reactor systems that might avoid either or both of the inherent problems of tritium fuelling and neutron activation. A critic of nuclear fusion, Lawrence M. Lidsky, in Technology Review of October 1983 asks: Given all of fusion's liabilities, why are we working so hard on it? The universal availability of fuel has provided a strong motive to develop fusion, and it does promise some other substantial advantages over fission. To begin with, fusion generates much less radioactivity than fission, and there is no long-term storage problem for radioactive wastes. A fusion reactor would create a lot of tritium, which is radioactive and hard to contain. However, tritium's biological effects are relatively benign-it does not tend either to concentrate or to linger in living organisms-and it emits relatively weak radiation. After a short period of operation, the radioactivity from neutrons bombarding the structure of a fusion reactor itself would greatly exceed the feeble radioactivity of the tritium. He goes on to admit, though, that it could well be worth while persevering. He examines neutron free fusion. He admits: . . . the boron-11 reaction is nearly ideal. Neither the fuel nor the end products are radioactive. Furthermore, no neutrons capable of inducing radioactivity are produced. Because all the products of the boron-11 reaction are charged, they could theoretically be harnessed to generate electricity directly, without the inherent waste of generating steam to run a turbine. However, the high electric charge of boron (it has 5 protons) makes the task of designing an energy-producing system very difficult. My belief is that this ought not to stop us from continuing to investigate the possibilities of nuclear fusion. It has been found that tritium produces a very low, permissible concentration and incorporates itself into water. So we need to study systems which avoid the problem of tritium fuelling. Work is also proceeding on avoiding the problem I mentioned before of neutron activation. It seems to me that the work that is being done in many countries throughout the world may allow us to achieve fusion within a few years, at fairly high research costs. But because we have very finite alternative resources we ought to persevere. If we can tape the energy which is available for fusion we will be able to move into new fields of engineering and technological research. Scientists are saying that fusion power is not likely until the year 2020 or 2030. Certainly, on the basis of the all too early entry into nuclear power with fission processes we ought to proceed very carefully. I welcome the inspections under the Bill before us, but I suggest that we ought to pursue the fusion alternative. I am pleased to support the Bill. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.09) —As most honourable members would know, it is almost inarguable that I represent probably one of the most magnificent electorates in the world, the lovely electorate of Macquarie. In that particular electorate there are very lovely, wonderful, healthy people. Consequently it is with some sense of great responsibility that I speak on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill before the House at the moment. Springwood, where I live, is right in the middle of the City of the Blue Mountains, which has been declared a nuclear free zone-whatever that might happen to be; but it sounds good. We have before us a Bill which deals with two issues of the greatest concern to all Australians. The first is our responsibility to share our energy resources with other members of our global community-a very important point to be made. The second is the role we can play in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons-a point of equal importance. The Bill is this Parliament's signal to all those countries which share membership with Australia in the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons of our good faith in fulfilling our obligations under that particular Treaty. That is the Bill's general foreign policy intent. Its primary purpose is to give a legislative basis to the Australian Safeguards Office, as a number of speakers have already outlined. That Office is the Australian link in an international system of nuclear safeguards designed to ensure that nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes only. The Parliament, the Government and its predecessors have given much time and thought to the issue of how the development of our uranium resources might affect the peace of the world. As part of that process, for example, this Government, to its credit, commissioned a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. ASTEC, as it is called, provided not only a thorough report, but one which asked and answered the questions at the heart of the matter. It asked, for example, what the impact on peace might be if Australia were to export its uranium as an energy resource-and that is probably one of the major questions that the people are asking about our export of uranium today. It concluded: If international tensions are to be reduced and the prospects of a peaceful global environment enhanced, the importance of national and international energy security cannot be over-emphasised. The report continues: It is widely recognised that disruptions in the supply of resources of any sort have been a cause of international tension and, through human history, have led to war . . . It follows that, because of its substantial resources, Australia can make a significant contribution to the stability and reliability of energy supply through its uranium exports. ASTEC then asked two related questions. The first was: Would our exports make any difference to countries wanting to make nuclear weapons? That is another very significant question. I will quote its conclusion, because I think it is important that we understand exactly what the ASTEC report says on these matters. ASTEC concluded: There is no shortage of uranium in the world to provide the raw material for nuclear weapons. Uranium is distributed throughout the earth's crust and in the oceans so that most countries could locate adequate indigenous sources at costs that would be acceptable in terms of normal levels of military expenditure. They would not need to have deposits in commercial quantities. A country would therefore be able to develop a weapons program irrespective of whether or not there was an international trade in uranium for civil nuclear purposes. The second question asked was: If a country did want to develop such weapons, would it use its civil nuclear industry and the resource we provided to produce nuclear weapons? ASTEC concluded: Should a country decide to embark on a weapons program it is unlikely to use a civil power reactor to do so. This is because such a use would be inefficient, both in terms-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(10.15) —I rise to pay tribute tonight to several heroic men whose personal epic of courage and humanity many years ago stunned and inspired the Australian public at the time. Last Thursday, 19 February, was the fiftieth anniversary of the crash of a Stinson plane in the McPherson Ranges on the Queensland-New South Wales border, which took the lives of five of the seven men aboard. If it had not been for Bernard O'Reilly, a young bushman, all would have perished. Last weekend saw the 50th anniversary reunion of those few still living who were involved in this incredible episode, together with many of their relatives and descendants. The story of the Stinson crash and rescue was detailed by Bernard O'Reilly in the Australian classic, Green Mountains. No novelist, no matter how great his or her skill, could tell a story more moving or inspiring than that detailed in a mere 45 pages of this book. The Stinson tri-motor, with two pilots and five passengers, had set out from Brisbane's Archerfield Airport en route for Sydney. As the plane headed for Lismore, it was overwhelmed by cyclonic winds and dashed into a mountainside. When search parties failed to find the crash, it was concluded that the foul weather had forced the pilots to take a coastal route and that the plane had crashed into the sea. Bernard O'Reilly believed otherwise. As proprietor of the famous O'Reilly's Guest House, still operating in the Gold Coast hinterland, he heard stories from numerous local people of how they had seen or heard the plane fly overhead and disappear into the clouds over the ranges. More than a week after the plane had been reported missing, O'Reilly set out alone on a rescue mission. With only a few rations and a simple map, Bernard O'Reilly tackled the tangled jungle and mountains enveloped in cloud-an undertaking which, for anyone else, would almost certainly have been fatal. However, sheer determination and knowledge of this bush stood by him. Bernard O'Reilly was into the second day of his lonely and apparently hopeless search when he heard a faint call from somewhere in the bush ahead. Following the sound and the sighting of a dead tree, he found the crash site and was confronted by two surviving passengers, Joe Binstead and John Proud, who later became Sir John Proud, Chairman of Peko-Wallsend Ltd. Their nine-day survival in storm conditions with no provisions or shelter is unquestionably a tribute to human endurance and faithfulness of spirit. As the plane had burst into flames after it crashed Proud had smashed a window and, despite a broken leg, had helped Binstead out of the plane. Then Binstead helped a third survivor, Jim Westray. Westray set out down the mountainside to attempt to find help. His heroic effort to reach civilisation ended in tragedy. After a fall down a rock face which broke his ankle, he continued to crawl for miles down the mountain until, overwhelmed by his efforts, exposure and starvation, he died gazing in the direction of civilisation and rescue. At the crash site, Proud became feverish from his infected wound. Binstead found water 300 yards distant-down a rock face. As hope of Westray returning with rescuers faded, Binstead made the decision to remain with the helpless Proud, to bring him water and berries-and ultimately to risk dying of starvation and exposure beside him-rather than try to escape the jungle and harsh elements while he still had the strength. His twice daily trips to the water source became more and more arduous. His last journey to the water, before O'Reilly found them, had taken five hours. Bernard O'Reilly's main concern, then, was that the two men would die before he could bring them medical help. There was no time to waste. After making them as comfortable as possible, he set off again into the trackless jungle, using the old bushman's trick of following water to find the nearest settlement. Along the way, he found Jim Westray's body. After three hours and 14 kilometres of river gorge, he emerged from the wild bush and encountered in the dark of night a farmer to whom he relayed his news. Immediately a massive rescue operation was planned and mounted, but Bernard O'Reilly's personal mission was not over. He had already been going non-stop for 48 hours and continued for the next two days and nights. A medical team and strong teams of men were organised and O'Reilly lead them back up the gorge on a journey that took eight hours. As word spread, people rushed from miles around to help. Teams of men prepared to cut a 22-kilometre track up the spine of the range to provide for the stretchers descent. As the parade of rescuers, carefully carrying the two survivors, made its way down the perilous track through the mountains, Bernard O'Reilly had already become a national hero. He had shown that compassion, determination and the faith of one man could turn tragedy into a triumph of the human spirit. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.20) —I wish to refer to two events this even- ing. The first concerns some current management practices in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. One issue that has been drawn to my attention as being a matter of considerable concern in the ABC in Western Australia is that with the division of the ABC management structure into those employed in television and those employed in radio work, some people who in the past have been employed in the ABC in general and who have shared duties between both radio and television may in future be denied that opportunity. I choose, for example, to relate the experience of many people who are employed in the rural department of the ABC. In Western Australia-and I understand that the practice is similar in other States-those personnel who are employed in the rural radio section of the ABC have often been used in television work in areas such as Countrywide and presenting weather reports. One of the moves by the ABC to divide those functions of radio and television proposes that some of those personnel may not in future be able to share their duties between both sections of the ABC. I mention a gentleman called John Barnett in Western Australia who customarily works both on ABC radio and presents the weather in the evening. This in my view would constitute unnecessary demarcation of duties and at the same time would prevent an effective career development for somebody in that position. The ABC should be looking carefully at that proposed management practice. If it were to be the case, the ABC would be denying proper career development to some people but it would also mean that the audiences who have become accustomed to seeing people who can share duties between radio and television would be denied access to them. I choose other examples involving people who currently read news on ABC television but who also have the opportunity to present radio music programs in the area of specialisation on ABC radio. It is mooted that such people will be denied the opportunity to share duties between both departments. Sure, the challenge for the ABC is to use its resources more effectively and efficiently and not to erect demarcations where they do not already exist. My concern is that the practice which has been spoken about in the ABC of demarcating people into radio and/or television means that people may not be able to move freely between those departments. In particular, in Western Australia there may not be that opportunity for people such as John Barnett, who works in radio and television, to share his work. That would be a matter of real concern for the ABC audience and certainly for taxpayers who support the ABC because it would not be able to use resources most effectively. Another gentleman who comes to mind in this context is David Ellery, who presents music on radio to a high standard and also undertakes news reading on ABC television. I put this before the Parliament as I feel it is a matter of concern. The second matter is a very recent occurrence and for people who are interested in environmental matters it is one of considerable concern. Last weekend the King of the Point surfing competition was held at Trigg Island beach in Perth and it was marked by a surf of all of about half a metre. Because of the continued development of groynes and I suspect the recent development of the Hillarys boat harbour or marina in Perth, the surf beaches in Perth notably Trigg Island and Scarborough have become silted up. They have become so silted that it is now difficult to find any substantial surf at those beaches. This is the consequence of what I regard as short-sighted coastal management practices by local and to some extent State authorities in Western Australia which have meant that we now face a serious problem with what had been Perth's major surf beach attraction ceasing to be effective. The organisers of the King of the Point competition must feel let down because the surf was very poor. People I have spoken to recently have suggested that surf on metropolitan beaches where I surf has not been of any quality for the last few years. There is a problem because of the short-sighted attitude of some authorities who have allowed siltation to occur by building an excessive number of groynes and, I suspect, Hillarys boat harbour, although events may prove that to be otherwise. Clearly there is a problem that must be addressed involving proper coastal management and so far that problem has not been addressed. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.25) —The matter I wish to raise tonight concerns Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I know that I have spoken on this matter in the House on other occasions in the adjournment debate and by way of questions to the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). I am prompted to raise this matter again by the statement which was made last week by Mr John Menadue, the Executive Officer of Qantas Airways Ltd, who warned everybody of the problems relating to Sydney Airport and the fact that the facilities there are not sufficient to meet the demands of tourism in Australia. Mr White —Absolutely right. Mr COWAN —I believe, as my colleague says, that Mr Menadue was absolutely correct in what he asserted in the media. He was drawing Australia's attention to this because of the fact, as he explained, that at least two-thirds of international tourists who come to Australia travel through Sydney Airport. We know that in recent years there has been a great number of extra people coming to Australia and that there has not been sufficient planning to enable expansion of the airport to meet the demand. The fact is that there is need for an extra runway at the airport. I understand from reliable advice that it is practicable and possible to be able to put that extra runway in. Therefore, it is important for the future of the tourist industry that aircraft be allowed to fly into the airport, whereas at present there is a certain amount of frustration. People know that there is frustration and try to avoid flying into Sydney. Qantas, and I am sure other major airlines throughout the world, is aware of this factor and may not want to bring its planes into Sydney Airport. Sydney is recognised as the major city in Australia. This is a fact of life and, as Mr Menadue said, most of the people who come to Australia want to visit Sydney to see that great city of ours. The same argument applies to people visiting England. They want to go to London. It is so important that we bring tourists in to the airport and to electorates such as mine. It is a coastal electorate and a great attraction. On other occasions my main argument in respect of Sydney Airport has related to the problem of delay with intrastate and interstate aircraft arriving there. Mr Milton —And the problem of noise, too. Mr COWAN —Yes, that is certainly so. I have especially stressed the point that the other commuter passenger aircraft coming from the towns within New South Wales are consistently stood off the airport, particularly in the busy times throughout the day. In the last week I have been on two aircraft that have been kept out for over a quarter of an hour. That is a tremendous cost to aircraft owners which is reflected in fares. Many people fly into the Sydney metropolitan area because they have business to do there. I refer to the legal fraternity, accountants, businessmen, or people who wish to visit Sydney to obtain medical advice. They have appointments they wish to keep. However, if they are unable to fly in and to be sure of their arrival times in order to keep those appointments, they decide to travel on the highways which are already cluttered up with vehicles-with the heavy trucks, extra cars and coaches that travel those routes. It is important to provide the facilities to enable Sydney Airport to develop properly over the years. The tourist industry is important to Australia because of our balance of payments problem, and we must encourage the tourist industry to develop within Australia. I understand that Qantas estimates that by the end of 1988 twice the number of people could be coming to Australia as are coming now. We make about $1.5 billion a year from tourism now, so we could gain $3,000m from tourism within Australia. The new Sydney Airport is many years down the track because of its cost. I appeal to the Minister, who is a reasonable man, to look at the proposition again and to go ahead with the actual construction of the extra runway at the airport. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.30) —I have followed with some amusement the reports on the intrusion of a senior citizen from Queensland into the arena of Federal politics. I think that I, with my background, can be excused-more so than others-for taking Sir Joh more seriously than he would otherwise deserve. Today's front page headlines in the Age gave me some concern. They were: `Joh plans to run own team in poll' and `Brazil, the biggest debtor, stops paying the bills'. Such headlines bring childhood memories back to me. I recall, although faintly, other times, on another part of the globe, when raving lunatics came forward, in the name of providence, with their quick remedies-remedies that ultimately plunged humankind into the abyss of war and resulted in the death of 100 million people. I do not want to compare the situation today in Australia to that of depression-ravaged Europe in the 1930s. However, some similarities do exist. Recollections from my childhood-which I can assure honourable members was not a happy one, because of raving lunatics, with their simple solutions which brought untold misery to millions in Europe-remind me of Sir Joh's onslaught on our democratic system of government. Like his predecessors, Hitler and Mussolini, he has chosen the way of destabilisation of the conservative forces-to launch himself into a position of power. Mr Downer —Don't you think that is just a little unwarranted? Mr KENT —I am on the honourable member's side. He should listen. What we are witnessing today in Australia is the destabilisation and the ruin of the conservative parties. While some on my side of politics do not object to the havoc caused by Sir Joh to the conservative side, I do not find any comfort in it. I consider the conservatives as part of our democratic system and if that side of the equation is being wiped out so is our democratic system. I am far from being a supporter of the conservatives, but I lament the destruction of traditional conservative representation in our society as it will usher in the extremist fringe, with its unbridled greed for profits, led by a senile lunatic. I remember leaders like Sir Joh; leaders who had no policies; leaders who did not have to explain rationally what they proposed to do; leaders endorsed by no one but providence; leaders who brought ruin on their people and on humankind. I hope also that, like me, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is taking seriously the ravings of a power-hungry lunatic, especially in view of the support he has received from the media and his success in destabilising the conservative representation in the Parliament. If not taken seriously, we may yet witness the main rehearsal for the destruction of our democratic system. The only way to stop this lunatic sideshow becoming the main event is to call Sir Joh's bluff and call an election while there is still time to save the conservative side of politics. Let Sir Joh and his backers come forward in public view and present their policies publicly in an election campaign for public scrutiny. Only in such a way can the conservative side of politics in this country be saved, and saved it should be, as our democratic system is in question. I want the House to understand that I am calling for an election not to take advantage of the situation for party political reasons, but to call Sir Joh's bluff, to show him publicly for what he really is-a senile, empty headed dictator, devoid of policies, devoid of rationality, keeping his minority State Government in Queensland in power by a massive gerrymander. However, senile or not, rational or not, Sir Joh should be challenged and put under public scrutiny in an immediate election. Let him endorse his candidates, let him come forward and run for a Federal election. I think it is the Prime Minister's duty to call an election now, and once and for all dispose of the question of whether we in this Parliament allow ourselves to be dictated to from outside. Hesitation will only help the lunatic element in its quest for power, and therefore we should settle the question of democracy for Australia at once. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.35) —In listening to Question Time in this chamber over the past few days, one could be forgiven for believing that the Government was so on top of things that it really had nothing else to do than spend most of its time analysing a policy which the Opposition has not released, let alone agreed to, and which, as far as I know, has not even seen the light of day. Nonetheless, day after day in here we hear about this wonderful policy that the people on this side have not even seen. It is analysed in detail and we hear about $1 billion here and $2 billion there. It is a great sideshow but, unfortunately and sadly, it is a diversionary tactic by this Government to take away the attention of people in this chamber and, I suppose the Government hopes, outside, from what is a very sad state of affairs facing this country right now. If we look at some of the statistics which have been released on the financial situation facing Australia at the moment, it is disturbing. In fact, it is more than that; it is downright alarming. One of this Government's records which I am sure the Government is not very proud of is the sort of thing we found on the front page of the Melbourne Sun last week-the headline `$101,366,000,000-We're a nation in red'. Mr Downer —How much? Mr HAWKER —$101 billion. This is a record that I am sure the Government would not be too proud of. Yet day after day we hear all the great analyses by the economic experts on the other side of a policy that does not even exist. Is it not marvellous! We are going broke, but who cares? Tonight I want to talk about something which has probably been overshadowed a little by the incredible debts facing us as a nation, and that is the debt facing the farmers. At the National Farmers Federation conference a couple of weeks ago it was announced that it is likely that the farm debt in Australia will top $10 billion this year. That is $2 billion more than it was a year ago and a 25 per cent increase-- Mr Cunningham —How much have they got on deposit? Mr HAWKER —The honourable member ought to be ashamed of himself, when he claims to represent-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Is the honourable member for Wannon intending to participate in the debate or to wait for more interjections? Mr Downer —He won't last long. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mayo will cease interjecting as well. Mr HAWKER —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will accept your guidance. I draw the attention of honourable members to the incredible increase in farm debt. In the past year farm debt has increased by a staggering 25 per cent, yet this Government sits back and says that the farmers will be all right. When farmers were contributing something to our balance of trade, the Government would own them, but when things are not going so good, it does not want to know about them. When one looks at it, this is a reflection of the major failing in this Government's policies-that is, interest rates. It goes on and on. How many people will have to go broke before the Government realises the damage it has done by its irresponsible behaviour and the irresponsible policies it has been pursuing? This was brought home to me vividly when the farmers had their big march in Canberra last year. I was talking to a farmer and asked him why he was here. He said: `Well, I have just come here to try to get my point of view across. I have put 25 years into my farm and I do not want to see the whole lot just disappear'. That is the human side of it. It is all very well for the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) to laugh about the size of the debt and say that it does not matter, but there is a human side of it. Mr Slipper —They hate the farmers. Mr HAWKER —Yes. The human side of it is the suffering of people who have worked, many of them for a lifetime, and who are seeing the whole lot disappear under the weight of the interest rates that this Government continues to propagate, because its policies have failed dismally. Farm debt is one side and the total debt facing Australia is the other side, yet while all this is going on, while everything is crumbling before the Government, day after day this so-called Government lectures us about a policy that does not even exist. Quite frankly, it ought to get its priorities right and have another look at the real problems facing this nation. Mr GRACE(Fowler)(10.40) —I wish to refer to a speech I made in the House on 9 October 1986. This speech was made following representations to me by a constituent, Mrs Dries, regarding a dispute that she was having with the Delany Hall Nursing Home. I made the remarks quoted because of my belief in statements made to me by Mrs Dries, her daughter and a member of my research staff who is no longer in my employ. I now know that the statement I made contained certain inaccuracies and I regret any embarrassment that I may have caused. I wish to refer also to a speech made by Senator Peter Baume in another place last Thursday in which he referred to this matter. He also found cause to attack the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch). He stated that the honourable member had failed to take any action following representations made to him by the matron of Delany Hall Nursing Home last year. I wish to inform the House that the honourable member for Barton did approach me before Christmas last year. He told me that he had been approached by the matron and he asked me for full particulars of the case. I informed him that in view of the statements made to him, I would have to investigate the matter myself. However, as a result of the holiday period and my illness over Christmas, I was not in a position to furnish him with the answer he requested as quickly as I might have liked. I would point out that perhaps some of the criticism that has been aimed at me by Senator Baume for not checking my facts should also have applied to his unwarranted criticism of my colleague, the honourable member for Barton. I am informed that the honourable member was not contacted in connection with any action that he should have taken. In my opinion he should have been approached and had the same treatment as me. I apologise to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.42) —First, I wish to congratulate the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) on her speech in support of the O'Reillys and all those associated with the Stinson crash in south-east Queensland. My family has lived in that area for 150-odd years. I join with the honourable member for Moncrieff in congratulating and commending all those who were associated with that crash. People who have never been to that area or tramped through those jungles may not realise how remarkable this episode was. If one knows the sort of country that this is, and the sorts of bushman's skills that are required in order to find a pin prick in the middle of that vast jungle, one would appreciate the epic. All Australians would wish to congratulate Bernard O'Reilly and all those associated with that rescue. I wish to raise tonight the matter of the change of status of an airline ticket issued last October to Mrs Brown, wife of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). At the time and subsequently there was considerable Press speculation about this matter and it should really be cleared up, because the Parliament has not sat for long since that incident took place. I hope that the Minister, who has been warned that I will be raising this subject tonight, will take this opportunity or another later in the week to clear up some of the speculation surrounding the case. In brief, the media reports suggested that a first class government air ticket issued to Mrs Brown for a trip from Sydney to Adelaide and return was exchanged for an economy ticket and the difference in price was used to purchase a ticket for one of Mr Brown's sons. It was later reported that Mr Brown was required by the Government to repay this money. There are several unanswered questions resulting from this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that he seems to be going very close to casting aspersions on a member of the House. He should be aware that the only way in which one can do that is by substantive motion. To suggest that a Minister may have done something improper is a matter that should be dealt with by substantive motion, not by a series of questions in an adjournment debate. Mr WHITE —We have been through this matter once before in this House and I took the Speaker's advice. I am asking for clarification of a matter which has been widely canvassed in the Press over a matter of months. I am making no allegations. Before you reply to what I am saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind you that we had a member of the Government making the most outrageous allegations against the Premier of Queensland. No one pulled him up. I am not making any allegations; I am asking some questions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Standing Orders of the House provide that a member cannot call into question the integrity of another member. Whether one likes it or not, or whether it is fortuitous or not, the Premier of Queensland is not a member of this House and the Standing Order that relates to casting aspersions on a member of the House does not refer to the Premier of Queensland. So there are two different points that the honourable member for McPherson might heed. Mr WHITE —In the interests of time what I propose to do is ask five questions. I am not making any allegations; I am asking five questions that have been raised in the Press. I want to proceed by asking those questions. That is all I will say. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What I am drawing the honourable member's attention to is the fact that the procedures here are different from what might be in the Press or what might relate to the Premier of Queensland. He should be aware of that. Mr WHITE —The first question is: Did the Minister or anyone else ring Ansett Airlines of Australia and request and exchange-- Mr Fitzgibbon —I raise a point of order. I ask whether it is appropriate for an honourable member of this House to ask questions of a person who is not present. Would it not be more appropriate to ask the questions when the honourable member concerned is present? Mr WHITE —Sit him down, for God's sake. I have been through that tonight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McPherson will resume his seat while I am listening to the point of order. The honourable member for Hunter is out of order. There is no point of order. Mr WHITE —Did the Minister or anyone else ring Ansett Airlines and request an employee to change the status of Mrs Brown's ticket? Was that request refused by the Ansett employee? Did the Minister or anyone else speak to an Ansett supervisor? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think we are getting to the stage where we are calling into question something that the Minister may have done. The honourable member might be far better advised to raise these questions at Question Time rather than in the adjournment debate. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(10.47) —For almost two months the eyes of the nation have been transfixed by the antics of the Premier of Queensland. As the territorial ambitions and the scope of this man's thrust to power have grown, so too has the media attention which he has attracted. This began as a product of the silly season which the National Times on Sunday so aptly observed on 4 January. It stated: The seasonal shortage of news leads to some remarkable phenomena. UFOs turn up on the front pages of the tabloids while the broadsheets become concerned with issues that, in normal times, would be treated as minutiae. This year, however, has been remarkable for the credence given by the media to the story that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is preparing to lead a national political movement to extirpate the Hawke socialists and bring flat-tax prosperity to the land. The point is that it is not funny any more, not just because his proposals are being taken seriously by people who should know better, not just because he has succeeded in destabilising the coalition and wrecking the National Party, and not just because he displays a vision as limited as his vocabulary, but because the behaviour patterns of this man, arguably the second most powerful political figure in this country, suggest a serious degree of instability. Accusations and suggestions of instability of his personality are not new. I recall one that was made many years ago by a former Liberal State member from Townsville. He was a medical man and gave a medical, not a political opinion. A second medical opinion was given more recently based on an analysis of the Premier's speech patterns. Mr Peter Fisher —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. How does one relate the comments that are being made now by this honourable member to the rulings you gave against the honourable member for McPherson just recently? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Unless the Premier of Queensland has become a member of this House in the last five minutes, the honourable member for Lindsay is quite in order. Mr FREE —The analysis of the speech patterns suggested that there was something seriously wrong with this man, something beyond the normal run of rustic stupidity. Maximilian Walsh even had a name for it. He termed the disorder `laborphobus paranoidus'. He said: The characteristic of the LP is that it views each and every action of a Labor government as being part of an elaborate plot to change, in some adverse way, our way of life. . . . . Naturally, Joh's remarks are dismissed with ridicule by the Labor people in Canberra but as Henry Kissinger observed when one of the White House staff was expressing concern at the paranoiac behaviour of President Nixon: `Remember, even paranoids have enemies.' More recent evidence has become available on the Premier's speech patterns. There were some interesting remarks during the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute. This is what Sir Joh had to say: These people- electricity workers- are terrorists. They threaten people. They threaten to shoot you, threaten to kidnap your kids, threaten to bomb your home, burn your house down. A journalist asked: He has been threatened in that manner? It sounds like Beirut or perhaps Sydney. The Premier said: Of course they have. Oh my word, they do. They're terrorists. They're thugs and lugs of the highest order. This quote supports the Walsh paranoia theory. If one looks at Patterns of Abnormal Behaviour by Hutt and Gibby one will see that the paranoiac individual-- Mr Slipper —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I seek your guidance in relation to it. The House has been treated to a series of outrageous statements and allegations from the honourable member for Lindsay relating to the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is your point of order? Mr Slipper —I am coming to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Lindsay has said that during the SEQEB dispute-I am seeking your guidance here, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Resume your seat. Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a further point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You have not raised a point of order. I call the honourable member for Lindsay. Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a further point or order, and I seek to be heard pursuant to the Standing Orders of this place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is your point of order? Mr Slipper —The point of order is that the honourable member for Lindsay has raised certain allegations concerning the SEQEB dispute, and I might add that the things he mentioned did happen-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Slipper —Threats were made; people were threatened; in fact, violence was threatened-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Lindsay. Mr Slipper —And, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Fisher. Mr Slipper —The situation the honourable member for Lindsay has mentioned is wrong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Fisher will resume his seat. Mr FREE —It is a matter of concern to me that an analysis of those speech patterns, suggests that the Premier should be a suitable subject for psychiatric assessment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.52) —Tonight I intend to be non-partisan. I do not intend to be controversial in any way, except to say that I totally dissociate myself from the outrageous allegations made by the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) and the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), allegations which would be rejected by the vast majority of people in this country, who know what a tremendous contribution to political life the Premier of Queensland has made over his almost 40 years in the Queensland Parliament. But tonight I intend to talk about Telecom Australia. Mr Cleeland —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Honourable members have been called outrageous, and the honourable member for Fisher has made a slur upon other members of this House. I think he should be forced to withdraw that remark. I am not an outrageous person. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr SLIPPER —For most working people the sound of the telephone ringing after 10 p.m. has the potential to destroy a good night's sleep. In my experience, unless one has confirmed that one will ring at such a late hour, one runs the risk of receiving a hostile reception such as that which the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) received just a couple of minutes ago. To ring at a very late hour is definitely not the way to win friends over the telephone. Telecom, however, obviously believes that people are willing to make telephone calls past 10 p.m. Although some people may not yet be aware of the fact, the cheaper economy subscriber trunk dialling rates will now apply only from 10 p.m. rather than from 9 p.m. as before. Telecom claims this is because tens of thousands of people were wanting to use the lines each night and were causing congestion to the system. Recently I took the step of calling publicly on Telecom to reconsider this move and make the lower rates available from 8 p.m. each week night. This move I believe has considerable public support. Already I have had numerous people contact me to express the opinion that the present arrangements are almost useless to a large number of Telecom consumers. Most people have expressed the view that even the prior arrangement, when the economy rate commenced at 9 p.m., was better than now, as this at least allowed those people using the service the opportunity to make a number of calls before the lateness of the hour became restrictive. Unfortunately those now wishing to use the cheaper rate are having to think twice before ringing after 10 p.m., because of the fear of waking up the person being called. Daylight saving in the southern States also contributes to make the timing of the rate useless for people wishing to telephone relatives or friends in other parts of Australia. As one constituent pointed out in a letter to me, it is now impractical to use the rate to keep in contact with interstate relatives. For elderly people who use the telephone as the main source of communication with their family members, the changed time slot places a further strain on the household budget. Pensioners and those wishing to take advantage of the economy rate will now be forced to make the calls later in order to qualify for this discount. It is more realistic, however, to expect that people will either not call or call earlier and pay the full charge. As I have indicated previously, I believe the idea of an economy rate is a good one. Consumers should be encouraged, not discouraged, to use this service. Telecom's excuse for changing the time slot-that thousands of people were ringing at 9 p.m. and causing congestion-is proof that people are willing to use the service extensively if it is provided at a reasonable hour. Since first making the suggestion I have not encountered one person opposed to the introduction of the rate from 8 p.m. Quite simply, people are in favour of having a longer period in which to take advantage of the lower rates. It seems logical that if this occurred, people would begin phoning earlier and this would then help to prevent the 9 p.m. rush. Instead of making it less convenient for people to use the service, Telecom should look at upgrading its present system and extending the available time period. Unfortunately Telecom's actions in this matter have served only to distance it further from the public. Telecom stands not only to win back dissatisfied consumers with a longer economy STD period, but also to increase its overall business with more people being prepared to take advantage of the service at a reasonable hour. I am sure that if Telecom surveyed consumers it would find overwhelming support for the concept of a longer economy STD period. The new campaign `Australia, we have a promise to keep' outlines Telecom's claims to be more responsive to the needs of consumers. The suggestion to introduce the economy STD rates from 8 p.m. gives it the ideal opportunity to show the general public that it is indeed serious. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(11.58) —In Question Time today the House witnessed the expulsion for the fourth time of a member of the Opposition. It would be interesting to see from the records just how often an Opposition has become so disruptive that a member of its front bench has been voted out of the chamber four times in a short parliamentary career. Mr White —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for McMillan is making charges against a member of this House. In view of the ruling you gave when I raised some matters before, and tonight-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McMillan is coming close to the line but at present he has only dealt with matters of fact and until he raises a question about a member he is in order. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I have lost a bit of my time but in the last minute I have I wish to inform the House that it has also come to my attention, from watching the news media tonight, that that same member upon leaving the House cast strong aspersions against the Speaker. Mr MacKellar —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask that the honourable member withdraw that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is probably not in our best interests if the debate continues along these lines. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just bringing it to your attention so you can inform the Speaker of the House, from your position, that this has occurred so that she will be in a position to take the necessary steps to bring some dignity back to this Parliament, which has been destroyed by the Opposition. Mr MacKellar —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member is obviously casting aspersions or imputing improper motives against the honourable member who has been suspended from the service of the House. Under standing order 76 that is disorderly and should not be allowed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., we can dispense with this matter entirely because the debate is interrupted. Mr John Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(11.00) —Once again I am in here defending myself from these puerile and quite pitiful attempts to denigrate my own character by my opposite, the shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). The honourable member brought up the question which was canvassed rather widely in the Press, I might add, of an aeroplane ticket which I had downgraded. I would like to explain to the House exactly what the situation was. Members of this House who have been Ministers and perhaps other members might understand that there is a long-standing tradition-not in any way a ruling by the Remuneration Tribunal-that a Minister has the right once a year to take his dependent children on an interstate flight. It is a right which I have had from 1983. As I am sure the honourable member for McPherson will agree, I have underutilised that right greatly. I know that he has sought under the Freedom of Information Act the list of trips that my children have taken. I am sure that he will agree that I have underused this facility greatly. My wife has a peculiar aversion to travelling first class on planes. If the honourable member bothers to get FOI on her quite infrequent trips to Canberra he will find that she chooses to fly economy. It is her own choice. She could fly first class at government expense but she chooses to fly economy. I wanted to take my children to the grand prix in Adelaide. I do not have to weep crocodile tears in here about how rarely we see our children because that affects all of us. I had not seen them for a fortnight. I had the facility to fly our two sons to Adelaide first class at government expense. My wife refused to travel in that style. She said that the only way that she would go would be for me to downgrade her ticket, to get three economy tickets for her and our two children and for me to pay the difference, which I did. So my sin was to put in $250 out of my pocket instead of charging the taxpayers of this country $800. The charges that I oppressed some person at Ansett in order to-- Mr White —No. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member can shake his head all he likes. I happen to be not a liar and I am telling the truth. The charges that I oppressed some poor employee of Ansett to make him do that are absolutely false. I challenge the honourable member to produce the person who allegedly makes these complaints. I have denied it consistently in the Press. The honourable member continues to put out these puerile attacks as he did at that time. Never at any stage have I oppressed anybody, let alone an employee of Ansett over this matter. It is not in my nature to be a bully. Mr White —Did you ring or did you not? Mr JOHN BROWN —No, I did not. That is the answer. I have told the honourable member three times. I have answered it in the Press but the honourable member continually asks the question. The simple fact that has been disregarded in this whole episode is that I did not even infringe a guideline. This is an agreement between executives of many governments and the Minister who administers members' rights. There are no remuneration guidelines affecting the travel of a Minister's child interstate on one trip a year. I have a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) at the time this alleged offence occurred pointing out to me that I had not even infringed the guidelines. There were not any. Since then the Government has introduced some guidelines which now preclude a Minister from downgrading a ticket. The honourable member can shake his silly head all he likes. It happens to be on the record; it is documented. I am getting pretty sick and tired of the honourable member's puerile attacks on my honesty. If he were able to do something constructive about policy in the area of sport and tourism that he is supposed to look after, he might not be considered the joke that he is by every sporting and tourism organisation in Australia. Mr White —You have never answered the questions. Mr JOHN BROWN —I have answered all of the honourable member's questions. I did nothing wrong. I paid $250 out of my own pocket instead of the taxpayer paying $800. Mr Beale —Answer the five questions. Mr JOHN BROWN —What five questions? I did not oppress anybody at Ansett. What are the rest of them-what are the rest of the honourable member's stupid questions? They would be as silly as the first two. Mr Deputy Speaker, if the honourable member likes to give me those questions in writing I will answer them in writing for him. Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be a better idea if this member of the white-shoe brigade started investigating how much the taxpayers of Queensland have paid to his spiritual leader to fly around Australia in his private aeroplane instead of worrying about my-- Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have been through this before. I find the phrase `white-shoe brigade', in the current political context, quite offensive and I ask the Minister to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is up to the Chair to decide whether something is parliamentary or unparliamentary. Mr White —No, I find it quite offensive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is unfortunate. If words are not unparliamentary it is not necessary for them to be withdrawn. Mr Beale —Why won't he answer the five questions? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will be answering things outside if he continues to interject. There is no need for the Minister to withdraw the words. It is difficult to put them in a context in which they are unparliamentary. Mr JOHN BROWN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am here wasting my valuable time answering puerile charges, my children and my wife having their names smeared all over the newspapers of Australia, because of the attitude of this fellow in putting out puerile Press releases when he is sitting up there in that decrepit State of Queensland-- Mr White —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am being accused of spreading these rumours. The matter was raised in the Press. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr JOHN BROWN —The matter was raised in the Press, in that puerile publication the Sunday Times, exaggerated and exacerbated by Press releases the honourable member put out quite constantly as if this is a big national issue. It is the only thing the honourable member could ever catch me on. He should try me on policy, on my achievements in the area to which he aspires. He should compare my achievements with the exploits of his predecessors in government. I find it quite offensive that I am constantly in here answering the charges made by this person. If it is not him, it is the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). He is always getting freedom of information claims. It is a good story. I have a letter from my Department about all the FOI claims the honourable member for Richmond makes. When he is sent the bill he refuses to pay. The Government briefs solicitors and gets to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. On six occasions at the last minute he has withdrawn. This has involved an extraordinary cost to the Commonwealth. It is a pity the honourable member for McPherson was not as concerned about that as he is about the fact that my wife is sufficiently modest to want to travel economy class with our children at our expense rather than booking the cost to the Government, as the honourable member would. House adjourned at 11.08 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 February 1987: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island-Report for period 18 November 1985 to 30 June 1986. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Statement of disclosure of information-1987-No. 1-List of names and addresses of plastics manufacturing establishments for the Department of Industrial Relations. Public Service Act-Determinations-187-Nos. 2, 7. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act-Declaration under sub-section 9 (1) deeming to amend Schedule 6, Parts I and II, dated 29 January 1987.