Wednesday, 7 September 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, Believing that men and women are equal but different, Convinced that Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, Concerned that ratifying the UN Discrimination Convention would give a Communist-dominated international committee to power to judge Australia's laws, Humbly petition that your honourable House will not support the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and we will always thus petition. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 68 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Convenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 133 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, concerned with the cut in funding to the Brisbane Airport, concerned that this cut means loss of jobs, concerned that this cut could seriously affect the economy of Queensland: Humbly petition the Senate to request the Australian Government to: 1. Reverse its decision to cut funding to the Brisbane Airport. 2. Abide by the guarantee given by the Minister for Housing and Construction that the Airport would receive priority funding. 3. Assure the citizens of Queensland that the Brisbane Airport as the domestic and economic gateway to this State will be fully completed by 1987. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The concerns which people around the world have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 109 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That as Mr R. J. L. Hawke has publicly stated: (1) 'The Defence Force Reserves are the backbone of our nation's defence', (2) The Defence Force Reserves are a highly economical and viable means of training men and women to serve Australia in times of emergency, (3) The Reserves are composed of volunteers dedicated to Australia. Furthermore, we the undersigned recognise that members of the reserves are required to maintain levels of efficiency at least equivalent to those of the permanent forces, and that members of reserves spend much of their own time and money towards reserve training obligations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government recognise the role played by the reserves in serving Australia, that reserve pays and allowances are already far below the levels for equivalent work in the general workforce, and that therefore the proposed introduction of taxation to the meagre pays earned by members of the defence force reserves is a poor way of saying thank you. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen (from 13 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) at a meeting of winemakers and grapegrowers in the McLaren Vale district during the election campaign, the then Australian Labor Party spokesman on Primary Industry stated: 'Industry will welcome Labor's pledge not to contemplate a wine tax'; (b) in its first Budget, the Hawke Australian Labor Party Government imposed a discriminatory tax on wine, namely, the introduction of an excise on grape spirit used in the production of fortified wines; (c) in the House of Representative on Thursday, 25 August 1983, the Labor Member for Kingston who was at the McLaren Vale meeting stated: I regard that promise as being completely honoured as a result of the Budget . . . I reject any implication that the Government has not honoured its obligations to the wine industry. condemns the Government for not keeping its promises and regrets that the Member for Kingston shows such lack of regard for, and understanding of, the wine industry. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report as soon as possible: The Joint Statement dated 23 August 1983 of the Attorney-General and Solicitor- General into the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies concerning a statement made in the South Australian Parliament by Mr Peter Duncan (which Joint Statement was tabled in the Senate on 23 August 1983). Withdrawal of Notice of Motion Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I withdraw notice of motion No. 41 standing in my name relating to the introduction of a Bill for an Act to provide for approval by the Senate and the House of Representatives of treaties. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button for Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.06) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1983 On 4 May 1983, when the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs announced the Government's criminal deportation policy in the House, he said that the Government would be introducing legislation to amend the Migration Act to remove the discrimination which exists against non-Commonwealth citizens in their liability for deportation as a result of crimes committed in Australia. He said discrimination is also found in other legislation within his portfolio and this is clearly inconsistent with the Australian Labor Government's policy of removing all forms of discrimination, wherever it may exist, in the Australian community. The main purpose of the Migration Amendment Bill 1983 is to reform the Migration Act to remove the discrimination between aliens and other immigrants contained in the criminal deportation provisions. Permanent resident aliens- persons not United Kingdom, Irish or 'Commonwealth' citizens-are treated differently from other immigrants in these provisions: in particular, in the period for which they are liable to deportation as criminals-aliens remain always liable, other immigrants cannot be deported after 5 years from entry; and in the types of crimes for which they may be ordered deported. This discrimination is totally unacceptable to the Government. Accordingly, this Bill is being introduced to put all non-Australian citizens on the same footing in the Migration Act 1958. The Migration Act was passed in 1958, almost 25 years ago. It has been amended on a number of occasions but has never been the subject of a complete review in the light of developments since 1958. The Act provides the machinery through which government immigration policies are implemented. During the past 25 years immigration policies have changed radically in response to changing community attitudes and interests, economic and employment conditions, conditions in other countries and the increasingly multicultural nature of our society. The number of movements into and out of Australia has increased significantly and the method of travel is now predominantly by aircraft. It is the intention of the Government to review not only the Migration Act but also other legislation in the Immigration and Ethnic Affairs portfolio, including the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, to reflect the changes I have mentioned and to ensure that these Acts provide for the equal treatment of all non-citizens, whilst at the same time ensuring that appropriate controls are maintained. The amendments included in this Bill should therefore be regarded as the first steps towards achieving this end. They will remove obvious discrimination and correct other deficiencies of immediate concern-for example, the power to deport prostitutes or persons admitted to mental hospitals or public charitable institutions. Further amendments to the Migration Act, which is obviously in need of reform, will depend upon the outcome of the review. That review will take into account the views of the Human Rights Commission, which is examining the Migration Act. The amendments introduced by this Bill will form a package under which consistent, firm, just and humane decisions can be made on the sensitive matter of the deportation of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes in Australia. The proposed legislative provisions relating to criminal deportation cannot be considered in isolation from the policy. The legislation does not define the basis on which decisions are to be taken; that is the purpose of the policy. Experience has shown that it is not feasible, nor proper, to define by legislation precisely who must be deported from Australia. Discretion must continue to be vested in the Minister to consider each case on its merits. The exercise of discretion under the Act must continue to be guided by statements of Government policy. The Government must be able to protect the Australian community from non- citizens whose serious crimes show that they are a threat to the community. The Government must retain the legislative power to remove criminals and undesirables who have chosen not to commit themselves fully to Australia or who, through their own criminal actions, do not qualify for membership of the Australian community. The legislative power given by the Migration Act must, however, apply equally to all non-Australian citizens and not, as it now does, discriminate between 'aliens' and 'immigrants' both in respect of the types of crimes committed and the period during which they are committed. Apart from removing the distinction and discrimination between non-Commonwealth and other overseas-born residents who are not Australian citizens, the Bill also limits liability for deportation, generally speaking, to those non-citizens who commit offences during the first 10 years of permanent residence and introduces a more exact measure of the seriousness of the crime, that being an actual penalty of imprisonment for 12 months or more. The introduction of a statutory liability period of 10 years authorised residence fulfils a pre-election commitment by the Government that non-citizens should be free from the threat of deportation after a certain period. Currently persons who are citizens of non-Commonwealth countries remain always liable to deportation unless they become Australian citizens. This is unacceptable. In administering a large-scale immigration program the Government and the community must be prepared to accept some 'bad with the good'. The overwhelming majority of non-citizens who settle in this country are law-abiding members of the community and have a right to expect, after 10 years of lawful residence, that they will not be expelled. Honourable senators will note, when I turn to the details of the proposed amendments, that time actually spent in prison will not be regarded as authorized permanent residence. The objective of this exemption is to ensure that a non-citizen with a repetitive, and sometimes worsening, criminal record, if not deported on the basis of earlier convictions, will remain subject to deportation for a longer period. Honourable senators will also note that the proposed section 12 includes a reference to the death penalty. This reference will be deleted from the Act when the death penalty has been abolished in all States. I particularly refer to Western Australia. I must emphasise that the purpose of deporting a criminal is to protect the safety and welfare of the Australian community. Deportation is not imposed as a punishment and must not in any sense be regarded as punishment. It is for the courts to determine the sentences imposed for crimes committed and for the appropriate State authorities, or the Governor-General in the case of Federal offenders, to decide when the person is to be released from prison. While deportation may produce hardship, it is not done as a punishment. The Minister's responsibility is to weigh that hardship to the offender, and others whose interests would be affected by deportation, against harm to the community which might result from the person's continued presence in this country. Under this Government deportation is not automatic. A deportation order is made only after a full investigation of the case and a careful consideration of factors, including the legitimate rights of individuals, as outlined in the Government's criminal deportation policy statement. Consistent with the Government's concern to protect civil liberties the scope of Ministerial discretion to deport a person under section 14 is to be seriously reduced. Honourable senators will recall that existing section 14 of the Act discriminates between an alien and an immigrant and gives wide discretionary power to deport non-Australian citizens on the basis of their conduct. The Bill removes that discrimination and restricts the bases for deportation under section 14 to a non-citizen's conduct constituting a threat to the security of Australia or to his conviction of certain specific offences. This set of proposed amendments is designed to ensure the equal treatment of all non- citizens and the maintenance of appropriate controls on behalf of the general community in Australia. When the amendments come into effect non-citizens will not be subject to deportation on the basis of their conduct after 10 years of permanent residence in Australia. The introduction of this statutory liability period of 10 years is consistent with the Government's pre-election commitment and the Government's recognition that the overwhelming majority of non-citizens who have settled in Australia and have contributed to the development of this country have a right to expect, after 10 years of lawful residence, that they will not be expelled. One should not confuse amendments to section 14 of the Act on security grounds with amendments to existing sections 12 and 13 on the basis of criminal deportation. The protection of those who are within the scope of proposed new section 14 (1)-that is to say, temporary residents or permanent residents of less than 10 years standing-will be maintained if and when their conduct brings them within the much narrower scope of this proposed new sub-section. The Minister may not order their deportation unless a commissioner who is or has been a judge of a Federal Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, or a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of Australia or of a Supreme Court of a State or Territory of not less than five years standing, and who is appointed by the Governor-General has reviewed their case and has reported to the Minister within the framework of section 14. I now turn to the details of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill is an interpretation clause. It omits the definitions of ' alien', 'immigrant' and 'protected person' and inserts a definition of 'non- citizen' to mean a person who is not an Australian citizen. This definition is central to the operation of the Migration Act 1958, as it will be amended, because it puts all non-Australian citizens on the same footing. The clause also empowers the Minister to make valid decisions when at present only 'officers' and 'authorised officers' as defined in the Act may take such decisions. Clause 6 seeks, amongst other things, to substitute neutral words in sub- section 6 (7) of the Act for words which are perceived by members of the community as discriminatory on the ground of sex. This amendment of a purely technical nature is in accordance with the Government's approach to sex discrimination. Clause 8 contains the repeal of sub-section 7 (4) which at present allows overstayers to cease to be deportable five years after the expiry of their entry permit simply because they succeed in evading detection during that period of time. The effect of this repeal is to render future overstayers and those who, because of the operation of sub-section 7 (4), have ceased to be prohibited immigrants, liable to deportation from Australia. The repeal of sub-section 7 (4 ) will enhance the Government's control of its migration program which is overburdened by this 'backdoor' migration of overstayers who more often than not also work illegally. The amendment would not affect the status of former prohibited immigrants whose permanent residence has been regularised. Of course the repeal of sub-section 7 (4) would not result in massive and indiscriminate deportation of this class of non-citizens. Ministerial discretion to let them stay remains in certain circumstances. Each case will be considered on the basis of its merits. A new section dealing with criminal deportation is to be inserted into the principal Act by clause 10. The new section 12 will render liable to deportation any non-citizen who has, within 10 years of being granted permanent residence, committed a crime for which he has been sentenced to death-the reference to the death penalty will be removed when all the States take if off their statute books-or to imprisonment for life or for a period of no less than one year. The period of 10 years shall be determined on the basis of legal presence or the aggregate of periods of legal presence in Australia, of the person as a permanent resident. It shall, however, exclude a period for which the person was confined in a prison as a result of conviction for any offence. For the purpose of this 10-year period, a period of presence in Australia of the person as an Australian citizen shall be included, to avoid an unintended adverse effect against a non-citizen who, during the length of his legal presence in Australia, acquired Australian citizenship and subsequently lost it, either by choice or by operation of law. The proposed section has no application with respect to prohibited non-citizens. It deals only with deportation of legal permanent residents who are non-citizens and who have committed crimes and have been sentenced as specified. Clause 11 amends section 14 by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2). The clause inserts new sub-sections which remove the discrimination between the treatment of aliens and immigrants and confine and specify the basis upon which deportation may be ordered irrespective of the limitations applying to criminal deportations under section 12. Clause 11 inserts new sub-section 14 (1) relating to deportation of non- citizens on the basis of their conduct which constitutes or has constituted a threat to the security of Australia. The new sub-section provides a statutory immunity to permanent residents of not less than ten years in Australia. Existing section 14 of the Act allows the Minister to order the deportation of an alien or an immigrant, with less than five years' residence, from Australia on the Minister's perception of that conduct. It is a very wide power available to the Minister. There is no attempt to define aspects of such conduct. It is a totally obnoxious section. It also allows the Minister to deport on the basis of very generalised security definitions. There is a process of review by a Commissioner appointed by the Governor-General with the Minister retaining the final power of decision. The Migration Amendment Bill has narrowed this section to security grounds alone. It also defines the sections of the Crimes Act under which conviction becomes a trigger for a Ministerial decision to deport. The Bill does not alter the right to request within thirty days a review by a Commissioner, or otherwise disturb this appeal system. The Government has decided to further restrict the basis for ordering deportation under section 14 (1) on security grounds by providing immunity after a permanent resident has resided in Australia for an aggregate period of ten years, less time spent in prison, that is, exactly the same situation will apply to consideration of deportation on security grounds under section 14 (1) as applies to the criminal deportation procedure. So we have moved from an extraordinarily wide, unfettered discretion under which the Minister has unbridled power to order deportation based upon a person' s alleged conduct, to a situation where the Minister may order deportation purely on security grounds with immunity after ten years, unless actually convicted under the Crimes Act 1914, and with an appeal provision still in place . Clause 13 inserts certain proposed amendments to section 16 of the Act to render, in addition to existing grounds, a non-citizen to be deemed a prohibited non-citizen: (i) where at the time of, or prior to, his entry into Australia, he makes or made, or causes or caused to be made, to the Minister or to an officer, in respect of that entry, a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular; (ii) where at the time of, or prior to, the grant of a visa or a return endorsement to him, he makes or made, or causes or caused to be made, to the Minister or to an officer, in respect of the grant of that visa or return endorsement, a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular. This clause also inserts a proposed amendment into section 16 to render a non- citizen a deemed prohibited non-citizen when, in seeking a further entry permit after his arrival, he produced or caused to be produced certain false, forged documents or made or caused to be made a false or misleading statement. Clause 15 inserts a new sub-section into section 20 to provide that a deportation order will not become invalid through any delay in the execution of the order. Clause 23 amends section 36A to extend the time within which a notice must be served on a carrier after a person is taken into custody under the section requiring the carrier to remove the person from Australia. Extension of the period of time for service of the notice from 24 hours to 48 hours will remove the current difficulties experienced in complying with the restrictive time requirement. Clause 33 contains amendments to section 55 consequential upon the removal of the definition of 'alien'. Clause 36 amends various sections as set out in the Schedule. The amendments substitute, for references to 'immigrants' and ' prohibited immigrants', 'non-citizens' and 'prohibited non-citizens' respectively, and include other minor amendments of a technical nature. Clause 37 is a transitional provision which renders a person who was a prohibited immigrant, or a deemed prohibited immigrant, before the commencement of this amending Act, to be a prohibited non-citizen or a deemed prohibited non- citizen, as the case may be. The clause also provides that an entry permit, visa , return endorsement or any other instrument that was in force under the principal Act immediately before the commencement of this amending Act, shall have effect as though it were in force under the provisions of the principal Act as so amended. The clause also preserves the validity of a deportation order which was made under the principal Act prior to the commencement of the amending Act and which was not revoked before the commencement of the amending Act. The Government sees the Migration Amendment Bill 1983 as an important step in the reform of the Migration Act, for which the Government has a mandate following the last election. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. MIGRATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983 The purpose of this Bill is to amend a number of Commonwealth Acts consequential upon the Migration Amendment Bill 1983. The latter Bill, which removes the distinction between aliens and immigrants from the Migration Act 1958, will necessitate amendments to other legislation, in particular where terms are defined by reference to meanings within that Act. I now turn to the details of the Bill. Part II of the Bill effects amendments to section 25 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 which are consequential to the removal of references to ' prohibited immigrant' from the Migration Act 1958. Clause 4 inserts a new sub- section 25 (7) to provide that a person who entered Australia before the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983 and who at the time of entry, was a prohibited immigrant or the holder of a temporary entry permit, shall not become an Australian citizen under the section. The clause also inserts a new sub-section 25 (7A) to provide that a person who enters Australia after the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983 and who at the time of entry, is a prohibited non-citizen or the holder of a temporary entry permit, shall not become an Australian citizen under the section. Part III effects a consequential amendment to the Civil Aviation (Offenders on International Aircraft) Act 1970. Part IV effects a consequential amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Part V amends the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 so as to be consistent with the amendments contained in the Migration Amendment Bill 1983. Part VI effects consequential amendments to the Navigation Act 1912. Part VII effects a consequential amendment to the Navigation Amendment Act 1980 . Part VIII effects consequential amendments to the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979. Clause 27 provides that a person shall be taken not to be an overseas student if the person ceases to be an immigrant within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 as in force immediately before the commencement of the Migration Amendment Act 1983. Part IX effects consequential amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908. Part X effects a consequential amendment to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill will modify from 1 October 1983 the terms on which an income tax rebate is available to home buyers during the first five years of occupation of a sole or principal residence in Australia. The change was announced in the 19 May economic statement, as part of an overall package of housing measures. In particular, it was announced then that there would be a new cash subsidy scheme which would provide assistance to first home buyers, on an income tested basis, from 1 October 1983. The schemes of assistance for home buyers introduced by the previous government had been neither efficient nor effective in targeting assistance to those in most need and in providing a stimulus to the housing industry. One of those schemes, which provided a tax rebate on the portion of interest payments that exceeded 10 per cent per annum on loans of up to $60,000, was terminated with effect from 1 July 1983. The other tax rebate scheme, which applies only to first home buyers, is to be modified by this Bill so that, subject to a transitional measure, there will be no new entrants to the scheme after 30 September 1983. After that date prospective first home buyers will come within the new first home owners assistance scheme, which will have the effect of making home ownership an attainable goal of many more Australian families. Home buyers who first occupy their sole or principal residence by 30 September 1983 will remain entitled to a tax rebate on home loan interest payments during the first five years of ownership, subject to an income test. Under the income test, benefits will be available in full to taxpayers whose family income in the 1982-83 income year does not exceed $24,300. Where a taxpayer's family income in that year exceeds $24,300 the rebate will be shaded out progressively, finally cutting out at $27,900. In applying the income test, family income will be taken to be the combined taxable income of the taxpayer and, where relevant, of the person who is the taxpayer's spouse on 1 October 1983. For the 1983-84 income year, of course, only the rebate entitlement for the period after 30 September 1983 will be income tested. Although, as a general rule, there will be no new entrants to the rebate scheme after 30 September 1983, taxpayers who contract to acquire or build or commence to build by that date will be brought within the scheme even though they occupy the home after 30 September. This transitional measure to extend entry into the scheme will protect those first home buyers who will not be eligible for assistance under the proposed first home owners assistance scheme that I referred to earlier. Without this extension of the rebate some lower income first home buyers would not be entitled to the benefits of either scheme. In applying the income test in these cases, family income will be the combined taxable income of the taxpayer and, where relevant, of the person who is the taxpayer's spouse when the home is first occupied. A memorandum explaining the technical features of the Bill is being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the financing of the prospective 1983-84 Budget deficit. The Budget deficit in prospect for 1983-84 gives rise to a deficit in the consolidated revenue fund of about the same magnitude and thus creates a need to seek authority to finance certain expenditures from borrowings to the extent that amounts appropriate by the Parliament for expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund will exceed moneys legally available to that fund. Legally, expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund cannot exceed the moneys available to that fund. Thus, successive governments have, for many years , introduced legislation in the form of a Loan Bill to authorise payments from the loan fund to meet defence and certain non-defence expenditures. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer announced that the prospective Budget deficit for this financial year is estimated to be some $8.4 billion. The shortfall in the consolidated revenue fund is estimated to be of the same order. Under existing standing authorities some $2 billion of expenditure can be charged to loan fund. This leaves a shortfall of some $6.4 billion for which separate funding authority is required. This Bill therefore seeks authority to borrow moneys for defence and other purposes to enable certain other expenditures to be met from the loan fund rather than from the consolidated revenue fund. I should make it clear, however, that the Bill does not authorise defence or other expenditures additional to those otherwise authorised by Parliament. The Bill does not include any specific limit on the amount of borrowings that may be undertaken. The actual limit, in the case of defence expenditure, however , is the amount for which appropriation is sought for defence purposes in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84-some $5 billion-and any subsequent moneys for defence purposes that may be approved in subsequent Appropriation Acts. The effective limit is likely to be significantly less than these amounts as defence expenditures cannot be charged to loan fund until the legislation is enacted. The legal limit for borrowings for non-defence purposes is determined by the level of borrowing authority approved by the loan council. Together, it is estimated that these limits will be sufficient to enable the financing of the Budget deficit. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Postponement of Notices of Motion Motion (by Senator Lewis)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in the name of Senator Coates for the next day of sitting and relating to the disallowance of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 1982 and certain Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), be postponed till five sitting days after today. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.11) —I move: That the Health Insurance Commission Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 88, and made under the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, be disallowed. In the next few weeks the Parliament will be considering some legislation to establish Labor's health care program. There are indications that that program may attract support from the Parliament, though we have objections to it in principle which we will make known at an appropriate time. Today's debate is not about that legislation. It is about the processes and procedures which are being used to start to implement Labor's program even before there is a legislative basis for it. It is to test in Parliament the action which has been taken by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), using his power to make regulations. That power enables him to proceed in advance of any parliamentary consideration. Regulations enable Ministers to proceed with the business of government, but Parliament can set aside such decisions when it disapproves of them or when the action is deemed to be inappropriate. Disallowance of regulations such as we are proposing now is a well-established procedure in this Senate and there have been disallowances of government regulations that I can remember every year I have been present in the Senate. The regulation in this case was put down on 29 June by the Minister for Health. It was a regulation seeking to establish Medibank-the Health Insurance Commission-as the sole state-backed monopoly to take over the functions of Medicare from the voluntary health funds. The regulation seeks to establish a monopoly for the purposes of the Medicare program. It is an argument about the methods and the consequences of that action that is before us today. It is not of itself an argument about Medicare or the Medicare program. That is a debate we will take up at some other time. While the Australian Labor Party claims that it has a mandate to introduce Medicare, we do not believe that that mandate, however widely expressed, gives it the right at one stroke to do a number of unsatisfactory things: First, to threaten the viability of many private health funds; second, to wipe out thousands of jobs of those employed in the private health funds. One of the most unsatisfactory features of the regulation is that it has put in train the loss of jobs of many people at a time when the Government is talking about the importance of preserving jobs. It is a regulation which moves towards making less available the convenience of one-stop shopping for the majority of people who want to take out additional private insurance. It incurs unnecessary establishment costs, perhaps of the order of $40m. At a time when the Government is talking about economic stringency it is unnecessary that this money be spent- taxpayers' money-in duplicating the facilities already available within the voluntary funds. It will involve additional ongoing expenses if Medibank is given the monopoly of the operation of Labor's new health insurance system. The argument is about whether or not the Health Insurance Commission should have a monopoly in this matter. The regulation about which we are talking sought to give effect to that intention. The Minister for Health has over recent weeks, I am afraid, engaged in some bluff, some standover tactics, saying that if this regulation were disallowed the whole Medicare program might be threatened. Let us put that to one side-that is nonsense. Medicare is to be proceeded with by the Government whether or not this regulation is disallowed. This is a matter for the Senate and the introduction of the program will not be affected. It was foolish of the Minister to try to pretend that our consideration of this regulation would in some way put in question the threshold issue of whether the Labor Party intended to proceed with its Medicare proposals. Of course it will proceed. This issue is quite separate and can be looked at on its merits. The Opposition is concerned about the regulation for a number of reasons. The most alarming aspect of the implementation proposal for the Australian public seems to be that the Government appears intent upon eliminating a satisfactory competitive private industry with the willingness and the ability necessary to administer Medicare and to replace it with a single expensive monopoly with all the potential that monopolies have for long term cost and for service inefficiencies. The private funds have already demonstrated their ability to operate cost effectively, and more cost effectively than has Medibank Private. I draw the attention of honourable senators who may have looked at the reports of the Health Insurance Commission over a number of years to the fact that in some States the Health Insurance Commission through its Medibank operations was effectively bankrupt. It was operating at a loss in all States across Australia except Victoria. It has not shown any capacity to operate effectively in a commercial sense over a number of years. It does not have a proven track record. The private health funds have. They are in place, their employees are in place, their outlets are in place. If it is service to the public we are looking to, it just does not make sense for the Government to want to move to create a monopoly and to give that monopoly to a fund which, if it had been a private fund, would have had to close its doors because of its poor commerical performance. The Government, if it had accepted all the offers of the private health funds, could have ensured the implementation of its Medicare program without disruption , without extra expenditure and waste, without significant unemployment and without forcing the public to use just the one government-operated fund. It could have done so with the competitive and service elements important to efficient operation. It may be that the Government has decided to give the private funds a post office role, and I will come back in a moment to what the Government's later plans may have been. But if the Government wants to implement what is contained in this regulation, its proposal does not make sense for a number of reasons. It does not make sense for economic reasons because the implementation costs of duplicating the funds' existing facilities to do the same job by using a vastly expanded Medibank Private will be $40m. Nearly all this significant expense is unnecessary, nearly all of it represents duplication and it can be described only as totally wasteful, particularly in light of the financial restraint and the penalties that the Labor Government has imposed on other sections of the community. Why spend this money if it does not have to be spent? No argument can be advanced that a single bureaucratic monopoly, with all its ongoing operational costs and Public Service conditions, would be less costly or more efficient than a competitive private insurance market. Another reason why it is not sensible to go down the track the Government has proposed relates to employment and jobs. At a time of high unemployment the Government's proposals to spend $80m unnecessarily will be accompanied by a net loss of at least 2,000 jobs in the health insurance industry. At the same time the Minister can give no firm guarantee as to the employment status of a further 5,000 people who will be sacked. Let us take that a little further. It is true that the Health Insurance Commission will need to take on some extra employees. The Government may say that the people who are laid off from the private funds can be taken on by Medibank, but what is not clear is the mechanics of how this will happen. The Health Insurance Commission will require staff well before the commencement of Medicare on 1 February, yet the private funds will need all their present staff to continue their operations up to that date. The staff will be taken on by Medicare before the staff will be laid off by the private funds. The disemployment will be considerable. It is unnecessary and it will be hurtful . To be kind to the Government, it has displayed amazing ineptitude and insensitivity in going down this track at a time when it has asserted that jobs are an important issue for the Australian people. The Minister has been unconvincing in his arguments in support of the Health Insurance Commission as the sole operator in implementing Medicare. He asks us to believe that economies of scale will be achieved by the single monopoly. He says that there will be economies of scale compared with the operation of the competitive private funds. He says that that entitles the Health Insurance Commission to sole agency rights. It has never been shown that government monopolies operate as efficiently or more efficiently than the private sector. I remind honourable senators of some of the well-known features of monopolies-be they private monopolies or State monopolies. They are characterised by low morale. They are characterised by an accident proneness. When they make mistakes those mistakes tend to be enormous mistakes because the monopoly tends to make a single response to any change in its environment. When that mistake is made it tends to be a colossal blunder. Monopolies are characterised by high costs and inflating costs. They are characterised by great vulnerability to industrial action. They are characterised by an insensitivity to individual needs and wants . Of course, the power of monopolies is something from which ordinary citizens suffer, be they monopolies of capital, labour or of government. They all have these unsatisfactory features. Just as puzzling but nevertheless fallacious is the Minister's assertion that Medibank's experience qualifies it for the sole agency. I would have thought that Medibank's experience in the market was one thing which would have led us to believe that it was not qualified to take on the job which it was given by the regulation which the Minister brought down. It was bankrupt in some States and it was operating unsuccessfully in other States. Only in one State was it making money-Victoria. The Minister made the statement that the Health Insurance Commission was selected because it operates an Australia-wide fund and it is generally recognised that its method of cash payments is superior and that it has a network of 278 branches throughout Australia. The Minister's ignorance is outstanding. Private health funds in each State have a far greater network of branches. They have over 1,000 branches, to be exact. If it is the convenience of the public we are thinking about, it makes no sense to say that it is an advantage for a fund with 278 branches to take over from funds which have 1,000 branches. Between them the private health funds also have Australia-wide coverage. They have the advantage of local experience. They have reciprocal claims agreements throughout Australia and they have the most efficient cash payment system in existence in health insurance. I now pick up the point of medical fraud as it relates to this issue. There is another matter which has not been understood or taken on by the Government in seeking to give to Medibank Private a monopoly over its Medicare program. If it does this it will make the detection of medical fraud significantly more difficult. We have information that it would create a discontinuity of patient treatment information, which is essential to the application of the fraud and overservicing, or FOD, system. Apparently there is no way of relating the patient information that is stored in the funds' records to the patient information that will be stored in the new Medicare computer file. The old information will have its particular patient identification numbering system as used within the private funds. The new Medicare system will have its new Medicare family numbers. During the changeover period there will be no way in which to relate the fraud and overservicing experience of the private funds to that of Medicare. By giving Medicare a monopoly and taking the matter out of the hands of the private funds, this Australian Labour Party Government will be making it harder to detect fraud and overservicing. Unless doctor servicing patterns can be related to particular patients, the fraud and overservicing system will have no data base on which to launch action in particular cases. It is necessary to relate particular patients and their experience to the activities of particular doctors. Breaking up the record system, duplicating computers and using different numbers will make this more difficult. If the Australian Labour Party wanted to make it simple for those few people who practice fraud and overservicing to prosper this would be one way to do it. It will make it almost impossible to counter fraud. It will take anything up to 12 months for the necessary computer data to be assembled. By the time it would be possible to match data we would hope that doctors would have adjusted their servicing levels in an appropriate way, but of course those who practice overservicing or fraud may have adjusted to a new plateau in some other way. They may escape detection simply because of what this Labour Government is doing . That leaves only the question why we wish to proceed with this disallowance motion today. First, I understand that legislation has been introduced in another place and that included in it is an attempt to repeal the particular regulation concerned. Let me point out that legislation introduced is not legislation passed. The problem is that the time allowed for disallowance is limited. We have a certain number of sitting days in which to effect it. If we do not proceed to effect it within that time our right to do so will have gone forever. A government which introduces legislation can take its time and decide the speed at which the legislation is to go through the Parliament. It can in fact amend the legislation. There is no guarantee that a provision contained in a Bill that was introduced last night in the House of Representatives will be in the legislation that is finally passed. It is entirely possible that if we give up the opportunity to disallow now the Government could alter its mind and go down a different path. Now is the time to consider the regulation in the Senate on its merits and to disallow it. Let the legislation follow and be dealt with on its merits. If this Australian Labour Party Government intends to include in its legislation a provision repealing the regulation, surely that removes any reason at all for members of that Party not wishing to support this disallowance motion today. If the Government is moving in its legislation to repeal the regulation, why should they not support us today in our motion for disallowance? The Australian Labour Party has indicated that the regulation is to go. If it is to go next week one may well ask: Why not support that happening today . I say to the Australian Democrats: 'If we know that it is to be a part of the Governments program to disallow this regulation next week, what reason is there not to support disallowance today?' What reason in logic is there for not supporting disallowance? I remind the Senate of two statements issued in recent times. The first is a joint statement issued on 13 July by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar, Jim Carlton, who is the shadow Minister for Health; Senator Janine Haines, spokesperson on health for the Australian Democrats; and Senator Brian Harradine. Senator Tate —You cannot blackmail them that way. They realise time has passed and things have changed. Senator PETER BAUME —I am grateful to the honourable senator for that Jesuitical interjection. The statement which appeared on 13 July committed the people who were party to it to moving to disallow this particular regulation. The Press release argued persuasively why the regulation was inappropriate. It indicated why it was appropriate to move to disallow this particular piece of subordinate legislation. This statement issued by the Australian Democrats, Senator Harradine and the Liberal Party of Australia is on the public record for anyone to see. I am moving today to give effect to what was promised by the people who were party to that document. The other matter to which I draw the Senate's attention is the August 1983 issue of a journal called Medical Practice. Senator Haines —I have read that. Senator PETER BAUME —I am glad Senator Haines has read this journal. I would say the honourable senator received very honourable comment in the article to which I will refer. The article is entitled 'Beginning of the End for Freedom of Choice?'. A small part of it says: Senator Haines spoke out strongly against some of the implementation features of Medicare, saying she was not and never had been a person to turn her back on a fight. The article then quotes Senator Haines as follows: Medibank Private will get the sole agency rights to administer Medicare only after I have tried everything possible to prevent it-everything, that is, short of voting against the levy bill. That is entirely consistent with the Press statement of 13 July and I would say to honourable senators that we have a case where what is proposed in the regulation is undesirable, has been recognised by the Liberals as being undesirable and has been acknowledged as being undesirable by the Australian Democrats. We have a situation where the Government has now indicated that it will repeal the regulation next week. Senator Chipp seems to be distressed. I am doing no more than quoting people's own words. We have a situation where the Australian Democrats have given a public commitment to oppose the regulation, because Senator Haines at a meeting-I say it again-said: Medibank Private will get the sole agency rights to administer Medicare only after I have tried everything possible to prevent it . . . Today we have the first of those things that can be done, that is, a move to disallow this regulation. I for one am not prepared to forgo the rights of the Senate to move against subordinate legislation simply because a government has said that when legislation gets here sometime it will contain some provision to do the same thing. If that is the case, if the Government is happy to see the regulation disallowed later on, then why not disallow it sooner. For that reason I invite honourable senators to join the Liberal Party in disallowing this regulation. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.35) —I was rather intrigued to hear Senator Peter Baume's speech since it sounded remarkably like the one he referred to as being reported in the medical journal, which was one I delivered to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Medical Association, I think on 17 July this year. A certain sense of deja vu overcame me whilst listening to Senator Baume. I was also intrigued to hear his comments about disemployment being hurtful since I would suggest that part of the reason why so many Liberal senators and members are now disemployed is because of the previous Government's attitude to a universal basic health insurance scheme. It may interest Senator Baume to hear the contents of a telex I sent today to those people with whom I have spent the last three months negotiating changes to the Government's proposed scheme. I was under the impression that today we were simply going to debate the disallowance of the Health Insurance Commission regulations. Senator Baume has brought in other matters so I will follow suit. When the Government introduced this scheme it said that it would introduce a one per cent levy on taxable income and that it would make Medibank Private the sole agent, thereby eliminating any role for the other private health insurance funds, which would decimate, if not actually destroy, employment in that area. The Liberals seemed to sit back for some months and take this quietly. I do not know whether it was because they had not got their act together, whether they were not particularly concerned, or whether they were going to vote against the whole lot and were not interested in helping anybody along the way. I have spent the last three months negotiating with the Government, at times with some acrimony but generally with courtesy on both sides, and finally some considerable amount of co-operation. As a result quite a number of concessions that will assist the funds, their employees and their contributors have been achieved. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) brought down the legislation last night. This morning I sent a telex to the AMA, the health insurance funds, the private hospital organisations, all of those people with whom I have been closely involved in the last few months. The telex reads: Omnibus Medicare legislation appears to contain all concessions wrung from Government in past three months. Only surprise is clause 71 (2) which repeals the June 29 Health Insurance Commission Regulation. This makes Senate disallowance unnecessary. Further negotiations with Government in the past few days indicate that they will also allow the funds to forward Medicare forms to HIC for those contributors who have additional insurance. This will ensure minimum inconvenience to contributors, making them unlikely to transfer their custom to Medibank Private, and thus will stabilise employment. In addition, the Government may be prepared to agree to limited gap insurance for people with some chronic illnesses such as asthma. I will elaborate on that in a moment. At 9.40 this morning I had a meeting with the Minister, and have now settled on a proposal in that area. The telex continues: The achievement of all the above concessions has occured despite the lack of cooperation of the Liberal Party. Their inflammatory remarks and totally intransigent attitude mean I have been unable to persuade my colleagues or the Government to agree to any other concessions e.g. full agency rights for the funds, full gap insurance or opposition to the diagnostic services clause. The latter must now be taken up at State Government level. The AMA, VHIAA, Private Hospitals Association and other concerned groups are all to be commended for their reasoned and reasonable approach to the legislation. Thank you for your assistance and advice over the past hectic months. Had the Liberal Opposition chosen to follow this lead, I believe an even better Bill would have resulted. Sadly this did not occur. I point out to Senator Baume that, in honouring the Press release which I put out jointly with the honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Carlton, and Senator Harradine, I will support the disallowance motion. As I indicated in this telex, for very good reasons I have been unable to convince my colleagues to join me in that. I respect their attitude. Last night the Government moved to repeal this regulation. The Government has included in the legislation a series of concessions which include deregulating the funds, but not Medibank Private, which will allow the private health insurance funds in this country to extend their services beyond health insurance. It will allow them to offer a wide range of additional and ancillary health insurance including chiropractic insurance, private hospital insurance and a wide range of alternative health care insurance. Limits have been placed on Medibank Private's role in this area and in others in its accounting procedures and in its sharing with Medicare the 86 other outlets. It will also not be able to piggy-back with Medicare on any advertising. The Government has included ease of mergers in the legislation; it has allowed for regional funds; it has amended the reserve requirements for the funds. As I indicated in the telex to those people with whom I have been negotiating, the Government has now agreed to a post box arrangement or a de facto agency arrangement whereby people will be able to drop off their Medicare forms at the agency-the Hospitals Benefits Association Ltd, or Mutual Health, for example- through which they choose to take out their additional and ancillary insurance. That insurance fund will then forward those Medicare claim forms to the HIC which will process them and send them directly to the contributors. Over the past few years when the previous Liberal Government tinkered pathologically with the previous Labor Government's health insurance system, the Labor Opposition, with some reason, frequently got hysterical over the fact that people were being constantly chopped and changed in their routine and were being confused and inhibited in the way they conducted their medical insurance. I would have thought, therefore, that it would have been in the interests of all parties to make sure that the next implementation of basic universal health insurance via a levy scheme, a system which is part of the Australian Democrats' policy and which is part of the Australian Labor Party's policy, should be introduced as smoothly as possible with as little inconvenience to the public, the consumer, as is legislatively possible. I point out that, in getting these concessions, I have worked exceedingly hard. I believe we have achieved a very great deal not only to assist those people employed in the funds but also to ensure the long term role for the private health insurance industry and the minimal amount of public inconvenience. This morning, Dr Blewett informed me that our negotiations for providing a limited form of gap insurance had borne fruit. Yesterday, I put to him the suggestion that the group of people most likely to be seriously inconvenienced by a prohibition against gap insurance which is now included in the legislation would be those people who suffer from certain chronic illnesses, in particular, families which have one or more children who suffer from asthma. That condition, like a number of other conditions, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and so on, requires spasmodic, frequent trips to doctors or to hospitals. This can leave parents, particularly those in low and low-middle income families considerably out of pocket. I suggested to him, therefore, that he come up with a list of accepted chronic illnesses and people, families included, suffering from those illnesses who would be permitted to take out gap insurance. This morning Dr Blewett informed me that it is not possible in the time left to the Government to provide that sort of list to the private health insurance funds. However, the Government has said that it is prepared to carry for everybody in this country that 15 per cent gap over and above an initial cost of around $120 to $150 a year. We are still negotiating on what that cut off level will be. But the Government is prepared to say that contributors-ordinary Australians and their families-will be expected to pay no more than around $120 to $150 a year in excess medical payments; that is, the 15 per cent that remains over and above the Medicare cover at 85 per cent, but that Medicare will fund this. I believe that this is an important step forward. Senator Walters —How do they administer it? Senator HAINES —Very easily-in fact, I understand, much more easily than going through a private insurance agency. Senator Walters —Could you explain it? Senator HAINES —Will I explain the administration of it? No, I spent 15 minutes with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) this morning in between a Senate select committee meeting, a party meeting and here. Basically, this is all I can give to the honourable senator. When a doctor does not bulk bill and people are expected to pay the additional 15 per cent up to the 100 per cent of the recommended fee-I am not talking about where doctors exceed that; I am talking only about the 15 per cent left-- Senator Walters —The gap insurance? Senator HAINES —Yes, the gap between the 85 per cent and the 100 per cent. People will be expected to pay no more than a fixed amount per person per year before the Government is prepared to pay that gap. I think this will assist a great number of families. Senator Walters —How much will it cost? Senator HAINES —The cost to the Government is somewhere in the range, I understand, of $8m to $10m. Senator Walters —You have agreed to it. Senator HAINES —The administration of it is not my problem; it is the Government 's problem. If it says that it can do it, I believe it. Senator Chipp —Are you going to oppose it? Senator Walters —I am just dying to know what the cost of administration will be . The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Haines has the call. Senator HAINES —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. For the last three months I have engaged in extensive negotiations with the Government, the health funds, the Australian Medical Association and the private hospital people in order to come up with some legislation which not only matches Labor and Australian Democrats policy but also assists these people. I believe the list of eight or 10 concessions that we have obtained, which either are or will be incorporated in the legislation, is testimony to what can be achieved by co-operative consensus. It is a shame that other members of the Opposition do not take part in any of this. The legislation contains these concessions. After the Government accepts my amendments next week, it will contain the remaining concessions with regard to the de facto agency arrangement and the Government sponsored gap insurance. I hope that from 1 February we will see a national universal basic health insurance scheme operate to the advantage of all Australians and minus the nitpicking and inflammatory statements that have come from the Liberal Opposition. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.49) —We have just heard Senator Haines tell us what a wonderful negotiating job she did. However, she only got a little way with it. I gather that the Australian Democrats, even though they were not satisfied with their negotiating and did not accomplish all they set out to accomplish, will still vote for an imperfect Bill. That is how it has come across to me in this place today. If the funds had been able to join with Medicare they would have been able to provide a system without disruption, without excessive expenditure, without waste, without the significant unemployment that will result from this and without forcing on the people one fund instead of giving them a right to choose and, at the same time, retaining a competitive service, which element is so important to on-going efficiency. If we ask ourselves why, given all that the private funds could have done, the Government came forward with this proposal of wanting Medibank Private to take over the administration of Medicare, we have only to look at the policy of the Australian Labor Party, which is to socialise as much as it can. It is a socialist government and it intends to socialise the funds. This is its method of doing that. The Government set up a task force, an administrative advisory committee, to advise it on the implementation of medicare. If we look at the members of that committee there will be no doubt as to why they came up with the decision they did because the Government included on this committee three Medibank Private assistant general managers, an ex-Medibank Private general manager and an ex-Medibank Private chairman. No representatives from the private health funds were included. If the Government wants certain advice then it is very simple for it to set up a committee of people whose opinions it knows will give it that advice. It is just a ludicrous situation for the Government to hide behind the committee it has set up. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said in his statement: It is generally recognised that the Health Insurance Commission's way of dealing with cash payments is superior . . . with its nation wide network of branches already established the Health Insurance Commission, in operating Medicare, will provide convenient and efficient services for Australians and their families. Who generally recognises that the Health Insurance Commission deals in a superior way with cash payments? Was it the committee which was made up of Medibank Private managers, the ex-chairman, et cetera? It is certainly not recognised by the Australian community. The Government has not even sought that. It sought advice only from the committee it set up consisting of Medibank Private general managers, the ex-chairman, et cetera. It did not put any members of the private funds on that committee. What was it frightened of by not including them? Was it frightened of the fact that the private health funds could prove that they had a more efficient management? Was the Government frightened that they may remind Medibank Private that our Government had to get Medibank out of a terrible financial mess that it was in by giving it an addtional $11m? Senator Haines —Twenty-one million dollars. Senator WALTERS —No. Altogether it was $21m. We started off with $11m and had to get Medibank out of financial trouble by giving it another $10m. Was the Government concerned that if it put some of the representatives from the private health funds on that committee to advise it they might come up with this sort of information? I quote the management costs as a percentage of contribution income -that is, the management costs of the funds compared with the income from their contributions. In 1978 the figure for Medibank Private was 14 per cent and the figure for the voluntary health organisations was 9.7 per cent. In 1979 Medibank Private's was 12 per cent and the voluntary health funds' percentage was 10.3 per cent. In 1980 Medibank Private's was 17 per cent-this is its costs as a percentage of its contribution rate-and the private industry's was 11 per cent. In 1981 Medibank Private's was 16.4 per cent and the voluntary health funds' figure was 11.7 per cent. Last year, in 1982, Medibank Private was still well ahead with 11.7 per cent and the voluntary health funds figure was 10.1 per cent . We are told by the Minister that Medibank Private is economically able to do this. What absolute rubbish. I go on to management costs as a percentage of total claims benefits paid out, because this is also an indication of who runs the most cost-effective industry. In 1978 the figure for Medibank Private was 13.8 per cent and that for the voluntary health industry was 9.4 per cent. In 1979 Medibank Private was 13.7 per cent while the voluntary health funds' was 9.4 per cent. In 1980 Medibank Private's was 13.4 per cent and the private funds' was 9.8 per cent. In 1981 Medibank Private's was 13.5 per cent and the private funds' was 10.1 per cent. In 1982 Medibank Private's was 10.1 per cent and the private funds' was 9.5 per cent. It is ludicrous for the Minister to say that Medibank Private will be more economically viable and more cost effective than the private funds. That is blatant misrepresentation. It is not a truthful statement. I believe the only reason for him putting forward those comments is that he wants to say to the Australian people: 'Bigger is beautiful, therefore we will socialise the funds. We will get rid of them'. In this statement he said that over 60 funds presently handle medical benefit payments and this has resulted in expensive levels of service to the Australian public. As I have just demonstrated, that is 100 per cent wrong. He talked about 60 funds. There are 62 funds. Only 40 of those are open to the public. The others are private, closed or company-run funds. Again he is dealing in half truths. He makes it sound as though there are over 60 funds open to the public, and that is not true. He uses half truths in his statements. I am appalled at the Minister's misrepresentation. There are only five major funds and they deal with almost 60 per cent of the population. Medibank Private covers 24 per cent. So 84 per cent of the population is covered by just six funds, yet the Minister says there is a great conglomeration of funds and that this makes the system expensive for the people of Australia. That is not true. Through interjection earlier, Senator Crowley compounded the situation by saying there are 70 funds. She should know that is completely inaccurate. There are 62 funds. It is a pity that the Opposition cannot put its case forward to the people in a truthful manner so that they can understand what it is all about. Senator Childs —That is an admission, is it? You said: 'The Opposition'. Senator WALTERS —I am sorry, the Government. The Labor Party should be in opposition. Mr Deputy President, as Senator Peter Baume has said, there is a duplication of existing facilities. Indeed, the cost to the Australian taxpayer is $80m. Nearly all of this is completely wasteful. It will now cost a taxpayer an additional $20m for ongoing services. That is $10m in additional costs that need not have occurred. It will indeed only create additional costs to the people of Australia. The Minister has said in the past that it will be less costly for the average Australian. The average Australian will pay more. The average Australian will be paying his one per cent and he will also have to pay a contribution if he insures privately with the private hospitals and this of course has not been indicated by the Minister at all. Senator Crowley —Rubbish. Senator WALTERS —It has never been indicated by the Minister at all because he said very clearly that it would be less expensive for the average Australian. Senator Crowley —It will be. Senator WALTERS —Senator Crowley has already proved today that she has not spoken the truth when she mentions the 70 funds, so I would cast out any further interjection she may make. As has already been stated by Senator Peter Baume we have found in the past that any government monopoly always has to be subsidised in the end. Government monopolies are not capable of running on their own finances. They end up being subsidised. As I said earlier, we already have proof that Medibank Private was one of those instrumentalities because our Government had to pull it out of the situation it got into with an additional $11m subsidy. I will leave the rest of debate on this legislation until it reaches the Senate. I support Senator Peter Baume's motion for disallowance of this regulation and only hope that the Australian Democrats will do as they have previously indicated and support it. Senator Haines has already indicated that she wishes to support this motion for disallowance. Her colleagues have not supported her on this but I presume, as the Democrats say that they can vote the way they want to vote, that Senator Haines will be joining the Liberals in their vote on this motion for disallowance. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.02) —It appears from the debate thus far and the indications that have been given that the motion for disallowance will not succeed. Nevertheless, I feel that it is necessary for the Senate to make a stand when it comes to regulations of this kind, particularly regulations that are framed and gazetted during the parliamentary recess. This regulation was to make additional functions for the Health Insurance Commission and in particular it stated: For the purposes. . . of the Act the following functions are prescribed, that is to say, to plan and establish the organization required to administer a health insurance scheme to provide benefits in respect of medical, optometrical, dental and pathology services to all Australian residents. That of course was pre-empting the debate on the Government's proposed health insurance legislation which was brought into Parliament only yesterday. I take a dim view of a government, any government, attempting to pre-empt proper debate on a substantial measure such as this. What the Government did, by regulation, was to place the Health Insurance Commission into a position in which it entered into arrangements in relation to computers and other facilities to do what it has not been authorised to do by the Parliament of this nation. Regulations were gazetted without, or prior to, consultations or agreements taking place with the unions involved and as I understand it up until this moment agreement has not been reached between the unions concerned and the Government or the Health Insurance Commission. There is another Health Insurance Commission regulation, No. 152 of 1983, the explanatory notes which are not clear and which I believe the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances will be considering. The reason that I am supporting the disallowance is simply to ensure that the Senate makes a stand , as it is entitled to do, against the attempts made by the Executive Government to stampede proposed legislation and to create a situation which is a fait accompli. I believe that the Senate does have the right and responsibility of audit and control over such Executive decisions and this is one occasion on which we should exercise that audit and control. I support the motion for disallowance. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.09) —I believe that most of this debate should in fact be held the week after next or whenever the legislation for the introduction of Medicare comes into the Parliament. But unfortunately, at least on the part of the Liberal Party, this debate, which is allegedly just about the disallowance of a regulation, has been extended to incorporate all its objections to Medicare, and in particular its objections to the Health Insurance Commission having the sole right to deal under the Medicare legislation as it is predicted it will. I put it to the Senate that there is the world of difference between the attitude of Senator Harradine and the attitude of Senator Haines who object to the regulation basically because they disagree that the regulation should have been a mechanism used by the Government. They object, although the Government does not agree, to the fact that the Government used this regulation in order to do those things necessary to commence the planning of Medicare, rather than agree with the objections raised by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Walters, who in fact indulged in their usual tirade against the Health Insurance Commission. I think it is worth while looking at the record of the Liberal and National parties in the matter of health insurance in recent years and I think it is worth while, on examining that record, to look at their motives for this disallowance. I must point out that the Government opposes the disallowance of this regulation, first of all because we believe that it was a reasonable and rational way to proceed in this matter and, secondly, because the disallowance is unnecessary and irrelevant in light of the fact that the legislation is before the Parliament. Senator Walters —Why not just agree and save the debate? Senator GRIMES —Because to disallow the regulation at this stage would of course cause considerable inconvenience, albeit for a short time, to the smooth introduction of Medicare. As I said, the Liberal and National parties' record in this matter is a history of blind opposition. In fact, in one of the first votes on the introduction of a health insurance program in this chamber in 1975, I vividly remember Senator Peter Baume, as a result of an exchange that he and I had, saying that the medical profession, whose view he was then putting, would co-operate with anybody, anybody at all, except the Australian Labor Party. That is clearly the view of the Liberal Party and the National Party at the moment, not only about the health insurance provisions but also about such things as assets tests, superannuation and everything else. For instance, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) today announced that in government the Opposition would repeal all legislation concerning superannuation and pensions as announced in May and in the recent Budget, even though the legislation is not even before the Parliament. Although the legislation has not been passed it would be repealed, sight unseen, by the Opposition. I remind honourable senators that in 1975 in this place the then Opposition, led by Senator Peter Baume at the time-he more or less led the debate on those occasions, even though he had just arrived here-opposed the introduction of a levy to fund Medibank. That Bill was one of the excuses used to cause a double dissolution in 1975. In early 1976 the same people, now in government, introduced that Bill to put down the levy themselves. They completely turned around on that issue. The sorry history of the Liberal and National parties, represented here today by Senator Walters and Senator Peter Baume, has been one of blind obstruction at any opportunity. This motion is typical of that obstruction. The disallowance of this regulation serves no useful purpose, except for those who have Senator Harradine's view and believe that the Senate should exert its powers in this situation to avoid government by the Executive. Senator Peter Baume and Senator Walters gave nothing but a tirade against the Health Insurance Commission and in favour of the voluntary health funds, a cause absolutely consistent with the blind obstructionism in which they have indulged since 1974 and 1975. It is worth while to look at the record in this area, not only of the Liberal and National parties in opposition but also of the voluntary health funds. In 1975 all private health funds were given the opportunity to act as agents for Medibank and no major fund took up that offer. The Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia now says that the reason for that was that 'it believed that the Medibank claims assessing system would be hastily installed, resulting in problems and confusion'. It believed that the funds, being the contact point, would be blamed. The funds now concede that that did not happen. They now concede that Medibank was introduced without major public inconvenience. They concede that they made a mistake. What they are saying is that Medibank is efficient and that under the Medicare system it will be efficient, and they want to be in on it. In those days they did not want a bar of it; now they do. Senator Walters and Senator Baume, knowing very well of the financial and physical support given to them in successive election campaigns by the voluntary health funds, support them as they have done consistently over the years. Senator Baume's arguments are so poor that he has to indulge in a sectarian exchange with Senator Tate. That is pathetic and particularly pathetic coming from Senator Peter Baume. In 1978 the Liberal Government decided that the Health Insurance Commission could function solely as another private fund. Both Senator Baume and Senator Walters were in this place at that time. Did they care to show any concern then about the effect of that change on Medibank? Did they have much concern about the loss of jobs? The removal of the public function of Medibank, the Health Insurance Commission, left the Commission with 3,000 surplus staff and a computer system owned by the Department of Health which was not appropriate for its future needs. Within 14 months the Health Insurance Commission had developed an on-line processing system that any independent evaluation would agree is at least the equivalent of the best in Australia. Let us look at the facts. The Health Insurance Commission has had to cope in that time with the gradual rundown of surplus staff numbers after the 1978 changes. Therefore, its staff levels have been unnecessarily high as have its staff costs. That it has been coping, and coping efficiently, is reflected in the fact that its management expenses fell from the 1980-81 figure of 13.5 per cent of income contribution quoted by Senator Walters to 11.3 per cent in 1981- 82 to the 10.1 per cent shown in the Health Insurance Commission report tabled in this Parliament recently. At the same time the management expenses of the other major funds rose from 10.6 per cent in 1980-81 to 10.9 per cent in 1981-82 . The figures are now about the same. While Medibank expenses have been going down, those of the other health funds have been going up. In her usual manner Senator Walters talked about the $21m that her Government contributed to the Health Insurance Commission. She omitted to say that this year the Commission has already repaid $10m. Over that time the much lauded and praiseworthy funds about which she talked, at various stages and particularly after the early changes, have been carried in part by Medibank carrying some of their debts because of their refusal to accept them. I ask Senator Walters to go back to Tasmania and tell those people who are out of pocket to the extent of $1 ,000 or more, the doctors, the hospitals and the patients who are in strife as a result of the collapse of the Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund, how efficient that fund was and how well protected were its members. Senator Tate —She is not listening. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters listens only when she thinks that she is getting the best of the argument. The Liberal and National parties are concerned about what they call the monopoly control of the Health Insurance Commission in the area of Medicare. No one in this community can have been under any illusion about the intentions of the Australian Labor Party in Government. No one can suggest that the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in his ceaseless endeavours to explain not only to the electorate but also to the doctors, the health insurance funds, the private hospitals, everyone involved in the provision of health care in this country, did not at all times make it clear that the Australian Labor Party in Government would give the Health Insurance Commission the so-called monopoly about which Senator Baume and Senator Walters seem so concerned. In negotiations not only with Senator Haines but also with the voluntary health funds and others in the community he has gone out of his way to ensure that people understood and that modifications could be made to the system which would protect the jobs and the rights of various people involved in the industry. We have two sad and sorry representatives of the Liberal Party attacking Dr Blewett and the Health Insurance Commission, which is headed by a leading Australian businessman, a man involved in private enterprise, for largely imaginary defects. They say that the duty of their Party in Opposition is to obstruct at every point along the line. That is an approach typical of an Opposition which has no ideas and which must cover up its own sorry record in this area. When I sat on the other side of the Parliament from 1976 until early this year I was the spokesman for our Party on health in this place. Year after year amendments to the Health Insurance Act were brought in, as were amendments to the National Health Act. Year after year it was claimed that those changes would introduce the brave new world of health insurance in this country, that everything would be satisfactory. It got so silly that newspaper cartoonists used to portray the Minister for Health of the day saying: 'I feel another health insurance system coming on'. It became so silly that I used to get up in this place at the end of each piece of health legislation and finish my speech by saying: 'I will see you all again here next year because this cannot work, it will not work and we will have another series of amendments to the legislation'. More often than not we had amendments twice a year. Compare that with the situation now. Dr Blewett and the Australian Labor Party have for years spelt out adequately and clearly what we would do in the area of health insurance. This was spelt out to the electorate and to everyone involved so that no one was in any doubt about what would happen. Compare that with the action of Mr Fraser who said: 'Medibank will remain' and then proceeded to destroy it year after year through various incompetent Ministers for Health. As a result of that, if ever a party in this place had a clear mandate to do anything, it is the Australian Labor Party which has a mandate to introduce the Medicare system. There can be no question about that and there can be no question about what the people said in March this year. For that reason we believe that just for once the Opposition should not indulge in the sort of nonsense and hypocrisy it went on with in 1975. It should look at the proposals which have been accepted by the Australian people. It should take the attitude adopted by Senator Haines and say: 'Well, there are things we do not like and which we believe should be modified' and spend an inordinate amount of time consulting with the Minister involved. Perhaps then we would end up with a better and more reasonable system. But to take every excuse, including the disallowance of a regulation, to obstruct the introduction of a fair and equitable health insurance system in this country is, I believe, a travesty of what an opposition should do. For members of the Opposition to act as they did in 1975-they claim they are not doing that but are trying to disallow this regulation in order to uphold the rights of the Senate-and then proceed to can the Health Insurance Commission, the Minister for Health and everybody else for anything up to 20 or 25 minutes is to confirm Disraeli's description of conservative governments as organised hypocrisy. In this case it is the Opposition and it is disorganised hypocrisy. Therefore I ask the Senate not to accept Senator Baume's motion to disallow the regulation, to accept the fact that the legislation is before the House of Representatives and will shortly be before the Senate and to accept the fact that once that legislation is passed the regulation will become irrelevant anyhow. Question put: That the motion (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Jessop, D. S. Hearn, J. M. Missen, A. J. Georges, G. Watson, J. O. W. Question so resolved in the negative Consideration resumed from 6 September 1983. Clause 20 (Dissolution of marriage). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.30) — I do not propose to canvass all of the issues that have been canvassed both within the Parliament and outside concerning the need to sustain the institution of marriage. The amendment I have moved, amendment No. 18, is an attempt to give young marriages an opportunity to work. At present young marriages can be dissolved on the ground of separation for 12 months. In my view that is inadequate in any marriage and that will be the subject of a further amendment. It is particularly inadequate in relation to young marriages. As I have indicated previously, the term 'young marriage' includes-marriages involving a person who has been through the divorce court and has remarried. As I mentioned last night, I do not accept viewpoints of lawyers in England who, for one reason or another, have made certain recommendations in this field. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) compared not like with like but like with unlike. I do not accept that. I and other persons who are attempting to ensure that reasonable amendments are passed by this Parliament to give genuine legislative support to the institution of marriage find ourselves in a defensive position. The onus of proof should be on the other side because the quite arbitrary decision to define irretrievable breakdown in marriage as 12 months separation is something that was imposed upon the people of Australia by a one-vote majority. No scientific backup or case was put forward for that; it was a quite arbitrary decision. So far as I am concerned the onus of proof is on the other side. The proof is mounting that that quite arbitrary decision was disastrous for marriages in Australia and, therefore, disastrous for the community as a whole. As I said, I do not propose to recanvass all of the issues. I simply hope that in this instance, in this attempt to protect young marriages from breaking up and to establish in the legislation a principle which will enable the people who enter into the contract of marriage time to allow the marriage to work, the Senate will support my amendment and include it in the legislation. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.34) -I move: (19) Page 14, clause 20, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause: Dissolution of marriage ''20. Section 48 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: '48. (1) An application under this Act by a party to a marriage for a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be based on the fact that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. '(2) In a proceeding instituted by such an application, the fact that the marriage has broken down irretrievably shall be held to have been established if , and only if, it is proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Court that- (a) the other party to the marriage has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with that party; (b) since the marriage the other party to the marriage has committed continuing adultery; (c) the other party to the marriage has wilfully deserted the applicant and left the applicant so deserted for a period of 2 years or more; or (d) the parties to the marriage have separated and thereafter have lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the date of the application and there is no reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed, provided that the Court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is not harsh and oppressive to either party or contrary to public policy to grant the relief sought.'.''. My attitude to marriage is that marriage is a covenant, a commitment for life. Indeed, that is encompassed in the Family Law Act at section 43, which states: The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act or any other Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to- (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; Of course, a large number of people within the community perceive that commitment as being a commitment not only between man and woman but also in the sight of God. But we live in an imperfect world and, as legislators, we must understand that there are varying attitudes. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the common good of the country is maintained. The common good of the country cannot be maintained whilst ever we see the slide that we are seeing now in divorce figures and the consequences of divorce-the legal and economic consequences and the consequences for children. The position is that in 1982 because of the Family Law Act and the easy divorce provision of that Act-despite the high sounding principles in section 43-there were 44,088 divorces. That is the last year for which figures are available. The children affected by those divorces-that is, children under 18 years of age- numbered more than 53,000. I remind the Senate that the breakdown rate for second marriages has now reached 50 per cent or almost twice the rate for first marriages. That sort of situation causes grave concern to us as legislators. It certainly is causing grave concern amongst the people who elect us. In addition, there is a great deal of anxiety and anguish within the community, a feeling of frustration and a sense of injustice because of the operations of the Family Law Court of Australia. Each member of parliament frequently receives letters expressing this sense of injustice. We have to come back to the basics-that promises made by the parties to the marriage celebration are solemn, serious and imply mutual good for the parties. Those promises include an undertaking that they will care for each other and so on. If people want a different, impermanent relationship which is inconsistent with the concept of marriage-even that indicated in section 43 of the Act, which refers to the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life-and do not want to undertake such promises, they can of course have a de facto relationship. I certainly do not condone that but it is available to them. If people are not prepared to make the contractual commitments implied by the marriage vows they can enter, as some have, into a sexual relationship which under the law as it now exists does not have the same protection and understanding. The need is to strengthen marriage, not to so weaken it that there will be no perceived difference in the community outlook and under the law between marriage and de facto sexual cohabitation. I refer honourable senators to the requirement under section 46 of the Marriage Act in relation to what the celebrants of a marriage must say. The Family Law Act provides that the only proof needed of marriage breakdown is that there shall have been a separation for 12 months. The legislation makes it immaterial that one party does not agree, or positively disagrees, that the marriage has broken down. Many of the complaints that have been made come from persons who are in this category. The concept of mutuality and joint promises, the commitment to the optimum ideal of marriage as a voluntary union between a man and a woman for life, to the exclusion of all others, is not upheld by section 48 of the Act. That is why I seek to have that section repealed and replaced by the provision that I have mentioned. The divorce provisions of the Act are in contradiction to the definition of marriage set out in section 43, which I have described. Section 48 teaches powerfully that marriage, despite the promises made at its inception, can be ended at the will of either party, regardless of the keeping or breaking of those promises, and that either party can apply for and obtain negation of those promises after living apart for 12 months. The party actively breaking promises can apply for divorce. The method of divorce encompassed in the Act changes the perception of the nature of marriage to that of an arrangement terminable at will. The 12 months separation period is too short. While the 12 months separation ground exists and is presented in some quarters as an attractive and easy solution of matrimonial difficulties it will be used although, as I have often said, the problems do not go away. I repeat, remarriage has a 50 per cent failure rate. It is not in the interests of marriage or the family, about which the Act professes great concern, to make the legal dissolution of marriage so easy. Since the inception of the Act it has become increasingly obvious that persons who, under the sanction type legislation of the Matrimonial Causes Act, for example, would never have left their families are doing so in ever increasing numbers. I refer to prominent members of the medical and legal professions, politicians and others who the community might well expect to provide an example of integrity. People are familiar with the concept of sanctions and it is unrealistic to expect the principle to be upheld without individuals knowing and understanding the consequences of their actions. These concepts are clearly expressed in rules of law relating to a whole host of other matters such as breaking contracts in civil law, offences associated with the abuse of the privilege of driving a motor vehicle-even down to spitting on trains, failing to contain dangerous or nuisance matters on one's property, overhanging trees, careless management of vehicles used for public transport and in most cases where behaviour damages or tends to damage one's neighbours. How can this concept be removed by the legislative pen from marriage and divorce without a negative result to the family, to children and to society? Since the inception of the Act, hundreds of thousands of children have been affected by divorce. The number of such children under the age of 18 years has now reached 400,000. The consensus has been that all children suffer in psyche and stability as a result of divorce. One can divorce a spouse but never one's children. Bearing in mind the nature and purpose of the rules of our society and the importance of stable home life to the welfare of all, I believe there ought to be other ways of proving irretrievable breakdown of marriage than simply that there has been a separation for 12 months. The previous divorce law, the Matrimonial Causes Act, provided for dissolution of marriage upon proof of one of several objective tests of whether the marriage had broken down. These objective tests were dubbed 'fault' when, in reality, they were tests of behaviour of the parties within the marriage covenant as to whether or not an essential breach of the marriage bond had been committed. If marriage is to be the basis of families and the long term commitment required for the bringing up of children it is reasonable to expect that the implications of the breakdown of such a commitment can and should be tested in an objective way. The reintroduction of an objective test or tests to ensure that the state of irretrievable breakdown of marriage has been established will permit the community interest in the protection of marriage and the family to be best served. An objective test or tests will ensure that only the person complaining of conduct can make application for dissolution of marriage. Also, objective tests for the establishment of irretrievable breakdown will institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the marriage which will greatly facilitate any necessary decisions as regards custody. There are in my amendment a brief number of these tests. For example, adultery is retained as a test since, in all societies except the most promiscuous, a continuous adulterous relationship is regarded as a fundamental breach of the marital consensus, which is substantially based upon a sexual relationship. ( Extension of time granted) It also seems desirable to retain, as an objective test of the fact of irretrievable breakdown, a lengthy period of separation subject to a wide discretion in the court that after consideration of all of the circumstances it is not harsh and oppressive to either party or contrary to public policy to grant the decree. I submit that we have come to the stage where we must put this question to the test. It needs to be put to the test. Many people in the community are crying out for something to be done. There is a great sense of injustice particularly on the part of those people who do not want to see the marriage break up and I believe now is the time to put that matter to the test and for us to stand up and be counted upon it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.51) —The removal of the concept of fault from the grounds for divorce, which Senator Harradine now seeks to turn around, was of course exhaustively debated in 1975. The view which prevailed in 1975, after that very extensive debate, was that fault ought to be removed from the dissolution decision, freeing the court to concentrate on being satisfied as to the fact of irretrievable marriage breakdown and on deciding the most equitable distribution of property, the proper level of maintenance and, of overwhelming importance, the best possible arrangements for the welfare of any children of the marriage. The approach which prevailed to enable the court to focus on those matters and not to be diverted by considerations of fault has come to be accepted almost universally in the Australian community. Of all the achievements wrought by the Family Law Act in 1975-in many ways revolutionary achievements-the removal of the concept of fault I believe has been the best understood of those changes and the most universally accepted. In endeavouring to recreate in many ways the situation which prevailed before that 1975 legislation, Senator Harradine is trying to flog life back into a horse which is very dead indeed. The demonstration of just how dead that horse is is the condition of the benches, particularly on the Government side but on the Opposition side as well, in the course of this debate. People do not regard this any longer as being a real issue, though they are concerned about many aspects of the way in which the Family Law Act is operating and are concerned to ensure that the operation of the Act is improved. In opposing Senator Harradine's amendment, I speak not for the Government but for myself because, as I indicated yesterday, this is one of those clauses on which the Government has decided to allow a free vote so far as its members are concerned-as it will in relation to all the other matters we are to debate which it can be argued do raise moral considerations or questions going to the preservation of the institution of marriage. Senator Missen —Why limit it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I acknowledge the howl of pain from Senator Missen. Senator Hill —Who makes the judgment? Senator GARETH EVANS —It has been the subject of debate in the party room and I do not want to get again into the internal affairs of the Australian Labor Party , which I do not think would be of any interest to anyone but members of the Labor Party. In respect of the major matters in which it is clear that strong moral views are held, we readily accept that it is appropriate that there be an untied vote. This is one of those matters. I simply make that point. I believe that my views in this respect, although others may choose to speak for themselves, are in fact reflective of those of my Party and indeed are reflective of the overwhelming sentiment in the community at large. Many points could be made about Senator Harradine's proposal, and no doubt Senator Missen and others who participated in the work of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act will make them. The only particular point I wish to emphasise is that there is a fundamental inconsistency in the particular proposal that Senator Harradine has put before us. So far from making it more difficult for parties to an unsatisfactory marriage to obtain a divorce and going in that way to preserve marriages from too quick or too unthinking a dissolution, which is one of the stated objectives of Senator Harradine's amendment, I believe his proposal will have the reverse effect. It can be very strongly argued, as it was argued by the Joint Select Committee, that to introduce now the grounds that Senator Harradine proposes-the fault grounds plus the extended period of separation that he would require-would increase the probability of instant divorce being sought and obtained. There is real encouragement provided to spouses who wish to contrive one of the fault grounds- adultery is the usual candidate in this respect-to obtain the instant divorce that many of them would prefer. Senator Harradine —It is continuing adultery, and in your own words it would not get on before the court for 18 months, anyhow. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not say it would not get on for 18 months. Senator Harradine —That is what you were saying the other day about contested cases. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is in relation to property matters, not default grounds where there is consent by the parties concerned. I have quoted before, much to Senator Harradine's disgust, the United Kingdom Law Society report of 1979, entitled 'A Better Way Out'. He is not appreciative of the efforts of lawyers at all in this respect, least of all United Kingdom ones. Nonetheless, a major report devoted to these particular matters has been prepared of recent times. It was noted that only a very small percentage of undefended divorce petitions were based on the ground of two years separation with consent, which is the closest approximate ground that I can see to the Harradine amendment. What has happened is that there has been a much greater reliance on the fault grounds rather than people being prepared to wait out that period of two years' separation which Senator Harradine would provide for, among other considerations . The particular point that was made very vigorously by the Joint Select Committee was that the combination of the availability of an immediate fault ground plus a longer separation period in fact will be likely to result in many parties colluding to obtain a fault divorce, which is the very antithesis of what I take it Senator Harradine wants to achieve with this amendment. Senator Harradine —But the situation in the UK is that either party can apply. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. Senator Harradine —Well, that is not the situation that I am proposing here. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure that that undermines, anyway, the force of the point I am making. It would still be possible if the grounds proposed by Senator Harradine were to go into the Act for the parties to join together to obtain by collusive means a divorce rather more quickly than they can obtain a divorce at the moment. I do not understand the honourable senator's basic thrust . Senator Harradine —With consequence to property and custody matters? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I am not saying consequential matters will be able to be resolved in any shorter time frame than they are at the moment but the divorce which would enable the parties to be free of the formal shackles of marriage and enter into new matrimonial relations, which is the very thing Senator Harradine wants to dissuade people from doing without a long period of careful reflection about what they are doing, seems to me to be unlikely to be achieved; in fact, the contrary will occur because of the particular combination of grounds which he would make available to the parties. Senator Harradine —That is not so. Senator GARETH EVANS —The point can be made later on in the debate by other speakers. It is not a ground that I wish to track over in any enormous detail because there have been very lengthy debates on this whole subject matter, including the implications of the kinds of fault grounds, the combinations of fault grounds and the larger questions of philosophical principles that are involved here. All of these matters were exhaustively debated in this Parliament in 1975 and in the context of the review by the Joint Select Committee. I simply do not believe that the kinds of propositions advanced by Senator Harradine and others who share his views in this place will attract in any way a responsive chord in the great majority of people in the community at large. It is for those reasons that I believe the proposal ought to be rejected. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(12.00) —I rise also to oppose Senator Harradine's amendment and other amendments that seek to change the grounds for divorce in the Act which has operated since 1975. Apparently the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has given papal dispensation on certain moral grounds to various votings for or against Senator Walters's amendments and I think some of Senator Harradine's amendments. I happen to have a strong moral principle in favour of effective and useful legislation and an effective and useful Family Court of Australia. I intend to move amendments on this. Senator Walters —What is that? Senator MISSEN —My moral principle is that we ought to be doing what we can to make an effective operation here. I cannot see anything other than nonsense in the idea that in this place we should distinguish between amendments based upon some conscience grounds. My conscience is strong. I am in favour of amendments, particularly ones that have been examined at length by joint committees. I hope that members of the Australian Labor Party will seek their conscience rights, if that is what they have to do to carry out this nonsense, so that they can vote for such amendments and make proper use of the facilities of the country to obtain the best provisions that we can for family law. However, that is a problem for the Labor Party members, and most of them are not present in the chamber. I wish they were showing a greater interest in this debate. Senator Harradine's amendment is based upon his own concept-- Senator Macklin —To be fair, there are not many Liberals either. Senator MISSEN —I agree with that. There are very few Liberal members present and the National Party of Australia is very poorly represented also. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —Fifty per cent. Senator MISSEN —I am sorry; I have done it an injustice. Two members of the National Party are here. I think it is disappointing that so few members are here. They may be called on later to vote in divisions on some of these matters; but perhaps they are listening to this debate. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Lewis) —Order! I ask Senator Missen to return to clause 20. Senator MISSEN —Mr Temporary Chairman, thank you for reminding me. Clause 20 is the important aspect of this matter. Senator Harradine bases the amendment upon his principles, which are that marriage is a covenant for life. I agree with that. It happens to be my belief as well. But it is not one that a lot of people have been able to undergo because of the very unfortunate situations in which they have found themselves over the years. Their lives have become a misery and to force them to stay in marriage with another party would be disgraceful. Before I became a member of this Parliament I practised extensively in this jurisdiction, and I saw the nonsense that had to go on regarding proof of evidence. It fills me with horror that Senator Harradine is trying to revive that monstrous system. Senator Harradine says that it is based on section 43 of the Act. He makes the same mistake as our former colleague, Senator Martyr, kept making; that is, that section 43 of the Family Law Act is a definition of marriage. Marriage and the obligations of marriage are defined in the Marriage Act, not in the Family Law Act. Section 43, as its side heading shows, contains the principles to be applied by the courts in connection with actions under the Family Law Act. Members of Parliament in 1974 wanted to state those principles and they were inserted as a guide to the Court. Section 43 is not a definition of marriage and it does not say that marriages are only those that preserve a union of man and woman for life. So far as the amendment is concerned, I take further the point Senator Gareth Evans made. Under the proposed amendment we would probably have quicker divorces and less time would be spent in trying to reconcile the parties, if possible, or to conciliate where it is not possible to bring them together. At the moment the Court must have objective proof of 12 months separation. That has to have happened. Senator Harradine's amendment would take away that requirement. Parties would be able to get divorced at a very early stage. They could prove that the marriage had broken down irretrievably by showing a number of things. Desertion rears its ugly head again, but in this case it is called 'wilful desertion', and a period of two years is specified. That would take the parties a while to prove. Who knows what wilful desertion will be? That is a different thing altogether. Then, continuing adultery is put forward as one of the possible ways of proving breakdown. What on earth is continuing adultery? Senator Chipp —Do you know what it means? Senator MISSEN —I do not know what it means. By the sound of it, it means being regular in one's habits and constantly committing adultery. I do not know what it means. I will have to bow to other senators' greater knowledge of this subject, from a practical point of view. In the old Act there was a reference to a repeated act of adultery. I think that under that ground wives could divorce their husbands only if they could show a repeated act of adultery on the part of the husband. Senator Hill —That is going back a long way. Senator MISSEN —It is going back a bit, but that was the law up until 1959. Turning it the other way round, the husband could divorce his wife for one single act of adultery. I can understand repeated acts, but I cannot understand continuing adultery. I do not know to what extent one would be able to do that. Presumably that would show up in a few circumstances. Senator Chipp —How many hours a day, would you say? Senator MISSEN —I do not intend to follow Senator Chipp down this murky path. Senator Chipp —It is not murky; it is delightful. Senator MISSEN —Everyone to his own delights. Senator Harradine's amendment specifies a period of separation of not less than two years. It was attempted to include the same provision in the Act in 1974 but it was knocked out by the Parliament. In this case, the Court would have to be satisfied that it was not harsh and oppressive to either party or contrary to public policy to grant the relief sought. That would be very difficult. One can see in those proposals the complete restoration of all the rottenness of the fault grounds as we had them. When the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act referred to these arguments it put the argument for retaining the present grounds in this way, which I think is well said: The need for reform of the law of divorce was established at the time of introduction of the reform and the indignities, hypocrisies, expenses and delays associated with the old system based on grounds were notorious and that a return to such a system in whole or in part would be a social disaster. I say hear, hear, to that. All the attempts that Senator Harradine has been making elsewhere to use more conciliation, to try bringing the parties together and so forth, would be defeated by such an amendment. All these matters were considered by the Joint Committee, which did not recommend any proposals such as these. It is interesting that these additional means of proof are basically the law in England at present, and England wants to change that law and follow Australia's more modern law. Senator Walters —Who told you that? Senator MISSEN —The honourable senator could not have been listening. That was the evidence before our Committee. Senator Harradine —What? A bunch of lawyers? Senator MISSEN —They are not a bunch of lawyers. A number of people who were very specialised in the social welfare area and people who had experience in the Court in all kinds of ways, not just lawyers, appeared before the Joint Committee. Just because some lawyers were involved does not mean they did not know what they were talking about. The 1971 English law abolished the old grounds for divorce and replaced them with irretrievable breakdown, but that can be established only by proving one of five facts set out in the Act. Three of them were akin but not identical to the old grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion and, therefore, imputed fault to the respondent. The other two dealt with periods of separation. For heavens sake, surely we do not intend to go back to what is soon to be abandoned, I hope, in England, because that has proved to be a quite unsuccessful way of handling it. To bring back into this Act the fault grounds, to bring back the bitterness and hatred, the old inquiry agents and others who were needed to prove these things-- Senator Hill —It was awful. Senator MISSEN —As my colleague says, it was an awful procedure. It was degrading for the parties and for everybody concerned. I leave the matter there. I trust that we will have no part of this amendment or others of this sort. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(12.09) —In voting on this amendment I will be acting in pursuance of my own conscientiously determined position and not in accordance with any attempt-not that there was any attempt-to bind my vote by the Parliamentary Labor Party. Senator Harradine's amendment raises very squarely the question of the ground upon which this Committee should permit society to recognise that a validly married couple have come to the end of their partnership in life, that it has disintegrated to such a degree that a dissolution of the marriage ought to be formally acknowledged by society. I indicate to the Committee that I do not support Senator Harradine's attempt to introduce a further list of criteria, with echoes of the old fault system, into the description of the grounds for divorce presently provided for. I do so for a primary reason, and I bolster that reason with some memories of the realities of the past which have just been adverted to in the remarks between Senator Missen and Senator Hill. My primary reason is that Senator Harradine's reintroducing of a list of grounds, with echoes of the old fault system, tends to mislead the Australian community as to the causes of the breakdown of marriage in our society. I offer the Senate the following quotation from a book which I looked at last night in the Parliamentary Library. Under the heading 'Marital Disorganisation' it states : The vast changes brought about by industralization create problems that married couples are not always well prepared to face. There is a contrast between industrialised society and the more stable societies of agriculturally based communities. It continues: The causes of marital disorganization and divorce are difficult to determine, and it is certain that there is no single simple cause. The legal grounds for divorce are of little real value for understanding the causes; and such often- mentioned factors as drinking, desertion, or adultery hide more basic factors that have caused both the undesirable behaviour and the divorce . . . That article puts the disintegration of marriage, which is of alarming proportions, into the context of the unstable industrialised society in which we live. The book I quoted from is the New Catholic Encyclopaedia. That is hardly a journal of trendy left wing opinion. It is a sober assessment by the authors of that article on marriage of the causes of disintegration. As I said, they indicate that it is not easy to equate the old fault system with an idenfication of the causes of dissolution of marriage. Indeed, this is the same conclusion as was reached by the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act entitled 'Family Law in Australia'. My basic position is that marriage and its dissolution occur quite apart from a social, formal recognition of the fact, whether it be of the marriage or of the dissolution. Both at common law and at canon law it is not absolutely juridically necessary for there to be witnesses or for there to be any sort of formal, social recognition of the fact of marriage. Of course, that is the normal situation. But if two people cohabit with the intention of a life-long partnership and they cannot have witnesses present to their pledging of that life-long partnership nevertheless a marriage exists. As I said, public ratification, a ceremony or a ritual, are not necessary to the existence of the marriage. It is exactly the same in relation to the dissolution or disintegration of the marriage. My point is that marriages disintegrate, dissolve or fall apart, quite apart from the social recognition or public acknowledgment of that fact. It is true that society generally, and the parties indeed, have an interest in the formal recognition of that disintegration of the partnership because there are consequences that have to be dealt with whether in relation to the custody of children, property settlements, the concessions which society makes to a married relationship in taxation laws and so on. Of course, the law of bigamy has to be kept in mind because frequently, the former partners of a marriage wish to enter into a new cohabiting partnership and they wish for that to take place within a marriage situation. For all those reasons society has an interest in publicly ratifying, recognising or acknowledging that the disintegration or dissolution of the marriage has occurred. But my point is that the sole, proper interest of society is to determine whether that disintegration or dissolution of the partnership has indeed occurred. It is not proper to the wider Australian society, even if it is possible to establish it, to try to delve into the supposed or presumed causes-the symbolic activities which are said to underly the dissolution of the marriage. There may be forums in which that ought to occur. But I do not believe that it is the proper function of the Family Court of Australia to delve into those supposed causes. Further, the reason why I feel obliged to oppose the re-introduction of the list of criteria put by Senator Harradine is that anybody who has sat in the divorce courts, as I did as an articled clerk, and listened to the embarrassment , the humiliation, the bitterness, the exaggeration, the conniving and the collusion between the parties in relation to the setting up of the fault ground would not want to see a rekindling of that traumatic atmosphere. I think it is very significant indeed that those with the most knowledge of how family courts actually operate and operated are the ones who are so strongly in favour of the present system as opposed to that which operated in the past. It is significant that the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act at paragraph 3.30 of its report states: The changes implemented in 1975 are supported by many submissions that the Committee has received. In particular they receive the support of organisations representing those most involved in the administration of the law, such as the Judges of the Family Court, the Family Law Advisory Committee of the Law Council of Australia, marriage guidance and counselling agencies, Councils of Social Services and other community bodies. In other words, those most involved and with the best memories of how the old system worked are those who are most adamant that those embers of all that traumatic bitterness ought not be rekindled. I believe that if Senator Harradine 's proposals were accepted by the Parliament, those embers would be rekindled. Let us consider some of the grounds put forward in Senator Harradine's amendment. One is to permit dissolution if it is proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Court that the other party to the marriage has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the party. I imagine that this would cover situations of cruelty, alcohol or drug- induced intoxication, refusal to consummate the marriage or engaging in crime. But those are only some of the instances which flash before the imagination as activities which might satisfy this very vague criterion. It is exceedingly difficult to circumscribe or describe what might fall within that ground. I think it ought to be rejected on the grounds of that very failure to be specific , that vagueness which attends it. Then there is the alternative ground-- Senator Chipp —It is forcing a subjective judgment on the Court, too. Senator TATE —It is forcing the Court to try to come to a judgment in relation to criteria which are extremely vague and not circumscribed at all. But there is one criterion that is perhaps more particular and that is that a marriage may be dissolved if it is reasonably demonstrated that since the marriage the other party to the marriage has committed continuing adultery. This must be taken to speak of separate acts of adultery, unless it is attributed to stamina or something, but there is no indication of how many acts of adultery should be taken to constitute continuing adultery or how frequent or how related those acts should be. In any case, why ignore a single act of adultery if the party committing that single act of adultery attaches the significance to it that it is a demonstration, a symbol or a final indication that the marriage partnership , as far as he or she is concerned, is at an end. A single act of adultery can be as dramatic an indication of the dissolution of the marriage as a continuing series. Indeed, it may have more significance than perhaps frequent acts of adultery with very casual partners to which no significance is attached by the party indulging in them. For those reasons, looking even at the detail of the amendment proposed by Senator Harradine, I cannot support it because of its vagueness and because, more fundamentally, it is misleading as to the true causes of disintegration of marriage within Australian society. The present law, which I support, provides that in effect substantial disruption of the marriage relationship must have occurred for at least 12 months before the filing of the application for dissolution. For completeness I will read in full the wording of the section which I continue to support: 48. (1) An application under this Act by a party to a marriage for a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be based on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. (2) Subject to sub-section (3), in a proceeding instituted by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been established, and a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be made, if, and only if, the court is satisfied that the parties separated and thereafter lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application for dissolution of marriage. (3) A decree of dissolution of marriage shall not be made if the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed. That section is one which in conscience I can support, and do support by rejecting Senator Harradine's amendment. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.22) —I will speak briefly on Senator Harradine's amendment. I do not support it because its intention is to reintroduce fault as a ground for divorce. Any divorce law must present problems for people who believe in marriage as a union for life to the exclusion of all others. As Senator Harradine has pointed out, the Family Law Act in fact defines marriage in this traditional way. Yet it has proved itself able to operate in such a way that the divorce rate has greatly increased. There is widespread concern that since 1975 the Family Law Act may have contributed to that situation. Nevetheless, as legislators we are bound to provide adequate, workable and fair laws for the community for whom we legislate. It is not proper for those of us who may not believe in divorce to impose our moral views on the community as a whole, which I think probably vastly disagrees with such views. The great feature of the Family Law Act 1975 was to do away with the fault concept. In many countries with societies that are largely cohesive in their moral attitudes towards divorce, divorce is not permitted. That is probably the only logical position. But, as I have said, that is not the situation in our community and as legislators we have to have regard to the widespread community support for a divorce law. In that case the best approach is to try to find a basis for that law which is as fair and workable as possible and also one which has regard to the great personal sensitivities that arise in this area. There is no doubt that the old fault basis of divorce and the proceedings based on fault offended people who were engaged in them. It offended the lawyers who had to act for people in such cases, particularly when they involved cruelty. The type of conflict that developed between parties in such cases was most depressing. People criticised the fault ground based on adultery because it involved private inquiry agents, snooping and all that sort of thing. But I think probably the criticism of the fault ground would be better directed to the areas of cruelty and constructive desertion, as they were known. Certainly, the first limb of Senator Harradine's amendment would reintroduce all those sorts of disputes. Although it was a major social and legal experiment, and certainly needs to be closely monitored, the central feature of abolition of fault in the Family Law Act should be preserved. As I have said, there are growing concerns in the community about machinery aspects of the Act. Nevertheless, I would be very reluctant indeed to come to the conclusion that the reintroduction of fault as such as the ground for divorce is required. I certainly do not believe that the experience that we have had with the Act, in both a legal and a social sense, would justify that. I am fortified in that view by the findings of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, which Committee was set up as a consequence of my motion when I was Attorney-General. I had in mind that that Committee should give close consideration to the question of grounds for divorce . That Committee reported to the Parliament in favour of, although not unanimously in favour of, the retention of the central feature of the Act, the no fault ground. For those reasons I oppose this amendment. However, I am attracted, as I always have been, to a longer period of separation as the single no-fault ground for divorce. I believe that a one-year separation is too short a time for people really to determine whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down. Secondly, I believe-this is borne out by the experience we have had of the Act-that the easy availability of divorce as a result of only one year's separation does not place on parties to marriage sufficient inducement seriously to face their responsibilities to each other and to their children, and I emphasise to each other as well as to the children. What is really required to be built into the legislation are road blocks which will make people wake up to themselves and to their responsibilities. When the original Bill was introduced into the Senate in 1974 I moved an amendment to provide for a 2-year separation. Nothing that I have seen or heard since then has made me qualify that view, which I still hold. I have indicated a simple amendment along those lines to provide for two years separation instead of one year. That will be debated separately. The only aspect of Senators Harradine's amendment which would attract my support is the fourth limb, although I believe it introduces considerations which go too far and I could not support it as it stands. However, I certainly do support Senator Harradine in his efforts to require people, by our legislation, to have regard to their very great responsibilities when they enter into a matrimonial relationship. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(12.31) —I will speak briefly to this amendment. I am sympathetic with what Senator Durack has been saying and the principles he has set out in regard to marriage and the standards that he would seek to achieve concerning the dissolution of marriage but I am not convinced about his foreshadowed amendment. Whilst I am sympathetic with many of the statements that Senator Harradine made in his speech I do not support his amendment. Senator Harradine's amendment goes to the heart of the Family Law Act. It relates to the vital clause that sets out the grounds for the Family Court to regard a marriage as irretrievably broken down and so subject to dissolution. The four grounds which Senator Harradine's amendment would intrude in place of the one universal ground at present in the Act would, unfortunately, bring back a subjective set of judgments to the Family Court in such proceedings and would bring back an assessment of fault. The principle in the Family Law Act that was achieved in 1975 was the exclusion of consideration of fault in marriage breakdown. Marriage was seen as a commitment by two people sincerely and genuinely intending that commitment to be lifelong and permanent. I think all of us who have spoken, not least Senator Harradine, Senator Durack and myself, very much want to emphasise that marriage is a lifelong commitment, is permanent and is intended to be shored up, supported and safeguarded by this legislation and by all that we may say in this debate. The arguments that were put forward at the time of the passing of the Family Law Act by the Parliament, the experience since and the express evidence given to the parliamentary inquiry about the exclusion of fault as a ground for dissolution all point to the same conclusion, and that is that the public of Australia now accept-they accepted it at the time of the establishment of the Act-that the Family Law Act is an appropriate way of defining the grounds for dissolution of a marriage. Therefore I cannot support those parts of Senator Harradine's amendment that would bring fault back into the Family Law Act. Nevertheless, I am sympathetic with those involved in a marriage relationship who suffer the consequences of behaviour which is such that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other party. I am also sympathetic with a partner who is subject to the relationship being in jeopardy or broken because of adultery. I recognise and support what Senator Gareth Evans has stated about the difficulty of interpreting what continuing adultery means or even the lack of clarity about the word 'behaviour' in proposed new sub-clause 48 (2) (a), and whether it relates to cruelty, criminality or other offensive behaviour that would lead a court to consider it being reasonable for the marriage to be dissolved. The point I make is that there is still a remedy for this behaviour or this adultery in the section in the Family Law Act which presently provides for separation. Together with State laws to inhibit or to prevent assault, there are remedies for a partner to a marriage. They can gain relief from offensive behaviour and ensure separation in the face of adultery. I recognise what I understand to be Senator Harradine's intentions with regard to the phrase 'continuing adultery'. An adulterous act may lead to pressure upon a marriage relationship, but that act should not then be taken as a weapon with which to bash the head of a partner. It still ought to be recognised in this chamber that reconciliation can be achieved if there is a willingness on the part of both partners to come to terms with what may have happened and to be genuinely reconciled to each other. Great weight is still placed by many in this chamber and in the community on forgiveness, repentance and reconciliation-on coming together again. So I do understand Senator Harradine's intention in distinguishing between an adulterous act on the one hand and continuing adultery on the other. In lawyers' terms there is difficulty in exact interpretation. I am sympathetic with the situation that Senator Harradine seeks to address himself to but I do not support those parts of his amendment that seek a remedy in this way. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of proposed new section 48 (2) relate to desertion and to continuous separation for a period of two years. I regard these as tantamount to the present provision in the Family Law Act. Both matters can be covered by continuous separation but with one change, and that is that there be a two-year period instead of one. I do not support a two-year period as a ground for dissolution of marriage despite the fact that in 1975, at the time of the debate -which I followed closely, although not in this chamber-I would have been one who voted for the two-year period and not for the 12-month period. The difference in the vote in the House of Representatives at that time was only one . I believe it is appropriate for those who still conscientiously seek to achieve that two-year period to put that amendment forward here and to test it in the arguments in this chamber. However, whilst I supported a two-year period in 1975, experience and the testimony to the parliamentary inquiry as well as my own conversations with many in the community have led me to accept the provisions now in the Act. For these reasons, whilst very much being amongst those who wish to reinforce marriage as a permanent and lifelong relationship, as the basic relationship for all of our society, I am not moved by the arguments of Senator Harradine nor by my colleague Senator Durack with regard to any of these amendments. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.40) — My amendment has been characterised by Senator Tate and the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, in a totally unacceptable manner. Neither of them attempted to give to this amendment the consideration which I believe is due to it. Senator Tate said of the amendment, or said of me that in putting this amendment forward, I am tending to mislead the general public as to the causes of the disintegration of marriage and of marriage breakdown. That is absolute nonsense. I do not consider, of course, that the provisions in the legislation are the essential causes of marital breakdown. Quite obviously they are not and for Senator Tate to talk like that is arrant nonsense. He had opportunities, both last year and this year, prior to this debate coming forward, to enter into discussions with those who were interested in having inserted into the legislation some genuine support for the institution of marriage and he can do so in the future. He did not do so on the most recent occasion. So I take exception to the characterisation of this amendment by Senator Tate in that manner. Quite obviously the statement that he quoted has merit but it has nothing to do with the debate in hand. In the legislation at the moment there is a provision which entitles the court simply to administer the law without proper inquiry if an application is made and that application is based on irretrievable breakdown as defined, that is to say, separation for 12 months. Senator Teague has said that that unilateral decision came about on the vote of one person in the House of Representatives in 1975. The onus now is on those who supported it and who continue to support it to do something about the consequences of that decision, because the consequences of that decision are that there are an increasing number of divorces. The marital breakdown is not caused by the provisions in the legislation but, for the dissolution to take place, then the provisions in the legislation are all important. The question of a test of irretrievable breakdown is very important in that context. What the legislation is saying to anybody is that if there is separation for 12 months, even though that separation might occur as a result of circumstances quite outside the marriage-the person concerned may be in the Army serving overseas or somewhere else-that is irretrievable breakdown. That is the test that is applied . Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Is it a fact that, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald today, Mr Phillip Adams is to be appointed Chairman of the Australian Film Commission? Is it a fact that Mr Adams was consulted by the Government on the changes to taxation arrangements and Australian Film Commission funding announced in last week's Budget, which will mean that the AFC will have a strong influence on the content of future Australian films? Was the Government considering appointing Mr Adams to this position at the time it took these decisions? Is the Minister aware of Mr Adams's views on what constitutes a 'high quality film', the words used by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in his statement to the House of Representatives last week? Do Mr Adams's views on this subject coincide with the Minister's views? Senator RYAN —I have not seen the article to which Senator Martin's question refers. At this stage I have no knowledge of the intentions of the Government with regard to the new Chairman of the Australian Film Commission, nor do I know of any consultation which has taken place between the Government and Mr Adams on the matter of changes to the film tax legislation. However, I will relay Senator Martin's queries to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and make sure that she gets an answer to them. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Is the Minister aware of a publication called the Small Business Letter which offers, for a $68 subscription, 250 more ways to cut tax including: How to receive up to one-third of your salary tax-free. Three dozen ways to receive tax-free fringe benefits. How to legally make tax-free money from real estate. . . . . 17 steps to survive an income tax investigation. It also mentioned other equally dubious tax dodges. Can the Minister indicate what action can be taken with regard to this publication, which appears to be blatantly challenging the legitimate tax measures of this country? Senator WALSH —The publication entitled the Small Business Letter is a mixture of information and advice of a factual nature about the taxation legislation and what is written into it and of handy hints on how to evade tax-handy hints, I suspect, of highly variable quality. For example, in a recent issue the Small Business Letter claimed to show how to circumvent the new tax arrangements for lump sum superannuation payments before the enabling legislation had been introduced, which is a pertinent comment on the intellectual integrity of the people who produce that publication. Senator Peter Rae —Uncanny anticipation! Senator WALSH —Or an example of their uncanny perspicacity. It must certainly be regarded as an anti-social publication because if the information contained in it on how to dodge income tax is effective, it is obviously anti-social. On the other hand, if it is not effective, it is a publication put together by charlatans who aim to exploit gullible would-be tax evaders. I think the best response by the Government to publications such as the Small Business Letter is a continuation of the crackdown on the tax avoidance and tax evasion industries. That is a matter which this Government is pursuing. Unlike the previous Government, we will pursue it without fear or favour and legislation in pursuit of that objective will be debated in the Senate, certainly in this Budget session and possibly during the current sittings of the Parliament. There will then be an opportunity for all non-Government senators to show whether they are serious about cracking down on tax evasion and tax evaders. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Will the Federal Government be allowing the mining of uranium at Roxby Downs in South Australia? If so, is this because of deposits of minerals other than uranium at that site? Considering the large deposits of gold at the Jabiluka site in the Northern Territory, will the Government allow mining of uranium and gold at that site? If not, what is the difference between mining at Jabiluka and mining at Roxby Downs? Senator WALSH —The Prime Minister was yesterday asked in the House of Representatives a question which referred to this matter, amongst others. With respect to Roxby Downs, he said: In the context of this policy on existing mines-and Roxby Downs-the Government is currently undertaking a review of all aspects of the industry, including the international safeguards aspects. Senator Chaney —That is not what he said to the BRW. Senator WALSH —I could incorporate the whole answer, but I think it is just as easy for Senator Kilgariff to read it. The second question Senator Kilgariff raised refers, although he did not use the term, to clause 64C of the Labor Party platform, which speaks of a situation in which uranium is mined incidentally to the production of other minerals. In the case of Jabiluka there are significant quantities of gold in the deposit but, from memory, they would represent less than 10 per cent, at present market prices, of the output of a mine if commenced there whereas, on the forecast production levels of the company involved at Roxby Downs-Western Mining Corporation Ltd-just above 60 per cent of the market value, at present prices, of the envisaged production relates to minerals other then uranium-a mixture of gold, silver and copper. Senator Macklin —Is 40 per cent incidental? Senator WALSH —It is incidental in that it is a minority. But the point I was really making, Senator Macklin, is that uranium comprises-I do not want to be held precisely to this figure-above 90 per cent of the value of the potential output from Jabiluka and something less than 40 per cent, at present prices, of the potential output from Roxby Downs, as projected by the producers. Therefore, there is a very significant difference in the relative importance of the minerals concerned. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has he seen reports to the effect that the Opposition intends to repeal all of Labor's legislation on assets tests and on lump sum superannuation payments? Does the Minister believe that this will in any way help pensioners, apart from the few who have considerable assets? How does the Opposition's call for a needs -based income security system, as espoused by Senator Messner, fit in with his statement a few weeks ago that all age pensioners, regardless of income and assets, should receive fringe benefits at an estimated cost of around $190m? Senator GRIMES —Yes, my attention has been drawn to a Press statement put out today by the Leader of the Opposition, in which he gave an undertaking that the Opposition, on return to government, would repeal all of Labor's legislation in this area. This includes any legislation on the assets test, the taxation of lump sum superannuation payments and the means test introduced for those aged over 70 years. First, I find this an extraordinary statement, coming from a party that has just gone into opposition, even bearing in mind the fact that it is led by Mr Peacock. The Opposition has not seen most of that legislation. The legislation on an assets test has not been finalised as we are consulting with the various pensioner groups. I find it extraordinary that, sight unseen, the Opposition would give an undertaking to repeal all of this in any case. Secondly, I find it an extraordinary statement in view of the fact that Senator Messner himself has admitted that the Opposition has no comprehensive retirement policy but is to develop one. That is not bad for a party that has been in office for the last seven years! In promising to repeal these provisions, Mr Peacock is pre-empting the development of that comprehensive policy. It means that that policy cannot include an assets test, a rational treatment of taxation of lump sum superannuation payments or the present income test for pensioners over 70 years of age. Senator Missen —Why do you say that? Senator GRIMES —What an extraordinary attitude for a party that considers itself an alternative government. I have been asked why I say that. If the honourable senator listens to the recording of the radio program in which Senator Messner and I participated at lunchtime he will find that is exactly what it is all about. The Opposition has not told us what it will do when it repeals the legislation, removing some $300m from the revenue in one case, considerably more in the case of lump sum superannuation, and $170m in the case of people over 70 years of age. Will it raise taxes, will it get money from other sources, or will it do what it did for the last seven years and for the 23 years before 1972, that is, allow the base rate of pensions and assistance to pensioners to fall year after year, so that in the end pensioners and beneficiaries are as hard up as they have been after each of the Opposition's previous sessions in government ? It is absolutely irresponsible of the Leader of the Opposition to announce that his Party will repeal legislation which has not been passed and which it has not seen, to announce that it has no comprehensive policy but will develop one and to announce that it will tie its own hands in restricting policy development in this area by these means. Of course members of the Opposition are not fair dinkum and no one believes they are fair dinkum. Senator Messner today announced that what the Opposition is really about is a needs-based retirement policy. In the last couple of weeks he has announced that the solution to many of the pensioners' problems is to provide free of means test-without any income test, assets test or anything else-all the fringe benefits for those people above 65 years of age. If we want something which is inconsistent with a needs-based policy, that is it. Senator Chaney —Rubbish. Senator GRIMES —Senator Chaney, as an ex-Minister, knows that is it. I suggest that Mr Peacock do what the pensioners' organisations and other parties are doing, and that is sit down and actually look at the Government's proposals. If the Opposition wishes, it can even enter into the consultations about those proposals, but it should not pre-empt policies for itself in this way. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister for Social Security to confirm that the Government has announced that under its assets test single or married pensioners will be able to have unlimited stocks of antiques, jewellery or paintings and be exempt from the test but that, if they have money in the bank, only $1,500 for a single person and $2,500 for married persons will be exempt? Does the Minister agree that it is sophisticated investors who invest in these exempt forms of investment and that ordinary average Australians usually rely on traditional forms of savings? If so, why are these traditional forms of cash or near cash savings being discriminated against? On what basis of fairness does the Minister support the exemption of antiques, jewellery, paintings, caravans and boats as against the savings which represent the main assets of most pensioners? Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Chaney for his question. It is typical of the sorts of nitpicking matters that Senator Chaney and others raise. Senator Chaney spent several years as Minister for Social Security desperately trying to do something about those who circumvent the income test. He actually announced in a Budget measure two years ago that he would do something. One of the things he was going to do was to limit pensioners to holding $3,000 in a cheque account. That was the best he could come up with. After questioning from the then Opposition he eventually had to admit that his Government was not going to do it . Senator Chaney and everyone else here knows that some pensioners have very expensive houses on which they have to pay very high rates, et cetera, and antiques and pictures on the wall of the sort he is talking about, but they cannot eat them and they cannot dress in them. They are able to receive a pension because besides their own home and personal possessions they have considerable other assets in property trusts and in schemes which enable them to circumvent the income test and receive payments which under anyone else's system would be defined as income. Senator Chaney and his colleagues know that what we have to do in this country is get the needs-based system about which Senator Messner so often talks. One of the ways to do that is to introduce an assets element into the means test. If Senator Chaney is suggesting that we should include in that the pensioner's house and the personal possessions in that house, what he is advocating is that we as a government, and his Party if it were in government, should send inspectors around to everyone's house to see and value what is on the wall, to look at and value jewellery, and so on. Under the sort of assets test we are proposing-this is the assets test that successive Ministers for Social Security on the other side administered-we will not have to value people's homes, we will not have to send inspectors around to people's homes, because we consider that intrusive. If Senator Chaney is advocating that, let him do so. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister address his mind to the question, which asked him to justify the fairness of distinguishing between unlimited stocks of antiques, jewellery or paintings and anything in excess of $2,500 in the bank for a married couple? Senator GRIMES —One can justify it in the way I believe I have just justified it . I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to justify it on the grounds that people's personal possessions of the type I mentioned cannot be assessed without intrusion, without sending in the sorts of inspectors that Senator Chaney would like to send. We wish to make sure that assets of the type about which Senator Chaney talked and which are available to be used easily are included in the income test. I remind honourable senators that a single person can have $17,000 in the bank and a married couple $28,000 and still receive a full pension and that a level of $104,000 and $177,000 must be reached for a single person and married couples respectively before they lose their entitlement to a pension. If Senator Chaney suggests that we should introduce an assets test that will mean inspectors being sent around to people's homes, let him say so. If he does not suggest we do that, if he suggests we do not have an assets test, let him come up with an alternative, but he and his colleagues were unable to do that in all their years in government. Senator JONES —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that the Queensland Premier has resurrected the discredited Bradfield scheme for water diversion in north Queensland as an election issue and appointed consultants to conduct further studies? Have any feasibility studies been carried out into this scheme? If so, what were the results of those studies? Senator WALSH —I had heard-I must say I found it extremely difficult to believe and had it concerned anyone other than the Premier of Queensland I would not have believed it-that the Premier has commissioned a further study of some type or other into the Bradfield scheme. I think that last year the Queensland Government commissioned a study by the Brisbane engineers Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd into this same scheme. It is not necessary to go into all the details that were given in the report presented by Cameron McNamara, but there are two that are critical. The first is that the delivered cost of water in the area in which it is envisaged the water would be delivered is 20 times as high as it is in the Burdekin. It also raised the very serious possibility of land salination in the area which it was envisaged may be irrigated. I think it could be fairly said that the Bradfield scheme is to water supplies what Milan Brych is to cancer, Stephen Horvath is to transport and Dr Shrian Oskar is to finance and commerce. All of them have been adopted and championed at various times by the Premier of Queensland who has a quite alarming propensity to adopt and champion cranks, crooks and charlatans. Milan Brych, a previous client of the Queensland Premier, is currently facing criminal charges in the United States- Senator Grimes —He has been found guilty. Senator WALSH —I am told that he has been convicted. I am sorry, my information is slightly out of date. He has been convicted on criminal charges in the United States. Stephen Horvath who, I remind honourable senators, claimed that in the boot of a motor car he had a fusion reactor which produced hydrogen which propelled the car and who was championed and adopted by the Premier of Queensland has faded away into the obscurity from which the Premier of Queensland should never have taken him. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the Minister get back to the answer. Senator WALSH —I am about to wind up, Mr President. Dr Shrian Oskar is an international con man who left a trail of debts behind in New Zealand. He then moved on to Western Australia and got the Court Government to guarantee a loan for an oil-seed factory. Recently, incidentally, a $1 million award was given against him in favour of the Commonwealth for non-repayment of a debt. Immediately after the award was handed down Dr Shrian Oskar skipped the country and has not been heard of since. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order. Mr President, I ask you to pull the Minister into line and get him to answer the question. The PRESIDENT —I suggest that the Minister take note of standing order 100 and not debate the issue. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President. I was just drawing attention to the fact that the Bradfield scheme and the Premier's recommissioning of a study into it can be regarded in the same order of credibility as the other matters to which I have referred. Now that the restraining influence of the Liberal Party is no longer present in the Government of Queensland and the Premier who sponsored all these crooks, cranks and charlatans is the Treasurer as well as the Premier, all I can say is: God help Queensland if it does not change the government next month. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —It is very appropriate that you have called me. Thank you very much, Mr President. My question is also directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I trust that it will not give him the opportunity to give us another long harangue about the Premier of Queensland who is doing the best job as a Premier in Australia that it is possible to do. I know that from personal experience. I ask the Minister: Is he aware that it has been stated that the new excise on fuel oil announced in the Budget could cost the Greenvale nickel mine project in Queensland as much as $3,300,000 a year at full production? In view of the report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of yesterday's date that the Greenvale nickel mine is having financial problems, will the Government take action to exempt this project from the excise on fuel oil? Senator WALSH —I am not aware specifically of the report which appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail yesterday. I do know that significant quantities of fuel oil are used in the Greenvale refinery. I believe I was told yesterday that the Queensland Government had proposed that this refinery be exempt from the 1.872c per litre excise on fuel oil. I am also aware of the fact that the refinery has incurred substantial losses in recent times. The major reason for those substantial losses was that the price of nickel last year fell to a low point of $1.40 a pound. It has since then recovered quite substantially. As recently as last week, I believe, the price was $2.20 a pound which, while not high by historical standards, is obviously very much higher than $1.40 a pound. Therefore, for that reason we can expect that that refinery will be in a much better financial position this year than it was last year. As to the specific reference to the fuel excise, if it is indeed a fact that the refinery is in deep financial trouble and if the Queensland Government believes that some special concession ought to be made for that refinery in isolation, it seems to me that if the Queensland Government were to put such a proposition seriously to the Commonwealth there ought to be some quid pro quo or matching offer from the Queensland Government. I am informed, for example, that the Queensland Government collects three quarters of a million dollars in payroll tax from that refinery. If such a proposal were put forward, provided it could be documented that the refinery was in deep trouble and the Queensland Government was prepared to offer some constructive suggestions on its own behalf , I have no doubt that the proposal would have to be seriously examined by the Commonwealth. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer him to the announcement in the Budget of a $5 a week increase in the unemployment benefit for under 18-year-olds, to be effective from November. I also refer the Minister to an answer he gave to my question without notice on 11 May in which he stated that the whole area of income assistance to under 18-year -olds is presently under review. I ask the Minister: In view of the very desperate situation currently being faced by many unemployed young people and in view of the minimal effect this $5 a week increase will have, will the Government be introducing any additional measures to relieve the plight of unemployed under 18-year-olds, particularly those living away from home? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I do remember the question asked by Senator Foreman on 11 May. Certainly in the Budget we increased the unemployment benefit for those under 18 years of age by $5 a week. I think all of us on both sides of this Parliament would have liked to do more. The increase of $5 a week this year-an increase of $5 a week was given last year which I believe was the only increase since 1975-is not as much as we would have liked to give them. But the fact of the matter remains that within difficult economic restraints that was all we felt we could do. But at the same time my colleagues the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Housing and Construction and I through a couple of inquiries are looking at the whole area of income support and support for youth, particularly those young people-unfortunately, there are too many of them-who are homeless. From memory I think there are about 14 different forms of income support for young people in this country, including social security and education allowances . There is a developing but, as yet, not well developed system of assistance for those who are homeless through refuges and, in some of the States, through the provision of medium term and long term accommodation. We have a very difficult situation in this country in that some 66 per cent of people between the ages of 15 and 19 are in the work force, either employed or unemployed and receiving the unemployment benefit, whereas the equivalent in other countries is about 30 per cent or 34 per cent. We think that these factors all must be taken into consideration. We must look at the whole area of income support and services support for these children. We will be proceeding to do so in the near future, particularly in the area of homeless youth. Senator MASON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of a letter being sent by Medibank Private to pensioners seeking membership within the basic hospital table in which Medibank Private refuses them such membership? The letter states: I should point out that as the holder of a pensioner medical card you are entitled to a rebate of 85% of the medical schedule fee and free standard ward accommodation in a public hospital with treatment by a doctor appointed by the hospital. It is not the policy of this fund to accept membership in these circumstances. Does this mean pensioners are now to be denied the right to have the doctor and medical treatment of their choice in spite of their willingness to pay for private insurance? Alternatively, is this an attempt by Medibank Private to divert pensioner clients to other funds because they may have a higher illness rate? In view of the heightened, indeed critical, role planned for Medibank Private in the Medicare system, can the Minister now give an undertaking that this unfair and discriminating practice will cease? Senator GRIMES —Yes, just before lunch my attention was drawn to the letter referred to by Senator Mason. On the face of it, I am certainly as disturbed as he is about that letter. Senator Walters —Why are you going to trust them to handle the administration? Senator GRIMES —In answer to that interjection I can only point out that the clients of the private health insurance fund in Tasmania called Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund, rigorously supported by people like Senator Walters, not only do not have cover but also are broke because of the attitude of that Fund. Under section 66, I think, of the National Health Act Medibank cannot in fact refuse adult membership because of age, disease or sex, or for any other reason. Under another section of the Act, which escapes me at the moment, the Minister can in fact direct Medibank to receive such clients. One can only think that the New South Wales Manager of Medibank, who I believe wrote the letter, must have believed that it was economically unwise for someone who had such facilities available to him free to join the fund. However, I have referred that matter to the Minister for Health. I can assure Senator Mason that if, as he and I think on the face of it, there has been discrimination-in fact, I suggest that the prima facie case is that there may have been illegal action-the Minister will take steps to make sure that it does not happen in the future. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Following the South Pacific Forum, what is the future of Australia's South Pacific nuclear free proposal? Senator Sir John Carrick —Did you have notice of it? Senator BUTTON —I happen to have an answer, yes. Senator Sir John Carrick is surprised at that. Senator McIntosh's question relates to the issue of a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. As the Senate is aware, the South Pacific Forum took place last week. In the course of the Forum the Government raised, both for consideration on the agenda last week and for consideration on future agendas of the South Pacific Forum, the question of a nuclear free zone. I might say that all nations present at the South Pacific Forum expressed their opposition to nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste in the Pacific. That opposition was put forward in the light of a paper which was presented to the Forum by the Australian Government. Of course, there were some differences of emphasis on this question amongst the parties at the South Pacific Forum, but the overwhelming view of the Forum member countries represented there was that the concept of a nuclear free zone should be further developed. There was a very constructive spirit in the discussions which took place. At the end of the conference Mr Muldoon, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, in a Press conference said that he supported the concept of a nuclear free zone as outlined by Australia-that was comfort from a perhaps unexpected source. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, since the South Pacific Forum took place, has expressed the Government's satisfaction in the progress of the issue of a nuclear free zone at that Forum. The Australian Government will take that issue back to the next session of the Forum and the principle of a nuclear free zone will remain the objective of this Government. We believe it will become the objective of all governments taking part in the Forum. This Government will pursue that objective, whilst upholding its commitments under regional alliances , which are the ultimate guarantee of Australian security. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It concerns the proposed assets test on age pensioners and specifically the following statement in the Federal Budget of 23 August: Allowing for administrative processes, the new test will not operate until about 12 months after legislation has been passed. I refer to a subsequent statement by the Minister, made on television, which is in direct conflict with the Budget statement. He said that action would be taken immediately to prevent individuals from disposing of significant assets prior to the introduction of the assets test. I ask: First, how does the Minister reconcile his statement with the unequivocal Budget assertion? Secondly, what action specifically does the Government intend to take to prevent disposal of such assets? In view of the Minister's quite unequivocal statement today that assets such as jewellery, works of art, antiques et cetera will not be counted in any way, can pensioners purchase such assets between now and the introduction of the assets test without being in breach of the law? I stress that in the absence of precise information individuals may unwittingly act wrongly or indeed unwisely in the disposition of these assets. Therefore will the Minister as a matter of urgency spell out in detail the Government's intentions? Senator GRIMES —My first comment is that if Senator Sir John Carrick thinks that pensioners in this country, certainly the pensioners whom most of us in this place are interested in supporting, have the means to go out and purchase the sorts of things he is talking about, he is of course wrong. What was announced on Budget night was that in the assets test there would be deprivation provisions, deprivation provisions that are in fact in the legislation now in relation to the incomes test and were in the legislation in relation to the previous assets test. Of course these deprivation provisions cannot, as Senator Sir John Carrick has said, prevent people from selling anything or giving anything away. The way in which a deprivation provision works is that if people dispose of assets-or as occurred under the previous Minister, Senator Chaney, dispose of income-in order to obtain a pension or fringe benefits they may be deemed to have retained those assets for the purpose of the assets test or the income test. I impress upon the Senate that that provision is already in the legislation and has been in the legislation before. Of course it does not include ordinary gifts . It does not include allowances given to children by grandparents. Under the previous assets test, when the limit for assets apart from exempted items was $ 400 or $800, it was considered that giving away $400 or $800 per year was reasonable. That limit is $1,500 or $2,500 under the present legislation. That is a matter I have already discussed with various organisations and it is a matter for future discussion. If we had not announced- Senator Teague —It all sounds very confusing. Senator GRIMES —There is nothing very confusing about it to people who have a modicum of intelligence. It is Senator Teague's problem. Senator Walters —You say yourself that you do not know, it is yet to be thought up. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters reminds me of a character in Sybil-she has but one idea and that is wrong. She is incredible in her ignorance. I think rather than interject in such a manner we should urge people on both sides of the Parliament to realise that the deprivation provisions are already there and were administered by previous Ministers. On Budget night the Government announced that large scale deprivation of that type from that date would be considered deprivation under the new legislation. We believe that that is a perfectly reasonable step. We believe that, as with previous governments of this country, both Liberal-National Party and Labor, such deprivation provisions will be administered in a humane and sensible way. That is how they have always been administered. I appreciate Senator Sir John Carrick's question and am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that matter, but I do not appreciate the sorts of statements which are being made that the Government will prevent people from giving away their assets or that it will somehow send around spies to stop people giving away their assets. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question. I am genuinely seeking this information, but I have to say that Senator Grimes's answer has further confused the matter. I do ask, because it is of enormous interest to all pensioners, that he make a specific clarification. I ask him why, if it was all in the existing legislation, on a channel 9 television program on the Sunday following the Budget he was so emphatic that the Government would pursue these significant assets. If it was known before, why did this need to be underlined? Will the Minister put in writing specifically what are the limitations so that people may not be either in breach of the law or be forced to act unwisely in the intervening period? Senator GRIMES —I made the statement on the Sunday program in regard to deprivation in answer to a quite specific question. That is the first thing. The second thing is that the deprivation provisions are already in the legislation as far as the income test is concerned because we have only an income test now. It is only sensible to extend that test to assets. Thirdly, the guidelines as to what will be considered reasonable or unreasonable will, of course, come out in the regulations, but people need not fear that this Government, any more than any previous administration, will be unreasonable on this matter or cause hardship. There are always hardship provisions. A further safeguard is that what exists now but which did not exist in the time of the previous assets test is an increasingly effective system of appeal against administrative decisions. I think all those factors will protect the pensioners in this situation. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and follows from a question asked earlier in Question Time by Senator Reynolds. In view of the outrageous tax avoidance rorts that the previous Government allowed to continue in this country, will the Minister outline what steps are being taken by the Government to recoup some of the vast sums lost to revenue? Senator BUTTON —As the Senate is aware, in the previous session of Parliament the Government introduced recoupment legislation. That legislation was defeated in the Senate. It is the Government's intention to reintroduce some aspects of the bottom of the harbour legislation which were rejected by the Senate in the previous session. I have seen recent Press reports-I hope they are untrue-that it is the intention of the Opposition to oppose that legislation in the Senate. My answer to this question, if I make it somewhat elaborate, will in a sense give food for thought to the Opposition about the course of conduct upon which it is apparently determined to embark. It is an extraordinary Opposition which comes in here day after day expressing bleeding heart views for wealthy and privileged groups in the community when the community as a whole recognises that the rejection of the tax recoupment legislation in the last session was a disgrace. The community was entitled to have the benefits of those Bills. Senator Chaney —Ask Senator Richardson what he thinks. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator can ask Senator Richardson what he thinks . Senator Chaney —He is not here, as usual. Senator BUTTON —No, he is not here, because he is sitting on a committee. Senator Chaney agreed to him sitting on that committee today, contrary to what Senator Chaney said yesterday. The rejection of those Bills was a disgrace. The fact is that honest taxpayers in this community are being prejudiced by the persistence of the Opposition in supporting the interests of a minority of people prepared to evade tax. The new proposals in the legislation which will be introduced into the Parliament shortly are, of course, a watered down version, if I can use that expression, of the legislation which was introduced previously. But they still involve a substantial amount of revenue. In addition to that legislation, the Government has, in the Budget context, also announced that section 26A of the Income Tax Act, which taxes speculative gains, will be strengthened to overcome the technical means which have been used by tax avoiders to avoid tax. Both those measures will be brought forward within the next two or three weeks in this Parliament and we will then be able to see the position of the Opposition once again. The Opposition's new found piety in relation to this legislation is rather hollow because, after all, it was Mr Peacock, the leader of the present Opposition, who supported the previous weak-kneed bottom of the harbour legislation introduced by Mr Howard. What is the expression, Senator? Senator Grimes —Discredited. Senator BUTTON —It was introduced by Mr Howard, the discredited former Treasurer of this country. Once again the Government will proceed with this legislation. It will continue to proceed with legislation of this kind until tax avoidance in this country is stamped out. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who said in the Australian on 26 July that the Budget would contain many of the policies the Australian Labor Party had developed for small business and industry before the election. He said the Budget would help small business in areas such as design, marketing, new technology and exports. Can the Minister explain to the bitterly disappointed and confused small business community where his Government has honoured any one of its pre-election policy commitments that were promised in the Budget, or is it another case of the ALP making election promises and then reneging when in government? Senator BUTTON —First of all, let me say that I am interested to see what Senator Boswell says I said in the Australian. I take it that he was referring to a Press report of what I was supposed to have said. Senator Walters —That is too old. Senator BUTTON —No, it is not too old at all. Senator Walters is too old; that is the trouble. What I said at a forum in Sydney was that in the course of the Budget session the Government would announce policies which related to small business. Senator Boswell has asked a serious question; he has approached the matter in a serious way. He referred in the context of the Budget to design and marketing and things of that kind. In the Budget itself the Government made available $180,000, I think, to the Industrial Design Council of Australia, which in our view is a body very relevant to the needs of small business. The Fraser Government prevented any funding or ceased any funding of that body. The Government has already announced initiatives in relation to exports. It has also funded in the context of the Budget the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia and a number of other bodies relevant to the needs of small business. Senator Chaney —It helped the quangos. The quangos need lots of help. Senator BUTTON —I am not concerned about the quangos. From listening to the questions today I would have thought that the honourable senator was more concerned about quangos. I am concerned about the needs of small business. In the next two or three weeks the Government will be announcing a number of other initiatives relating to small business. If the Opposition thinks those initiatives will be announced as a result of any noises made here by Opposition senators, they are making a mistake. I draw the attention of Senator Boswell, who is seriously interested in this subject, to two other matters. The Government has already taken steps to set up a small business division within the Department of Industry and Commerce. Senator Chaney —More bureaucrats. Senator BUTTON —Nineteen more bureaucrats. Senator Messner —Will this lead to a small business led recovery? Senator BUTTON —The Government has freed the Commonwealth Development Bank from Loan Council approval and has given permission for the Commonwealth Development Bank to grant equity capital to small business. As I have said, a number of other measures which go to the question of equity capital will be announced in the next few weeks. I mention these matters because a wide range of considerations have been taken into account by the Government in relation to small business. It is all very well for somebody to interject about a small business led recovery. I do not care how it is led but it is very important that it take place after seven years of Fraser Government during which the growth rate of this country was absolutely despicable in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development context. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I refer to an article in the West Australian of 13 July in which it was reported that a recent study into linguistic problems found that many Aboriginal students were being held back by their teachers because of perceived language problems which were actually more cultural than individual based. Given that Professor Eagleson believes this to be a fairly widespread problem, will the Minister advise what action can and will be taken to ameliorate these effects, particularly at the classroom level? Senator RYAN —The Government is very well aware of the range of disadvantages that have prevented Aboriginal children from advancing in education. It has certainly been the case in Western Australia, where until recently there was a conservative government, that no special efforts were made to deal with the language needs of Aboriginal children. In fact, until the change of government no Aboriginal cultural or language programs were incorporated in the state schools at all, although some initiatives had been taken with some non- government schools, such as some Catholic schools in the Kimberley region, where culturally appropriate and Aboriginal language based programs have been developed. However, with the change of government in Western Australia and federally, Aboriginal people in Western Australia can expect some initiatives that will lead to much more appropriate and, therefore, much more effective education being made available to Aboriginal children, not only in Western Australia but also nationally. I will not take up the time of the Senate at this stage in reciting all the initiatives that the Federal Government is taking which will assist Aboriginal children in their access to education, but I will draw Senator Coleman's attention to the decision of the Federal Government to re-establish the national Curriculum Development Centre. That is under way now. In fact, the first meeting of the reconstituted Curriculum Development Centre will be held on Friday. One of the top priorities the Government has referred to the Curriculum Development Centre is the development of materials for use in the teaching of Aboriginal children. Those materials will be relating to both the history and culture of Aboriginal society and also the diverse range of Aboriginal languages which are still spoken in Australia and which this Government is determined to see do not die out for want of attention at the educational level. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Has it been drawn to the Minister's attention that the Labor member of parliament for Kingston, Mr Bilney, ran up a $10,000 telegram bill in one day, several weeks ago, at the taxpayers' expense? Is there any limitation on a member of parliament doing as Mr Bilney did, that is, sending off 104 identical telegrams to his Labor colleagues-all of which criticised the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke-at a cost of $8,299 and then, within the day, sending off a further 104 telegrams, at a cost of $1,227, reversing the earlier message and saying: 'Dear colleague, on reflection I think I have been somewhat hasty'? Does the Minister agree that this is a gross abuse of taxpayers' money? Senator BUTTON —I am familiar with the circumstances of this matter because I took some action in respect of it. The question of Mr Bilney's telegram to a wide group of members of the parliamentary Australian Labor Party was drawn to my attention at the time. Following that I telexed Mr Bilney-I sent one telex- seeking some explanation of the matter. The circumstances were that Mr Bilney lodged what he believed to be a telex after hours at the telex office of the General Post Office in Adelaide. He assumed at the time that the message would be sent by telex. It was, in fact, sent by telegram, Mr Bilney's assumption about how it would be sent proving to be incorrect. The expected costs upon which Mr Bilney acted as an assumption were not correct. I mention this because I sought an explanation of this matter from the honorable member for Kingston. That was the explanation which I was given. Insofar as the general question of the entitlement of members of parliament to send telegrams, and large numbers of telegrams, is concerned, it has been the view of all governments over recent years that there should not be any interference in a member's right to send telegrams as the member sees fit. Senator Lewis —It is up to his electorate to deal with him. Senator BUTTON —I assume, confronted with what the Sydney Morning Herald described this morning as an almost invisible Opposition, that Mr Bilney will do very well in Kingston and will be prepared to run that risk. Senator Chaney —We don't send $10,000 worth of telegrams. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says that the Opposition does not send $10,000 worth of telegrams. If we want to play a sort of boy scouts game about it, I can go back over the record and show that some of the previous Government's members did so. I could go back over the record and show that but I do not want to do so because I think Senator Teague has asked a serious question. A matter which ought to be of concern to all parliamentarians is that we exercise the privileges which we have in these matters with care and in a sensible way. As I say, all governments have recognised that there should be no interference with the rights of members regarding these matters. Those rights should be exercised sensibly and in moderation. For that reason I explained the action I took in relation to Mr Bilney's telegram and the response which he personally gave regarding that matter. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it that the Minister does believe there was a gross abuse of taxpayers' money. With regard to the inference of the telex, I ask: How many members of parliament actually have telex receiving facilities? Why was it, when asked by the Press at the time , that Mr Bilney said: 'One is entitled to an allowance for telegrams and that sort of thing'? Senator BUTTON —I do not seek to explain what Mr Bilney said. One is allowed money for telexes and that sort of thing. What he said is absolutely correct. I told the Senate what Mr Bilney did, that is, he took his message to the Adelaide General Post Office. He does not have a telex machine himself. He took the message to the telex office of the GPO in Adelaide and sought to send it from there. That is the explanation, which I believe. Senator Teague, in the third part of his question, was concerned to know how many members of parliament have telexes. I do not know. I would think about eight. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of reports that the Opposition has pledged itself to throw out the Government's proposed assets test and the new tax on lump sum superannuation payments if it is returned to office? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is a matter of concern to honourable senators that they get a reasonable number of questions in Question Time. To ask the same question twice really does seem to be an abuse of the procedures of this place. The PRESIDENT —Senator Childs has not yet asked the question. I ask him to ask the question. Senator CHILDS —I am asking the question so that the Leader of the Government in the Senate can indicate the view of the Government. Is it not the case that the Government's proposals are aimed at fundamental inequities in the system? Can the Minister give an assurance that the new measures will be to the long term benefit of all taxpayers and that pensioners will not be unfairly disadvantaged? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the last part of the question is that that is the Government's intention. But, of course, two issues have aroused the venal ire of the Opposition during this Budget session and since the mini-Budget of 28 May. The first was the change to lump sum superannuation tax arrangements. The second was the assets test, which my colleague Senator Grimes has addressed on a number of occasions during Question Time today. The purpose of the first of these actions was to deal with the gross inequity of superannuation pensions being taxed and lump sums not being taxed. The purpose of the second was to deal with the fact that people with substantial assets have received a full pension while people in a poorer economic group have received reduced pensions as a consequence. I only add to what my colleague Senator Grimes said in relation to this matter as it has been raised today, and in the light of the Opposition's attitude to the matter, by quoting from today's Sydney Morning Herald. In referring to the Opposition's decision, the newspaper stated: This appears to be inconsistent with Liberal Party rhetoric that assistance to retired people and welfare payments generally, should be provided strictly on a needs basis . . . only when the Opposition has established its own clear goals can it credibly attack the directions of the Labor Government. It is a less eloquent summary of a newspaper's views of what my colleague Senator Grimes said so eloquently during Question Time today. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy or, perhaps, to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs as the question touches on the responsibilities of both Ministers. In light of the promising oil strike at Jabiru I off-shore from Darwin and in light of the continuing uncertainty about the Timor gap problem-that is, the uncertainty about where Australian territory ends and Indonesian territory begins-what action is being taken by the Government to solve this important practical problem? Senator WALSH —I understand that there is an area of uncertain or disputed territory, which Senator Chaney called the Timor gap. But I understand that the area in which the promising oil strike which was announced last week was made is not in that Timor gap area. I will confirm that. That was the preliminary notification that came to me a few days ago. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Would the Minister check with the appropriate Minister as to what action is being taken as I think there is renewed interest in the area which is subject to uncertainty. Senator WALSH —I think in that case the appropriate Minister to answer the question would probably be the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will see that that matter is followed up. Senator GIETZELT —Yesterday Senator Jack Evans asked me a question seeking further information from the Minister for Aviation in relation to a question on the domestic airline industry. I have been advised by the Minister for Aviation that in 1981 the former Government implemented revised airline service arrangements which continued the existing two-airline policy for a further period of at least eight years. These arrangements, including the Airlines Agreement 1981, were incorporated in legislation enacted by this Parliament. The arrangements require the two-airline policy in its current form to continue at least until early in 1990 and provide for one or more of the parties to give notice of termination of the Agreement five years after it came into force, such termination taking effect not less than three years after the notice is given. Senator Evans is correct in recalling that in Opposition the Australian Labor Party was critical of what it regarded as the excessive inflexibility of the two -airline Agreement. The Government however has a duty to uphold the Agreement and the legislation passed by the former Government. The Minister for Aviation has advised me that he has indicated that he proposes to initiate late in 1984 a review of the current air service arrangements with a view to determining what changes should be made and introducing such changes as soon as it becomes possible to do so. In the meantime, the Government is actively encouraging the airlines to develop further air fare initiatives, including those which may be of assistance to the tourist industry in Australia. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to Senator Grimes's remark, in answering a question from Senator Robertson, that I had stated that the introduction of an un-means-tested, free pensioner health benefit card would solve the problem of double dipping. In the first place, I make the point that I have never advocated that. In fact, my point in raising the question was to draw attention to the fact that there are alternative means by which people can contribute to their own welfare, whether by way of a pension or in connection with health care. The statement iterates certain means by which that can be attained. The second point about which I claim to have been misrepresented relates to the question of repeal and Senator Grimes's statement that, in fact, the repeal which we claim to be taking into account relates to his assets test, that is, this Labor Government's assets test. Since the Senate has now resolved to refer the matter of retirement income policy to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare it would be wrong for honourable senators on this side of the House to prejudge the outcome in regard to whatever matters might be brought forward in its report affecting retirement income. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-My personal explanation also relates to comments made by Senator Grimes. While I am quite aware that this chamber knows only too well that he is loose with the truth I do not think that people outside are as aware of that fact. He made the statement that I had always been a great supporter of the Tasmanian Druids Medical and Hospital Benefits Fund, which went broke. He knows darned well that I was very active in trying to make it possible for the clients of that fund to get their just compensation. Indeed, I have never supported the Druids in any way at all. But as people listening today may not know about Senator Grimes's normal comments, I thought I should make a personal explanation about this matter. Matter of Urgency The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 7 September 1983, from Senator Peter Rae: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- 'That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The continuation of responsible development of Australia's uranium resources, which is in the best interests of this country and the world'. Yours sincerely, Peter Rae Senator for the State of Tasmania. Is the motion supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.08) —I move: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The continuation of responsible development of Australia's uranium resources, which is in the best interests of this country and the world. I thank the Senate and my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to speak in relation to this matter which is of considerable urgency and importance. It relates to the continuation of responsible development of Australia's uranium resources, which is in the best interests of this country and of the world. In speaking to this matter I make it quite clear that I do so on behalf of the Opposition and, in particular, on behalf of the shadow Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Chaney who is, at the moment, otherwise engaged. To indicate something of his and the Opposition's attitude to this matter I would like to make a couple of brief quotes. First, on 12 August in Darwin Senator Chaney said : Another major area of concern is Labor's attitude to the uranium industry. This is an industry where Companies want to proceed and where job creating activity is possible. I emphasise the words 'where job creating activity is possible'. On 27 August, in referring to the Roxby Downs protest, he said: It is a futile protest because an Australian withdrawal from the world uranium market will have no impact on the continued supply of the mineral, including from countries less concerned with safeguards aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation. It is futile because with the support of Federal and State Labor Governments and its very own niche in the ALP Platform, Roxby Downs is the one new uranium project guaranteed approval. It is destructive because the last thing Australia can afford now and in the near future is to put extra barriers in the way of new jobs. Roxby Downs will provide many thousands of construction and production jobs well into the next century. It is with those sorts of themes that we wish to approach today the discussion of this important matter at a time when a combination of the drought and the world recession has seen Australia suffer very substantially in an economic downturn, which we hope is slowly turning around. Unless there is a clear policy to encourage the development of Australia's uranium resources, one of the potentials for economic recovery will be adversely affected. Let us get it quite clear from the start that, in relation to nuclear energy, there is a very large area of misconception. It is important that public debate can take place and continue to take place as part of the educative process in this matter. Nuclear energy is clean. Nuclear energy is comparatively safe. Nuclear energy is cheaper than oil and cheaper than coal. I believe that we must get away from the very understandable emotions of the 1940s and what happened- Senator Chipp —Where is your proof for those statements? They are all wrong, every one of them. Senator PETER RAE —I wonder whether Senator Chipp will let me make my speech and I will elaborate on those statements. Senator Chipp —Quote your sources. Senator PETER RAE —I will go on to quote my sources if Senator Chipp will let me make my speech and not continually interject. I cannot quote the sources at the same time as I try to summarise what I propose to say. I repeat that nuclear energy is clean, that it is comparatively safe, and that it is cheaper than oil or coal. I went on to say that we must get away from the emotions of the 1940s, which are understandable. It is interesting to see that in a protest taking place outside this chamber at the very moment, there is a reference to 'No more Hiroshimas'. We would have the unamimous support of every person in this chamber for that sentiment. No one would suggest that we should look to have a world situation in which a disaster such as Hiroshima is a potential or a likelihood. One of the misconceptions that needs to be clarified is the vast difference between nuclear energy and nuclear power. We repeatedly see television programs from Europe showing some nuclear protest group. The distinction which they so often carefully fail to draw is that more often than not the protest is about the placement of nuclear weapons on the dividing line between East and West which occurs through so much of Europe, particularly in Germany. It is very understandable that people protest and are concerned about that. In relation to nuclear energy, as I will show in a moment with a quote, there is an entirely different attitude. Australia can look at what the World Health Organisation has said about this. Senator Chipp wanted me to quote, and I will give him a number of quotes from responsible bodies, or bodies which I believe are responsible bodies, which have asserted views on nuclear energy that apparently would be news to Senator Chipp. The first quote is from the Director-General of the World Health Organisation, Mr Mahler, in a 1982 publication entitled 'Nuclear Power, the Environment and Man', in which he states: Nuclear power is a fact of life that must be looked at objectively and rationally. That paper, published by the World Health Organisation in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency, states: From these considerations it can be concluded that: In the near historic future -over the next century-fossil fuels will have to be partly replaced by new energy sources. Sources available for this purpose are nuclear energy, and renewable forms of energy, such as solar energy, wind, geothermal energy, hydropower and biomass. Most of the renewable sources of energy, however, do not provide high energy densities, and without new forms of collecting systems they will not be uniformly appropriate. Therefore, they may not be able to meet the major needs of continuous electricity generation and heat production for industry and urban areas. Mankind is threatened by an early exhaustion of many of the most valuable raw materials, such as crude oil and gas. It is urgent to postpone the time of exhaustion until these materials can be replaced by other fuels. Nuclear energy, with development of fast breeder reactors, is a centralised source of energy that can contribute to the needs of electricity and heat production over a long period of time. I emphasise that this is a World Health Organisation publication. It continues: Conservation and more efficient use of energy has received increasing attention as the costs of energy have risen, and this rise increases the amount of economically recoverable reserves, and conservation reduces the demand. As a result, the useful lifetime of the affected resources is increased. That is on page 15 of the publication to which I referred. It is generally accepted that Australia, having been blessed with natural reserves of uranium, has an opportunity to provide for a real need of the energy world. Again, at page 17 of the World Health Organisation publication it is stated: Thus the present nuclear capacity is expected to increase more than two-fold during the next five years, more than three-fold during the next ten years and by a factor of six to seven within the next 20 years. In other words, irrespective of the views of a relatively small minority of people on nuclear power, the world assessment, as made by the World Health Organisation, is that within the next 20 years there will be an increase by some six or seven times in the nuclear capacity of the world. In May in Canberra the Australian Institute of Energy and the Institution of Engineers Australia held an excellent seminar entitled 'Energy 83'. That seminar assessed the Australian and world situation in relation to various forms of energy. A very broadly representative group of people came together for the purposes of that seminar. Certainly, very considerable expertise was available. One of the points that was made in relation to the requirements for nuclear power worldwide is set out on page 245 of the first volume of the publication of the papers and other documents associated with that seminar. It shows that as at 30 June 1982 there were 31 plants on order in the world, with a total capacity of 29,000 megawatts. There were 224 plants under construction, which will have a total capacity of 201,000 megawatts, and there were in operation 261 plants with a total capacity of 155,000 megawatts. This makes a total of 516 nuclear power stations either operating, under construction or on order around the world. Page 246 of that publication sets out the estimated resources of uranium as at 30 June 1981. It shows Australia as one of the major holders of resources of uranium. Australia has an estimated reasonably assured resource of 294,000 tonnes and an estimated additional resource of 264,000 tonnes out of a total of about 3,300,000, which gives us something under 20 per cent of known world reserves. One might think, therefore, that we have some obligation to service what the World Health Organisation has identified as a very real and growing world demand. By providing that resource, Australia has the opportunity to improve its earnings and its standard of living but, most importantly in current circumstances, to increase its employment opportunities. As I think Senator Chipp and some of his colleagues will agree, there are people who are very genuinely concerned about nuclear energy-the safety of its operation, the question of waste disposal, and the question of its leakage to nuclear weapons production. I hope that Senator Chipp will listen to this because it is relevant to people's concern that the Methodist Church throughout the world spent some two years on a major consideration of the morality of nuclear power. I would have thought that of all the religious organisations and institutions in the world which were more likely to express a concern on this issue than others, it would be the Methodist Church. Senator Chipp —Why do you say that? Senator PETER RAE —Because I believe it to be very socially conscious on this sort of issue, a far more socially conscious body of people than many of the other more long term institutions. I am not saying anything rude about any of those organisations. What I said was not meant to be an insult; if anything it was meant to be a compliment. It is a matter upon which I would have expected the Methodist Church to take a very serious and very conscientious review. After some two years of a world study it concluded in favour of the morality of nuclear energy production. That point needs to be made and made again. Senator Chipp —John Wesley should have turned in his grave. Senator PETER RAE —Maybe things have changed and people's knowledge has expanded . Maybe the expansion of knowledge has enabled those who are up to date with the facts to come to the conclusion which I believe to be inescapable, and that is the conclusion to which I will be leading-that nuclear energy is safer and cleaner than most alternative forms of energy. As I said earlier, there is an importance in distinguishing between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Australia's approach has given us a proud record of utmost responsibility. We have signed nuclear safeguards agreements with Canada, Finland, France, Sweden, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Atomic Energy Community, EURATOM. These agreements were signed by the end of last year and further agreements with other countries have been negotiated, including Japan and Switzerland, enabling a large number of countries, comparable in their social and economic responsibility, to proceed with agreement on the approach that should be adopted by a responsible country in the utilisation of uranium resources and nuclear energy. On looking at some of the comparisons between nuclear energy and coal one could not seriously contemplate putting forward an argument that coal would be used in favour of nuclear energy if one had a direct choice. The United States energy authority has shown that for the last two years in that country, where the cost of production is probably the highest in the world and where management has been probably the least effective or the most negligent-the cost of nuclear power is trending down in comparison with coal and is cheaper than coal per unit produced on the American basis of comparison. I turn now to the environmental consequences of nuclear power as opposed to coal. If we consider the questions of acid rain and the greenhouse effect I still cannot understand how anyone could suggest that we should contemplate the use of the foul and extremely expensive method of production of power from the exhaustion of fossil fuels in comparison with the utilisation of uranium. A thousand megawatt station releases 7 million tonnes per year of carbon dioxide and a nuclear power station releases nil. The source of that information, I point out to Senator Chipp, is the Atomic Industrial Forum in New York and it is quoted in many places with approval. Sulphur dioxide releases in tonnes per year are 24,000 from coal and nil from nuclear power. On looking at the annual waste disposal problem and all the rest of the figures that I would have thought are starting to become resonably common these days in the knowledge of people, it is very hard to say on any basis of comparison that nuclear power is not cleaner or safer. I thought it was significant that on the day of the Harrisburg Three Mile Island negligent handling problem, from which there was no resulting damage to an individual and from which the President's inquiry showed no form of damage-- Senator Chipp —How in the name of God can you say that? Senator PETER RAE —The President's health commission inquiry showed that a person would have had to have stood in one place for a year to have received any more than the normal readout of radioactivity. But on that day a large number of people-I will not quote from a newspaper article because I cannot find the cutting-were killed in a coal mine collapse. That did not receive any front page coverage anywhere in the world. It appeared at about page 23 somewhere. In comparison no one was killed as a result of the Harrisburg incident. That is one comparison. My colleagues can refer to others. We have a problem in that the Australian Labor Party is unclear as to which way it is going in the provision of jobs and the development of this industry for Australia. The Labor Party is not yet clear as to what it will do for the future of Australia's participation, either for Australia's benefit or for the benefit of the world. I would have thought that we had some responsibility to do as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) suggested in his speech to the anniversary conference of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, when he said: Australians must recognise what is happening and accept that we either keep up or lose out. I would have thought that was one of the Prime Minister's quotable statements on nuclear energy. We must either keep up or lose out. The world will not wait for Australia. We have seen recently that both the Federal Labor Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon, have grasped the nettle in relation to the Roxby Downs question but they have not been able to ovecome the problems in some of the sections of the Labor Party with regard to the general development of uranium. One can only imagine that those people will happily say they would rather see energy provided, insofar as it has to be provided around the world, by means of the exhaustion of fossilised fuels with all the attendant ills and adverse effects on human life and the environment than move towards continuing to provide to the world, subject to adequate safeguards to ensure that there is no misuse of nuclear waste, the uranium with which Australia has been blessed and which can enable us to increase employment opportunities in this country, increase the wealth of this country and the opportunity of development, and provide heat and succour to the rest of the world. I think that this identifies very clearly one of the major issues in Australia, one which we will need to debate and debate until we get quite clearly a judgment from the Australian people on an informed basis, and information is one of the things that Australians have been denied too often in the past in relation to this issue. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.28) —I have listened to Senator Rae and I think he has competently presented a pro- nuclear case, most of which was rational, but he did not demonstrate any urgency in speaking on what is supposed to be a matter of urgency before the Senate. I qualify the words 'most of which was rational'. One of Senator Rae's comments, which I wrote down, was that nuclear power is clean, safe and cheaper than oil or coal. Those three words-'clean', 'cheap' and 'safe'- Senator Peter Rae —I used the word 'comparatively'. Senator WALSH —Well, they are rather subjective. That is the point I was going to make. It is certainly correct that in some locations nuclear power is cheaper than oil or coal, but it is not correct that in all locations it is cheaper than coal. It is more likely to be cheaper than oil in all locations. I turn to the wording of the alleged matter of urgency to which I have referred . There have been some important matters with respect to uranium and nuclear policy upon which this Government, on taking office, acted with urgency. The broader questions, however, ought to be considered at greater length. I will say more about that later. This urgency motion, which refers, in part, to 'the continuation of responsible development', clearly implies that that development which has so far taken place has been responsible. That is not the case, as I will demonstrate later. On the question of urgency, to suggest, as the motion and the framework in which it is presented do, that there is an urgent need to make exhaustive decisions-a comprehensive, all-embracing decision-about uranium policy and nuclear power is, I believe, in conflict with if not mutually exclusive to being responsible. Matters of detail did require urgent action and urgent action was taken by this Government. Six negotiating determinations for six companies had been issued by the former Deputy Prime Minister. They were promptly cancelled by the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). Quite apart from the environmental and military objections which are widely held towards nuclear power, it was, in purely economic terms, irresponsible for the former Deputy Prime Minister to have issued negotiating determinations to that number of producers, given the demand for uranium, irrespective of any non-economic constraints and given the demand for uranium in the foreseeable future. Shipments of Australian uranium to France have been suspended as a protest against French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Senator Peter Rae —They have not been suspended. They had not taken place. They were not due until October this year. Senator WALSH —There was a shipment due in July of this year. It was suspended because of the French practice of letting off atom bombs in our backyard, something they would not dare to do in their own backyard. Senator Peter Rae —But Mr Hawke- Senator WALSH —I should like to expand on that. I will not name the individuals but a good deal of this is on the public record. It is well known that the question of whether Australia should be involved in uranium supply is a contentious issue within political parties, between political parties and in the community in general. There are prominent members of the Australian Labor Party who have publicaly expressed strong support for uranium mining but whose view also is that under no circumstances should Australian uranium be supplied to France while it continues to test atomic weapons in the South Pacific. With respect to France, it is not just a question of the clear environmental and ultimate military dangers of atomic testing. This testing is, in my view and in the view of many others, an unacceptable last vestige of European colonial arrogance. France would not dare test atomic weapons in the Mediterranean. So the French have gone to a place on the globe about as far away from France as it is possible to get and have decided to test them there. Action was taken quickly by the Government with respect to that. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), almost immediately on becoming Minister, ordered a review of the nuclear safeguards policy. Shortly afterwards he appointed an Ambassador for Disarmament in an attempt to pursue a policy aimed at ensuring that the nuclear industry is not misused for the production of nuclear weapons and ultimtely for nuclear war. On the question of safe waste disposal operations, the Government allocated in this year's Budget $1.332m for the Synroc research program as against an expenditure of $0.268m last year. I should add that an amount somewhat greater than $0.268m was allocated last year but not spent. Senator Peter Rae —Yes, but it was the same amount, was it not? It was very close to it. Senator WALSH —It was not the same amount. It was somewhat less. It was much underspent. Expansion of that program is planned for this financial year. The Government is also-again this has been a matter of much public comment- conducting a comprehensive review of the nuclear industry in Australia. A number of Cabinet submissions either have been prepared or are in the process of being prepared and, as I stated in the Senate yesterday, ought to be considered by Cabinet probably within the next month. Those reviews cover the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, the industry within Australia and also the Atomic Energy Act, that draconian piece of legislation first passed by this Parliament in 1953 , in an hysterical McCarthyist climate, which has been allowed to remain the law or the principal Act under which uranium has been mined in Australia for far too long. That broad question to which I have referred, the determination of policy on nuclear non-proliferation, on the Australian industry as a whole and the Atomic Energy Act, is a question on which I suggest it would be irresponsible to make hasty decisions. This Government is acting responsibly in preparing submissions covering the whole range of nuclear activities upon which ultimately a responsible decision will be made. That, I suggest, contrasts sharply with the irresponsibility of the previous Government. I remind the Senate that the motion refers to 'the continuation of responsible development', which unarguably implies, if it is accepted by the Senate, that development up to now has been responsible. Indeed, the attitude of the previous Government was that if it could get a dollar out of uranium it did not care what the cost elsewhere may be. The Atomic Energy Act, to which I have already referred, is an example of the previous Government's neglect. The previous Government was happy to make uranium available to France on an ad lib basis. I have referred to that as well. Indeed, if the gung ho attitude of the former Deputy Prime Minister were to be accepted as the definitive statement of the previous Government's policy on this matter-and it was accepted by the previous Government-one could well get the impression that Mr Anthony would have sold uranium to Idi Amin if Idi had not run out of money. Senator Durack —What about the need for safeguards approval? How do you negotiate that one? Senator WALSH —I am about to refer to the safeguards as a very good demonstration, a powerful demonstration indeed, of the irresponsibility of the previous Government. On 5 June 1978 the then Prime Minister, when addressing the United Nations General Assembly, said that he favoured a complete ban on re- processing fissionable material which would have allowed extraction of plutonium , the raw material for nuclear weapons. In July 1979, just over a year later, the Government abandoned a policy it had announced on 24 May 1977 which was that exports of uranium would be covered by the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards from the time they left Australian ownership. That change, I might add, was designed to protect the commercial interests of commercial exporters, an example of the pursuit of the dollar once again, regardless of all other costs. In January 1979 the then Government announced that it would allow companies to enter conditional uranium contracts before safeguard agreements had been concluded with the importing country, thereby repudiating Mr Fraser's 24 May 1977 statement requiring 'prior conclusion of bi-lateral agreements between the Australian Government and countries wishing to import Australian uranium'. The problem of waste disposal was likewise trivialised by some members of the previous Government. On 28 August 1977 the then Prime Minister asserted: . . . let me emphasise as forcefully as I can that here the scientific knowledge does exist- that is, on waste disposal- The technology does exist. The scientific knowledge and technology have been applied to the problem of waste. That was in 1977. In March of 1982, almost four and a half years later- Senator Peter Rae —What was he referring to? Could you complete the quote? Senator WALSH —He was referring to waste disposal. Senator Peter Rae —It was the French vitrification process, wasn't it? Senator WALSH —Mr Fraser said that the technology did exist for the safe disposal of waste. I am not sure what particular technology he was referring to. That is relatively unimportant, as honourable senators opposite will know when they hear what I am about to quote. On 16 March 1982, 4 1/2 years later, Senator Sir John Carrick, who was the Minister with joint responsibility-I suppose that would be the most accurate way to put it-for uranium policy in the previous Government, said that he had: . . . no knowledge of any firm proposals to construct facilities for the final disposal of high level nuclear waste . . . With that statement he gave away Mr Fraser's previous assurances that the technology was there and that there would be no problems. The question of the disposal of nuclear waste was trivialised by the previous Government. Its public statements on uranium were closely linked with its general gung ho politically inspired attitude and promotion of the so-called resources boom. Mr Anthony once asserted that 500,000 jobs were on tap at will from the development of uranium in Australia. Mr Viner, the former honourable member for Stirling, one of the many involuntary retirees from the previous Government, asserted in the House of Representatives that for every job directly associated with the uranium industry there would be a multiplier of 15, that is, for every person employed in mining uranium, 15 more people would be consequentially employed elsewhere. Senator Robertson —He was never good at maths, was he? Senator WALSH —No. The multiplier, which is a bit of economists' jargon, is a variable but the normal multiplier is in the vicinity of three to four. Anything above five would be extraordinarily high; nevertheless, Mr Viner asserted in the House of Representatives that a multiplier of 15 applied to uranium. Senator Robertson —Anthony put it higher. Senator WALSH —Mr Anthony did not actually quote a multiplier, he just came out with a figure of 500,000 jobs, presumably plucked straight out of the air. The matter of Roxby Downs has been raised today in Question Time. I think I should briefly summarise our position. The Australian Labor Party platform makes special provision for consideration on a case by case basis in section 64c for the mining of uranium where it is mined incidentally to the production of other minerals. At the rate of production projected by the company involved, Western Mining Corporation Ltd, and at current prices the uranium at Roxby Downs, amounts to something less than 40 per cent by value. Irrespective of any political or moral constraints or objections, on a purely economic assessment, the potential for exports of uranium from Australia on a reasonably optimistic forecast over the next five years is a maximum of an additional 12,000 tonnes. That amount could be supplied if there were no other constraints or objections. The plain fact is that at present the world market for uranium is very slack and likely to remain so for some considerable time. Admittedly, that situation may change in the 1990s. For the reasons that I have given, the Government objects to the terms in which the Opposition has framed its matter of urgency. It does not accept that the discussion legitimately falls into the category of a matter of urgency. More importantly, the motion refers to 'the continuation of responsible development of Australia's uranium resources'. As I have shown, development up to this point has not been responsible. This Government is pursuing a responsible policy. The Standing Orders do not allow for amendment of a motion of urgency, but I seek leave to move such an amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If it is not permitted by Standing Orders, it can be done by leave. Is leave granted? Senator Peter Rae —Yes. It is given in a spirit of co-operation and in order to have the matter debated. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —I move: Delete all words after 'urgency' and substitute the following: 'Responsible development of Australia's uranium resources which requires: (a) measures to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of nuclear non- proliferation safeguard systems; (b) satisfactory arrangements for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste materials; (c) mechanisms to ensure satisfactory safety, occupational health conditions, and environment protection within the mining industry in Australia.' Essentially, the amendment removes from the Opposition's motion the clear implication that development up to this stage has been responsible, which the Government does not accept. Therefore the Government would not have voted for the motion as orginally moved by Senator Peter Rae, but on which he has been kind enough to grant leave to move the amendment I have circulated. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(3.48) — This matter of urgency deals with the mining of uranium and its export for peaceful purposes. I am indebted to Senator Kilgariff for allowing me to speak in this debate. It is an issue in which I have a fair deal of interest. I know that Senator Kilgariff wanted to speak on the matter and has a lot of material prepared. I am grateful for the help he has been to me. When we talk about the mining of uranium, no matter what motion might be before the Senate, we have to think of the end use of the uranium. Today we are suggesting that mining go ahead in Australia only for the peaceful end use of the product. No one who has read anything about the likely effects of an all out atomic war can be anything but horrified by those prospects. Most people feel that there cannot be a limited atomic war. Such a conflict would escalate into a much larger one. In the debate on uranium I believe there have been some clever moves by those opposed to atomic power to confuse the public by speaking of nuclear proliferation from nuclear stations and technology. Let me say quite clearly that I do not believe proliferation has come about or will come about because of our selling uranium to other countries. I believe our safeguards are sufficiently tight. Australia is extremely rich in uranium, most probably the richest country in the world in that regard. But no matter what the conservationists say about our leaving uranium in the ground, such an attitude will not stop the development of atomic power stations. The mining and enrichment of uranium and the development of atomic power stations will go ahead . Australia has nothing to gain and a heck of a lot to lose if it adopts the selfish attitude of not supplying uranium to the rest of the world. I do not know whether it is generally recognised but our national debt situation even last year, before the horrific deficit in our Budget this year, is quite critical. I had the Parliamentary Library prepare a few figures comparing what we owe per head of population to the international banking community with the figure owed per capita in Poland, Brazil and Argentina, countries about which so much has been written and discussed recently. Those figures show that Australia has a per capita liability of $US1,880, that Poland has $US790, Brazil $US950 and Argentina $US1,820. In other words, we are worse off in that respect than any of those countries. For the sake of clarity I seek leave to have that very simple table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY STATISTICS GROUP Per capita liabilities to the International Banking Community; selected countries: 1982 Per capita Country Liabilities Population liabilities $USm m $US/person Australia 27,924 (a)14.86 1,880 Poland 27,707 (b)35.23 790 Brazil 115,753 (a)121.55 950 Argentina 50,986 (a)28.09 1,820 (a) 1981 estimate. (b) 1979 estimate. Note: Per capita liabilities rounded to nearest $US10. Source: I.P. Sharp & Associates. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service . Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. I believe it is up to us to do what we can to reduce that debt. I mentioned those figures to someone and he said: 'Yes, but Australia will be able to repay its debts'. If we stop development of one thing after another in this country, which is apparently what the left wing socialists want us to do, we will not be able to repay our debts. I must say that the Australian Democrats appear to take a very similar view to that of the socialists. Certainly, they exhibit little scientific or engineering knowledge and their attitude in supporting non-development seems to align them very closely with the extreme left of the Australian Labor Party, the extreme socialists who I feel do all they can to frustrate the development of this country. The Democrats and others helped to stop the hydro development of South West Tasmania. That will compel Tasmania to install a coal fired power station. When the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, looked at an atomic power station while he was in the United States of America, Senator Chipp went quite bonkers, and once again without any reason except, I believe, a political reason, leapt into print saying that 'an atomic power plant in Australia would be bad', or words to that effect. As an engineer, let me say quite clearly that I would much prefer to live down wind of an atomic power station than I would of a coal fired station with its inherent acid rain, atomic fallout from the burning of coal and other environmental problems such as ash. I believe that Senator Chipp and his party show either complete ignorance of this matter or, more likely, are appealing to the unfounded fear on the part of some of the public. We in Tasmania do not yet need anything other than the hydro power that is still available. But when the time comes that we do I hope, for one, that our needs will be produced by atomic power and that the coal and oil that we have in Australia will be retained for future use. If we do not have atomic power, and these resources are used at anticipated rates, the resources will be depleted in a mere 100 years. What do some of the eminent scientists say about nuclear power? Let me quote a few extracts from a little book called Challenge to Australia. The late Sir Barton Pope, at page 7, says: Australia, or any other country, must not anticipate selfishly withholding its resources from desperate and needy nations. The world must become closer knit and interdependent. Compassion must displace selfishness. At page 8 of the book he says: With coal resources reserves in part for its alternative uses in the supply of gas, oil and petro chemicals, at some stage during the century ahead probably we will be dependent on nuclear to service major energy needs and to bridge the gap to new discovery. At page 13 he says: Nuclear energy has got right out of perspective and understandably is clouded with emotionalism with its initial application to war. Science and the world nuclear industry must stand rebuked for remaining so remote from the community at large who have unfairly been left uninformed and vulnerable to misinterpretation. Further, on the same page, he says: Our very survival may well depend on the use of nuclear power for civilian use. The world in the next century will become acutely aware of the great debt to nuclear science and will pay tribute to its creators. What, I ask honourable senators, could be clearer than that? An eminent scientist has made a statement that our very survival may well depend on the use of nuclear power for civilian use. Sir Barton Pope points out that without nuclear energy the lives of many people who will be part of the expected population growth over the next 50 years will not be spared. On page 13 he also says: A Nobel Prize would be totally inadequate recognition for the scientist and those millions so spared would owe a great debt of gratitude to the opponents of nuclear for civilian use who, when better informed, had the courage to reverse their expressed opposition and emotionalism of today. We all must, of course, work towards the proper standards of safety for the nuclear industry. The safe mining, enrichment and use of uranium present engineering and physical problems that are being solved. However, we cannot solve the deaths from coal mining and black lung disease. We cannot stop the acid rain that falls down wind from a coal burning power station. I believe that engineers and scientists unfortunately do not offer themselves as politicians often enough but maybe it is time more of them became involved and assisted in the education of the community in matters such as this and other scientific aspects. The late Sir Barton Pope is not the only scientist to say that we need to share our uranium wealth. Sir Macfarlane Burnet at page 26 of the book, which I must say is prefaced by a statement from the Governor-General, said: The only presently conceivable alternative with a sufficiently long-lasting supply of planetary material is controlled nuclear fusion analogous to the primary source of energy in the sun. Of course, until controlled nuclear fusion is perfected we will need atomic energy, as now produced in some 25 countries, 19 of which are building more stations. I believe that the little book from which I have been quoting is well worth reading by all honourable senators. If we do not go nuclear, if oil runds out, if eventually all of the coal is used, and in fact life on earth is not destroyed first by the effects of burning coal, how will places such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines, to name just a few in our immediate vicinity presently using atomic power, get on? Are we selfishly going to sit on the uranium that we have? Will we let these people and others go without because of our unthinking attitude? No sensible person would suggest that. I believe we should be co-operating on a world-wide basis in developing an industry and assisting in the atomic area. At page 33 of the book from which I have quoted Sir Mark Oliphant said: . . . it is impossible to put the clock back, to wipe out the nuclear knowledge which made the weapons possible, or to forgo the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in a world where fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, are being depleted rapidly. At page 34 he stated: Withholding Australian uranium would not prevent the erection of a single reactor. He further stated: As one who has been involved all my life in nuclear physics and nuclear energy, who has participated in many international discussions with Soviet and other workers in these fields, and in scientific and technical aid to developing nations, who is committed to the search for peace, I am convinced that Australia would be foolish not to mine, use, and sell uranium. He went on: Nuclear power stations are now far less polluting and are safer, than coal- burning equivalents. That is exactly what Senator Peter Rae said earlier. My position is clear. I agree with those gentlemen. Perhaps I should commend to the Senate the detailed reading of the preliminary paper that Mr A. E. Ringwood was good enough to send to me recently. It involves the disposal of higher level atomic wastes in synroc -a synthetic rock-as a means of handling the high level wastes such as caesium 137, strontium 90, plutonium and neptunium. This is the way that the world should be looking and going. In that paper he details how to store safely the wastes of those atomic reactors. I admit that there is a need to educate the public in the matter of safe storage, and I will be doing my best to help in that regard over the coming years. It seems to me that the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University has made a great contribution to solving the waste problem of the nuclear power stations. Its idea of disposal is to drill holes into stable rock, which has the advantage of getting the waste right out of likely low storage mine repositories that are much lower under the ground. It would be millions of years before any of that material once again was circulated anywhere in the world. I have almost run out of time, but I do suggest that all honourable senators read that article and start reading a little about the atomic energy needs of this world. It is something with which we are going to have to live. It is an engineering problem, and I believe that it is one that is getting closer and closer to perfection as time goes by. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(4.03) —I wholeheartedly endorse the closing remarks of Senator Peter Rae, who said: 'We must debate and debate'. This, however, makes considerable nonsense of the fact that we have before us a matter of urgency. It is a question with which we cannot possibly grapple in a two-hour urgency debate it is quite inappropriately dealt with as a matter of urgency. We do not retreat from debating this subject. In fact I think the Australian Labor Party could legitimately lay claim to being the political party which has spent an inordinate amount of time and energy on debating this question and in public, unlike the Liberal and National parties. If Senator Townley's suggestion that Australia should pay its international debts with uranium sales is an example of the level of debate that occurs in those parties, they had better keep that debate in private and behind cosed doors until the tone improves. The morality of such proposals would be strongly questioned by the millions of Australians and others who deplore the notion that Australian uranium may find its way, quite easily under current conditions, into weapons capable of most appalling destruction. We are prepared also in the Labor Party to go on debating this matter in public as long as there are serious unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power. I want to concentrate on the hazards and the lack of safety within the normal operation of the fuel cycle as distinct from acts of terrorism or risks of nuclear war. This question most closely involves those people who, up until now, have been involved with the mining and processing of uranium in Australia, those who currently are working in mines, and those who, in the future, will also be exposed. Radiation, of course, occurs naturally. Man-made radiation from medical radiology, industrial processes, fall-out from nuclear tests and nuclear power production is encountered in varying doses by all of us at one time or another. Medical radiology is the greatest contributor to radiation. Amongst the types of exposure which are most commonly encountered, of course, are somatic exposure directly to the individual, or genetic exposure to descendants of those exposed. The effects of these have been widely documented but are still not fully understood. The difference in interpretation of various studies has left us further confused. Obviously there are differences in sensitivity between individuals who are exposed to constant levels of radiation over constant periods of time. It is known that large doses of 100 to 200 rems delivered repeatedly to a large part of the body injure or kill a large number of cells and lead in a matter of days to very obvious injury or to death. Low doses of radiation, however, such as those experienced by people who are mining and processing uranium and by people using machinery and technical equipment which is known to emit doses of radiation are worrying us more and more. We are finding that young women, for instance, who have handled visual display units daily for a matter of months or years are complaining of increased incidence of miscarriage and birth deformities. There still is no definitive work that links those factors, but we do know that the amount of radiation that the workers are absorbing is not measured. It is the machinery that tends to be measured. A few years ago I had discussions with a gentleman from Rumania, who told me that in five districts uranium had been mined for some years until suddenly it was discovered that there was a drastic fall in the birth rate. At that stage mining ceased in four districts and much smaller amounts of uranium were being mined under safer conditions. The cumulative effect on the islanders in the South Pacific has been impossible to quantify. By effect , of course, I mean the effect of the fall-out from the French testing in the Pacific. We do know that there is a steady stream of patients with neoplasms of various types coming to Sydney for treatment from the Pacific Islands. We also know that large numbers of people are going to France and New Zealand for treatment. Senator Peter Baume —Is there a causal relationship? Senator GILES —I am not claiming any definitive information about the causal relationship. We are aware that great difficulty is being encountered by the World Health Organisation, which has as yet not been able to obtain information necessary to prepare a comprehensive assessment on the long term effects-both the somatic and genetic effects-of low level radiation on the population of the islands in the South Pacific which has been at risk for many years from French nuclear testing. An American mathematician Sister Rosalie Bertell set out some years ago to design a method of recording and storing medical data and discovered that the population which was under study was showing in quite young people a very high incidence of diseases usually associated with ageing. Conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, osteoarthritis, hypertension, artereosclerosis were occurring in the young and middle aged, cutting decades off their lives, making old people of them before their time. The only explanation for this was that this population had been exposed to low level radiation-lower than what till then had been considered dangerous-from tailings from a nearby uranium treatment plant. A careful scientist, like all mathematicians, Sister Bertell checked and rechecked the results of her study and finally, satisfied of the validity of her findings, set out to alert thinking people to the implications of exposure to low levels of radiation over long periods. Publicity which has been directed to the more dramatic effects of higher doses, such as lung cancer from the inhalation of radon gas by miners-not only underground miners-and genetic disorders such as were recorded in Kerala in India in 1976, has tended to distract attention from the high profitability that whole communities of exposed workers and their families are aging at abnormal rates. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, in Issues of the 1970's, called repeatedly for the sorts of controls that were advocated in the Australian Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry in 1976. I refer briefly to some recommendations of the Ranger Inquiry to remind the Senate of the language that was being used at that time, which I believe is not totally relevant and has not lost any of its impact. The first recommendation was: The hazards of mining and milling uranium, if those activities are properly regulated and controlled, are not such as to justify the decision not to develop Australian uranium mines. In every one of the recommendations the report uses those terms. The second recommendation was: The hazards involved in the ordinary operations of nuclear power reactors, if those operation are properly regulated and controlled, are not such as to justify a decision not to mine and sell Australian uranium. That is what the Australian Labor Party has been saying all the time. There are hazards. We are looking for safeguards. We are looking for reassurances. We want to be absolutely certain that we are not exposing Australian workers and their families to unseen but nonetheless extremely serious consequences. I refer again to Anthony Wedgwood Benn. He was particularly concerned, given the United Kingdom experience, about the implications of nuclear technology, of which mining uranium is of course an essential element. His concern was for democracy and for human rights. He said: Before we proceed any further we must look at the need for democratic control in the light of the following considerations. First, its close connection with military policy in regard to the development of nuclear weapons which are the most sophisticated technology available, the most dangerous, and the one covered by the greatest secrecy. Second, the link between the military and civil use of nuclear technology makes it a matter of public concern. The production of plutonium, the development of enrichment and reprocessing all carry the risk of proliferation or vulnerability to terrorism. These are also reasons for shrouding civil nuclear processes under conditions of top secrecy. Third, the wide gap between expert understanding and public knowledge of nuclear matters which is used to justify the exclusion of laymen-even M.P.'s and Ministers are laymen for the purpose-from the knowledge of what is really going on for fear they might not understand. Anthony Wedgwood Benn had a rather horrifying experience when he was Minister in charge of such matters in Great Britain. In 1976 he discovered that there had been two major leaks at Windscale and some weeks had elapsed before their full extent was brought to his attention. During that time cows grazing close to Windscale had been eating radioactive grass. The milk from those cows had been directed to very many thousands of families in home counties in Great Britain, with what effect we can only guess. Senator Coleman —Because the Government would not release the report. Senator GILES —Exactly. Anthony Wedgwood Benn continued: Fourth, the high rate of spending even in civil nuclear technology creates powerful vested interests in the industries that live off parliamentary budgets. It may not be widely appreciated that Federal subsidies to the uranium industry in Australia rose from $30.1m in 1977-78 to $83.6m in 1981-82, a real increase of 110 per cent. This included $37.8m to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission , $8.2m towards exploration and development, $23.2m on the Commonwealth uranium stockpile, $4.4m on environmental protection and $10m on infrastructure for the Jabiluka township. There are costs, problems and hazards associated with many technologies. For the motion of the Opposition to have any force whatsoever one would need to be convinced that what it describes as responsible development, which the Opposition seeks to continue in terms of this motion, gives high priority to the problems of safety, terrorism, civil liberties, proliferation and the environment. Where is the evidence of such concern? There has been no recognition at all of our responsibilities, this generation's great trust as stewards of this country and of the planet. The truly responsible approach to this question is the one to which this Government is committed, as outlined in Labor Party official policy. The responsibilities we have are unique in human history. We will be handing over to future generations responsibilities of monitoring and guardianship which we cannot be sure they will be in a position to discharge. That being the case, in 1983 we must acknowledge that there are still serious, important and potentially crucial questions to be resolved. They cannot be resolved as a result of a discussion of an urgency motion; they can be resolved only in the context of a responsible government prepared to face up to these important responsibilities. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.18) —This debate was initiated by Senate Peter Rae of the Liberal Party, who moved that the following matter of urgency be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The continuation of responsible development of Australia's uranium resources, which is in the best interests of this country and the world. The Australian Democrats totally, unequivocally and passionately disagree with the premise put by Senator Peter Rae and by the Liberal Party of Australia. Before I embark on my own remarks, I refer to a couple of things that Senator Rae mentioned. He said that the Methodist Church of the United Kingdom had come out steadfastly in favour of uranium mining. Since his speech was broadcast my phone has been inundated with calls to the effect that it was not the Methodist Church but a committee set up by the Methodist Church to report to the Methodist Church and that the committee did not have any member who was opposed to nuclear energy. I make the comment that if the honourable senator is quoting the Methodist Church of the United Kingdom he could quote the Uniting Church in Australia and many other churches who are steadfastly opposed to uranium mining and regard it as immoral. If the Liberal Party wants to put the view that uranium mining creates jobs and therefore we should continue with it, with great respect, I would liken that argument to saying we should have more road accidents because that would employ more tow truck drivers. I believe that, regrettably, because of the Labor Party's acquiescence to development in Roxby Downs and in granting two Queensland uranium companies authority to negotiate new uranium contracts, the policy of the Labor Party, or some leading members of it at least, is based on four false assumptions. The first false assumption is that uranium mining is safe. I would not have thought that any more evidence would be needed by the Liberal Party that uranium mining is unsafe than the report of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry , which I understand was commissioned by it some years ago. That report unequivocally stated that uranium mining and milling does cause cancer-not 'may' ; it does cause cancer-and may cause gene mutations. Senator Jessop —Have you seen any evidence of that? I have not seen any. Senator CHIPP —Senator Jessop sets himself above Mr Justice Fox, who inquired into this for years. He says he has not seen any evidence of it and therefore uranium mining does not cause cancer. Mr Justice Fox, who looked into this matter for years, stated definitely, unequivocally, that it did cause cancer and may cause gene mutations in future generations. That was a royal commission set up by the Government of this country. So enough of the myth that uranium mining is safe. Mr Justice Fox also said that there is no known way of safely storing the wastes of uranium mining. I would be fascinated to hear Senator Jessop, a self-confessed expert on these matters, nominate what ways of storing uranium mining wastes have now been proven safe forever-not just 100 years and not just 200 years, but forever. The second myth is that nuclear technology is designed for peaceful uses only. The fact is that nuclear weapons can be produced only from uranium or its by- product, plutonium. There is no way of creating nuclear weapons other than by mining uranium and using the by-products. A report by the Pentagon to President Johnson in 1965 stated: The world is fast approaching a point of no return in the prospect of controlling nuclear weapons . . . Why did it conclude this? It went on: Atomic power programmes are placing within the hands of many nations much of the knowledge, equipment and material for making nuclear weapons. Yet members of the Liberal Party have said today that nuclear technology is designed for only peaceful uses. The connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons is very clear to those at the highest levels. I refer to those nations that have or plan to have nuclear weapons, or which are about to have them. I ask Senator Rae, who is a man I respect totally, to listen to this terrifying list of nations that are about to have nuclear weapons: South Africa, Pakistan, India, South Korea, Taiwan and Argentina. Where have those nations received their plutonium? They have received it from reactors that are allegedly operating for peaceful means. So it is a myth to say that just because nuclear reactors are operating peacefully they do not lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. These countries have got the necessary materials from so-called civilian power plants and enrichment facilities fuelled by uranium. They have acquired the potential despite the international agreements that Senator Townley mentioned. International agreements are not worth the paper they are written on if countries like these can acquire nuclear weapons. Take India, for example. Did it not explode a nuclear weapon in May 1974, nine years ago? Do Senator Rae and members of the Liberal Party ignore that fact? Where did India get the ability to produce such a weapon? It got it from a reactor and from uranium provided by Canada and the United States of America which was intended for peaceful purposes . The next myth about mining uranium is that the world is energy hungry and cannot survive without nuclear power. This is the third great false assumption. It is suggested that the world is so hungry for energy that unless we have nuclear energy we will be condemned to an impoverished life, particularly those people who live in the Third World. That is not the case. Nuclear energy provides only 9 to 10 per cent of the world's electricity. The International Atomic Energy Agency-hardly a left wing organisation-estimates that it will contribute less than 5 per cent of the energy needs of the less developed countries by 1990. I have been to such countries with Senator Rae. Does he really believe that those corrupt dictators in Indonesia and the Philippines would put nuclear power to the use and benefit of the poor and the peasants? Would the benefits not be limited to the big cities of Manila and Jakarta, so that the fat, rich and corrupt Indonesians and Filipinos could grow fitter, fatter and richer? To what extent would peasants benefit from such uranium development? I suggest that they would get virtually no benefit. Of course Australia has an obligation to assist the less developed nations. It is wrongly assumed that technology such as nuclear power offers the only alternative. The vast capital costs of nuclear power reactors just cannot be accommodated by the fragile economies of many of the developing nations, especially those already saddled with massive foreign debts. There are alternatives to nuclear power. One of these, solar power, is now operating commercially in the United States. The Solar One power station provides 127 megawatts of power for domestic use. The fourth great myth is that if we are to be a party to international safeguards we have to be involved in selling uranium. This is probably the most dangerous myth. Why do we have to be involved in the promotion of the nuclear fuel cycle to have a voice in the world calling for an end to the insanity of the nuclear arms race? I challenge both the Government and the Opposition-both of whom use this excuse to justify the expansion of the uranium industry-to explain this to the Senate. It has never been explained to me why, if we stopped mining uranium, our voice would be stilled in world councils. A person does not have to be a rapist or a victim of rape to talk about its indignity and horror. What is different in the case of uranium? Would someone please explain that to me? International safeguards have been and have been seen to be an abject failure. Nuclear weapons have spread to new countries despite all international agreements. It is utterly irresponsible to contribute uranium to an international cycle that has increased the spread of nuclear weapons and will continue to do so simply for financial gain. That is the morality of the heroin pusher. Another speaker in this debate has already put this point of view. The heroin pusher is a despicable creature who sells for gain without any regard for the consequences, on the basis that if he does not sell it to drug addicts, someone else will. I submit with great respect that that is a morality of which a civilised country should not be proud. In conclusion, let me put the subject of this debate into its proper context. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, complimented Senator Rae. I concede that he spoke in a dignified and rational way, but one would have thought we were having an economic debate. One would have thought we were talking about the mining of coal or some other resource. This is not a topic restricted to local concern. It does not concern the future of a gold mine, a coal mine, a power station or even the Franklin River. This is a subject that involves the existence on this planet of life as we know it. That is what we are talking about today. As I speak here, 50,000 nuclear warheads are stockpiled by the super-powers for use against people. That figure is almost incomprehensible. From what other source do they come if they do not come from uranium-uranium that we mine, mill and export. As I talk in this Senate today, the United States of America has 12,000 atomic warheads targeted against the Soviet people. The Soviets have 8,000 atomic warheads aimed at the people of the United States, Europe and Japan. Let us not delude ourselves. At this moment the Soviets have nuclear warheads targeted against the people of Australia. Does anybody deny that proposition? From where did these warheads come? They did not come from coal or oil; they came from uranium. Let me drive this message home to those fools who write soothingly in newspapers about the need for uranium mining. Each one of those 50 ,000 warheads is up to 80 times as destructive as the bombs that incinerated 200 ,000 people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If I am accused of being emotional, let me repeat that and see whether that sort of statement does not raise some emotions in people who listen. Each one of those 50,000 warheads has as much destructive power as all of the bombs released in World War II. The shooting down of the Korean Air Lines jumbo last week surely shows us how easily those weapons could be used. The same mad general or group of generals who pushed the button to shoot down that Korean jet are the same generals who have the same sorts of powers over another kind of button which releases their nuclear toys against the other people of the world. They have their counterparts in the United States. The decision was made by a commander with a military mind, a mind that was programmed to respond only in a violent manner without regard for human life. That is a commentary on generals. Generals are trained to kill. Generals are trained to reach an objective by violent means. It is the only means they know. In the event of a larger conflict or threat the same military mind could well be itching to use his biggest and most favourite toy-the nuclear device. For him it would be as easy as downing the jumbo. Those who believe that we have to flog our uranium to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons fail to see the lessons of history. Those who fail to heed history are bound to relive it. The world cannot continue to live with the arsenals of death which it has created and those potential arsenals which it has promoted. For those reasons the Australian Democrats totally, unequivocally and passionately oppose the mining, milling and export of uranium in any form for any purpose. For that reason we will be voting against the Labor amendment which calls for a responsible development of uranium because we do not believe that uranium can be developed responsibly. We will certainly be voting against the Liberal motion which praises the mining, milling and export of uranium. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.33) —The Government cannot accept the matter of urgency that has been put before the chamber by the Liberal and National parties . That matter of urgency has been expressed in the following terms: The continuation of responsible development of Australia's uranium resources, which is in the best interests of this country and the world. The proposal must be rejected because we on the Government side cannot accept for one instant any suggestion that the previous Government acted in a responsible way and it is only a question of continuing that responsible attitude to the development of this uranium resource. It is certainly not a matter of urgency that the actions of that previous Government be continued and endorsed. In fact, it is a breathtaking audacity on the part of members of the Liberal-National parties to come into this chamber and claim, as a matter of urgency, that a responsible regime be put in place to govern the development of this uranium resource. In the seven years that they were in government they failed totally to do anything but take piecemeal, ad hoc decisions in relation to uranium development. At the end of their years of government this country was still without a legislative framework, a statutory formula, within which uranium resources could be developed if that were thought to be desirable. As honourable senators will know, time and again the Liberal-National parties brought into this chamber amendments to the Atomic Energy Act which attempted to patch up a legislative framework that was conceived in the 1950s, in those Cold War years, when Australia's uranium resources from Rum Jungle were placed at the disposal of our allies for the development of their nuclear weapons programs. Year after year the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats pleaded with the Government to come up with a better statutory framework if indeed it were true that Australia's uranium resources might be developed for peaceful purposes and commercial profit. The Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommended strongly against the use of that Act for the granting of an authority to Ranger to mine uranium. That recommendation of the Fox committee was never acceded to or implemented by the previous Government. The previous Government never responded to that key recommendation of the Fox report. Members of the Opposition now have the barefaced audacity to come into this chamber and say it is a matter of urgency that we get on with the development of this resource. Senator Peter Rae —You can stand aside and let somebody get back into government who will. Senator TATE —The Opposition will not be back in government for many years. We intend to undertake consideration of the development. That consideration is essential. The failure of the parliamentary members of the Liberal-National parties to come to terms with the provision of a comprehensive, well thought out and well considered approach to this problem is not surprising. The party organisation behind them failed totally to grapple with this problem. There is one thing that can be said about the Labor Party: In a public and totally responsible way and at great pains and cost to ourselves, we, as a major political organisation, have tried to identify the dangers associated with the development of this resource. We have put forward certain criteria which must be fulfilled if that resource is ever to be developed. As I say, as befits a great national party seeking the allegiance of the Australian people we-and, I should say, the Australian Democrats-have tried to grapple with this problem. During the suspension of the sitting for lunch I went to the Parliamentary Library and obtained a copy of the Liberal Party of Australia's federal platform . It is dated May 1982. Under the heading 'Energy and Natural Resources' I looked for some comment on what the political organisation thought ought to be the attitude of its parliamentary members and of the organisation generally in regard to the development of Australia's uranium resources. There was not one word. The word 'uranium' does not appear in the national platform of a party which purports to offer itself to the Australian people as an alternative government. I do not think there can be any more striking contrast between the Government and the Australian Democrats and the present Opposition coalition parties than that. The Opposition, as a political organisation trying to get the allegiance of the Australian people, has not attempted to grapple with the problems which we have identified. The only point which the Opposition made in relation to the development of an energy policy is that the policy would be best effected by reliance, to the greatest possible extent, on competitive market forces, including the pricing mechanism, which is precisely the point that Senator Townley made; that is, in order to deal with our international debt problem, we should push ahead with this development as fast as possible. That is not the attitude of the Australian Labor Party. We say it would be quite irresponsible to press ahead with merely the international trading and profit motive in mind as the sole criterion. I would say to the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, whose views on this I strongly respect, that equally it would have been irresponsible for us to come into government and to immediately, overnight, disrupt the townships which are dependent on the Ranger and Nabarlek mines, to immediately snatch away the livelihood of some 500 workers who are involved in those existing and operating mines. It would have been totally irresponsible to immediately and overnight put in jeopardy the arrangements of the Aboriginal communities which are dependent on the payment of several million dollars under agreements which were painstakingly arrived at. We intend to have more responsible and measured deliberation on these matters. I think Senator Chipp would concede that that is the proper way, as a national government, to go about our responsibilities in relation to these matters. We should take adequate time to ensure that the consequences of any decision are well thought out. In particular is this the case in relation to the international obligations of Australia. In the Government's amendment to the motion we say that responsible development of Australia's uranium resources requires, amongst other things, 'measures to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of nuclear non-proliferation safeguard systems'. As Senator Chipp so eloquently pointed out, there is no greater threat to the world's survival as a place where humanity can continue to unfold its history than the prospect of the nuclear holocaust which is so imminent. With the re-examination of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which is to be undertaken in 1985 by the international community, it is extremely important that the Australian Government urges the countries presently adhering to that treaty to continue to do so and to try to encourage other countries to give their allegience to that international arrangement. Mr Acting Deputy President, in relation to that you will be aware that this Government has, for the first time, appointed an ambassador for disarmament, Mr Richard Butler. His primary task will be to work on the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. He has been given a very forceful directive by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) that he is to devote his energies principally to pressing Australia's view in relation to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As Senator Chipp once again pointed out, there are a number of significant countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Israel, South Africa, India and Pakistan which are all in politically unstable areas and which are hostile to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to the curbing of the desire of nations to acquire the technology to enable them to produce nuclear weapons. It is very important that Australia's voice be heard in those international forums. I believe that this Government is very responsibly trying to add its voice to the sanity which must prevail if we are all to escape the holocaust that hovers above human history in a way which might consume it. Senator Chipp —I compliment you on the first thing that you did, that is, appointing Richard Butler to that position. Senator TATE —I thank Senator Chipp. I believe that it is more than a symbolic gesture. I believe that in fact it reflects a very real commitment on the part of the Government to ensure that disarmament matters are given a high priority in the decisions which the Government must undertake in this as in other areas. In relation to the question of storage and disposal of waste materials, I believe that any responsible government will try to accumulate all the relevant material, make its assessment of it and involve the Australian people in the decision-making process. In other words, the same information has to be made available to the Australian people so that they will then be able to make a judgment in relation to this matter. Only yesterday I think all honourable senators received on their desks an article entitled 'Australia's uranium and the international nuclear industry' by Professor Ringwood, the Director of the Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University. Professor Ringwood, in that paper, asserts that the synroc process which has been developed in the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University displays the capacity to immobilise high level wastes for periods exceeding one million years while the radioactivity decays to safe levels. He then goes on to put the case for the synroc method being a method proved as capable of safely disposing of wastes. In relation to that I went back to some remarks that I made in this chamber on 28 October 1982 on the presentation of the report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council . In that report which was put down in the Senate that day it was interesting to note that that Council, in relation to the synroc method of trapping wastes in a way which is said to prevent their leaching or movement into the surrounding environment, amongst other things, said that at present no radioactive waste had been incorporated in synroc. My impression had been that at least laboratory level tests had been undertaken incorporating radioactive waste in material. But according to the Council's report, no such laboratory tests, let alone any further pilot projects, had been undertaken. In other words, there has never been a full scale demonstration stage of the synroc proposal. What I am saying in relation to waste disposal is that it is not only important that scientific experts agree that a particular method is capable of isolating and putting up impermeable barriers to the dispersal of radiation into the environment, but also it must be the case that any method is readily understood by lay people and by the general Australian community. I believe that the Australian Government is right to act cautiously and responsibly in relation to this matter. It will need to explain fully to the Australian community whether, in its opinion, a stage has been reached by scientific endeavour where the waste disposal problem has been adequately dealt with. I believe that I have indicated that this Government is acting responsibly and cautiously in preparing itself to make the decisions which will be necessary in relation to the development of this energy resource found so abundantly in Australia. That decision will be made in light of the well articulated policy of the Australian Labor Party which, amongst other things at paragraph 64 on page 135 of our national platform states: . . . a Labor government will- (a) make a total commitment to exerting all possible influences on the development of creating effective international arrangements covering nuclear non-proliferation treaties, waste disposal, arms control and nuclear disarmament ; In fact, the whole of that policy is well worth consideration. It will guide and determine the sorts of issues which the Government is presently addressing. To suggest that, as a matter of urgency, policies adopted and practices indulged in by the previous Government ought to be continued, is certainly not acceptable to Government senators. I believe it would not be acceptable to the great majority of Australians. I believe the Government enjoys the support of the Australian people in responsibly coming to an assessment of what ought to be done in relation to this resource. I believe that that responsible, cautious attitude ought to receive the support of this chamber. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.47) —I join the debate because I happen to be very interested in the provision of employment in Australia and in the provision of energy for countries that are not as fortunate as Australia in having so much energy resources at their disposal. In fact, many countries have little or no energy resources of any type. I think that Senator Peter Rae or Senator Townley mentioned countries such as Japan and South Korea. I am very anxious to introduce into the debate some awareness of the need to develop, in particular, the Olympic Dam deposit at Roxby Downs in South Australia. I was pleased that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, have reaffirmed their determination that this project will go ahead. It is rather amazing to learn that the uranium resource at Olympic Dam would supply the world for 40 years at the current rate of electrical demand. That gives us an idea of the magnitude of that project. There is no doubt about it, nuclear power is a fact of life. There are 294 nuclear power stations operating in 25 Western countries now. In the Eastern bloc countries, of course, the nuclear program of expansion is quite incredible. South Korea was mentioned earlier. At the moment, South Korea is generating 9 per cent of its electricity through nuclear power stations. By 1992 that percentage will grow to 51 per cent. By the end of the century it is envisaged that something like 35 nuclear power stations will be evident in that country. Senator Peter Rae —Japan is planning an extra hundred. Senator JESSOP —That is quite correct. Of course, Japan is one of our biggest international customers. In Russia, the largest nuclear power station in the world, consisting of no less than seven 1,000 megawatt units, is under construction. I sympathise with the passion that was demonstrated by Senator Chipp. We all share the view that 50,000 nuclear warheads pointing in all sorts of directions is an alarming thing. Senator Chipp —Not in all sorts of directions. At people, right now. Senator JESSOP —For example, pointing at Senator Chipp. I hate to think that anything would happen to my good friend, Senator Chipp. A document entitled ' Uranium Power and the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons' was prepared by a committee especially for the American Nuclear Society. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard because I believe that it would be useful to honourable senators to have that information available. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Final working document (for comment) June 1, 1983 URANIUM POWER AND THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS A Report Preparedfor theAmerican Nuclear Societyby theSpecial CommitteeonNuclear Weapons and Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Chauncey Starr, Chairman Electric Power Research Institute Vincent S. Boyer, Philadelphia Electric Company Melvin J. Feldman, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Edward J. Hennelly, E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. Myron Kratzer, International Energy Associates, Ltd. A. David Rossin, Electric Power Research Institute Gerald F. Tape, Associates Universities John J. Taylor, Electric Power Research Institute Preface The American Nuclear Society (ANS) in 1982 appointed a Special Committee of four ANS past presidents and four senior members to evaluate how the increasing international use of uranium-fueled electrical power systems might influence the future proliferation of nuclear weapons states in current and foreseeable circumstances. Because the political, economic, military, and technical predispositions of each non-weapons nation are determining factors, this study focuses on the inter-relationship of those factors and their relevance to current United States policies. Although many of the salient points presented in this study have been professionally addressed in the past, the Committee believes that the overview of the composite of the principal interacting factors presented here can provide a fresh and balanced insight to the subject. The Committee members, all of whom have long been involved with uranium power development, are aware of the complexity of these matters and have a diversity of thoughts on the details but, nevertheless, agree that this paper provides a substantive framework for future policy guidance. In developing its recommendations, the Committee analysed three issues: First, will the worldwide expansion of uranium power reactors-and their supporting fuel cycles-increase the future number of Nuclear Weapons States (NWS )? More specifically, will a Non-Nuclear Weapons State (NNWS) that obtains uranium power reactors to meet its electricity needs be more likely to embark on a weapons program than if it had its choices restricted to coal, gas, or oil? Second, all existing weapons have been made from plutonium and uranium produced either in facilities originally designed to support military programs* or in large research reactors not part of electric power systems. Given the growing importance of economic efficiency in electricity generation, and the present separation of military programs from utility power plants dedicated to commercial electricity generation, is this historical separation likely to continue when civilian fuel cycle facilities become more widespread? * The earliest electricity-producing natural uranium reactors (graphite or heavy -water moderated) were designed to be dual-purpose, primarily producing plutonium for weapons, with electricity as a byproduct. Most of these plants have either been decommissioned or converted primarily to electricity production . Third, will the widespread use of uranium power, by simultaneously providing a potential source for weapons material and also for reducing dependence on expensive fossil fuels, decrease or increase the likelihood of world peace? The Weapons Allure Possession of a few nuclear weapons might be attractive to some nations as a symbol of power and prestige. It might be viewed as enhancing the image of national achievement and self-determination of national destiny, and it might create pride in the nation's ability to use high technology. Nuclear weapons may be seen as a long-term military investment because they are viewed as unsurpassable by any foreseeable technology, a perception that may soon be made obsolete by the continuing improvements in conventional weapons. Some also view the weapon as an ultimate threat to potential aggressors, as well as an intimidating leverage in international negotiations. We need only study the present posture of Pakistan vis-a-vis India to see the consequences of such views. These two countries apparently have strong motivations for currently maintaining their nuclear weapons options. There are, however, major political risks to acknowledged possession of nuclear weapons. For example, Israel has found it necessary to maintain an ambiguous image of weapons capability but not of readiness, and has stated that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into its region. Most of the world's nations have not demonstrated an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. They presumably recognise the doubtful military value of nuclear weapons or perceive no potential threat to their borders, or they are under the military umbrella of one of the superpowers (e.g., the Eastern Bloc countries under the Soviets, or Canada, Mexico, Germany, and Japan under the United States). Most of these nations have supported the Nonproliferation Treaty and have accepted fullscope safeguards. Some have sought weapons-free regions, and most have urged a reduction in the world's nuclear armaments. There is a small category of countries, however, that apparently has chosen to keep open the option of a future weapon because they may doubt that the above conditions would adequately protect them (e.g., India). suspicions are frequently voiced about nations that have not ratified the Nonproliferation Treaty, have not accepted fullscope safeguards, or are politically volatile, e.g ., the countries of the Middle East, including Israel; the countries of Southeast Asia, including India and Pakistan; and Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and South Africa. All of these countries have publicly renounced weapons activities, although India has already exploded a ''peaceful'' nuclear device. It is these countries that concern the world community. Within these countries, interest in nuclear weapons is most likely to arise from complex considerations of national security, rather than from technical opportunity. The widespread training and educational activities of the United States during the historic Atoms for Peace program (1950s and 60s) has created a pool of learned professionals in nuclear matters in most developing nations. The technical literature is extensive and current. The industrial systems and devices used for handling radioactive materials are now commonly available from many international suppliers. Further, the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA) program for ''safeguarding'' civilian facilities provides only a periodic inspection audit of such facilities. For these reasons, safeguarding or denial of equipment or technology may deter weapons programs, but cannot prevent their inception. Recognizing both the value of international safeguarding as an alerting mechanism for diversion from civilian facilities and its limitations for preventing weapons acquisition, it is important to examine the international role of the uranium power plant exporting countries, particularly the policies of the United States. Perspective on U.S. Policies The emphasis in the United States during the 1970s on the possibility of diversion of plutonium from civilian uranium power systems has seriously distorted public debate in the United States, and has led to a polarisation of political positions. Those familiar with the technology generally hold that civilian uranium power has only a secondary relationship to the international political management of nuclear weapons proliferation. Opposing groups hold that , because civilian power and weapons are of the same genus (i.e., children of the nuclear fission process), the former could lead to the latter and so both are evil; thus, the ''no nukes'' phrase should be applied to both. Those idealogically antinuclear, of course, have exploited this latter perception. Nevertheless, there have been many who favor uranium power and, also, who are genuinely and deeply concerned with the potential for civilian activities to provide a route for weapons material. The United States Congress' resulting concentration on the proliferation risk aspect of civilian uranium power plants give rise to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 (NNPA), which established strict export policies with respect to civilian uranium technology and fuel. It is interesting that Title I of the NNPA consist of two pages devoted to encouraging ''U.S. initiatives to provide adequate nuclear fuel supply'' in recognition of the international importance of this objective. Title I suggests studies, discussions, reports, and proposals to Congress, but no positive steps. Title II , ''U.S. Initiatives to Strengthen the International Safeguards System,'' contains slightly more than one page expressing intent to cooperate with the IAEA. In contrast, Title III, ''Export Organization and Criteria,'' and Title IV, '' Negotiations of Further Export Controls,'' consist of 24 pages of minutely detailed instructions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on criteria for licensing exports under current agreements, as well as to the Executive Branch, both on the controls to be sought in new agreements and on those that require congressional review before exports of fuel can take place. Title III also authorizes the NRC, and in some instances the President or Congress, to intercede on exports, regardless of previous understandings. The impact of the NNPA is that the United States effectively maintains a unilaterial decision privilege on each export action, although in practice the majority of exports are licensed without difficulty. The complexity of the process and the opportunities for political intervention reduce confidence in the predictability of the outcomes. As a result, the NNPA has been demonstrably counter-productive. The image of the United States has become that of an unreliable and unpredictable fuel supplier, thus encouraging other countries to create unilateral national fuel cycles, including both uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing facilities. The renegotiation of contracts forced by the passage of the NNPA also deteriorated commercial relations based on mutual confidence. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act also symbolised a drastic alteration of the U. S. domestic policy for developing uranium power as a major long-term source of electricity. The Carter Administration took the position that if these same restrictive policies on the fuel cycle were applied domestically, the United States would set an example for the rest of the world. The fact that the United States was a major nuclear weapons country, with a military weapons program not dependent on its civilian electricity programs, was considered irrelevant by the U.S. Government to such example-setting, but not by the rest of the world. So the domestic U.S. uranium power program was held hostage and seriously damaged by the international image-making objective. This subject was thoroughly investigated in a two-year international study entitled ''International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation'' (INFCE), during which the U.S. policy was explored and largely rejected by the 52 national groups involved. Unfortunately, the widespread notion that the growth of civilian uranium power would create more nations with nuclear weapons has remained. Many people in Congress and the general public are not aware of the options and realities of national decision making in non-weapons countries. The 1970s' example-setting policy of self-denial of a domestic closed fuel cycle, forced on U.S. industry, failed to induce other nations to follow that course, although it did cripple domestic programs. It should now be evident that U.S. domestic policies must be determined primarily by domestic needs and priorities. This is a sound course, especially because the United States is already a major nuclear weapon state using dedicated military facilities, and the activities of the nation's domestic civilian program have no discernible effect on the U.S. weapons position. As a result of past and current U.S. policy positions, it appears that a de facto moratorium continues on commercial reprocessing in the United States. The utility industry has been forced into the once-through fuel cycle, in spite of the policy support by the present Administration for commercial reprocessing and plutonium utilisation. The present stagnation is aggravated by the NNPA uncertainties on, and obstacles to, the reprocessing of foreign fuel from U.S.- supplied reactors. The unwillingness of the United States Government to accept reshipment and storage of spent fuel closes off that alternative. The only other non-domestic outlet for a nation is international spent fuel storage facilities, on which no action has been taken or is presently planned. This forced storage of spent fuel by both U.S. industry and those it has supplied may well increase weapons material availability as the result of the accumulation of large plutonium inventories in spent fuel assemblies, which become increasingly accessible with increasing storage time. It is now evident that other countries are no longer looking to the United States to set a model policy for uranium power. The technology and planning leadership has been shifting to other industrialised nations in all areas of the fuel cycle, including enrichment and reprocessing, as well as in reactor experience and manufacturing, including the fast breeder. The lessening role of the United States in these areas of international commerce has substantially diminished the ability of this country to influence the policies of other nations. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the United States had a coherent domestic program for the very long-term development of uranium power as an eventual major electricity source. The key elements included (1) encouragement of the commercial sale of light-water reactors to utilities; (2) improved technologies for reducing enrichment costs; (3) the demonstration of spent-fuel reprocessing to provide plutonium for recycle in light-water reactors and for inventory of fast breeders eventually; (4) the demonstration of permanent radioactive waste disposal through solidification and burial; and, finally, (5) the continuing development of power producing fast breeders as an ultimate electricity source. It was recognised that these interacting programs required a slowly shifting mix of private sector and federal participation, depending on the commercial viability of each part. Such a national plan undertaken by France has continued to make progress, and it is the clear intent of the Japanese to do the same. It is now evident that in the light of foreseeable domestic needs, U.S. programs for uranium power should be redirected to the objectives of this earlier plan to fully develop all parts of a national uranium power system. If this were done, the U.S. capability to influence international weapons proliferation controls would be simultaneously increased. For example, if reprocessing became available in the United States, spent fuel from U.S.-supplied reactors might be accepted from other countries. The separated plutonium might be recycled, used in fast reactors, or, for example, placed in an International Plutonium Storage Center. In this manner, both the '' aged'' spent fuel from other countries and the separated plutonium would be better controlled so as to remove their availability for weapons use. It must be emphasised that all steps which encourage international trade in uranium power fuel under systems that permit nonproliferation controls also inherently contain the potential for applying fuel constraints by supplier nations if weapons programs are initiated. An ''assured fuel supply'' for civilian programs, administered apolitically (i.e., not held hostage to all kinds of negotiating pressures), must be subtly balanced against the imposition of measures that might interfere with national sovereignty. However, the fuel and reactor supplying states-and the United States in particular-should recognize the great potential value of international fuel trade under a system that supports nonproliferation controls. U.S. policies in the past decade have not been consistent with this view. The fast reactor development programs of many advanced industrial countries offer a special opportunity for revitalising U.S. participation in creating an international approach to management of trade in nuclear materials and fuels. Fast reactor programs are long-term, and their cost and technology make joint efforts attractive for many reasons. In addition to the benefit of reduced future source requirements for each country, there are potential benefits to nonproliferation from the creation of a safeguarded commercial fuel market for plutonium, and from a cooperative program which might develop internationally accepted proliferation-resistant fast reactor fuel cycles. Therefore, a strong effort should be made by the United States to develop substantive cooperation with other countries engaged in fast reactor development. More importantly, the international institutional arrangements for nonproliferation controls in the trade of fuel materials should be developed in parallel with the technical development of the breeder. A balanced, comprehensive, and long-term U.S. fast reactor program is clearly a requisite for such a purpose. Obviously, a fully comprehensive domestic uranium power program offers many options for participation by the United States in international efforts to strengthen the existing separation of civilian and military activities in other countries. Existing trends Nations that have uranium power reactors already in operation on their electrical systems but have not openly indicated weapons activity now number 14, excluding the Eastern Bloc countries dependent on Soviet fuel. By the year 2000, there may be about 25 such nations. In the last eight years no additional nations have demonstrated nuclear explosives. To quote H. Gruemm, Deputy Director General of the IAEA: ''During the decade 1945 to 1954 three countries joined the nuclear weapons club (the U.S., USSR, and UK); during the next decade, two others followed ( France and China); and during the third decade ending 1974, one nation (India) exploded a so-called 'peaceful nuclear device'. Since then there has been no verified nuclear explosion by any State other than the NWS (Nuclear Weapons States) themselves. This decreasing rate of proliferation (or at least of horizontal proliferation) took place while the technology of nuclear energy spread rapidly throughout the world. In 1945 only one country had shown that it knew how to make and detonate a nuclear explosive; today probably some 20-30 countries are technically capable of doing so. ''It would, of course, be quite misleading to suggest that IAEA safeguards, which only came into operation on a significant scale in the late 1960s, have been the principal brake on nuclear proliferation or have had more than an ancillary role in this regard. The main reason why other countries have not followed, at least so far, the example of the NWS has been their perception that it would not be in their national interest to do so. However, it is reasonable to assume that the creation of the IAEA, the conclusion of the NPT and the Tlatelolco Treaty, and the development of IAEA safeguards have helped many NNWS (Non-Nuclear Weapons States) in assessing their national approach to nonproliferation. The assurance that NPT and IAEA safeguards give to the international community of continuing nuclear restraint on the part of the countries which accept safeguards on all their activities, has raised confidence and lessened the incentive of other countries to obtain nuclear weapons.'' Proliferation implies a relatively rapid increase in nuclear weapons states. This certainly is not the case now; no new country has carried out a known nuclear test since 1974, although suspicions recur that some nations may have undertaken preparatory steps for a weapons option. Many countries have the technical capability and spent fuel from power reactors but have chosen not to produce weapons, although it certainly is likely that they have studied such a course. The important questions of interest are whether the present abatement in weapons spread will continue, and what impact policies of the United States and other advanced countries might have on future decisions of the NNWS. National options Why have so many countries chosen to expand uranium power plant capacity for their electricity supply, and yet not chosen to add nuclear weapons to their arsenals? Consider first two major elements of national welfare: economics and military defense. The major motivation for uranium power plants is the contribution they make to a peacetime economy by providing electricity at lower cost than alternatives and by permitting a reduced dependence upon imported fossil fuels. Except for the countries with ample indigenous low cost fossil fuel supplies, empirical evidence shows that the uranium power cost saving relative to fossil fuel power is large. An equally important motivation is security of supply. Uranium power plants run a long time between fueling shutdowns (1-1 1/2 years for 1/3 core replacements) , so they are relatively insensitive to sudden international disturbances. Conversely, fossil fuel plants have inventories that are usually measured in weeks. Nevertheless, some countries do prefer to limit their future reliance on imports of enriched uranium fuel, looking instead to building domestic enrichment plants and spent fuel recycling facilities. Nuclear weapons do not enhance a nation's economy or its security of energy supply. They may be viewed by some countries as contributing to their ultimate national military security, but this is a debatable point. For the two '' superpowers'', possession of large deliverable weapon inventories provides the deterrent of mutually assured response, with the objective of making war a ''no- win'' situation. It is not evident, however, that a small number of nuclear weapons has a significant military value for a developing country. The many small-scale wars that occur worldwide do not provide a military stage for effective use of nuclear weapons. In these circumstances an equivalent investment in conventional weapons would be more useful militarily. Even for the superpowers, emphasis is being placed on new conventional weapons. To quote Robert S. Cooper, Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency1: 1''The Coming Revolution in Conventional Weapons,'' R. S. Cooper, Astronautics & Aeronautics, p. 73, Vol. 20, October 1982. ''The next generation of advanced surveillance systems and precision-guided standoff weapons may provide a conventional military power so formidable as to rival in the tactical arena the deterrent effect nuclear weapons have had on strategic war.'' Further-and perhaps most importantly-unless nuclear weapons are developed without external knowledge, preemptive action by neighboring countries might be taken in both military and non-military ways, and this might be very damaging to the national welfare. Most developing countries are very dependent on exports and imports for their survival. For this and other reasons, they are quite vulnerable to external actions, particularly by neighboring countries. Even if a nation possessed a few nuclear weapons and the appropriate delivery systems, their use would be severely inhibited by the international opprobrium attached to ''first-use'' of such a weapon, as with the present attitude on biological weapons. Even a superpower like the United States is troubled by this issue in maintaining for NATO the current first-use option in Europe as a counter to the adjacent massive Soviet conventional and nuclear forces. For a smaller country, first-use might provoke both military and non-military international intervention with potentially drastic consequences. The Basic Premises to this Study In considering the issues described in the Preface, the Committee took as given several basic premises as to the future of uranium power and the technologic aspects of proliferation. These premises represent generally accepted views derived from many years of professional analysis and review presented at numerous meetings worldwide. 1. The growth of uranium power worldwide is continuing and is inevitable over a long term, especially in view of its competitive economic relationship with coal , oil, and gas, and the need by many nations for diversity of supply. Recently, for a variety of reasons, this growth of uranium power in some countries has been slowed by economic recession and uncertainties, political opposition, and regulatory delays, but long-term growth is expected to continue. 2. As the number of uranium power plants increases, there will be an increased need for fuel cycle facilities at the ''front end'' to provide fresh fuel ( enrichment plants) and at the ''back end'' to store the spent fuel or to recycle it through chemical reprocessing plants. These facilities can be physically separated from the power plants, as each facility usually can support many power plants. Thus, they may be operated either nationally or internationally to meet economic or political criteria. 3. Front end facilities are needed to provide low-enrichment fresh fuel for light-water cooled power reactors, and to provide purified heavy-water for natural uranium types. Fuel enrichment plant internal sequences can be altered to produce highly enriched U235, a basic material for weapon use. However, this is not done easily, and would be extremely difficult to conceal from safeguard inspectors. 4. Every commercial uranium power reactor creates a byproduct fissionable material, plutonium, which can be separated from the spent fuel. The isotopic quality of the product from present commercial power reactors will differ from that desired for optimum weapons manufacture, performance, and use; however, nuclear weapons explosions can be produced even from these poorer grades of material separated from today's power reactors, although such weapons have uncertain effectiveness, reduced confidence in initial performance, and added handling difficulties. The complications and uncertainties that would be added to a nation's initial weapon program by using spent fuel from power reactors as a source of weapons plutonium, would generally warrant the additional investment of resources, effort, and time required to produce good weapons-grade plutonium from systems dedicated to that purpose. 5. The technical experience appropriate for the design and operation of the front and back ends of the uranium power fuel cycle is also applicable to dedicated military activities. Even without the benefit of experienced people, a new group may perform adequately, as the needed technical literature is vast and readily available. 6. Because of the serious nature of a national decision to acquire nuclear weapons, it is likely to be planned as a deliberate multi-year program, and the options need to be considered on that basis. (The opportunistic ''overnight'' decision is discussed in the text, but does not appear to be logical, attractive , or likely.) 7. A system of safeguards (e.g., IAEA inspection and verification) can provide warning of a diversion of fissionable material and thus deter the misuse of civilian activities, but international safeguards alone cannot prevent a nation from acquiring a weapons potential-they can only deter. 8. In the more advanced developing countries, which have the technical resources to produce a nuclear explosive device, the denial of technology, fissionable material, or equipment may make a weapons program more difficult to achieve, but cannot stop it, and may create a national political challenge conducive to initiating a weapons program. Weapon Material Options Given a motivation to increase military strength, a nation must still make the decision of whether to put available resources into nuclear weapons or conventional weapons. The leadership must also decide the route for the acquisition of nuclear weapons, if it chooses that goal. For most nations, once a decision to acquire nuclear weapons is made, the acquisition of sufficient material, either U235 or Pu239, is a matter of time and available skills and resources. The basic technologies are well known, and there are a number of possible routes2. Diversion from the civilian power cycle is but one route. In general, the aggregated political and economic costs associated with diverting nuclear weapons materials from civilian-cycle spent fuel are likely to be much greater than the costs of a separate dedicated military program for the production of nuclear weapons materials. The dedicated military program has been and is most likely to be the preferred course for a nation seeking a nuclear weapons arsenal. The issues of nuclear weapons proliferation among nations preceded the growth of civilian power plants, and the concern would exist even if all civilian programs disappeared. 2 ''Nuclear Power and Weapons Proliferation,'' Chauncey Starr and Edwin Zebroski , American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, Vol. 39, 1977, pp. 26-33 (a detailed review of alternative paths). Any non-weapons nation likely to embark on a costly weapons production and delivery system would wish as its centerpiece of these efforts a weapon of assured reliability and performance. A nuclear weapon made from reactor-grade isotopically mixed plutonium will involve increased fabrication and handling hazards, and its performance will be uncertain345. A further serious handicap arises if a weapons testing program is neither economically nor politically practical. However, if a non-weapons state is primarily interested in achieving ''international prestige'' without regard to the consequences, then reactor- grade material might be acceptable. 3W. Meyer, et al, Nuclear Safety, Vol. 18, 1977, p. 247. 4S. Sahin and J. Ligou, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 50, 1980, p. 88. 5C. Heising-Goodman, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 50, 1980, p. 242. Facing these facts, a Non-Nuclear Weapons State must consider that its national allocation of technical and management skills, capital, military support systems , and political prestige domestically and internationally are all at stake. The organisation of such a program, involving technical industry and both military and civilian bureaucracies, is a formidable task for any country, especially if it must be undertaken in a clandestine manner. There is always the chance of public disclosure of a nuclear weapons program in a heretofore non-weapons nation, even if such a program can be initiated clandestinely. Moreover, exposure of the activity is much more likely if the civilian power cycle is interfered with in order to divert fuel. Thus, the political consequences of a disclosed nuclear weapons program move a national decision toward that clandestine route most likely to remain secret. As an initial step to a national weapons program, leading scientists and engineers would probably be consulted on the alternative courses with regard to (1) availability of knowledge, skills, technical infrastructure, and industrial resources; (2) time required for producing the first weapon; (3) effective management of a clandestine project; (4) probability of success; (5) overall cost; and (6) probability of premature international disclosure of the technical operations through procurements and otherwise. A possible approach for the most cost-effective means of obtaining a reliable nuclear weapon might be to seize one from a stockpile of a weapons state; but this approach would likely be discarded for fear of an immediate military or other retaliation from the weapons state. Thus, the national decision makers would examine indigenous alternatives to weapons material production such as the following, with the preferred order depending upon the experience of the group and the facilities already available: I. High expectations for reliable weapons performance and ease of fabrication. (1) Enrichment of natural uranium to produce highly enriched U235, using any of the several available technologies in new or existing facilities. (2) Production in new military facilities dedicated to weapons-grade plutonium, consisting of a low-temperature natural uranium reactor (graphite or heavy water ), and a small chemical separation Purex-type plant. (3) Unloading selected low-burnup fuel from existing civilian power or research reactors by modification of their operation, and subsequent processing in a new dedicated Purex-type plant. Such operating modifications would most likely alert safeguard inspectors. II. Lower expectations for initial weapon performance and more difficult fabrication. (4) Diversion of normal burnup civilian reactor spent fuel and separation of reactor-grade Pu in a new military Purex-type plant. Safeguard inspectors, if present, would be sensitive to such diversion activity. (5) Diversion of reactor-grade Pu from an existing commercial Purex-type plant under international inspection, if such a plant is in the country (an unlikely situation for a small nation), with the obvious risk of alerting the inspectors. The actual choice of any of these routes would depend upon the specific national resources of skills, experience, industrial infrastructure, existing facilities, available time and money; and the balancing of these factors with the political risks of failure and international responses. Finally, any group of scientists and engineers responsible for the success of a national mission would obviously prefer high-quality weapons material and would urge a proof-testing program for the first weapon design. If such a test program were not politically acceptable, there would be increased pressure for high- quality weapons material in order to improve the chances of having a usable first weapon. Thus, a decision not to pursue a clandestine all-military route, but rather to obtain weapons material from existing civilian facilities would be political in nature rather than technical. The consequences of such a decision could be that international safeguard procedures would reveal the diversion; that other international alerts would develop; and that, when detected, the international response would be serious. Today the options list would end here. However, if future use is made of suggested schemes for adulterating plutonium to downgrade its weapons usefulness , or for diversion hardening of civilian chemical separation plants and other fuel cycle facilities, then diversion of commercial fuel would likely become the most arduous route to follow. Adulteration and hardening would not only substantially increase the number or difficulty of the steps required to extract usable weapons material, but would also increase the likelihood of detecting diversion activity. Nevertheless, in secure parts of the world, today's reprocessing plants can be adequately safeguarded. Because commercial-scale reprocessing of spent fuel is appropriate only for large uranium power systems, these will be economically justifiable for domestic use in only a few advanced industrial nations. However, several smaller non- weapons nations are building, or planning to build, small fuel reprocessing plants, presumably to obtain experience for the future. Because small separation plants are sensitive facilities, their detection and monitoring is essential. Safeguarding these operations will be as important as safeguarding commercial plants. The associated need is the safeguarding of long-term spent reactor fuel storage, which could be a plutonium resource for a diversion plan. In some conceivable circumstances, the availability of civilian power facilities could reduce the additional facilities needed for a weapons capability. Thus, safeguarding civilian activities is a very important international endeavour to further inhibit their use for producing weapons material. International safeguarding would certainly alert the world if '' overnight diversion'' to extract plutonium from spent fuel was attempted for a quick and symbolic weapon. To further separate the operations of civilian power from weapons programs worldwide, an apolitical and economically attractive fuel system should be established to provide any non-weapon states with the option of an assured fresh fuel supply, and to accept from these states their spent fuel (as the Soviets now arrange through their fuel leasing arrangements). The sensitive elements of the fuel cycle could thus be maintained in controlled domains, and the need for each nation to close the fuel cycle domestically would be removed. Contribution to Peace and Stability It should be pointed out to those who would do away with civilian uranium power on nuclear weapons proliferation grounds that such a course would be counterproductive in terms of their own objectives. The basic contributions that uranium power makes to international peace and stability include the following: 1. Uranium power offers to the developing world significant help in escaping from the highly destabilizing bondage of fossil fuels. Nature has been capricious in its distribution of fossil energy sources. This fact has already produced severe international tensions as nations vie with each other to ensure adequate oil supplies. Fiction writers and military strategists have postulated scenarios in which attempts to secure oil fields by use of conventional weapons could escalate into a nuclear holocaust. Even a modest uranium power program can result in an appreciable lessening of the tensions that accompany the quest for oil. 2. A second contribution of uranium power to international peace and stability relates to the NPT. This treaty, which has now been signed by 117 nations, involves as an important element a bargain struck on a global scale between three signatory nuclear-weapon states on the one hand, and a much larger number of non-weapon states on the other. The essence is that the non-weapon states agreed to forego nuclear weapons in return for two undertakings by the signatory nuclear-weapon states: to enter into serious arms control negotiations; and to provide technical assistance to the non-weapon states, particularly the less developed ones, with respect to the peaceful uses of uranium energy. With regard to this latter obligation of the NPT, it should be recognised that if, in response to political concern about weapons proliferation, the industrial nations should be forced in the future to dismantle their domestic uranium power programs, and thus their reliability as fuel, equipment, and technology suppliers, their ability to provide support to the developing countries and to enforce safeguards would be seriously disminished. Such circumstances would actually encourage the spread of those facilities we seek to minimize. 3. A third benefit of uranium power to international peace and stability relates to environmental effects. The emissions from the worldwide combustion of fossil fuels are a matter of continuing concern because their alteration of the natural ecological chemistry crosses national boundaries and may affect natural habitats throughout the world. More uncertain in its potential long-term global effect is the growing accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which theoretical speculation indicates might cause worldwide increases in temperature and major climatic changes. Uranium power offers a means of providing electricity without contributing to these environmental risks. Conclusions It must be emphasized that diminishing the motivation for weapons acquisition is the most important long-term objective for U.S. policy. Immediately important , however, would be a co-ordinated effort by the internaional community of nations to strengthen the economic and political barriers which inhibit additional countries from undertaking weapons acquisition programs. Clearly, the abandonment of co-operation in peaceful uses of uranium power would encourage uncontrolled and unsafeguarded national programs. In summation, therefore, the common international policy of the reactor supplying states should be to (1) assist the developing countries in an efficient expansion and management of their uranium power plant capacity; (2) provide a system for an assured supply of fuel for these plants and for the handling of spent fuel; and (3) strengthen the international safeguarding system of civilian activities in order to discourage diversion of material for military use. Turning to the issues raised in the Preface to this paper, the following conclusions are drawn: (1) International trade in uranium power equipment and fuels will grow and will not be diminished by restrictive U.S. domestic activities or U.S. foreign policies. (2) The reduction of U.S. activities in uranium power systems also diminishes U .S. influence in achieving prudent and appropriate international non- proliferation controls. (3) The worldwide expansion of uranium power reactors has not been and will not in the future be an influential factor in determining whether additional nations will choose to become nuclear weapons states. Even in the absence of uranium power, the nuclear weapons potential would remain. (4) If any nation decides to embark on nuclear weapons acquisition, it is most likely to follow the route of a dedicated military facility, rather than diversion from civilian power systems. (5) The several benefits of uranium power are evident to developing nations, and the resulting reduction in energy resource importation and consequent enhancement of economic and internal stability and national security will contribute to a substantial reduction in conflict issues between nations. It is clear that nuclear weapons proliferation is primarily a political issue related only marginally to uranium power development. Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate. The last sentence of the document states: It is clear that nuclear weapons proliferation is primarily a political issue related only marginally to uranium power development. It is very important for Senator Chipp and others to realise that conventional weapons which are just as deadly as atomic weapons are available. We have only to look at the satellite particle lasers which are now in orbit and have a huge destructive capacity not to mention chemical and biological weapons. I interjected when Senator Chipp was talking about the disposal of waste and he flattered me by saying that I was a self-professed expert. I do not think that but I do say that the technology associated with the disposal of waste is well advanced. The technology associated with the nuclear industry will very quickly reach the stage where the nuclear waste of today will be the nuclear power source of the future, with absolutely minimal environmental problems. If Senator Chipp has not seen it, he may be interested in the disc that I have here, which is a little less in diameter than, and about the same thickness as, a 20c piece. It represents the accumulation of waste that would result from the provision of electricity for each individual in Australia in a full year if we were generating the electricity by nuclear fission methods. I also have interesting notes concerning the latest technology associated with storage. It revolves around the relatively insoluble borasilicate glass with which the nuclear waste is amalgamated and which renders the particular substance fairly inert. As was demonstrated earlier, other work is proceeding on other media such as synroc, which seems to be the scientific and engineering answer to the problem. Of course, having been glassified and vitrified, the waste is encased in concrete, and perhaps stainless steel, and lodged in geologically stable circumstances. I also mention that in South Australia the Dunstan Government led the way as far as uranium enrichment was concerned. During its years in office, that Government went well along the track in presenting a case for South Australia to have a uranium enrichment plant. This was followed up very effectively by Mr Tonkin when he was in government. The Liberal Government successfully managed to get through the indenture Bill that enabled the Olympic Dam project to go ahead, with the help of course of Mr Norm Foster who crossed the floor and was subsequently expelled from the Labor Party for his interest in the development of that State. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.56) —I will speak briefly in reply to the amendment and to identify what is happening. The position is that the original motion which I moved proposed that we consider as a matter of urgency: The continuation of responsible development of Australia's uranium resources, which is in the best interests of this country and the world. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, for the Australian Labor Party, sought leave to move an amendment to that motion. It is not strictly possible for an amendment to be moved to an urgency motion, but leave was given for that to happen so that the matter could be clearly voted upon by members of this chamber. That was the reason leave was given for the Government motion, which would delete all words after 'urgency' and substitute the following: Responsible development of Australia's uranium resources which requires: (a) measures to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of nuclear non- proliferation safeguard system; (b) satisfactory arrangements for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste materials; (c) mechanisms to ensure satisfactory safety, occupational health conditions, and environment protection within the mining industry in Australia. The difference between the motion which I moved and the amendment put by the Government is that our motion states that it is a matter of urgency and in the interests of Australia and the world to continue the responsible development of Australia's uranium resources. In speaking to that I asserted that we had a proud record of achievement in regard to nuclear non-proliferation safeguards, nuclear waste disposal and environmental and health conditions, to ensure that the mining and export of uranium could be conducted with safety. The Government amendment implicitly denies this and states, in essence that the present nuclear non-proliferation systems are not adequate, that the storage and disposal arrangements are not satisfactory and that there are no adequate arrangements for health and environmental protection, all of which are propositions with which we disagree. The record of the previous Government was such that those matters were considered important and were attended to. There is a record of achievement in relation to them. However, we are not saying that we do not agree that further steps are always necessary to achieve higher levels. We are proud of the measures that have been taken. For the reasons which I have outlined, we will oppose the Government amendment, which suggests that the measures already achieved are not adequate. We say that we are proud of those measures but believe that they can be improved upon. Continuous efforts should be made to improve upon those measures and achieve the highest possible level of safeguards in uranium mining and with regard to nuclear non-proliferation, the safe storage and disposal of waste and occupational health and environment protection. Therefore I take it that in closing the debate we will now proceed to a division on the motion for amendment put by the Government and then, if that is lost, proceed to a division on the motion I moved, as follows: The continuation of responsible development of Australia's uranium resources, which is in the best interests of this country and the world. That is my understanding of the procedure which will follow. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Walsh's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, PeterHearn, J. M. Martin, K. J. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, PeterHearn, J. M. Martin, K. J. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Department of Foreign Affairs-Annual Report 1982 2. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Monthly Statements May-July 1983 3. Australian Maritime College-Annual Report of Council 1982-pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Maritime College Act 1978 4. Agreement in Relation to the Provision of Financial Assistance to New South Wales and Victoria for Urban Expansion and Redevelopment (Albury-Wodonga) 1982- 83-pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 5. National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978-Burdekin Dam Project-pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 6. Treaties as follows: A. Texts of Treaties which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force for Australia 1. Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union, done at Nairobi on 5 November 1982. Signed for Australia on that date. 2. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand to provide for the Termination of the Christmas Island Agreement 1958-81 , signed at Canberra on 22 November 1982. B. Texts of Treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature 1. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Reciprocal Exchange of Sites for Construction of Diplomatic Compounds, signed at Beijing on 5 August 1982. The Agreement entered into force on that date. 2. Exchange of Notes signed at Washington on 18 October 1982 and 21 October 1982 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America regarding the importation of meat into the United States of America during 1982. The Agreement entered into force on 21 October 1982. 3. Exchange of Notes signed at Jerusalem on 28 September 1982 and at Tel Aviv on 27 October 1982 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the State of Israel concerning the immunities of Australian Military Members of the Multinational Force and Observers while on leave in Israel. The Agreement entered into force on 27 October 1982. 4. Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese Tuna Long-line Fishing, signed in Canberra on 28 October 1982. The Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1982. 5. Exchange of Notes signed at Canberra on 24 November 1982 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America amending the Agreement relating to the establishment of a United States Naval Communication Station in Australia of 9 May 1963. The amending Agreement entered into force on 24 November 1982. 6. Exchange of Notes signed at Canberra on 5 February 1982 and 13 January 1983 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the State of Israel regarding the taking of Evidence in one country for use in Criminal Proceedings in the other country. The agreement entered into force on 13 January 1983. 7. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on Privileges and Immunities of the Organisation in Australia signed at Paris on 14 January 1983. The Agreement entered into force on 14 February 1983 in accordance with Article 10. 8. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the French Republic concerning the Establishment of a French-Australian School in Canberra, signed at Canberra on 4 July 1983. The Agreement entered into force upon signature. C. Texts of Treaties which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded 1. Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, done at Geneva on 12 April 1979, accepted by Australia on 21 September 1982. The Agreement entered into force for Australia on 21 October 1982. 2. Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and Protocol to the Agreement done at Geneva on 12 April 1979, accepted by Australia on 22 November 1982. The Agreement entered into force on 22 December 1982 for Australia. 3. Extension of the International Coffee Agreement 1976 until 30 September 1983 , as resolved by the International Coffee Council in Resolution No. 318 of 25 September 1981 at London. Australia acceded to the International Coffee Agreement 1976, as extended, on 3 January 1983. 4. Amendment to paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Convention relating to International Exhibitions, adopted by the General Assembly of the International Exhibitions Bureau at Paris on 24 June 1982, accepted by Australia on 20 June 1983. 5. 1983 Protocol for the Further Extension of the Wheat Trade Convention 1971, done at London on 1 December 1982, acceded to by Australia on 30 June 1983. The Protocol entered into force for Australia on 1 July 1983. 6. 1983 Protocol for Further Extension of the Food Aid Convention 1980, done at London on 1 December 1982, notification of provisional application by Australia deposited on 30 June 1983. The Protocol entered into force for Australia on 1 July 1983. Annual Report 1982 Senator DURACK(Western Australia (5.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a very important document which deserves close consideration and debate in the Senate at an appropriate time although, of course, at the moment we do not have that time. However, although the report contains a number of matters which are of departmental domestic interest and concern, some most important and valuable sections of the report deal with international relations and Australia' s participation in those areas of the world with which we are concerned. In particular, I have been struck by the assessment made by the Department of Foreign Affairs in the independent departmental report before us of the world situation as at the date of preparation of the report. That assessment is clearly still relevant. I propose to muster a few quotations from this report which I think give us great cause for concern. Page 1 of the report states: International relations are more disturbed and less predictable than at any time in the last 30 years. The underpinnings of international order, mutual understandings between the superpowers and the structure and functioning of the system of international organisations are less stable now than in any period since the Second World War. The report goes on to provide, in my view, a very clear analysis of the major reasons for the destabilisation that has so grossly occurred and which is the subject of that very serious comment. The report refers on page 2 to the areas of Soviet interference in Poland, Kampuchea and Afghanistan and, of course, other destabilising activities associated with the communist world, namely, the Cubans in Angola. At pages 12 and 13 it points to recent Soviet statements on arms control and the intensification of the Soviet Union's propaganda campaign to take advantage of the intense political debate on arms control now taking place on both sides of the Atlantic. Further, on page 20, it talks of the international climate in 1982 being 'not conducive to productive negotiation on arms control and disarmament'. It states: Mutual trust and confidence are required before this can happen. Soviet policies exacerbated international tensions as a result of the development, production and deployment of weapons systems- It mentions in particular the mobile SS-20s targeted on western Europe, the continuing Soviet presence in Afghanistan and the situation in Poland. The report points quite clearly to the basic reason for Soviet expansionism, aggression and provocation and an unwillingness to participate seriously in arms control negotiations. It participates, but not in a co-operative way. When we are faced with the barbaric act against the Korean airliner which we debated in the Parliament yesterday, I think we should take very sobering note of that act and place it in the context of the problem that the world faces, which the Department of Foreign Affairs has pointed out to us is probably the worst that we have faced for 30 years. It is a very great comfort to note that the Department identifies the crucial need for Australian foreign policy-to maintain a basic unity and strength with the Western alliance. I would like to develop the question posed by this threat and the solution that is so clearly necessary for us at all times to understand and promote. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report of Council 1982 Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Regrettably, we have not yet seen this document which makes it rather difficult to speak to it. But I commend the officers and staff of the Australian Maritime College for what they have achieved since the College has been in operation. During the year under review, the college consolidated its early growth very considerably. I understand that the number of students has increased by 50 per cent during the year and that the participants in the short courses have increased by 100 per cent in that time. The structures and the capital works at the college are now virtually complete. In the year under review the reorganisation which has taken place virtually means that the enterprise is now run as three separate schools. I believe that is making the management and operation of the College ever so much more effective than it was in the earlier settling down days. There is no doubt that the Maritime College at Launceston has become a very valuable and established institution for both education and industry purposes. It will serve Australia very well in the years ahead. It will become a model for other types of industry and education arrangements. Until such time as I am able to have a look at the report, I can do no more than seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on the report of the Australian Maritime College. I wish to refer briefly to one matter. It involves the qualification or comment made by the Auditor- General in relation to the financial statements of the College. The Auditor- General said: I also report that in my opinion the value of the asset, Training Vessels, is overstated in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities by the amount of a bounty of $983,390 paid by the Commonwealth Government to the shipbuilder, and the balance of the Statement of Capital Accumulation is similarly overstated. Note 9 refers. I consider that the value of the asset should be shown at its cost to the College, namely $4,012,967. The question arises of how a bounty is dealt with so far as the assets of the acquiring body is concerned. When it purchases a ship a bounty is paid by the Commonwealth. Is the asset taken in at the total construction cost or the net cost to the person acquiring it? It seems to me to be a rather extraordinary situation that when a bounty is paid the Auditor-General says that the full value should not be taken but only the net cost to the purchaser or acquirer of the asset. The Maritime College is most regretful that it became embroiled in the middle of this matter. It took advice as to what way its accounts should be prepared. Having taken advice, departmental amongst others, and received one sort of advice it then received comment from the Auditor-General that its statements ought to have been prepared in a different way. It found itself in the middle of an argument which held up the preparation of its accounts and amounted to a form of qualification. I suggest that the way in which a bounty is dealt with in the financial statements of a statutory authority-I think the matter is likely to arise from time to time-ought to be given further consideration by the appropriate committee of the Senate. I believe the appropriate committee is the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I invite that Committee to give thought to seeking a reference in relation to this matter. The situation seems to be such that a perfectly responsible body such as the Maritime College, which has done an excellent job-I totally support what Senator Archer has said about the achievements it has already notched up-can be thrown into a state of confusion and be involved in considerable cost and delay in the presentation of its financial statements when it has this sort of situation thrust upon it through no fault of its own. It seems that somebody ought to clarify once and for all in what way such a bounty should be dealt with and a direction should be given to all statutory authorities with regard to that matter. Finally, I would like to make the comment that the Maritime College this year ran an international symposium on safety at sea which was attended by people from all over the world. It was an extremely successful international event. I compliment the Maritime College on its achievement and hope that it is the first of many such international functions to be conducted at the College and through the auspices of that excellent body. I thank the Senate for the opportunity of speaking to this report. Agreement Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Not having had the advantages of seeing the paper, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Burdekin Dam Project Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The material provided is essentially an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Premier of Queensland in relation to the financial year 1982-83 and the continuation to the end of that financial year of the Commonwealth's commitment to the Burdekin Dam project that had been undertaken by the previous Commonwealth Government. However, since that date the Commonwealth Government has made statements about the expansion of funds for the Burdekin Dam project of a quite considerable kind. In Queensland, my own State, mention of this issue has caused, probably more than anything else, a feeling that we are about to have an election. Indeed, this project has been a fairly standard election gimmick; it is on again, off again. It is extremely gratifying to see that at last development of the project may be taken out of that area and that work may begin in earnest. However, I point out that we are now in an extremely difficult situation with regard to the dam; one to which, I believe, we ought to pay close attention. The dam's original specifications and development plans were prepared on a dual premise. The first part of that premise was that reticulated water would be provided to the growing urban centres of north Queensland, in particular to Townsville. However, a week or two before the Prime Minister announced in north Queensland the increased funding for the Burdekin Dam, there was also an announcement about the second stage of the Ross River project which essentially would provide Townsville with water well into the year 2000, at least at its current projected rate of growth. If we except Townsville and look at the other growth centres in north Queensland, we see that none of those could provide the basis for any substantial need for an urban water supply well into the year 2000 . We then turn to the second use for which the dam was originally projected-the further development of the cane industry in the Burdekin River area. As honourable senators know, the Burdekin River area is the most productive sugar area in Australia, both in gross terms and in terms of production per acre. It seemed then a reasonably good idea that development of cane in that area, which has already shown its economic viability and very great profitability, ought to be expanded. Since that time the international sugar scene has changed extraordinarily. It is not a matter of cyclical rise and fall. There is now a fairly reasonable projection that the international sugar market will not return to the buoyant times we have seen in the immediate past, for two main reasons. One is that the European Economic Community, through its internal agricultural support mechanisms, has turned the EEC from a net importer to a net exporter of sugar in the last five years. That situation is unlikely to be reversed. Those who know the working of the agricultural mechanisms within the EEC know how closely held that whole package is in terms of the common market agreement. The other factor influencing the international sugar scene is the deliberate policy decisions made by a number of countries to move to a point of self sufficiency. Amongst those countries is Indonesia. In the 1950s it had been an exporter but dropped to become a very large importer of sugar. It is now rapidly moving to the point of being self-sufficient as are a number of other major countries. The international sugar scene is such that the excess of sugar above world consumption goes on to the stockpile every year. Therefore, it is unlikely that even in the short or medium term there will be a return to the buoyant years of the international sugar market. Consequently, water from the Burdekin Dam cannot be used for the purpose of growing sugar. I believe it is now extremely important that there be close deliberations and planning for the further development and use of water from the dam which is being developed. We should ensure that we do not in fact have another episode of what happened with the Ord River. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.31) —I have not had the advantage of reading the paper which is before the Senate and therefore I make some preliminary remarks and indicate that I will seek leave to continue my remarks. A number of statements have been made today and in recent times in this Parliament to the effect that somehow the arrangement under the previous Government for building the Burdekin Dam had been tentative and the dam was purely an election issue that cropped up from time to time. I quite clearly want to put that suggestion to rest. In point of fact, quite firm arrangements had been made in respect of the sharing of the costs. The Commonwealth Government was to bear the cost of the construction of the dam itself. The Queensland Government was to bear the cost of any preparatory work and any downstream and ancillary work. Equally, the Commonwealth Government had in fact allocated an initial sum of money for the current year as had in fact the Queensland Government. I rely on memory, but I think the Commonwealth Government's contribution was of the order of $6m and the Queensland Government's $7m or $8m. A substantial amount of money had been allocated in the current year. Equally, in announcing the bicentennial program, the Commonwealth Government made it abundantly clear that in current prices the dam would attract approximately $80m of Commonwealth money. So I want to emphasise that the dam had in fact been commenced-the financing had been arrranged and the project was afloat at the time of the election. Since I would like to refresh my mind on the paper, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator JONES(Queensland)(5.33) —by leave-I just wish to make a couple of brief remarks in relation to the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act and the Burdekin Dam project. As the previous speaker Senator Sir John Carrick said, it is very difficult to comment to any great extent on this paper because it was not available to honourable senators prior to its being listed for presentation. I would just like to make one comment. I agree that some decision was made by the previous Government in relation to the Burdekin Dam. However, I think it is particularly worthwhile for the people of Queensland to note that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made an announcement that continuing funding of the Burdekin Dam is being carried out. This project, which is pretty dear to the hearts of the people of north Queensland, has been used as a political football over a long period. I am not able to comment directly on the paper because, as I said, it has not been available. However, I think it is worth noting at this stage that the Prime Minister has made a promise in relation to funding of the dam. That promise is now being carried out. I believe that this will be a worthwhile project for the people of north Queensland in particular and the people of Queensland generally. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.35) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. If I am not mistaken, it appears to me that this is the first time that a document has been tabled by a Minister in this form. As I understand it, on previous occasions a list of treaties has been simply tabled. However, the document before us summarises what the treaties are about and, as such, is an advance on the previous practice. Subsequent to the High Court decisions in the Tasmanian dam case, I referred to the fact that the Ponsonby rule applies in the United Kingdom wherein the government tables in the Parliament all treaties 21 days prior to their ratification. Of course, in the United States of America the President requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the United States Senate prior to the making of a treaty. That, of course, will be the subject of consideration when I bring in the treaties Bill at a later stage. In 1961 the Australian Government gave an undertaking to the Parliament that it would lay all treaties before Parliament 12 sitting days before their ratification. In fact, the spirit of that undertaking has not been adhered to by recent governments and that is why I intend to introduce the treaties Bill. In the meantime, I am pleased to see that the Government has taken this matter a little forward by tabling a document which contains a summary of treaties. I believe that such a step is important. However, I also believe that sufficient opportunity has not been given for proper consideration of the treaties. I will be elaborating on the reasons for that at a later stage. I do not believe it is proper for me to do so on this occasion. During the parliamentary recess a treaty about which there was a great deal of public debate, received ratification. I for one was concerned that an attempt should be made to ensure that an opportunity be given for that treaty to be the subject of debate in this Parliament in the fullest sense. That opportunity is not given to us when treaties are tabled in this way. It is my intention to seek to rectify that. However, I congratulate the Government at least for preparing a summary of the treaties and tabling them in this manner. It is an advance on what has occurred previously. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.40) —I think the Senate's attention should be drawn to the fact that information relating to 16 treaties has been tabled for the purpose of informing both Houses of Parliament of the actions taken by Government with respect to certain treaties, exchanges of documents and agreements. This represents the first step which was referred to by Senator Harradine. Some 16 matters are being brought to the attention of the Parliament. Twelve were initiated in the life of the previous Government. Only four of the new arrangements were initiated by this Government. I think it is true to say their tabling represents a forward step. I think it should be pointed out to the Senate that the documents concerned are the responsibility of the Executive Government rather than of the Parliament as such. It may be, of course, a question of some debate as to whether the Parliament as such should have the right to set aside arrangements that are entered into between governments. I make that distinction. They are arrangements , treaties and exchanges of notes that represent agreements between governments as such and not parliaments as such. In that sense, I think it would probably have to be conceded that the Parliament is being kept informed, for the first time, of the precise nature of the arrangements that are represented in the 16 documents which have been presented. Hitherto, they have been largely represented in the form of Press releases or statements without the Parliament officially being informed. To that extent, I think the Government is to be commended. I think we have to accept the fact that the Executive Government, which has a mandate, has the authority and responsibility of entering into arrangements at a governmental level. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.42) —I would also like to make a few remarks in respect of the tabling of the information about 16 treaties. I certainly welcome the fact that some advance is being made, in that the Parliament is being given more information than it has previously been given in relation to these treaties. However, I think that a great deal more thought, attention and work has to be done to give Parliament a greater role in the process of the consideration and ratification of treaties. In that respect, I am particularly interested in the fact that Senator Harradine has foreshadowed that he will be introducing a Bill which would cover treaties. That is a matter which honourable senators in this chamber will have to consider closely. I hope the measure will come on for debate in the near future. Certainly as a result of the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Tasmanian dams case, it has become apparent not only to the Parliament but also to the people themselves that the enormous executive power which is contained in the treaty making and ratification process is one to which this Parliament itself will have to pay great attention. I hope that the Government will extend the form in which it presents this material. I think the Senate would have been assisted if the schedule had been appended to a general statement. It could have explained over what period of time the treaties were entered into and could have given a little more information about the various categories and so on. At least this is a step in the right direction. The question of- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Under sessional order, the time for consideration of papers has expired. Motion (by Senator Macklin)-by leave-agreed to: That resumption of the debate on item No. 6-Treaties, be made an order of the day for Thursday. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I lay on the table the following paper: Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 1901, for the year ended 30 June 1983. I seek leave to move a motion. Leave granted. Senator GIETZELT —I move: That consideration of the Statement in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave -The Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment has resolved to resume the inquiry into land use policy which was commenced by its predecessor in the last Parliament under terms of reference given it by the Senate on 5 June 1981. The Committee will pursue its inquiry under the following terms of reference: The need for a co-ordinated approach to major land use problems in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) the impact on the Australian environment of current land use policies; and (b) the development of a co-ordinated national approach to land use policy having regard to the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth, State, Northern Territory and other territory and local governments. Prior to the lapsing of the inquiry with the dissolution of the Thirty-second Parliament, a total of 196 submissions had been received, and five days of public hearings had been held. The Committee's interest in land use policy is longstanding, going back to its 1976-77 inquiry into woodchips and the environment. We believe that the inquiry should focus, not so much on actual land use problems, but on what the Commonwealth can do to mitigate problems and on whether a national, co-ordinated approach to land use policy formulation could help in their resolution, bearing in mind that the States and the Northern Territory have exclusive constitutional power in many land use matters. After discussing the land use policy, the Committee felt that because of the number of submissions received and the public hearings held it was important to those who represented that section of the community that the Standing Committee on Science , Technology and the Environment conclude the report on land use policy. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the fifth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning: Anzac Day Bill 1983 Archives Bill 1983 Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 Industrial Democracy Bill 1983 Migration Amendment Bill 1983 Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 7, dated 7 September 1983. Consideration resumed. Clause 20 (Dissolution of marriage). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.51) —It must be most difficult for the public, let alone members of this Committee, to follow this debate by reason of the fact that we are chopping and changing and debating other matters in between. A suggestion has been made that the Senate should meet on Friday of next week or the week after to have a good go at discussing the Family Law Amendment Bill and to have the matter thoroughly canvassed and debated. I certainly would be in support of that proposition, because I do not think that either the Bill or any of the proposed amendments are being given the attention which they deserve.( Quorum formed) It is most difficult for members of this Committee to follow what is being discussed in regard to this legislation because at present, I understand, some senators are attending two Senate committee hearings and are not able to listen to any of this debate. I believe this is the reason that this matter, which is a very important matter, should be dealt with at a special sitting of this Committee. Since the Government has chosen to have consideration of the Family Law Amendment Bill interwoven with other business, it falls to me to continue with the attempts that are being made to ensure some legislative support for the institution of marriage. The purpose of amendment (19) is to achieve that. It seeks to repeal section 48 of the Family Law Act, which enables a dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, defined as 12 months separation. That section of the Act is inconsistent with section 43, which defines marriage as: . . . the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Senator Missen —Why don't you listen? It doesn't do that at all. It is a definition of marriage. Senator HARRADINE —I thank Senator Missen. One point that has been brought against the proposal I am making is the one that has been suggested by Senator Missen and one which he suggested in his speech in opposition to this amendment. What he virtually says is that in section 43 of the Family Law Act the definition of marriage as 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life' is not the legal definition of marriage. Senator Missen —That is right. Senator HARRADINE —I refer Senator Missen to section 46 of the Marriage Act, which I referred to in my speech in support of this amendment. It states: . . . before a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant . . . the authorized celebrant shall say to the parties, in the presence of witnesses the words- ''I am duly authorized by law to solemnize marriages according to law. ''Before you are joined in marriage in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter. Senator Missen should listen to this part: ''Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a women to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.'' That puts to rest the canard brought up by Senator Missen and others throughout the debate on this matter. It is quite clear that that is what marriage is according to the law of Australia. If that is the case-as is quite clearly stated in section 46 of the Marriage Act and in section 43 of the Family Law Act -section 48 of the Family Law Act, which provides for the dissolution of a marriage after 12 months separation, deserves to be deleted and something should be inserted in its place. Senator Missen —But you are not suggesting it should be binding for life, are you? Senator HARRADINE —I am suggesting that there should be some form of objective test and that an arbitrary period of 12 months separation is not sufficient time to allow those who have committed themselves to the care of each other and their children to give the marriage a go. Senator Missen —On your argument, you should be wanting to abolish divorce altogether. Senator HARRADINE —As I have said in my speech in support of this amendment, we live in an imperfect society and we, as legislators, must recognise that fact. In recognising that fact we should not create a situation whereby clear, patent injustices result. Under the present provision, such clear and patent injustices do result. The injustices result, for example, from the fact that one of the partners to the marriage can deliberately desert the other partner and then file an application for the dissolution of that marriage without the consent, and sometimes with the positive dissent, of the other partner. That, of course, creates a number of problems. I am sorry Senator Tate is leaving because I wanted to deal with his matter in a moment. I am attempting to ensure that there are some objective tests and that , on the basis of those objective tests, application can be made by one of the parties. The amendment would not interfere with the concept of the agreement between the partners to the marriage where they separate and thereafter live separately and apart for a continuous period. In my amendment I suggest that that period ought to be two years. It would not interfere with that concept. This amendment would bring into the situation a recognition of the fact that there are many people for whom the Family Court is simply an administration of injustices. I believe that if we as a legislature continue to accept section 48 as it stands, we will be doing an injustice not only to the people who feel such grief about it all but also to the institution of the law. I come to the point made by Senator Tate in opposition to my amendment. He indicated that I am attempting in some way to mislead the public as to the causes of marital breakdown. I did not say that the law is the cause of marital breakdown, not at all, though Senator Tate ought to recognise, as everybody else does, that the law has a teaching role. The fact is that the law does provide the means for dissolution and it provides that means in such a short period that the partners to the marriage do not have a chance to ensure that the marriage continues or that reconciliation can take place. I have other amendments relating to reconciliation which might assist in that regard. The other matter treated with some sort of ridicule by the lawyers in this place concerned the reason why the amendment refers to an objective test being the fact that, since the mariage, the other party to the marriage has committed continuing adultery. Some people must have strange minds. As I said in my opening address, all but the most promiscuous of societies recognise that continuing adultery is a breach of the marriage bond. Senator Missen —Do they? Senator HARRADINE —Senator Missen asks: 'Do they?' Does the honourable senator recognise that? Senator Missen —My views are probably like yours, but that is irrelevant. Senator HARRADINE —This is an attempt to ensure that adultery as such is not a ground for dissolution. As Senator Teague said, the spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness is one which should be engendered within marriage, but obviously continuing adultery is a serious breach. The statement made by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) that these further grounds will mean quicker divorces is absolute nonsense. Paragraph (c) provides for a two year period, (d) provides for a two year period, and paragraphs (a) and (b) deal with matters about which there will be contest and with which the Family Court and its apparatus could not possibly deal in a period of less than one year. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Lewis) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(6.06) —I want to make a couple of points in relation to Senator Harradine's proposal. For some considerable time I was Deputy Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and I think it is important to impress on people such as Senator Harradine the evidence that was presented to the Committee. Most of that evidence was that we cannot turn back the clock, we cannot go from a no-fault situation to a fault situation, and it is not desirable so to do anyway. We are living in a real world. We are not just talking about those people who happen to be in the rarified atmosphere of this chamber. We are talking about those real people outside who have real problems in that their marriages have been irretrievably broken down for a period of 12 months. These people do not want to live together; they do not want to get back together. They are concerned about the effect their feelings for each other are having on their children, because the first person to know that a marriage has broken down is the child of that marriage. The child is so perceptive of parents' attitudes to each other that more frequently than not the child is the first person to be aware that there is a rift in the marriage. The child is affected the whole time those people are either in that state of living together but not wanting to, staying together because of the welfare of the child, or living apart for an extended period with the child not knowing which parent will have custody. Those are very real and important considerations to be taken into account when considering amendments to the Act. If children are forced into a situation where they have that dispossessed feeling for a period longer than the 12 months, even more damage is done to the children whom Senator Harradine says he wants to protect. If we really have concern for the children of a broken marriage then we must recognise that the best thing for the children is to have the divorce clear cut. Senator Walters —That is why there are further amendments being put in. You have missed them. Senator COLEMAN —I am not discussing further amendments; I am discussing this particular amendment because it is the one to which we are directing our attention. Senator Walters —You cannot deal with it in isolation. Senator COLEMAN —I am simply making the point that no more than we can reintroduce fault can we reintroduce an extended period for separation. The only fault is irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. That was the conclusion of every single witness who came before the Committee. Senator Walters —It was not. Senator COLEMAN —The honourable senator should go back over the Hansards and see what was said. We had information from people who worked in the community centres; we had information from Catholic priests. Senator Missen —It was the overwhelming evidence. Senator COLEMAN —That is right; that was the overwhelming evidence. One per cent may have agreed with the attitude of Senator Walters but 99 per cent agreed with the attitude I am expressing now. I sat in on as many of those Committee meetings as Senator Walters did. The reality of the situation is this: We cannot turn back the clock. There is no need for us to turn back the clock. If a marriage has broken down let the divorce be as clean as possible. If we go back to a fault situation we will have all the dirt that we had before when the lifeblood of the newspapers was attending the divorce courts. Honourable senators will see that later on in the amendments is a recommendation for the opening of the courts. Once again, the Press will feed on that. Senator Harradine —But no names. Senator COLEMAN —The Press has a very nice way of describing people without mentioning names or characteristics. It says: 'The wife of an Army officer living in Booragoon'. Senator Walters —Read the amendment. It says no identification. Senator COLEMAN —The Press does not have to identify a person. It can identify by imputation. It has been done before and it will be done again. If we take the advice of all those very competent people who came before the Joint Select Committee we must recognise that we cannot extend the period of the separation any more than we can bring back the fault clause and say that one party has to be proven to have committed adultery which, I notice, is one of the suggestions made by Senator Harradine. Senator Missen —Continuing adultery. Senator COLEMAN —Even continuing adultery. Whether it is continuing or not, I do not want it to be a reason why we should not allow people to divorce if they cannot live together. One of the parties to a marriage is the person who can determine whether she can live with her partner or whether he can live with his partner. If either one of them determines that the situation is such that he or she cannot, that person should be quite free, at the end of 12 months, to make application to the Court for a divorce. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.12) —I will be very brief. I thank Senator Coleman for her comments. As I understand it, amendments will be coming forward about the need to resolve custody matters prior to the decree nisi being made. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his speech, recorded at page 186 of Hansard, said: The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee received many submissions advocating extension of the period of separation required for divorce on the grounds that this would enhance the possibility of reconciliation. However, the Joint Committee accepted the evidence of those working in the area of marital therapy- I refer to marriage guidance organisations, the Family Court counselling service and the marriage guidance councils . . . Evidence was presented to the Committee and evidence has been presented to me also. I just wanted to mention those points. Amendment negatived. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.14) —In my short speech earlier today I foreshadowed an amendment consequent upon the amendment moved by Senator Harradine which has just been lost on the voices. I indicated, in opposing Senator Harradine's amendment, that I did so because I do not believe in the reintroduction of the fault ground, as was contained in Senator Harradine's amendment. However, I am not satisfied and have never been satisfied with the simple one-year separation as the sole ground for and as proof of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage which is, in fact, the basis of dissolution under the Family Law Act. In other words, irretrievable breakdown is established only by a one-year separation. As I said earlier today, I believe there are two weaknesses in that approach. The mere fact of separation of one year is not adequate proof of irretrievable breakdown. As no other methods are provided for proving irretrievable breakdown, I think it is necessary to have a longer period of separation. When the Family Law Bill was first in the Senate in 1974 I moved the same amendment as I intend to move now, that is, that there should be a period of two years separation. That seems to me a more realistic way of establishing that single ground. Events since the Act was passed by the Parliament-it came into force at the beginning of 1976-have certainly added to the concerns that I felt in 1974, nine years ago. I believe also that the availability as a ground for divorce of a period of separation as short as 12 months is leading people to take a more cavalier attitude to marriage and their responsibilities in it. Earlier today we considered what were called young marriages, that is, marriages of only three years duration. It was suggested that they could not be dissolved except in special circumstances. Although I do not agree with that provision, there is a widespread concern that people are getting married and, after a comparatively short time, they are separating. They do not give the marriage a chance. That they can get a divorce after 12 months separation in itself is assisting this cavalier attitude to marriage and the responsibilities that it gives people to each other and, of course, to their children. I believe that if a period of two years separation were provided for it would have the effect of encouraging people to give more attention to their responsibilities, to work at their marriages a little harder and to bring to their minds the really serious consequences the law attaches to divorce. We should say to people: 'You have to be separated and apart for two years before the law will recognise that your marriage has irretrievably broken down'. On those grounds we should now take the step of extending the separation period from the existing one year to two years. Accordingly I move: Page 14, clause 20, at the end of clause, add the following word and paragraph: ''; and (c) by omitting from sub-section (2) '12 months' and substituting '2 years'.''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.19) —The forces of light on this side of the chamber would oppose the Durack amendment. I hasten to add that this is not a disciplined Government response; it is another free vote matter. Senator Hill —You are therefore speaking for yourself. Senator GARETH EVANS —Therefore I am formally speaking only for myself, but I understand the sentiments on this side of the chamber. Senator Haines —You are the only force of light. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am about the only person from the Government side in the chamber at the moment. Therefore I think the honourable senator is safe in that assertion. I, in any event, oppose Senator Durack's amendment, again appreciating the sincerity with which he put his point of view, a point of view which is shared by many people. As Senator Harradine said, a number of people made representations to the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act for an extension of the period of separation from the present 12 months to two years for the kinds of reasons which Senator Durack has advanced today. The really fundamental difficulty, however, which any such proposition faces is that the overwhelming weight of the professional evidence-the evidence of those working actively in the area of marital therapy, marriage guidance organisations , counsellors and so on-is that the prospect of estranged spouses reconciling does not increase with the time available but rather diminishes with the time that they remain separated. Up until the period of about 6 months separation, the evidence-it has been tabulated and placed in the Committee's report at paragraph 3.44-is that properly and sensibly conducted professional counselling can have considerable success in bringing people back together again. But once that tipping point of around six months is passed the prospect of a successful reconciliation being achieved rapidly diminishes. It was with that thought and that evidence in mind, essentially, that the original figure of 12 months was struck. It was very much with that thought in mind, and the evidence to which I have referred behind it, that the Joint Select Committee recommended that 12 months should remain as an appropriate period. To the extent, again, that overseas experience is relevant in coming to grips with these difficult problems, it must be said that all the evidence available to me is that in Britain, Sweden and West Germany, and in those European countries which have been grappling with these problems, the move has been towards the kind of situation which we now have in Australia-irretrievable breakdown as evidenced by a period of separation which, in the jurisdictions which I have mentioned, either is or has been recommended to be a time period of around six to 12 months rather than any more substantial period. I think the weight of that overseas experience must take its place in our deliberations. But more particularly the point is the one that I began with: There is no evidence to support the intuition some people have that a longer period of separation requirement would, in fact, enhance the prospect of reconciliation, of bringing people back together. There is just no hard evidence to support that kind of intuition, however well motivated those people may be who express that point of view. There is one other quick point I wish to make in favour of retaining the 12- month period. At the moment a great deal of hardship is being experienced by people having to wait for the full 12 months to expire before they can obtain their dissolution in order to get court orders relating to property divisions where there is real contest between the parties. We will try to get over that in the Family Law Amendment Bill by putting forward an amendment to give the Family Court of Australia jurisdiction to make property orders before the formal dissolution process has, in fact, been accomplished, to enable orders to be made where the parties cannot agree among themselves to do so for the matrimonial home to be sold and the proceeds distributed, and in other ways to make some financial arrangements for the benefit of both spouses. If, however, that particular amendment, which is of somewhat uncertain constitutional pedigree, should be struck down by the High Court of Australia, we will be faced with a situation where, once again, as the law now stands, the parties will have to wait 12 months before the Court can make these property orders. That is bad enough. But if we have to wait for two years before the Court can exercise the jurisdiction, if it is the case that that jurisdiction can, constitutionally-- Senator Durack —You are going to get a reference of that power, are you not? Senator GARETH EVANS —We are going to seek it, Senator, but getting a reference out of Queensland, for one, will be a labour of Hercules on present indications, even if the other States are more co-operative. I simply make the point that in the event that the sequence of unhappy events to which I have referred takes place-that is, this particular matter being struck down by the High Court and this two-year period being inserted into the legislation-two years of misery will be experienced by spouses in this situation where they are waiting the exercise of the property jurisdiction rather than the one year of misery that they are experiencing at the moment. I am not suggesting for a moment that that, by itself, would be a sufficient consideration to meet the kind of argument advanced by Senator Durack and which, no doubt, will be advanced by Senator Harradine and others on this point. But it is a supplementary consideration which I think should be given some weight by honourable senators in considering this amendment. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.25) —Senator Gareth Evans said that we should maintain the status quo for separation of the parties of one year. It has not worked to date. Since the introduction of the Family Law Act the divorce rate has been increasing. That, surely, must be of concern to the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans). The stability of marriage and the stability of the family is a matter of great priority in this country. There is now one divorce for every 2 1/2 marriages in a year. Something has to be done about that. We have to be able to say to people: 'You have got to try a little harder'. We have to be able to say to families: 'Some responsibility must be undertaken once marriage vows have been entered into'. If we do not make it a little harder to get a divorce then in the years to come our children and their children will enter into divorce with a cavalier attitude, as Senator Durack has already said. This will make a tremendous mess of the whole country. We will be responsible for not having taken the action which could be taken at this stage. I believe that most of us agree that if section 43 of the Family Law Act means anything it means that the institution of marriage should be preserved and protected. Section 43 states: The Family Court shall . . . have regard to- (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; Senator Missen —You should be against divorce altogether. Senator WALTERS —Mr Temporary Chairman, as Senator Missen keeps interjecting about this section of the Family Law Act I ask him whether he believes in this section. Senator Missen —That section is just the desirable ideal for people. It is not one that determines our divorce laws. Senator WALTERS —Mr Chairman, this section refers to 'the Family Court', not 'a desirable ideal'. It has nothing to do with a desirable ideal. It states: The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act or any other Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to- It is not just a nice thought. The Court shall try to have regard to and try to bring about that position. Senator Missen —Have regard to. Senator WALTERS —Senator Missen agrees with that. The section states that the Court shall try to bring about a need to protect the institution of marriage as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life. Senator Missen agrees with that section which states that the Court shall have regard to and shall try its level best to institute that principle. Does Senator Missen agree with that? Senator Missen —That is all it says, yes. Senator WALTERS —If Senator Missen agrees with that then surely it is up to us as a parliament to attempt to fulfil the requirements of that section. If we try in some way to fulfil the requirements of that section then there must be something we can do to legislate for a two-year separation and make it a little more difficult for people to enter into divorce proceedings without due thought being given to the consequences. Mr Temporary Chairman, you are looking at the time. Time allowed for the debate has lapsed for the time being. I join in the appeal that Senator Harradine made today. This is a hotch potch debate. Next week we will be debating the Budget. Let us put aside the Family Law Amendment Bill until we can give proper consideration to it. Let us not deal with it in half hour spurts. We will never get through anything if we continue in this way. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 23 August 1983, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the papers and the statement. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, speaking without limitation of time when speaking to the motion that the Senate take note of the papers and the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.01) —Mr President, this is the first opportunity which the Senate has had to discuss the Budget statement which was brought down in the House of Representatives and the Senate a little over two weeks ago. In the opinion of the Opposition the Treasurer, Mr Keating, has brought down a Budget which will not resolve the central problems Australia faces in 1983. The Budget, like any Budget which has ever been brought down, can be judged from different perspectives. Some people will judge it against what the Australian Labor Party promised in an election which was held only six months ago. They will compare this Budget to what Labor promised then and they will ask: 'What have they delivered now?' Other people will judge the Budget by its impact on individuals and community groups. A third set of judges will take the longer view and judge it on the basis of where they think it will take Australia. It is the fact that there are these different bases for examination which explain some of the differing evaluations of the Budget that we have seen. It is my understanding that the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer, are quite pleased at the media reception the Budget has had, and it is fair to say that it was unusually well received by the popular Press, even though there has not been very much praise from serious commentators. What praise there was seems to be diminishing and is certainly increasingly hard to find. I think that the favourable reception that the Budget has had is mostly attributable to some very skilful political and public relations work since March 1983. That manipulation of opinion is readily seen in relation to two of the three perspectives against which the Budget can be judged . As far as broken promises are concerned, that is really a matter of ancient history. No one seems to care, just a few months after the election, that there are tax cuts for no one, whereas tax cuts for six million were promised. Nine out of 10 Australians were promised cheaper health care and, of course, the facts are that even when that promise was made two out of 10 already received free health care. In fact, the new Government declared all promises off as soon as it was elected. The incessant use of the meretricious $9.6 billion figure for the prospective deficit succeeded in convincing much of the public that no other course was open to the Government. Hammering home that figure simultaneously prepared the way for a horror Budget and sheeted home the blame for whatever pain might have ensued on the previous Government. The subsequent projection of $8.5 billion created an illusion of restraint and reinforced the expectation of community sacrifice. There were what appeared to be inspired rumours of personal income tax rises, the fears of capital gains tax which were based on Labor's rhetoric in opposition and in government, and of course Senator Button continued to fuel the speculation about a capital gains tax throughout the months of the preparation of the Budget. The wholesale overturning of promises in the May Economic Statement led to the general belief that almost anything could happen, and led to a dread about the coming Budget which the reality did not meet. So far as broken promises are concerned, as far as the impact on groups and individuals is concerned, the Government has been judged very lightly. There has, of course, been other discussion on the Budget, and my colleagues the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, in the Parliament and Mr Howard in a speech at the National Press Club have examined the facts of this at length. I do not intend to repeat many of their detailed criticisms here. But it is evident at this early stage of public reaction to the Budget that the Government 's political judgment was flawed in one area of its Budget strategy. That is, the doubt that has been cast over all aged Australians who have made the effort to provide for themselves and that doubt has been cast over them because of the clumsy proposal which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has put forward for an assets test. The Government may seek to minimise the impact of that mistake by referring to statements by members of the Opposition, including me, and the Leader of the Opposition. But that tactic conveniently overlooks the fact that in government the Fraser Government replaced the means test with an income test. This Government conveniently overlooks the fact that my concerns, expressed at the 1981 Budget, related to the proper application of that income test, and it conveniently overlooks the fact that its own proposals are quite different. The Opposition, when in government, did not seek to return to the assets test. I ask the Senate: How can the Government justify the distinction between the pensioner who has put his savings into a holiday home-who is penalised by this new test-as against the pensioner who has put the same money into a boat and a caravan? Why is it that in this Government's eyes investment in jewellery and antiques in favoured over more modest cash savings? The introduction of further illogicalities, anomalies and difficulties into the social security system-anomalies, illogicalities and difficulties that the aged people of Australia have to struggle their way through-is not a proper way of meeting what I regard as a very proper objective of restricting access to welfare in the interest of providing better for those in need. I have mentioned those two perspectives from which the Budget is to be judged. The third perspective is probably the most important. It is certainly the most important for the long term success of this Government and certainly the most important for the future of Australia. It is: Where will the Budget take Australia in a year's time? Where will it take Australia a year from then, and further? The response of the critics and analysts has been mixed; although I think it is fair to say that the further the Budget recedes, the less favourable is the comment. It is fascinating to observe that some of the harshest criticism has come from those-as for instance, those who follow the doctrines of the Melbourne Institute-who believe that this Budget is insufficiently expansionary. But, putting the critics to one side, what is the Government's own assessment of what the future holds? We are told in the Budget that there are hopes of economic growth, that real gross domestic product may rise by perhaps 3 per cent this year, and that real non-farm product may rise 2 per cent in 1983-84, or 5 per cent on a June-on-June basis. This will be a significant achievement if it happens. But the Budget documents themselves show up the elements of risk in the projections which the Government has made. It is a cause for serious concern that the projected recovery is so narrowly based and so heavily reliant on the public sector. There are dangers inherent in financing a deficit and a total public sector borrowing requirement of the magnitude which the Government has provided. There are also dangers inherent in the Government's assumptions about the timing of the United States recovery and its possible effects on the Australian money market. Some of these perils have been made dramatically clear by the obvious and disturbing discrepancies between the Budget's growth assumptions and the national accounts outcome for the June quarter released on the same night as the Budget. Those accounts for the June quarter show that there was a 2.3 per cent drop in the gross domestic product during that quarter. We may be facing a situation where there is a statistical discrepancy. It may be that later adjustments to the figures will show something which is healthier than that. But we can justifiably ask if the Treasurer would have gambled on the expected recovery that he is predicting in this Budget if the June quarter performance had been known to him a month ago. But the greatest gamble of all is the extent to which the whole of this Government's strategy rests upon the wages accord. I do not believe that tonight is the time to detail all of the Opposition's doubts about the strength and coherence of the accord and of the second-best nature of this Government's whole wages policy. The bargain that the Government struck with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in its quest for industrial peace and political power, has already been discussed at length in this chamber on the initiative of the Opposition. I think it is timely to point out that on the Government's own assessment, on what the Government is telling Australia, is going to happen, that even if everything goes right by the accord, even if the accord holds to its terms, even if we do get a workable centralised wage fixing system, even if there is a strict limiting of sectional claims, even if the wages growth can be held to 7 per cent this year, even if all those things happen, the Government is telling Australia that we will still have rising unemployment. There are a great many ifs in what I have just said but they are the Government 's ifs, not the Opposition's ifs, and I repeat them now to remind the Senate that even if the Government can hold the line on its own deal with the unions, we will still have unemployment at over 10 per cent when the next Budget is brought down in August 1984. The Government has predicted more than 10 per cent unemployment. That is predicted on the success of its wages accord, centralised wage fixing, strict limiting of sectional claims, a wages growth of only 7 per cent this year and rising unemployment. Those are the predictions of the Government, but if the Government, the ACTU and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission cannot hold the line that this Budget is predicated on, of course the result will be worse. The Government purports to be creating jobs in this Budget. The Treasurer predicts that about 90,000 jobs will be created during the period of the Budget, but we have to take into account the fact that about 50,000 of those jobs are make-work, temporary job creation scheme positions and another 6,500 of these jobs are in the public sector. So where are the real increases in full time private sector jobs? Patently those increases are trivial. Temporary jobs will of course be created by the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security to deal with the red tape associated with the withholding tax and the proposed assets test on pensions. But when we are looking for employment for Australia's unemployed, we are looking for permanent or real jobs out there in the working world. That is what this Budget is not going to deliver. The figure put forward by the Treasurer is even more patently a token when it is considered that the housing package, which he claims is creating 30,000 of those jobs in both the public and the private sectors, was part of the May mini-Budget . How many of all the jobs created this year will in fact be the result of the fiscal stimulus which was administered by the previous Government in the last Budget? I want to return to that central issue. My colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke to the National Press Club, addressed at length the issue of wages policy and the extent to which it means that this Budget is a disturbingly fragile document. I do not want to spend a lot of time on that tonight but I do want to remind the Senate again that the Food Preservers Union of Australia, the building workers and the oil company workers have already brought claims against employers in a way which shows that the accord is far from enjoying universal assent in the trade union movement. The overwhelmingly important point I wish to make is that even if everything holds, if this Government succeeds on its own basis in this Budget, the resulting state of affairs will be totally unsatisfactory for Australia and for all Australians. What the Government is telling us in the Budget is that for the forseeable future unemployment in Australia will be such that one in 10, perhaps one in nine of the work force will have no job; that one in four young Australians will have no job and that those figures may actually worsen during this Budget period and beyond. Of course the one in four figure for the young means a smaller proportion for older workers. But the social effects, particularly on the young, stand as a great criticism of this Government. Senator Primmer —Oh, listen to it. What hypocrisy. Senator CHANEY —And what do those figures, representing all those Australians cut off from normal Australian life, mean for Australia and indeed for our liberal democratic institutions? Senator Tate —Oh, come on. You had seven years. What did you do? Senator CHANEY —This Budget marks a break with the past, a fundamental shift in Australia's political history, and I would remind Labor senators who are interjecting that it was the Curtin Labor Government which, in May 1945, brought down the White Paper on full employment that since then has been part of the credo of every successive Australian government. It has been one of the few articles of political faith accorded bipartisan support for nearly 40 years. Clearly that bipartisan attitude no longer exists. I believe that this Budget shows that the Labor Government, supported by honourable senators opposite, has jettisoned that fundamental belief. I go back to what Mr Curtin said in 1945, and draw the Senate's attention to the fact that Mr Hawke, when he was not in government, chose to use words which were very similar to those of Mr Curtin in 1945. They are very different words from the words we find in this Budget, which represents the actual performance of this Government. In the White Paper entitled 'Full Employment in Australia' the Curtin Government stated: Full employment is a fundamental aim of the Commonwealth Government. The Government believes that the people of Australia will demand and are entitled to expect full employment, and that for this purpose it will be able to count on the co-operation of servicemen's associations, trade unions, employers' associations and other groups. There is a voice from the recent past as well as a voice from 1945. Senator Tate —He did not say in six months. Senator CHANEY —He went on to say: . . . the responsibility of Commonwealth and State Governments is to provide the general framework of a full employment economy . . . That is what we are here talking about tonight. Is the framework which is provided by this Budget a framework for what honourable senators opposite would claim as a full employment economy? This policy would appear to be what Mr Hawke was promising the Australian people last March. Let me quote from his election policy speech which was delivered, actually, on 16 February, when he addressed this central issue. In the first couple of pages of the policy speech, in which he held out why he should be elected to govern this country, he said: There are tremendous issues involved in this historic election of the fifth of March-first and foremost, the right of all Australians to a job; That was the first and foremost issue that Mr Hawke put before the Australian people, the right of all Australians to a job. He went on to say: For the sake of the one million and more Australians who face unemployment unless there is a change, - Of course that was a much higher figure than the existing unemployment figure, but Mr Hawke said: 'You had better change because it will go higher' - those policies must be changed, and will be changed-by the Australian Labor Government after 5 March. Mr Hawke went on to say: For the facts are there-stark and grim-for every Australian to see. Seven years of Fraserism have produced: The highest number of Australians thrown out of work in our history; Senator Tate —Very true. Senator CHANEY —I continue: and the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression fifty years ago. One in ten Australians out of work- And let us hear these words as very true too, Senator- a figure no Australian would have believed possible a few years ago and which no Australian Government should ever be forgiven for creating. Apparently the continuance of that lack of jobs is fine. It does not matter if we leave those people unemployed, it does not matter if unemployment increases. Mr Hawke went on to say: One in four young Australians looking for work being unable to find work. In the Budget which has been brought down by the Hawke Government there is no trace of sentiments of the sort that were expressed in the policy speech. In the responses by Government senators in this debate we will no doubt have the sort of cry which we have heard in interjections just a few minutes ago, that the ideal of full employment was lost under the previous Government. I would say to Government senators that that rhetoric is as unhelpful and unproductive as my going back to 1974 and pointing out the great leap in unemployment which occurred under Mr Whitlam at that time. That is irrelevant now. This Budget is about tomorrow, not about yesterday, and about the responsibilities of the Government in accordance with the promises it made to the Australian people. I put it to the Senate that it is time that we decided unanimously to agree on full employment as one of the central objectives of all governments in Australia . This Budget clearly does not accept that as a central objective. There is little rhetoric about it but the Budget itself in actuality projects a continuing rise in unemployment and offers no hope at all for Australia except a slowing of the rate of increase. We have had in this chamber a number of public importance debates on wages policy and on its effect on unemployment. On each occasion, in his defence, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, has made the point that wages policy is just one part of the problem. In each debate Opposition senators have agreed with that statement, but we have pointed out that it is the largest part of our present problem. There is a whole range of other things which need to be tackled. But where in the Budget is there evidence that these things are being tackled? In a Budget that had as its central objective the restoration of full employment, it is clear we would have seen some evidence that all other areas of policy were being tackled with a view to maximising growth and employment. Such evidence is hard to find in the Budget document. The very size of the Budget, the amount of expenditure, is likely to be damaging to growth. One has to ask whether such a high deficit, with such a high structural component, will leave Australia in a position in which private activity can expand without succumbing to the pressures on interest rates or on the money supply. We have already heard much in public debate about the warnings in the Budget Papers of the likelihood of pressures on interest rates in the event that there is any economic recovery in Australia. Surely, even with the views that this Government has about centralised wages policy, it should consider modifications which could increase employment. In that respect, I urge the Government to re-examine the 'Report on Youth, Wages, Employment and the Labour Force', prepared by the Bureau of Labour Market Research at the request of the previous Government. That report was introduced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, in a very quiet way. He put out a quite disparaging, certainly very low key, statement about the report, yet it raises issues which need close examination if we are concerned about the high levels of youth unemployment. Instead, we seem to have a burying of the report as a question that needs to be examined by this Government. Early indications are that the report is to be buried and discredited. I believe that can be explained on the basis of the Government's concern to avoid disturbing what it calls the industrial relations reality. Senator Button's own field of industry policy should be governed by considerations of what policies will promote growing industries what policies will allow investment to flow to areas where greater growth, profits and employment will occur. We see no signs of that either in the Budget or in the various industry policies announced by Senator Button over the last six months. Taxation policy is surely important to the way people invest. Last year the Fraser Government took a first step towards encouraging investment in Australian industry with its exemption from tax of the first $1,000 of dividend income. That initiative, of course, was one of the first to go under the new Labor Government. Division 7 tax on companies might be further reduced to encourage the retention of capital in small businesses, currently under so much pressure. We see no action on that front. The bias in the taxation system in favour of fixed assets rather than productive enterprise might be raised as an issue to be tackled, even if not dealt with now. Over recent months the issue was raised squarely by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Victoria. Serious questions were sent back to the government because they were issues of policy and involved changes to existing practices. We have had no response from this Government on that issue. The Deputy Commissioner provided a lead, but there has been no sign of this Government wanting to follow it. The Government could be looking at the disemployment effects, again felt very acutely by small business, of the present payroll tax and workers compensation arrangements; or does this Labor Government believe that it has no role to play because these are State matters? There is a very long agenda for reform in these areas, but there is no evidence that the present Government is even aware of the problems. If we had a government centrally concerned with full employment, which saw that as its priority policy objective, it surely would have expressed some awareness of the trade-offs which exist in policy areas such as the environment. There are decisions currently before the Government, such as what is to be done about stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park. That sort of decision is of great environmental significance. It will also have significant employment implications. No one could have been more ready than the previous Government to protect important examples of Australia's ecosystems. The declaration of stage 1 of Kakadu and the purchase of land for stage 2 are just two of the demonstrations of that readiness. Surely, in assessing what ought to happen to stage 2 in 1983, careful consideration needs to be given to the development of potential employment situations. We see no signs that this Government is concerned about that sort of issue. There is also the issue of the balance between social security and educational provisions. When in Opposition the present Government talked very loudly about the relatively low participation rate of Australian youth in tertiary education. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, is in the chamber. I heard her deliver many a lecture to the then Minister for Education on that subject. In this Budget the Government has widened the gap between unemployment benefit and the assistance given under the tertiary education assistance scheme. The Opposition should applaud the Government for being prepared to demand that taxpayers better provide for our unhappy and unfortunate unemployed; but many Australian taxpayers would question the balance of incentives for young Australians at the margin who might be making a decision between unemployment and education. Moreover, however well we provide for the unemployed, those benefits will never be a substitute for real employment. The central complaint I make about this Budget is that it fails utterly to tackle the central issue. It fails utterly to make any real commitment to full employment. It does not even hold out a promise of some return to full employment in the future. The Liberal Party has never abandoned that objective and regards it as a very important policy objective. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that we regard it as the most serious responsibility laid on us as we rethink our policies in Opposition and seek to arrive at policies which will embrace that objective. As we come to grips with that objective there will be very serious debate, in this chamber and elsewhere, about what is meant by full employment in the 1980s. Certainly, there will be room for differences of opinion about whether the very low figures we had in post-war Australia are realistic, given the changes in our economy and the composition of our work force. But it would be a red herring for that argument to be raised now in defence of the Government when we have not even begun to turn in the direction of full employment. The challenge faced by the Government in framing this Budget is clear. No one could imagine for a moment that it was an easy challenge. I believe that it would be fair to say that the Budget may have been the most difficult to frame in the last 10 years. Although I would not agree with the reasons that the Government would put for that being the case. The sudden reduction in economic activity in Australia has given rise to enourmous difficulties for us. Even given those acknowledged difficulties, the Government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have fudged it. They have not really turned their attention to the central task of removing the barriers to significant employment growth and to reducing unemployment. The Prime Minister has not fudged on everything. He has not fudged on the possibility of some economic growth. It may be a risky proposition under this Budget, but with some luck we may get it. Big business will certainly be grateful to the Prime Minister if there is a lift in profitability, and that will be good for Australia. The trade unions are likely to be grateful if the living conditions of the employed are maintained. The people who will not be grateful for this Budget are those one in 10 who are without jobs. It is to be hoped that the few extra dollars they are to receive will do something to reduce their difficulties, but it will not solve their problems. In this Budget the Government holds out to them no hope of change in the next 12 months and beyond. I can only hope that the wider Australian community will see what some see as a welfare problem in its widest implications and that it will demand of this Government that it now concentrate on the central difficulty of creating sufficient employment in Australia to reduce unemployment. In this Budget it has failed to do so. Accordingly, it has failed to meet the promise which it made to the Australian people. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(8.28) —On 5 March this year, at a time of national economic disaster, the people of Australia decided to take a new direction. They decided that it was time to get rid of the well tried and failed conservatives and try the socialists. How sad that they got the conservative socialists! This Budget has been a disappointment, particularly to the needy and the disadvantaged. It has been an economic disappointment. It has even been a disappointment to the party members who presented it to this Parliament. It is probably a repetition of the Fraser era-the first budget wasted, as happened in 1976. This Budget should have demonstrated courage. It should have expressed the philosophies of hope that were expressed during the lead up to the election. The Government had two alternatives. It could have followed the Treasury line, the Fraser line, the Howard line, the restrictive line-the eight-year proven formula for failure-or it could have taken the stimulatory expansive line. In the event the Government has fallen between two stools. It neither promotes long term economic growth nor does it help those desperately in need of assistance. It is mildly expansionary but not enough to stimulate the economy, to get it going again. It is in fact a short term band-aid in preparation for a 1984 election. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said after the Budget was brought down that his Government was elected to arrest the decline in the Australian economy. That was not the way the people of Australia saw this Government's election. It was elected not only to arrest the decline but also to promote the recovery of Australia-not just to put on the brakes, but also to apply the motive power to this recovery. But regrettably this Budget will not promote the recovery. It is a stand-still Budget. The Budget must be a great disappointment to the needy and the disadvantaged who were promised equity and fairness by this Government. Let us look at some of the people in those categories-the unemployed, the people who really did catch the brunt of Australia's national economic disaster. The Government itself recognises that there will be a growth in unemployment in the current year. The average number of unemployment benefit recipients in 1982- 83 was 540,000. This number will climb to 680,000 in the current year judging from the Government's projections. One of the problems that many of us have with those figures is that last year's projection was proven to be 145,000 short of the real figure. We will just have to wait to see whether this prediction will be equally light on because there is a contracting job market. Last year we suffered a 1.4 per cent reduction in civilian employment-the largest fall for 30 years. All that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) can offer us is the following statement: . . . employment growth will not be as strong as we might wish-but as I have attempted to illustrate, that is unavoidable. Why is it unavoidable? It is unavoidable because of the self-imposed constraints that this Government has put upon this Budget. Why did the Government swallow Treasury's philosophies when it had such exciting philosophies of its own? Does it lack the courage to roll Treasury and act on its own beliefs? This Government should be acting right now to create lasting employment growth, and not just be satisfied with a moderate increase in employment. Employment recovery needs both spending and ideas. It is not just a matter of dollars. Previous governments thought that dollars might solve the problem. This problem needs the sort of creativity that Minister Barry Jones tried to force through the Cabinet. But, of course, his initiatives were dumped, delayed or whatever. We have not seen them and they have not seen the light of day. So new technologies, sunrise industries and tomorrow's enterprises are still waiting, holding their breath. Having held it from the mini-Budget until the maxi-Budget they now have to hold it until God knows when. But certainly nothing has been done yet. The Government has not recognised its responsibility to plan for the future, to plan for tomorrow's enterprises. In contrast to that I draw the Senate's attention to the Australian Democrats alternative Budget. We would introduce innovative ideas-the community mature persons support scheme, the conservation corps and the youth education work guarantee system. There are many innovative ideas in the Democrats alternative Budget that was presented before the Government's Budget was brought down. We would have been happy for the Government to steal those ideas as it has borrowed a number of other Democrat initiatives. How sad for this country that in looking at the tax regime this Government hit on probably one of the most sensitive areas, not just in terms of potential for increasing inflation but in its overall impact on regions and on individuals who could not take any more tax increases. Of course, I am referring to the increased excise on petrol which hits everybody-the high socio-economic group, the low socio-economic group, the unemployed and the employed. Everybody is hit by the increase-the unnecessary increase, I might add, if one believes the Government's own rhetoric when it was in Opposition on the excise on petrol. The Government has betrayed Australia and members of its own party and abandoned its own promises in increasing this excise. It has done so at the expense of rural areas and the northern regions in particular. Of course, the flow-on costs will be felt through the increased prices of food and, of course, the increased rate of inflation. Let me just illustrate for a moment how such an increase flows on through all sections of the community. That 1.5 cents per litre increase in excise has quite a dramatic effect on local government. It is estimated that there will be an increase of approximately 4 per cent for fuel in council budgets. The impact of that will flow on through local governments having to increase their rates. Rate increases will flow on through the whole economy and the consumer price index will be increased. So everybody will get hit. Of course, in addition to the straight out fuel impact, there are other flow-ons such as increases in bitumen costs, road construction costs and transport costs on all items which are carried to their destination for ultimate use by consumers. We can see already the impact of this Government's Budget strategy on all sectors. The unions have responded to the previous Government's wages freeze quite responsibly overall. There have been deviations, but overall I think it is fair to suggest that the unions have carried their share of the burden. Most sectors of industry have carried their share of the burden. There have been drastic drops in profit and as a result industry has undergone rationalisation. But we do not see that inhibition in government at any level. We do not see it at Federal, State or local government levels. Government rates and taxes continue to skyrocket. Of course, this leads to higher and higher inflation. The Democrats suggested that it was time that the Federal Government recognised its responsibility to local government and, as a direct product of that, reduced the rate of inflation by granting higher subsidies to local government. Local government at least provides jobs at a much higher rate than other levels of government. Regional employment increases when money is made available at the local government level. What a sad day it was for low income groups in Australia when this Government broke its promise to the needy and the disadvantaged and, I might add, to the swinging voters. Although certainly the Government appealed to the swinging voters before the election it very hastily abandoned them immediately post- election. What a sad day it was when the tax cuts were abandoned because here was the opportunity for this Government to stimulate the economy and get it going again. We suggested in the Australian Democrats alternative Budget that there was a scope to help the disadvantaged, the low income earners, and, as a direct result, to stimulate this economy through increased consumer spending which has a particularly direct and immediate impact on small businesses. If this Government wants some lead in where to direct its efforts from here on, let me suggest to it that it should be in the small business region. The simplest way of getting small business up and going again is to increase consumer demand, to get the dollars into the market-place and not into the savings bank where we consistently see an increase in savings because of the lack of confidence in the Government's economic strategy. Of course, as a direct result we would get a flow on not just to small business but to the whole economy. Alternatives are available to this Government. It did not have to break its promises to the low income earners. It could have given tax alleviation to people who desperately need a few extra dollars just to survive. It could have stimulated the economy by injecting money at that level and, through that level, to small businesses. As an alternative it could have introduced, for instance, a capital gains tax. If it had the courage of its convictions it could have introduced a wealth tax. In the process of introducing those two taxes it could, almost overnight, have eliminated the tax evasion and tax avoidance industry. It probably could have saved itself from the further pain and anguish of chasing those who avoided and evaded their taxes in the 1970s. Instead it could have caught up with people in the 1980s who are still avoiding and evading their tax obligations to this society. This Government could have introduced a value added tax, if it had had the courage to do so. It could have done something innovative and lifted its sights above the old worn out tax methods in this country. It could have gone for a full scale tax reform. Whilst the Government preaches such reform, again it lacks the courage, the initiative and the innovation to go for it. It settles for just patching up a few of the older methods. I heard an interjection earlier that the Government also could have done something about the housing industry. Of course it could have. It has done a little for the housing industry, but far too little. It has probably compensated for the little that it has done by removing the relief that was avilable to other people buying their homes. The Australian Democrats believe that there should be a housing interest rebate for all needy families buying their homes, not just for first home buyers. Sure, first home buyers do stimulate the housing industry directly and have an immediate impact but people who are already buying their homes, who cannot keep up with the interest rates and cannot cope with the dramatic increase in interest rates that they have suffered in recent years are in need of assistance. In passing, while talking about housing assistance, I am disappointed that there was not an extension of the rental supplementary assistance to all recipients of the unemployment benefit after, say, eight weeks of unemployment. I think that that is a measure that this Government could still consider because there is anguish and tragedy when very low income earners find their wages supplanted by the unemployment benefit. Families finish up out in the streets. This Government's great betrayal has been to the youth of this country. The under 18-year-olds are already seriously disadvantaged. They are forced to bear the brunt of unemployment and spiralling costs. They are given no encouragement and no incentive-not even the incentive to continue or to get back into the education system. The great hope of this country will be its educated young people in the next decade. But we are still not recognising the importance of encouraging young people to move into or to stay in the education system, to provide this country with that resource in the future. I also suggest that the Government could have won a lot of friends-the Democrats made this suggestion earlier-by extending fringe benefits to all age pensioners, irrespective of income. It would have been only a little gesture but I think it would have taken a tremendous amount of steam out of some of the antagonism that has built up recently in the pensioner groups. A lot of people rely on and particularly want those fringe benefits. The Government could have made that offer to pensioners. I move now to the betrayal of Australian business-in particular, small business -by this Government. The Budget has had the effect of increasing costs to small businesses. The flow on effect of some of the measures adopted by the Government will have that impact on businesses which are already on their knees. Government charges have increased, as I indicated earlier, right across the board, at all levels of government. This Government could have given small business the injection it needed. With increased deficit spending the Government could have helped small business to lead the recovery of this nation. But there are no initiatives in this Budget for small business. The Government did not even introduce the small enterprise legislation which has been talked about recently. Apparently it did not contemplate the proposal for quarterly provisional tax payments to help ease the burden of small businesses which are battling to survive. It did not contemplate the Division 7 tax removal as proposed by the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. That Committee recommended that a private company should be given the option to be treated as a partnership for tax purposes, with the shareholders being taxed accordingly. What a relief that could have been for a lot of small businesses. But no, they are ignored because this Government does not seem to have a recognition of the desperate plight of small businesses in this country. The Democrats proposed-I would have thought that if the Government were to pick up any measures it would have adopted this one-the abolition of payroll tax, the phasing out of payroll tax. The Government could have assisted the States-the States impose the tax-to phase out payroll tax over a period of two or three years, particularly over the next two or three years, as the economy improves. Senator Button —What would that have cost? Senator JACK EVANS —If the Government took the whole brunt over a full year it would cost $2,000m. If the payroll tax were phased out that sort of cost would not have been reflected in this Budget. The Government could have indicated to State governments and to employers that it wanted to remove the disincentive to employ people. But there is no such gesture in the Budget. There is no such indication that such a policy will be implemented. If it is introduced in the Budget next year as an electoral plum then why not introduce it now when small businesses need it to survive? Now is the time that small businesses could be given the incentive to get more employees on their payrolls. This Budget is an economic betrayal of businesses because it has landed in no man's land between the Treasury's restrictionist approach and the stimulatory approach which the Government talked about before the election. This Budget will not stimulate the economy. It is just a 'hold the fort' strategy. It is expansionary without being stimulatory. The Government must have worked pretty damned hard to achieve that, to introduce a Budget which expands the economy without stimulating it. But that is the achievement of this Government because it lacked the courage to allow that deficit to swing out by another billion dollars. The deficit will probably swing out by one billion dollars in any case. Last year it swung out by much more than one billion dollars. The Government should have been prepared to say: 'Right, instead of concentrating on and worrying about the deficit we will concentrate on and worry about stimulating the economy again. We will get this nation going again'. As a direct result we would have had higher employment, higher economic activity and greater use of the resources of this country. As a direct result again the Government's coffers would have been filled and the deficit would have been reduced by the end of this year. With the Budget that has been presented to us we will probably have the opposition situation. We will suffer a repetition of what we suffered last year, that is of a government trying to pull its horns in and in the end the deficit blowing out. If we had had a government which was game enough to say 'Yes, we are brave, we are willing to take a bit of a risk, we are willing to go for an extra $1 billion because we recognise that that will show the whole of Australia that we want to stimulate the economy' the country would have got up off its knees. There would have been a chance for this nation to recover this year and not wait for next year, the election year. It was possible for the Government to produce a responsible expansive Budget. I am not the only person to suggest that. It has been suggested by responsible, highly respected economists around Australia. It has been suggested by a Minister of this Government. Mr Willis suggested that $9.6 billion was quite a responsible deficit. I suspect that Mr Willis had a lot of support in the Australian Labor Party, and I suspect that if this Government had had the courage to expand the deficit to around $9.6 billion Australia would have rejoiced and the Labor Party would have rejoiced. The only people who would have been saddened by that would have been a few financiers, a few members of the Opposition and the Treasury. The rest of Australia would have lifted off and would not have had to look back for the next decade as a result of that stimulation. Frankly, I believe that the financial markets would not have lost confidence in this Government if it had sold that strategy to them. Regrettably the Government painted itself into a corner by accepting the Treasury philosophy . It is very interesting to note that the economy of the United States is experiencing sizeable growth with a deficit officially expected to reach 7 per cent of gross domestic product in 1983, thus proving that bigger deficits in times of recession are not ipso facto incompatible with growth and job creation. Australia's deficit as a proportion of GDP in 1983-84 is estimated to be 4.7 per cent of GDP. I repeat that the United States figure is 7 per cent of GDP and that country is getting the runs on the board. Australia's deficit, as a proportion of GDP, is only 4.7 per cent. That extra $1 billion could have made the difference. It could have achieved all that this Government preached before the election. It could have thrown out the window the tired and worn out economic strategies of the past eight years and proven that Her Majesty's Opposition circa 1976-83 was right. All that this Government seems to want to do is to prove that it can be as wrong as was Her Majesty's Government of that era. This country needs long term planning. It needs long term vision. We have a chance this year, because we are coming out of the drought, to get Australia on its economic feet, but we need a long term growth strategy and not just be dependent on world recovery, waiting for the invisible hand. Does this Government not realise that it is the invisible hand and the hand at the moment is immobile? I wish that we had an alternative in the Liberal Party of Australia , but unfortunately its record is as bad. It too was snowed by Treasury. In conclusion, I believe that Australians will be disappointed that this Government lacks the courage of its convictions. If that were not so it would have introduced a stimulatory Budget. This Budget is neither a social nor an economic plan on which Australians can build with confidence. Perhaps it is a political plan. Perhaps it is an election document. Nevertheless, I believe that we have a responsibility to try to make this Budget work despite its faults. Therefore the Australian Democrats will support the passing of this Budget. We will endeavour to improve it during its passage through this House, through amendments and in negotiations with the Government and the Opposition. Because the future of all Australians depends on the success of this Budget, we sincerely hope that it does achieve the Treasurer's promises. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.56) —The Senate is debating the Budget which was brought down a fortnight ago. We have just heard from the senator whom I understand to be the economic spokesman of the Australian Democrats a speech in relation to the Budget which certainly was fascinating to me. I saw Senator Chipp on television last night. He said that the Democrats were the real Opposition in the Australian Parliament. Having had a look at the performance of the official Opposition in the past week or two, I thought that was a pretty intelligent comment, but having heard Senator Jack Evans's speech tonight I shudder at the prospect of the Democrats being the alternative Opposition in this country, if that is the shape of things to come and if that self-described alternative Opposition would introduce a Budget of the kind which Senator Jack Evans foreshadowed. Senator Jack Evans —And Mr Willis. Senator BUTTON —No, not Mr Willis. I will come to that. I am no mathematician, but during the honourable senator's speech I made some rough calculations on the back of an envelope, as it were. If the Goverment were to do all the things that the honourable senator invited it to do and not to do all things he invited it not to do the cost to the Government would be of the order of $5 billion. But Senator Jack Evans kept talking all evening about one billion magic dollars which, he said, would change the face of this country and would do marvellous things in terms of an expansionary Budget and in terms of hope and optimism-all the things which were not characterised by his speech, which is perhaps best described as 'Abandon hope all ye who enter here'. Senator Jack Evans —Look on the other side of the envelope and you will see some revenue items. Senator BUTTON —I saw some of the honourable senator's revenue items. I wanted to mention some of those because he chastised the Government first of all for not introducing a capital gains tax. Do I take that to be a statement of Australian Democrats philosophy? Senator Jack Evans —Yes. Senator BUTTON —If we had introduced a capital gains tax in this Budget would the Democrats have supported it? Senator Jack Evans —Yes, it is in our policy. Senator BUTTON —Is that the position now? Senator Jack Evans —Yes, it is. It always has been. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps the honourable senator ought to consult other members of his party before making confident predictions like that. Senator Jack Evans told the Government that it could have given tax alleviation to lower income earners. That is true. We could have done many of those things, not all within Senator Jack Evans's $1 billion extra but one of the reasons why we could not do a number of those things is that when we introduced tax recoupment legislation in the last session of parliament, which would have brought in $500m in revenue- half of the Democrats $1 billion-the honourable senator's party voted against it . Senator Jack Evans —Not so. I did not. Senator Mason —Nor did I. Do us credit. Be more accurate in what you say. Senator BUTTON —I am used enough to dealing with split personalities but not split parties. The fact of the matter is that that legislation was rejected by the Senate. I understand that if it is introduced again it may well be rejected by the Senate again if sober consideration is not given to the matter by Senator Evans's colleagues. Senator Jack Evans —It will be again. Senator BUTTON —It will be rejected again? Senator Jack Evans —It will be considered soberly again. Senator BUTTON —It will be considered soberly, and I hope Senator Evans is very sober when he tries to persuade- Senator Gareth Evans —Senator Jack Evans. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry, Senator Gareth Evans, I am addressing Senator Jack Evans. I hope Senator Jack Evans is very sober when he tries to persuade his party to support the Government's legislation because then we will be three- tenths of the way towards his magical billion dollars. Senator Jack Evans —Will you then give that tax relief to low income earners? Senator BUTTON —I cannot make a promise on behalf of the Government but of course we could do some of the things that the honourable senator has suggested we might do. Senator Jack Evans's speech reminds me of that famous exchange between Glendower and Hotspur. 'I can summon spirits from the vasty deep', says Glendower. 'Yes', says Hotspur, 'but will they come?'. That is the precise political position of the Australian Democrats in regard to this Budget because Senator Evans in his speech summoned all sorts of spirits from the vasty deep. The question to which a government has to address itself is not the sort of question to which a party like the Democrats has to address itself. A government has to address itself to the question: 'Can you make those spirits come?'. Senator Evans chastised us about many things which he is now pleased to say were Australian Labor Party promises-like a capital gains tax, a wealth tax and things of that kind. He had better have a look at the Labor Party platform before he tells us what we have failed to do in terms of promises. Senator Jack Evans —The Labor Party is still split on capital gains taxes. Senator BUTTON —Yes, but we will not vote in different ways when it comes to the question. I want to set this Budget debate in a serious context because it is a serious matter and Senator Jack Evans's speech has really led us into a strange world of fantasy which is not relevant to the problems of the majority of the Australian people. I want only to re-remind Senator Jack Evans and the people of Australia of the inheritance which the Government got. Senator Mason —Let us talk about the future. Why talk about the past all the time? Senator BUTTON —The past is vitally relevant to the present and to the future. Senator Watson, Liberal, Tasmania, groans in pain when I say that I might mention the inheritance which this Government received. Well he might groan in pain. It is good practice for the next seven years, because that is the time he spent blaming the Whitlam Government for its alleged sins. So he can groan away, because I want to tell the Senate something about the inheritance received by this Government. First of all, in the words not of me but of Potter Partners, the sharebrokers, the Hawke Government took over from the Fraser Government the worst economy in the last 50 years. We had the highest unemployment since the Depression, interest rates were at a very high level and the projected deficit of the Fraser Government was very high, swollen by pork-barrel handouts dictated by the National Country Party. Inflation was at a continuing high level. The consumer price index averaged 10.4 per cent over the last four years of the Fraser Government. Senator Cook —There was negative growth. Senator BUTTON —There was negative growth. Compare those figures with the figures from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries where Senator Jack Evans, Australian Democrat, Western Australia, would happily go in order to enjoy the benign life under the governments of Scandinavia and Europe. Compare those figures that we inherited with the figures for those countries. The balance of payments was highly dependent upon capital inflow because of the lack of competitive resilience in Australian industry. The taxation system was out of control, with low and middle income earners paying while high income earners were avoiding taxation-a process which is still continuing because of the actions of the Opposition and splinters of the Democrats in this chamber. Senator Lewis —Rubbish! Senator BUTTON —'Rubbish!', says Senator Lewis. He is committed to voting against tax avoidance legislation again. He has been defending tax avoiders in here for years and he should not pretend otherwise. We also saw declining business investment, down nearly $2.7 billion in real terms in 1982-83 and in that year, for the first time in over three decades, the gross domestic product showed its first real annual decline. That is the situation which the Hawke Government inherited. Senator Evans can come in here tonight and say that we did not do this for that group and we did not do that for another group or for somebody else, but the giveaway, from a politician, was that he said 'and you did not do this for the swinging voters'. My word, what is he suggesting? Is he suggesting some sort of swinging voters' tax concession or something like that? I do not know. That was the last punch line of that series of betrayals of the Hawke Government as Senator Evans put it. The honourable senator talks about betrayals. I have been out meeting with a lot of community groups since this Budget. They do not feel as betrayed as the honourable senator would like to think they feel or as much as he hopes they do. That is the sad fact which the Democrats have to face up to . What we inherited in March of this year was a country on the skids and the concern of this Government has been to get it out of that situation. So we had an appalling economic legacy, an appalling political legacy, and a period of declining government by the former Government marked by ad hockery and policy making, and a cynical election Budget in 1982 which provided large tax cuts. Senator Lewis —And it is fixing the economy at the present moment, isn't it? Senator BUTTON —I thank the honourable senator; we are grateful to him. If he got on a platform in public life and said that something the Fraser Government did was fixing the country, he would get a job as a clown. Of course the worst and most cynical political thing about the Fraser Government inheritance was that there was no attempt at long term policy making, no ways suggested to pull this country out of recession, desperate bids to stay in power. That is what it was about-dismal exercises in pork barrelling. Right to the last the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Australia today-the discredited former Treasurer, if I might quote one of my colleagues-concealed the size of the deficit from the Australian people. This Government, by contrast , is committed to new policies to stimulate investment. Senator Watson —Do you reckon your deficit figure will hold? Senator BUTTON —Yes. I am asked-I should deal with this matter because it was raised before-whether our deficit will hold. If there is a hole made in it it will be because of the Opposition defending tax avoiders and voting against tax avoidance legislation. If the Liberal Opposition in the Senate gets into action, that will have an effect on the deficit. That will make a difference of some $ 300m which might be given to the unemployed or used to provide tax relief for low income earners. Sure, the Liberal Opposition in the Senate will affect the size of the deficit if it goes under its present leadership hell-bent the way it is at the moment towards lemming-like destruction. It is the invisible Opposition, as the Sydney Morning Herald described it this morning. The honourable senator asks me if our deficit will blow out in the way the previous Government's deficit blew out. We came to government committed to halting the rise in unemployment. I suggest that Senator Watson have a look at the figures. They are not marvellous, but they are improving. That could not have been said at any stage in the last three years of the Fraser Government. Senator Lewis —What figures? Senator BUTTON —I ask the honourable senator to look at the number of unemployment beneficiaries in the last three years. As I said, this Government is committed to new policies, to stimulating investment, to alleviating the decline in employment and to achieving consensus on the way ahead for Australia. It is a government committed to fighting inflation and unemployment together. We have, we believe, the backing of the Australian people and the support of both business and trade unions in seeking that objective. Senator Lewis —You have our support too. Senator BUTTON —That is new. I am glad to hear the official Liberal Party spokesman from Warrnambool on these matters. He has told us that we have its support on this important issue also. Senator Robert Ray —Will they back the retrospective tax though? Senator BUTTON —The answer is no. They want to increase the size of the deficit: that is the argument. This Government wants to try to achieve consensus on the way ahead for this country by the methods about which I have just spoken. Senator Lewis might note my words now because it will give him an opportunity to ask a question at Question Time in the autumn session next year. Perhaps he will be able to ask me: 'Did you not say in your speech on the Budget that the Government would reduce inflation and unemployment?' In March of next year he will come in here, he hopes, and be able to state: 'Look, it has all gone wrong. What you said in your speech on the Budget did not happen'. I am prepared to take a bet with Senator Lewis on that matter. The Government had embarked prior to the Budget presentation on the road leading the country out of this chaotic mess. It is wrong for Senator Lewis to say on air to the people of Australia that because the Government did not do something in the Budget it will not be done, or talk as if the Budget was the only instrument of government policy making. Since this Government was elected we have had the National Economic Summit Conference. That was a success in the eyes of all independent critics. Out of the mouths of Liberal Party spokesmen, it was a success for its political honesty, if nothing else. Then we had the May economic statement, which has caused some pain on the Opposition benches but nowhere else. Then we had the Premiers Conference, at which the States were treated better than they had been treated for years. They recognised that. Not only did they recognise that fact in terms of the size of the deficit in the Federal Budget but also the Premiers of all States supported the target which the Federal Government had set for the deficit. Senator Cook —Even Queensland? Senator BUTTON —There was a unanimous communique, supported by Joh Bjelke- Petersen and-what is the name of the fellow in Tasmania?-Robin Gray. All supported the size of the deficit projected by the Federal Government. Next we had the Budget. As a result of all those activities optimism has already been engendered in the Australian community, and the Budget will engender it further. I inform Senator Jack Evans that I am talking about optimism; I do not mean false promises. This Government has never said- Senator Walters —You do not appreciate the difference. Senator BUTTON —Senator, I do not have time to interrupt my speech to talk about your performance over the last few years. Anything that I have to say about that would be colourful but scarcely interesting to people listening. The fact of the matter is that over many years, election after election, the Fraser Government promised that interest rates would fall, that unemployment would disappear, that inflation would be halved and so on. In this Budget context we have not said that. We have tried to encourage genuine optimism. We believe we have succeeded. We have not encouraged false expectations about unemployment or anything else. Senator Walters —Have a look at your popularity rating. Senator BUTTON —Senator, I would not get excited about that if I were you. What I have been trying to say, subject to the interruptions, is that the Government has accepted the need for a more substantial role for the public sector in order to get the economy moving. Let me talk a little about the Budget strategy. This has perhaps been talked about enough, but I say that the purpose of the Budget was to try to provide the maximum stimulus, consistent with reducing inflation, that we felt we could provide at this time. One might say that our judgment was in error. Senator Jack Evans, the Liberal from Western Australia- Senator Jack Evans —Mr President, I raise a point of order! Senator BUTTON —Senator Jack Evans, who is a self-described member of the real Opposition in Australia-a Western Australian Democrat-says that we were out in all our calculations by $1 billion and that if only we had spent $1 billion more the whole thing would have changed. He went on to tell us what we ought to have spent the money on. That added up to about $5 billion, but that is really a mathematical error and something which can be allowed for-according to Senator Evans! All he was saying was that we were $1 billion out. Of course, there can be errors of judgment in these areas. I am arguing that there were no errors of judgment of a fundamental kind in this Budget, having regard to the constraints which were imposed on us by the idiotic and disastrous policies of the previous Government. The Budget also addresses major questions of fairness and equity and establishes a new order of priorities towards the unemployed and the socially disadvantaged. What we need in this country more than anything else in relation to those matters and those sections of the community, equally with the business sector and the trade union movement, is a stable, predictable environment in which policies are directed to the long term as well as the immediate term and not just, as they have been in the past, to the next by-election. They should be directed to the medium and long terms. That is what we have said and argued about in this chamber on many occasions; it is what the prices and incomes policy is all about. In terms of stimulating the economy as part of the Budget strategy, expenditure increased in this Budget by 7.2 per cent in real terms. Receipts increased by less than one per cent in real terms, which represents in money terms a lower growth than in 1982-83, but a much higher growth, of course, in real terms. We need real growth in the Australian economy to provide jobs and to help offset the inflationary pressures which we inherited. I mentioned the size of the deficit. The lower deficit achieved in this Budget will, we hope, stimulate the economy much more than last year's Budget even attempted to do. I mentioned- Senator Jack Evans would be interested in this-some of the major areas in which stimulatory activity has been embarked on and where help is needed by sections of the Australian community. There was an increase of 23 per cent in expenditure on housing, of 25 per cent on health, and of 19 per cent on social security and welfare. In respect of aged persons alone, an additional amount of $457m is to be expended. In regard to expenditure in relation to unemployment, there has been an increase of a substantial order which, in terms of benefits paid to individuals, represents significant growth. All these increases represent substantial real growth. Senator Jack Evans and others have chided us about the effects of the Budget on business. The important thing for the business community in Australia, whether large business or small, is to have an environment of continuity and support. This Government has continued the investment allowance. It has introduced the five year or three year depreciation regime, which was undertaken by the former Government but not introduced. It has done a number of things which specifically relate to small business. I mentioned some of those things at Question Time this morning. Of course, the greatest thing which can be done for small business is to reduce inflation. I think that is the most important thing we can do for small business. Senator Jack Evans —And interest rates. Senator BUTTON —And interest rates, and the Budget is directed to both those matters. The Australian Democrats alternative Budget would produce nothing but ruin. In the business area, the Government has taken action in relation to the Australian Industry Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, and it has increased funds for research and development. There has been an enormous increase in those areas, which have been recognised as important by previous speakers. It has increased to $333m the funds available for employment and training programs, which are also essential to the future welfare of Australian business and industry. I mention all these things in the context of a debate which has been characterised on the Opposition side by words such as 'betrayal' and 'failure'. Senator Chaney, who speaks on behalf of a political party which created the highest level of unemployment in Australia since the Great Depression, used those words. He speaks as leader of the Liberal Party in the Senate, and he chastised this Government about unemployment when this Government has been in office for only 5 1/2 months. He chastised this Government at a time when there is every sign that the alarming decline in employment has been halted. The Democrats have said that we have not done things for this group or that group. I agree that all of those matters have to be addressed by the Government but not addressed necessarily in the context of this first Budget. We believe that it is part of the continuous progress which has characterised the activities, plans and announcements of this Government since it was elected to office. It has characterised steps which we are taking, over time, with the aim of creating jobs, reducing inflation and achieving a monetary balance in the budgetary context. Nearly all commentators have acclaimed this Budget as responsible and offering some hope for the future. It does not for a moment offer all the hope that we would like, but it offers some hope, some optimism, some reason for belief that this country has turned the corner and now is able to go forward towards the great destiny which we all hope it has. Many advisers to the former Government have grudgingly approved of the Budget. It has achieved a rare degree of accord within the community. As I said, I believe it gives hope. This Government, in its deliberations, has considered all sections of the Australian community as part of that task of restoring some of the confidence, equity and fairness which the people of Australia deserve. Debate (on motion by Senator Martin) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Clause 20 (Dissolution of marriage). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.26) —When consideration was interrupted I was appealing to the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, to take some action to try to make people realise that when they take marriage vows they accept other responsibilities. They must realise that it will not be easy for them to get out of those marriage vows; it will not just be a case of being separated for 12 months. Things may take a little longer. I believe that unless we as a parliament take some action to strengthen the ties of marriage then we will do a great disservice to the stability of the family in this country. I indicated when I first rose to speak to this amendment that even though our marriage rates are still high, our divorce rates are now also high. Every year there is one divorce for every 2 1/2 marriages. That, I imagine, would worry every Australian . Those are horrendous figures. Unless this Government attempts to do something to stabilise the situation coming generations will bear the burden of our mistakes. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(9.27) —I want to make a couple of points in relation to the speech made by Senator Durack. I was a little disturbed at some of the things he said. His implication was that people go into marriage knowing that if it does not work out they can simply get a divorce. I do not believe that that is what happens in our society. Perhaps I am still a bit of a romantic in that I believe that when people get married they firmly believe, at that time , that they will spend the rest of their lives with that partner. As I said to Senator Harradine during the suspension of the sitting for dinner, we really do not know a person until we live with him. If it does not work out, then the point I made on the previous amendment is still a valid one. The big problem I see in any consideration of an extension of time is that the marriage has broken down anyway before the separation actually takes place. So really when we talk about a 12 months separation we are not talking about a 12 months breakdown of the marriage; we are talking about a marriage that has broken down some considerable time before that separation comes into effect. Senator Durack made some comments about counsellors. Perhaps something that should be looked at is how their role can be better developed at a time when it is needed most. How does one suggest to people, when a marriage is running smoothly, that they require counselling in order to stay that way? The counsellor has no role whatsoever to play until the marriage has broken down. If it has broken down to the extent that people have separated, then a counsellor will not assist, in the main, in getting the couple back together again. I only reiterate what I said on the previous amendment. The Committee would do irreparable harm to a lot of people, including children, if it were to consider seriously extending the time of separation to two years, as proposed by Senator Durack's amendment. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.29) —I also oppose the amendment. Senator Walters, and probably Senator Harradine too, want action taken to make people realise that when they enter into marriage vows it will not be easy for them to get out of that marriage, that it may take longer than 12 months. This amendment represents an intimidation. If we took those two speakers seriously, and they are both very sincere in their views, we would have no divorce in this country. They are opposed altogether to divorce. They would have no divorce rules in this country at all. I am afraid we would then have stability of marriage and stability of misery for many people for the remainder of their lives. The fact is that we have long since gone beyond that situation. We realise that not only are people entitled to be divorced and should be divorced in situations when lives become a misery, but also it is in the interests of children that this be done. We have moderated this law over a number of years. It is no use trying to pretend that we can return to a previous situation. This particular amendment has a long history. Senator Durack and I have been battling this question for some nine years. When the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs had before it the Family Law Bill in 1974, Senator Durack and Senator Chaney were then the minority of two in a committee of six who favoured a two-year term of separation. They sincerely believed that that was a better period. The majority favoured a one-year period of separation. I think Senator Button and I are the only two senators in the chamber these days who supported that majority opinion. Since then that has become the law; that period was adopted by this Parliament in 1974. We had a very long investigation of family law in 1979-80. When we examined these things we came to a conclusion that there were no grounds for changing that period. I will not go over the arguments put by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans-I also put them last night-why a long period of separation is not a good idea. Figures that were before the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act show that there was very little opportunity or likelihood of reconciliation occurring over a period of six months or a year. Certainly there was no likelihood of reconciliation after two years or longer periods. This would not aid reconciliation at all. It is worth reminding the Committee of the Joint Committee's conclusions on this matter. I also remind Senator Walters that she was a party to the conclusions contained in paragraph 3.47 of the Joint Committee's report which states: If the period of separation were to be extended as proposed to a blanket period of 24 or 36 months it would be impossible in our view not to make special provision for immediate divorce in certain cases. This would inevitably re- introduce some element of fault. The combination of an immediate fault ground and a longer separation period could easily result in many parties colluding to obtain a fault divorce. This has been the experience as was noted earlier. If this were the result it would seen to defeat the purpose of extending the separation period to facilitate reconciliation as parties who were agreed on divorce would be able to obtain their dissolution even sooner than it is possible for them to do now. This is particularly the case if adultery is accepted as one of the grounds. We already rejected the amendment which included adultery or continuous adultery as one of the grounds. It is clear that the Committee, after hearing all the evidence, was strongly of the opinion that to extend the period was undesirable. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, if we extend the period it would make it even more difficult to get settlement of property matters and the complete settlement of a family situation at a reasonably early date. If any part of this legislation is not upheld and it is challenged in the High Court of Australia we may well find we are in a very awkward situation if we extend the period of separation to two years. People, in a period of limbo, may not be able to settle property or other matters after the marriage has broken down. For these reasons there are potent grounds for rejecting amendments like this. There is no demand for this sort of thing except from a small section of the community that has been consistent in this over the years. But an overwhelming number of people have always accepted that non-fault grounds should be accepted. I think one-year separation has been accepted readily by the community as being sound. One does not restore marriages by forcing people to stick together and by saying that they cannot get a divorce. This has been tried in the past. It is tried in countries where there is no divorce at all and it does not succeed in making happy marriages. I believe, sir, that absolutely no ground has been established for a change in the grounds of divorce. I trust that as in 1974, as in the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and as in the public view, this amendment will be rejected. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.36) —I support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Durack, which seeks to extend to two years the 12-month period of separation as the ground for the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage . Despite what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and Senator Missen have said, 12 months separation seems to me to be very short time in which to prove irretrievable breakdown. It seems to me to create expectations of easy divorce, and that would be borne out by figures cited in the Senate on the increase in divorces since the Family Law Act came into being-there is one divorce in every 2.5 marriages. I think a period of separation as short as 12 months takes away the incentive to work at reconciliation and a restoration of a real relationship. I was pleased to hear the Attorney-General tell us that there is to be compulsory counselling for people married for less than two years who are seeking a divorce. I think that compulsory counselling for all couples seeking divorce is something we should aim at. Unfortunately, the marriage vow 'till death do us part' seems to be taken quite lightly in many circumstances. Everything possible should be done to strengthen the marriage bond and not to make dissolution easier. Marriage and family relationships are something to be worked at and there is certainly no easy Utopia situation. Twelve months would not give people much time to work at a reconciliation, whereas if the period were extended to two years, as proposed in the amendment that Senator Durack has brought forward, more reconciliations might be possible. Both parties to a divorce should remember the needs of their children, who are the victims of broken marriages, and they should work very hard indeed to effect a reconciliation. The establishment of a happy family unit must be seen as the major objective of men and women and, indeed, the Senate. I certainly support Senator Durack's amendment. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.38) —I really take exception to Senator Missen's misquoting and twisting my words. At no time have I indicated that I do not believe in divorce under any circumstance and that I would not have causes for divorce allowed in this country. It would be like my saying that Senator Missen says people should be able to obtain their divorces if they just say the right words three times. To misconstrue my words the way he has is untruthful and it does not do him credit. I am merely saying that if divorce is made too easy it will undermine marriage, which we, in this country, believe creates stability in the very precious family situation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.39) —I find myself to be a reluctant supporter of the proposition that has been advanced by Senator Durack. I believe it is less desirable than the amendment which I moved and which the Senate has not seen fit to accept. However, it is at least a step in the right direction. One matter of real concern within the community, of course, the fact that in its operation, the Family Law Act has enabled a growing number of dissolutions of marriage in Australia. It has been repeated here quite often that the number of marriages being dissolved in Australia is increasing each year. It has also been repeated quite often that the number of young people-that is children under the age of 18 years-affected by these dissolutions is increasing each year. I think that prior to 1975 something like six per 1000 of the population under the age of 18 was affected by divorce. That figure has now grown to something like 11.8 per 1000 of people under the age of 18. I cite those figures from memory. The actual number of children affected last year alone under the age of 18 was over 53,000. That is because the law which defines the meaning of marriage-as I explained before the suspension of the sitting for dinner-is made a mockery of by this section of the Family Law Act. As I pointed out, it is the requirement of the marriage celebrant under section 46 of the Marriage Act to state to the parties in the presence of witnesses that marriage according to law in Australia is 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. Of course, the marriage celebrant must remind the parties that they are entering into a solemn and binding relationship . I agree with what Senator Coleman said. When persons get married by and large they consider that situation. They desire it to take place. Many of them, particularly women, are absolutely staggered when the man-very often in this case-simply shoots through and leaves them with the children. After 12 months separation he may lodge an application for the dissolution of that marriage without the consent of the other partner to the marriage and very often, with her positive dissent. It is a fact that-I challenge the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) to deny this-the majority of persons seeking the assistance of marriage counsellors and marriage counselling organisations in Australia are women. Of course, many of those women are quite alarmed at the fact that they have been left; that their husbands have shot through. There is no requirement for the husband to sit down with the wife and a marriage counsellor and for them to consider the social, economic and legal consequences and the consequences to the children of that action. To show that what I have been saying is understood by some members of the court, I quote from the judgment in the Court of Appeal case, Seidler v. Schallhofer. The Court of Appeal comprised Justices Hope, Reynolds and Hutley and the judgment was given on 23 August 1982. I read from a statement by Mr Justice Hutley. It is a pretty frank statement on what we are talking about here. I quote from page 100 of New South Wales Law Reports 1982, which states: . . . The monogamous marriage for life runs counter to such powerful passions in men and women that only strong legal and social sanctions could maintain it, particularly in a society where the pursuit of pleasure is regarded as its own justification. These sanctions have been abandoned, or repealed for example, damages can no longer be recovered from a seducer. The next sentence is irrelevant, but in the next paragraph His Honour says: The marriage which the law now provides is of an entirely different kind. It is an arrangement terminable by either party on one year's separation, really one year's notice, as the separation may be fictitious. Though the Family Law Act 1975 provides in section 43: The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act or any other Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to- (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; (b) the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children . . . this can only be regarded as propaganda contradicted by the substantial provisions of the Act which, except for the creation of counselling facilities, are directed to the speedy termination of the married state . . . That is the opinion of one judge. I do not agree that that ought to be the case but what he is saying there is that if section 43 means anything and if the definition of marriage means anything, then section 48 simply contradicts and overturns that section. All that is being attempted by Senator Durack at this late stage of the debate is at least to extend that period of 12 months to two years. I feel that that is not a sufficient period but I will support it. The onus of proof is on those who supported and continue to support the 12 months separation. Senator Missen —Oh no. Senator HARRADINE —The onus is on them. Senator Missen says 'Oh no'. The onus is on them because of the result, and the result is quite clear. The result is a continuing escalation of the divorce rate in Australia with the consequential social damaging effects to those people directly affected and to society as a whole. Senator Missen —The Joint Committee answers it. Senator HARRADINE —The Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act does not answer it at all. It has been said previously that the Joint Committee did not receive evidence on this point but in fact it did receive evidence suggesting that there ought to be an extension of the period. Of course, the Joint Committee rejected that evidence because people such as Senator Missen served on it. As we are talking about the Joint Committee, when did the Joint Committee report? Senator Missen —Three years ago. Senator HARRADINE —It was longer than three years ago. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since three years ago. You will notice, Mr Chairman, that the figures since three years ago, of course, have created more concern. So the onus of proof is on those who are maintaining the arbitrary period of 12 months. Those who oppose the extension must address themselves to what needs to be inserted in the legislation to stop the drift and the damaging effect that that drift and the increasing number of divorces are having on society today. The onus is on those people to ensure that something is inserted in this legislation which will create a legislative, even educative, atmosphere. Senator Missen —Intimidation. Senator HARRADINE —What a lot of rot. Senator Missen would not understand. But a woman with five or six kids may have a husband who has shot through and is mucking around all over the town, leaving her with the five kids. Does Senator Missen not believe that this law intimidates many people who are left stranded in that situation? It does. That roue can shack up all over the place, stay away for 12 months and then file an application for divorce. However, if the period of separation were longer and there were associated provisions in the Act for reconciliation counselling, that at least would ensure that the couple would have to face facts. I repeat to those honourable senators who vote against these measures that are trying to tighten up the legislation that the onus is on them to do something about it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.54) —It is a pity that Senator Harradine did not have an opportunity of finishing the remarks he was making because he was drawing them to a close, but his conclusion was not reached. I do not rise solely for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to speak again. I want to add one or two matters to the debate in support of the amendment I have moved. I listened with interest to the reasons given by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for not supporting it. His remarks were relevant only to my argument that a separation of one year was not adequate proof of irretrievable breakdown. I do not think his arguments really dealt with my other, and much more important, argument-that is, that we must establish a new attitude, a new approach, by many people to the institution of marraige and to the responsibilities they have in marriage. The idea that one can get out of a marriage by separating for 12 months does not induce an adequate sense of responsibility. I will refer to arguments that Senator Coleman and Senator Missen advanced because I feel there is a fundamental disagreement between their approach and mine on this issue. I was familiar with the legislation in force before the Family Law Act. At that time I had more practical experience in the area of matrimonial law at the work face so to speak. There was a growing view that the basic and only reason for divorce should be irretrievable breakdown of marriage. I agree with that proposition. There was also the rather simplistic idea that once a marriage had broken down it ought to be put to an end as swiftly as possible to give people the opportunity of building a new life or a new marriage, given that the children would be better off under those circumstances rather than suffering under a marriage which had broken down. That argument seems to be the foundation of the views that have been expressed in this debate, particularly by Senators Coleman and Missen. As I have said, this is a simplistic view because the fundamental question is one of how, when and why a marriage has irretrievably broken down. It is not simply a question of people separating and after a period of six months, 12 months or even two years-whatever period is adopted as law-saying that that means the marriage has broken down. The point is that marriages have their ups and downs. When problems arise in a marriage, even when separation occurs, it does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that the marriage has broken down. Our social buttressing of marriage, our law, needs to offer various inducements to encourage people to think again, to work together, to get help, to try to work out a more satisfactory relationship and thereby prevent the marriage breaking down. Many things need to be done. I do not by any means see this as the only solution. I agree with Senator Harradine. During this debate I have already mentioned the provision for compulsory counselling before people can get a divorce. The provision that they establish that they have tried such counselling is a very worthwhile one. I hope we will debate that matter further. I know there are resource problems associated with such a provision, but I think it is very worthwhile. Another amendment that I have moved seeks to tighten up that law by which people can easily overcome their financial problems when they divorce by resorting to various social welfare benefits. That makes things much easier for people. Obviously one of the problems in the past has been the financial problems that people face when they separate and divorce. We have made it far too easy for them by enabling the problem to be very largely solved by the taxpayer. There are a number of matters on which new policies need to be adopted in order to buttress marriage, to induce people to try to co-operate to solve their problems and to reconcile. One thing I was very concerned about when I was responsible for administering this Act was the attitude of the court counsellors who seemed to see their role as being concerned not with attempting reconciliation but simply with helping people over the stile towards divorce. I know that they do a very worthwhile job; I am not criticising their work. But I am very concerned, and I criticise that attitude, because I think much more attention must be given to counselling for reconciliation. I come back to the basic attitude which I think has been developing for many years, since long before the Family Law Act was brought into effect, namely, when people run into trouble with their marriages and are a bit unhappy and meet somebody else, they put an end to that marriage and marry again because it is better for the parties and for the children and because everyone will then live happily ever after. The fact is that that is not proving to be the case. It might be a wonderful humanistic notion and at one stage it might have been a very attractive proposition, but the statistics now show that second mariages have about a 50 per cent failure rate. What is the point of all this great humanism if in fact it is not working and people have only a 50 per cent chance of being happier as a result of divorce and remarriage? I believe all those considerations are most important in support of this amendment. I think this amendment is not itself by any means an answer. It has to be coupled with other propositions which have been before the chamber in this debate and which have also yet to be considered in this debate, but I think it goes to the central feature of the Family Law Act. If it were passed by the Parliament, which I hope it will be, it would have a very significant effect in buttressing the institution of marriage. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.03) —Mr Chairman- Senator Gareth Evans —Oh, give it a rest, Noel. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I will be brief for the convenience of everybody but the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I think the amendment has been canvassed fully and effectively, but it has always struck me that almost all amendments to this Act since 1975 have been designed primarily to make divorce less painful and more convenient and comfortable for the partners. Of course, there are those who will always argue that that is desirable while there are those who take the contrary view. There seems to be little in the Act which really directly seeks to strengthen the bonds of marriage. Is there anything unattractive or unreasonable about maintaining the strength of the bonds of marriage and the implications of marriage? Most of the amendments have dealt with overcoming the problem of a pending divorce rather than looking at the contract at the outset. I have always taken the view that the greater the consequences of the contract, the greater the care a prudent person will take before entering into the contract, whether it be a marriage or any other contract. I have heard no argument so far which in any way convinces me that a 12-month period of separation is far superior for the maintenance of the institution of marriage than a 24-month period of separation. I believe there ought to be a responsibility upon the lawmakers to place greater social awareness and greater social conscience upon the implications of marriage and what it represents. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment) be added. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Archer, B. R Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Martin, K. J. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Missen, A. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reid, M. E. Foreman, D. J. Reynolds, M. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Hill, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 21 agreed to. Clause 22 (Guardianship and Custody). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.12) —I move: (21) Page 14, lines 33 to 41, leave out proposed sub-sections 60A (1) and (2), the following sub-sections: '' '60A. (1) A person who is the guardian of a child under this Act has responsibility for the long-term welfare of the child and has, in relation to that child, all the powers, rights and duties that are, apart from this Act, vested by law or custom in the guardian of a child, other than- (a) the right to have the daily care and control of the child; and (b) the right and responsibility to make decisions concerning the daily care and control of the child. '(2) A person who has or is granted custody of a child under this Act has- (a) the right to have the daily care and control of the child; and (b) the right and responsibility to make decisions concerning the daily care and control of the child.''. This is an amendment to proposed sub-sections 60A (1) and (2) of the Bill, which describe the right to custody of a child. The language in the original draft of the amendment was in terms of the right to the possession of a child as being the appropriate definition of the right to custody. Since the amendments were first formulated the Watson Committee Report of November 1982 has come down, dealing with the subject of wardship, guardianship and custody, among other things. A subsequent rethinking of that report so far as this recommendation is concerned has made it clear that the appropriate language in which to describe custody and guardianship is not 'the possession of the child' but rather 'the right to have the daily care and control of the child' and 'the right and responsibility to make decisions concerning the daily care and control of the child'. All that we propose in this further amendment is to employ language which is rather more satisfactory in describing the nature of that relationship. I believe that the amendment is uncontroversial and I commend it to the Committee. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.14) —I support this amendment and announce that I propose not to withdraw my amendments which on the consolidated list are Nos (28 ), (29) and (30). They were originally part of the alternative proposal which the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act put up in respect of the definition of these matters. The Committee had in mind also that a wardship provision might be included. The Watson Committee has not favoured the resurrection of the rather ancient language of wardship and I think that the amendment that the Attorney-General has now moved is in accord with the fairly sound report of the Watson Committee, which was headed by a judge with a fair amount of experience in this matter. There is, I think, some criticism. Some judges and others do not hold the view that the Watson proposals are necessarily the best. I think that on the whole, the Watson proposals overcome and widen the definition of what is involved in custody. They do not bring antique language back into the Act which otherwise might be included. Consequently, I do not propose to move amendments Nos (28), (29) and (30) in my name. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.15) —When I went through the original amending Bill I questioned that part which dealt with the possession of the child. I am glad that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has remedied that situation. I wonder whether the Attorney will give me a brief explanation of a matter I wish to raise. Even in the amendment to clause 22 there appears to be a distinction between the guardian and the person who has custody. The amendment seems to say that the guardian spouse will have the power and the custodial spouse will have the responsibility. I should like an explanation of that because, if that is the case, it could engender an enormous amount of unnecessary anger and enmity between the parents, the parties, to the detriment of the child. Can the Attorney explain that to the Committee? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.17) —The essential distinction is that the long term welfare decisions are the responsibility of the guardian. The day to day care and responsibility in the short term sense is inherent in the conception of custody. Very often the two concepts will, of course, overlap but in some circumstances it is appropriate to draw a distinction. To the extent that one can draw a distinction on the particular facts of the situation, that is the essence of it. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 23 and 24-by leave-taken together. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.18) —The Leader of the Australian Democrats ( Senator Chipp) will not be moving his proposed amendment to clause 24 as a result of discussions that have been held today. Arrangements will be made to incorporate part of the intention of that proposed amendment elsewhere in the legislation. Clauses agreed to. Clause 25 (Powers of court in custodial proceedings). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.19) —My amendment is to section 64 of the principal Act. I move: (22) Page 16, before paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraph: ''(a) by omitting from sub-section (1) 'In proceedings with respect to', and substituting 'When considering'.''. I have moved this amendment because I believe that the judge should have regard to the welfare of the children not just in custody proceedings but when considering any custody-related matters. This applies to undefended cases, to divorce by post, or whatever. Whenever the judge is considering the welfare of the children the following guidelines that have been set out by both the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and by some of my amendments should be taken into consideration. I believe that that small amendment is not controversial. I am quite sure the Attorney will agree to that little request. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.20) —I am always very sad to disappoint Senator Walters but I must do so on this occasion because lurking beneath that small and, on the face of it, semantic point she seeks to make is in fact a change of some considerable magnitude, as I rather suspect the honourable senator is not entirely unaware. The effect of the amendment can be described as follows: At present when granting a divorce the court has to be satisfied that proper arrangements are made for the children, otherwise the decree nisi cannot become absolute. Senator Walters's amendment would require the court, when it is so satisfying itself, to look at the matters contained in section 64 (1) of the parent Act. These matters include children's wishes and, indeed, the whole range of custody criteria. This obligation being imposed upon the court would result in an impossible burden being placed on the court when granting divorces. So much evidence would be needed to satisfy the section 64 (1 ) tests that the court would have to apply that the divorce granting process would simply break down. Senator Durack —You mean they would have to work a bit harder at it? Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me describe why. Of the 44,000 divorces that were granted in 1982, we calculate that 27,158 involved children. So we are talking about something like 27,000 divorces last year and, presumably, this year the same order of magnitude of cases will involve children. However, in that same year-1982-only about 1,000 custody applications were fully heard by the Family Court of Australia and by the Family Court of Western Australia in Western Australia. About 10 per cent of the custody cases filed as disputed actually went to hearing. It was in these 1,000 cases that the court had to apply the criteria set out in section 64 (1) and Senator Walters would now have the court have regard to such criteria in every divorce case involving the presence of children. So what is now occupying the time of the court in but 1,000 cases a year would, if Senator Walters's amendment succeeds, would occupy the court in something like 27,000 cases. If the court were to discharge its legal duty under the terms of the Act as it would be rewritten with Senator Walters's minor semantic amendment the court would, in fact, have that obligation. There are further considerations about the burden this would impose upon the parties, particularly those who act for themselves in dissolution cases. The complexity of the application of those custody criteria and the complexity involved in their application in a particular case would, on the whole, require a higher level of legal skills than the most unrepresented parties would obviously be able to bring to bear in these cases. It is simply unrealistic in all the circumstances to impose that burden upon the courts and the parties. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.24) —I really was not prepared for the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) to tell us tonight that it is too great a burden for the judges of the Family Court to have to be fully satisfied that the rights and the best interests of the children are protected. I am well aware that section 63 states that the judge must be satisfied that 'proper arrangements in all the circumstances have been made for the welfare' of the children. But if that is to be done correctly the judges must take note of the guidelines that have been set down for any reasonable consideration of custody. It was one of the recommendations of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act from which Senator Missen is so very keen to quote and which he seems to consider as his bible. Let us look at what the Committee said. There has been considerable criticism of various judges, and their determinations and prejudices when considering custody arrangements. The Committee said: Criticism is sometimes levelled at the subjectivity of judges who are accused of allowing personal prejudices to determine their decisions. It has even been said that it is the list clerks of the courts who determine the outcome of custody cases. The presence of such uncertainty and the opportunities for appeal that this gives rise to under the present Act is considered one of the reasons for the proliferation of applications for custory. If an uncontested case comes before the court, people may make it convenient for themselves and not act in the best interests of the children. If the judge is not enforced to look at the guidelines set down by legislation, and he is able to allow and, indeed, allows his personal prejudices to determine his decisions, we are not responding to our responsibilities in this place. The evidence received by the Committee showed that judges' decisions vary considerably and that they respond to their own prejudices. It is imperative that guidelines be set down in the legislation which say to the judge: 'This, this and this must be taken into consideration if the best interests of the child are to be maintained '. If the Government says that in a contested case the judge must take more trouble to determine the rights and the well being of the children than in an uncontested case, it is discriminating against the children of the non-contested custody cases by saying that the judge really does not have to show much concern for their well being; it is left entirely to him, without any guidelines. If the case is contested the judge has to take considerable trouble and must abide by the guidelines set down by legislation. There is no justification in that situation whatsoever. Senator Gareth Evans has said that 27,000 marriages involving children were dissolved. As I have said, the Family Law Act is a very convenient divorce law for parents. It is horrendous for the children. I do not care one jot if it takes a little more time in the courts as long as justice for the children is maintained. I was completely unprepared for the very cynical reply of the Attorney-General when he said that the courts have neither the time nor the money to go into the detail of determining whether children will be looked after in the best possible way. I am rather appalled by the Attorney-General's attitude. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.30) —It is most curious that Senator Walters appears somewhat to regret that I am taking an interest in the provisions of the report which is the basis of this legislation, and for which she and I are, in nearly all of its recommendations, jointly responsible, having voted for and signed the report. Senator Walters quoted the first half of paragraph 4.49 and left out the rest of it. Of course, what happens then is that that paragraph leads to a recommendation by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. The Committee recommendation is that there should be-and this is all that could be done-some guidelines set out as to matters to be considered by the courts in determining questions of custody. We set out a number of those. What the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has done in his Bill is to set out in somewhat different form-but there is not basically much difference-certain matters which are to be taken into account. That is what that clause is related to. Senator Walters —Of course it is. Senator MISSEN —All right. Well, why is Senator Walters using it on a different matter altogether? In fact, it is relevant to the next part of this clause in the Bill; the Attorney-General has put it there. All the Committee suggested could be done was that guidelines be put in that might qualify the custody situations; and they are in the Bill as recommended. Senator Walters —That is right. Senator MISSEN —I do not know why Senator Walters was using that criticism. She quoted from that report a few introductory remarks of criticisms that were made about judges, and so forth. We did not say that they were justified, or anything of that sort. Some criticisms of judges are, at times, probably justified; others are misunderstandings; others are the words of disappointed parties. We went on to reach a conclusion and make a recommendation, which has been substantially and, I think, fairly faithfully reported, and is in the Bill. It does not justify Senator Walters's arguments for this amendment, and I support the Attorney-General's rejection of it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.31) —I entirely agree with Senator Walters's amendment. I think that it is entirely consistent with the provisions of section 43 of the legislation, which requires the Family Court to have regard to the need to protect the rights of children and to promote their welfare. It is consistent with that, and I support it. Amendment negatived. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.32) —by leave-I move: (23) Page 16, paragraph (b), after proposed new paragraph 64 (1) (b), insert the following new paragraph: '(baa) subject to paragraphs (a) and (b), the court shall, unless in the opinion of the court it is not practicable, make the order that, in the opinion of the court, is least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings with respect to the custody or guardianship of the child;'. (24) Page 17, paragraph (c), lines 6 and 7, leave out ''and substituting ', (b) and (ba)' '', insert ''and substituting ', (b), (baa) and (ba)' ''. The first part of amendment No. (23) and the latter part of amendment No. (24) are purely procedural, but the basis of the amendments is to put into section 64 of the Act another requirement for the court to consider in determining its decision. The new paragraph would insert: subject to paragraphs (a) and (b), the court shall, unless in the opinion of the court it is not practicable, make the order that, in the opinion of the court, is least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings with respect to the custody or guardianship of the child. This is a unanimous recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. In paragraph 4.48 of the Joint Committee's report the following is said : In order to reduce as far as possible the unnecessary bitter and prolonged custody and access proceedings, a new section 70A- That is a different number now- should be inserted in the Act providing that in proceedings with respect to the custody and guardianship of a child of a marriage, the court shall, as far as practicable make such orders as will avoid further proceedings. It goes on to say: The Committee does not believe it can go beyond this provision, nor be more specific than this if only for the reason that, in the case of access, it will always need changing much more than custody, and once a custody order is made proceedings can be brought, under recent authorities, by persons other than the parties to the marriage. I do not suggest that the change that is proposed is a world shattering change. Unfortunately, I understand that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is opposed to this proposal but I am really not able to understand why. Senator Gareth Evans —Keep talking, you never know your luck in a big city. Senator MISSEN —I can assure the Attorney that, as a member of the Joint Select Committee, I will press this matter to a division if necessary because I believe it is a desirable provision. The nature of the amendments we are making in the Bill, to section 64 do a number of things. They relate among other things, to the welfare and the wishes of the child. There is a very sensible amendment in regard to that. As I have already said, certain other considerations also must be taken into account. This provision is one whereby if it is possible, if it is practicable, the Court should endeavour to stop the continuance of custody proceedings and should try to settle the children in as fixed a position as possible. Undoubtedly, on the evidence the Committee received, there is a great deal to be said for children being in a fixed situation and, for example, for children being together with their siblings-that is, their brothers and sisters. Changing the situation of children from time to time or having a series of custody proceedings-we know such things have occurred over the years in the courts; they promote a great deal of bitterness between the parents and are very damaging to the psyche of the children-is to be avoided if possible and if practicable. This is merely a guideline to the Court suggesting that wherever it can make an order which, other things being equal, and taking into account the other matters in this section, will cut down on the litigation involving parents and the children, then this will be a desirable course. I urge the Committee to support this recommendation of Joint Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.37) —It is not often that I am intimidated by Senator Missen but I am afraid he does have me against the ropes with his threat to press this matter to a division. The basis of my objection was not particularly substantive, but simply that it was an unnecessary and merely cosmetic piece of frippery from the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and Senator Missen which did not add anything substantial to the sorts of criteria to be applied by the courts and the duties imposed upon them. But since I have no objection, after further consultation with representatives of the judiciary on this, and as I believe that it may in fact have some useful effect in helping to bring matters to finality in guardianship and custody proceedings, I indicate acceptance of Senator Missen's amendments. Amendments agreed to. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.38) —by leave-I move: (25) Page 16, paragraph (b), before proposed new sub-paragraph 64 (1) (ba) (i), insert the following new sub-paragraphs: ''(iaa) the relevant conduct, as parents, of the parents of the child; (iaab) the relevant conduct of any step-parents or persons sharing the care, control and guardianship of the child with the custodian; (iaac) the wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his custody;''. (26) Page 16, paragraph (b), after proposed new sub-paragraph 64 (1) (ba) (ii), insert the following new sub-paragraphs: ''(iia) if there is more than one child under consideration the effect of the separation on the children; (iib) the education and up-bringing of the child;''. As the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has already entered into consideration of a list of guidelines for judges to abide by in contested custody proceedings, I would also like to add a few. They are some of the guidelines put forward by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. The things to be taken into account are the relevant conduct of the parents; the relevant conduct of any step-parents or persons sharing care, control or guardianship of the child with the custodian; the wishes of the child's parent or parents as to custody; if more than one child is under consideration, the effect of the separation of the children; and the education and upbringing of the child. My consequential amendment follows on from that. As I said before, I believe that guidelines for judges to follow are necessary. The Joint Select Committee received considerable evidence that judges do allow personal prejudices to determine their decisions. I quote again from that Committee report: Criticism is sometimes levelled at the subjectivity of judges who are accused of allowing personal prejudices to determine their decisions. It has even been said that it is the list clerks of the courts who determine the outcome of custody cases. The presence of such uncertainty and the opportunities for appeal that this gives rise to under the present Act is considered one of the reasons for the proliferation of applications for custody. If the outcome of custody cases was more readily predictable by the parties their legal advisers and court counsellors, an inducement to settlement of disputes by negotiations between the parties would be provided. So the report goes on. I believe that if the people working in this area-the counsellors and the legal profession-and the parents of the child knew the exact situation and the guidelines that the judges must take into consideration there would be fewer applications for custody, fewer appeals, less bitterness and, I believe, the settlement of disputes would be more easily achieved. It amounts to the fact that, as I said a little earlier, the Family Court of Australia is for the convenience of parents. The no fault system is wonderful for the parents- absolutely ideal-but it does nothing for the children. It is because about 400, 000 children have been affected since this Act came in that I believe we must make it possible for judgments to be more uniform than at present. These guidelines, I am sure, will be instrumental in obtaining continuity in that area . Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.42) —I am attracted to this amendment. I think that it would, as Senator Walters said, establish criteria which would minimise, to the extent that it is possible, the somewhat inconsistent views taken by judges of the Family Court of Australia in custody cases. I feel that, besides the matters contained in the proposed amendment moved by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans), these guidelines proposed by Senator Walters would greatly assist judges in that respect. Let me retail them. The first, 'the relevant conduct, as parents of the parents of the child', surely is important when considering custody cases. The next two are 'the relevant conduct of any step-parents or persons sharing the care, control and guardianship of the child with the custodian' and 'the wishes of the child's parent or parents as to custody'. These seem to be self-evident, but it is clear from some decisions of the Family Court judges that they are not all guided by these sorts of guidelines. They may wish to be guided by them, but there may be pressure which may not always contribute to a clear and just decision in custody cases. I do not want to reflect on the integrity of the judges; it has been said quite clearly that they are under pressure. The next provides that if there is more than one child under consideration the judge must consider the effect of the separation on the children. That seems to me to be a self-evident guideline which ought to be applied in relation to the education and upbringing of the children. I believe the major point that Senator Walters made was that if these guidelines were stipulated in the legislation it is more likely that agreement would be reached between the parties as to custody. If the guidelines are there those advising the parties have a reference against which they can provide the advice to the parties. If the parties have advice and are conducting their own applications and so forth, they too have a reference against which they can make considerations of themselves and jointly in regard to the custody of their children. For those reasons I believe the amendments moved by Senator Walters should be welcomed and accepted by the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.46) —The amendments proposed by Senator Walters and supported by Senator Harradine do have merit to the extent that they seek to introduce criteria for the Court to apply in making a custody decision where hitherto no detailed criteria had existed. Up until now the test has simply seen that in the language of section 64 (1) of the Act the Court shall regard the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. Undoubtedly the Court has taken into account, in determining the welfare of the child, the conduct of the parents as parents and some of the other factors that have been mentioned, but it certaintly does no harm to spell out in some detail the kinds of considerations that really do make up that total concept of what is in the best interests of the welfare of the child. Indeed, that was the very motivation which led me, in picking up the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, to seek to write into clause 25 some detailed criteria. The only question before us is not the desirability of these sorts of criteria, because these criteria are now proposed to be put in there by the main substantive amendment which is before us, but whether it adds anything useful or intelligible to those criteria to go down the track that has been plotted for us by Senator Walters. I put it to the Committee that it is not useful to add the kind of criteria, the further criteria, that Senator Walters would have us add. Either they are quite unecessary or they are unintelligible or both. Let me document that particular contention. So far as Senator Walters' amendment No. ( 25) is concerned, she would have us have regard, in the first instance, to the relevant conduct as parents of the parents of the child. One possible ground of objection to that is that it does rather seem to be trying to sneak in through the back door elements of fault which arguably have no place in the Family Law Act at all. I would acknowledge- Senator Harradine —As parents. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. I ask that Senator Harradine allow me to finish my sentence. I do acknowledge that when one is focusing on the custody situation and the considerations going directly to the welfare of the child, the performance, the behaviour-if you like, the conduct-of the parents as parents in a parent-child relationship is relevant. I simply make the point that it is unnecessary to use that further language that Senator Walters proposes given, in particular, paragraph (iv) of sub-clause (ba) in new section 64 which we are proposing. Without confusing matters too much with that set of numerals, the phrase I have in mind is this: the capacity of each parent, or of any other person, to care adequately for the child; That concept of capacity of the parent does, I suggest, steer the Court directly in the direction of looking at and evaluating the behaviour and the capacity of the parent as a parent to do the job that a parent should, bearing in mind that this is not just a criterion expressed in the abstract but a criterion which sits there under the umbrella of an obligation on the Court to have paramount regard to the welfare of the child. Were that all that were in issue with Senator Walters's proposition in that respect maybe we could live with it. It is when we move down to her next criterion, that is, 'the relevant conduct of any step-parents or persons sharing care, control and guardianship of the child with the custodian' that we start to run into difficulties. I suggest the basic difficulty about this proposed sub- paragraph is that it is quite unintelligible. Who is the custodian for the purposes of the operation of this clause? Is Senator Walters referring to a person who had custody prior to or at the time of the proceedings in which this criterion is being applied or is she referring to an applicant for custody? The language in which this sub-paragraph has been drafted is quite obscure. Proposed new sub-paragraph (iaac) refers to the wishes of the child's parent or parents as to his custody. It is quite absurd to suggest the inclusion of a criterion of this kind to which the court should have regard because it is the very conflict of those wishes that causes the case to be before the court. It is only in the context of a contested custody matter in which the wishes of the respective parents are being fought over in the court that these matters will even arise. I suggest that at the very least it is quite redundant to have a criterion of the kind proposed in Senator Walters's amendment No.(25). We then get to her further amendment-amendment No. (26)-in which she suggests that a further criterion is separation from other children. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that that is already squarely covered by criterion (ii) in the Bill in which the court is obliged to take into account the effect on the child of any separation from either parent of the child or any child or other person with whom the child has been living. The separation from other children is squarely covered by the existing proposal in the Bill. The question of education which Senator Walters also wants us to have regard to is covered, albeit not specifically but certainly by the general language of criterion in (v ), namely any other fact or circumstance that, in the opinion of the court, the welfare of the child requires to be taken into account. I make it clear that I again understand the reasoning behind Senator Walters' amendment. I share her concern that there be detailed critera spelt out but I suggest, with every respect, that the drafting of the proposition she puts before us is a muddle. It would create more confusion than it would resolve. It is simply unnecessary, given the array of detailed criteria to which the court is obliged to have regard by virtue of the passage of the parent amendment that is now before the Committee. I suggest that her amendment be rejected accordingly. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.53) —I am rather amazed by the reaction of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to this amendment, particularly his reaction to the amendment moved previously by Senator Missen. To my mind, Senator Missen's amendment is of no significance whatsoever. I did not speak to it because I did not think it was worth any attention. If the Attorney wants to clutter up his Act with such a meaningless and pointless addition that is his business, but I did not think that we needed to worry about it. He saw fit to do so because he said it was something from the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. We know that the Committee's report which is the result of very careful consideration is a matter which certainly needs to be taken into account . Senator Walters brought forward some further amendments which I understand are also based on recommendations from the Committee. Senator Missen —That is correct. Senator DURACK —I expect Senator Missen to support these matters. Senator Missen —I am supporting them; I am not speaking on everything. Senator DURACK —I am pleased to hear that he does. I believe that the Attorney has got himself into a difficult position because he has decided to accept the Committee's recommendation to spell out criteria, but this whole exercise is showing how difficult it is to do so. I believe it would be better not to have embarked on this exercise at all but rather to have relied on the law as it has been developed and is developing in relation to the criteria. As the decision has been made to spell them out I think that a further attempt should be made to meet the points which the Committee has recommended and which Senator Walters has spelt out in her amendment. I concede that there seems to be some duplication in the amendments of Senator Walters and the criteria set out in the Bill. Nevertheless I feel that some quite relevant additions to those criteria arise from Senator Walters's amendments. As the Senate must shortly adjourn, I ask the Attorney-General to give further consideration to these amendments, to see whether additional criteria might not be usefully incorporated in the Bill. For instance, I do not think it is good enough, in spelling out criteria in a Bill, to say that a specific criterion-to take into account the education and upbringing of a child- is covered by Government amendment No. (21). Clearly, amendment No. (21) will cover almost all the other criteria anyway. But if the Attorney-General is to embark upon the exercise of spelling out criteria I think it ought to be done properly. I suggest that he give this matter more consideration. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.56) —I have no wish to cut the debate short at this crucial stage. I undertake to give it more consideration in the light of the comments made by Senator Durack. Progress reported. The PRESIDENT —The following message has been received from the House of Representatives: Message No. 68 Mr President, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day and requests the concurrence of the Senate therein: That the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform be amended: (a) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph: '(3A) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.', and (b) by omitting paragraph (14), as amended, and substituting the following paragraphs: '(14) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (14A) That the committee report as soon as possible.'. H. A. JENKINS Speaker House of Representatives, Canberra, 7 September 1983 Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That consideration of message No. 68 be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Some three months ago I introduced into the Senate a Bill by this title. The major purpose of that Bill was to give effect to this Government's election undertaking to recover personal tax avoided by former owners of companies that were the subject of 'bottom-of-the-harbour' schemes. In addition, the Bill was designed to strengthen and improve in several identified areas the legislation passed by the Parliament last year to recoup the company tax that was evaded by the use of these schemes. Honourable senators will recall that the Bill was defeated on a tied vote in this House. As foreshadowed by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech the Government is now submitting to the Parliament, as an important part of the Budget, a Bill that covers essentially the same ground as the earlier one but which has been changed in significant respects. The principal change concerns the measure of personal tax to be recovered. Under the earlier Bill, former owners of a stripped company were to be made liable for personal tax on the total after-tax accumulated profits effectively received by them as part of the price received for the sale of their shares. The Government has now decided that the recovery of personal tax should be confined to such tax avoided in respect of the liberated after-tax profits of those years of income where evasion of primary company tax was involved. In short, the personal tax measures will apply to 'current-year' profits. This limitation will mean that personal tax avoided in respect of profits of earlier years that had borne primary company tax will not be within the scope of the legislation as now proposed. Similarly personal tax is not to be recouped in respect of any capital profits of the stripped company, regardless of the year of income in which such profits were derived. Another significant aspect of the proposed limitation is that a liability for avoided personal tax will not arise in respect of any year of income where the only company tax evaded for that year was undistributed profits tax under Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I mention also that the time-to-pay , free of interest, facility included in the earlier Bill has been retained in the present Bill. The Government believes that, with the changed basis of measuring the liability for personal tax together with retention of the time-to- pay facility, the legislation is now in a form which responds adequately to the points made by honourable senators in the debate on the earlier Bill. Mr President, subject to one exception, the present Bill proposes to strengthen and improve the company tax recoupment measures in the same areas as were proposed in the earlier Bill. The exception concerns the proposal under the earlier Bill to simplify the procedures that require copies of notices of company assessments be served on a range of former owners. The passage of time has reduced the administrative advantages which that proposal was designed to provide and has obviated the need for the amendments. The Government has therefore decided not to proceed with these. For the reasons connected with the grounds of a recent constitutional challenge in the High Court to the validity of the recoupment tax legislation, and about which I will have something to say later, this Bill now proposes a variation to earlier amendments to an evidentiary provision of the recoupment tax legislation. I turn now to the details of the Bill. Measures to Recover Personal tax By far the greater part of this Bill is related to amendments to give effect to our decision that the restitution expected of those persons who benefited from the sale of shares in companies that were stripped of pre-tax profits should not be limited to the tax that ought to have been paid by the companies concerned. Rather, those persons should also pay the tax that, as shareholders or other former owners, they escaped through receipt in a non-taxable capital form of after-tax profits that, if the companies had continued to operate as going concerns, would have been taxable as dividends in their hands. As I mentioned earlier, the recovery of personal tax will, however, be confined to the tax related to after-tax revenue profits of the stripped company for those years of income in respect of which primary company tax was evaded. In our view it is quite beyond argument that the revenue is just as entitled to have these tax losses made good as it is to have the lost company tax made good. This Bill will accordingly insert in the recoupment tax law rules to be applied to fix the liability of former owners of a stripped company for personal income tax on those profits on which primary company tax was evaded. Broadly, these rules will require a former owner of a stripped company to pay income tax on the basis that the company has paid a dividend to the former owner at the time of sale of the shares. The amount of this imputed dividend will be the same proportion of the company's after-tax taxable income for the year of income in respect of which primary company tax was evaded as the proportion of the sale consideration recieved by that owner. The amount of after-tax taxable income will be determined after allowance has been made for the unpaid ordinary company tax that is to be recouped under the existing legislation, as proposed to be amended . The Bill provides that a dividend will be deemed to have been paid in circumstaces where the former owner of a company is liable to make good unpaid company tax on the company's taxable income, that is, where there is a liability for vendors recoupment tax in relation to ordinary company tax or there would have been such a liability if any payments of such tax made after 25 July 1982 were disregared. That date is, of course, the date on which the former Government announced its intention to legislate to recover unpaid company tax escaped through 'Bottom-of-the-harbour' schemes. This qualifications is necessary to ensure that the liability for escaped personal income tax will not be avoided by simply making a payment of the company tax in pursuance of the former Government's announcement or of the legislation enacted last year. The requirement that there exists or, but for payments of company tax, would exist a liability for vendors recoupment tax means, that where the liability for that tax is or would be less than $100 and the Commissioner of Taxation exercise his power under the existing law not to pursue the liability, there will be no liability for the relatively small amounts of personal income tax that would otherwise be liable to be recouped. Where the former owner concerned is a natural person the imputed dividend is to be included in his or her assessable income. In the case of any entity not itself subject to income tax on the dividend by reason of its tax exempt status or, in certain cases, the inter- company dividend rebate, the imputed amount will of course be treated as tax- free income in the hands of that entity. Where a company, or a person as trustee of a trust, is allocated a divident that is deemed to have been paid by a stripped company and the owners of that company, or the beneficiaries of that trust, are the same persons as the former owners of the stripped company at the date of its sale, the company or trustee will, in the first instance, be liable to pay dividend recoupment tax on the dividend at the maximum personal rate applicable to the year of income in which the sale of shares occurred. However, there is to be a right for former owners in this situation to elect to be taxed on amounts equal in total to the amount of the dividend deemed to have been received by the company or trust concerned. If this election is made, and the Commissioner is satisfied that the allocation of the deemed dividend among former owners is reasonable and that personal tax, if any, payable by the former owners will, subject to the hardship relief provisions of the income tax law, be paid by them, the interposed company or trust will be freed from its liability for dividend recoupment tax. In a similar fashion a stripped company will, where a liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax exists, be freed from its liability for the income year concerned for undistributed profits tax payable under Division 7, and the former owners will accordingly no longer be liable for vendors recoupment tax on an unpaid Division 7 liability for that year. As already mentioned a liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax will not exist in relation to the profits of a particular year of income where the only unpaid company tax for that year giving rise to a liability for vendors recoupment tax is a liability for undistributed profits tax under Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. As with the existing recoupment tax law it will be possible under the provisions being inserted by this Bill to trace from the primary level to the next level and, as necessary, successively to further levels where a company or trust has ceased to exist, has different shareholders or beneficiaries as a result of shares or beneficial interests having been sold, or is unlikely to be able to meet a liability for dividend recoupment tax on the dividend which is deemed to have been paid to it. The automatic tracing process applicable in this case will continue until a dividend is deemed to have been paid to a natural person-for tax-free entity referred to earlier-or to a company or trust that still exists if, in the latter situations, the company or trust is one the ownership of which has not changed since the stripped company was sold and has the capacity to met the dividend recoupment tax payable. A significant feature of the Bill is the provision of a time-to-pay facility in relation to the personal income tax and dividend recoupment tax liabilities which are to be imposed by this and an associated Bill. This provision is modelled on an existing facility-which is to be retained in a modified form- which permits former owners of companies who are liable to pay a share of unpaid company tax to meet that liability by instalments, typically over 12 months without late payment penalty being charged. Initially, the Government proposed that the existing facility be abolished from a date to be proclaimed. On review, we accepted and still accept that the particular facility for time-to-pay should be retained and indeed extended so that a liablity for dividend recoupment tax and related personal tax may also be paid over 12 months without attracting additional tax for late payment. The modification of the existing facility I referred to a moment ago is to impose a strict limitation to 12 months as the period for which an arrangment to pay unpaid company tax may be made. Similarly, the proposed facility in relation to personal tax and dividend recoupment tax will require full payment to be made within a period of 12 months if the penalty -free concession is to be attracted. An application for time to pay personal income tax or dividend recoupment tax in respect of a share of a stripped company's profits will need to be made within 30 days after service of the notice of assessment relating to that liability. Post-sale Avoidance Schemes The recoupment tax legislation contains a let-out provision that operates where the stripped company was the subject of an unsuccessful post-sale scheme to avoid tax. Under this escape clause there is no liability to recoupment tax liability on the people who benefited by non-payment of the company tax. This provision was inserted by the former Government for reasons which are best known to it. In our view it defies logic and it is our announced policy to abolish it. This is to be done by the Bill. Pre-sale Avoidance Schemes Consistently with the removal of the post-sale avoidance scheme provision, this Bill will also ensure that, in ascertaining the potential tax liability of a company for the purpose of determining whether the recoupment tax legislation applies in relation to it, any pre-sale scheme which is ultimately established to be ineffective of its tax avoidance purpose is to disregarded. There are several further amendments contained in the Bill designed to improve the administration of the legislation or to correct technical deficiencies. The Bill proposes to remove one of the pre-conditions to liability for recoupment tax-the requirement that the company was by a stripping scheme rendered unable to pay its tax-which was inserted by the previous Government, it seems for presentational purposes. The element that the requirement expresses is, in substance, present in all cases of pre-tax profit stripping to which the legislation applies and a specific reference to it is quite unnecessary. The ' stripping scheme test', and an associated provision requiring full disclosure by the Commissioner of known details of it, is being exploited by some taxpayers as a means of delaying issue of recoupment tax assessments. Because of their availability as a pure delaying tactic, the provisions are having and will, unless removed, continue to have an adverse effect on revenue. It is also proposed by this Bill to re-insert in the recoupment tax legislation a provision removed by the previous Government which authorised the Commissioner of Taxation to report to this Parliament the names of persons who fail to meet their liability for vendors or promoters recoupment tax. The Commissioner is already required to provide in his annual report to Parliament details of breaches or evasions of the taxation laws and it is consistent with that duty that he be authorised, where he considers it appropriate, to report details of failure to pay recoupment tax. Finally, I explain an amendment I touched on earlier. An existing provision of the recoupment tax legislation that reflects the settled policy of the tax law in these matters seeks to ensure that persons liable for recoupment tax can only contest the correctness of the underlying company assessment through the established objection and appeal procedures against the company assessment itself. For this purpose it provides that a certificate specifying the amount of a company's liability to company tax is to be conclusive evidence except in an appeal concerning the assessment of the company. Some technical deficiencies in the provision were to be corrected by the Bill that was defeated earlier in the year and the Government has, with an eye to a particular constitutional question , now decided to make some other amendments as well. Honourable senators will know that the recoupment tax legislation has been under constitutional challenge , on a number of grounds. One of them concerns the evidentiary provision and reflects a legal argument that the Commonwealth cannot validly levy a tax that is uncontestable. It is said that there are circumstances where a certificate that is conclusive evidence would render the tax uncontestable. Obviously it cannot be predicted what decision the High Court will reach on the particular point but the Government has concluded that it should solve the difficulty by legislating so that the certificate represents only prima facie evidence, with the result that the matters that are the subject of it will therefore clearly not be uncontestable. In providing to that effect the Bill also proposes that such a certificate would in appropriate circumstances represent conclusive evidence if a provision in the Bill that re-instates its conclusive nature were to be proclaimed. A decision on whether to make the proclamation, and thus have the provision revert to the conclusive evidence form that is reflective of settled policy, will be made in the light of any High Court decision on the underlying constitutional point. Mr President, the revenue implications of these amendments in the context of the Budget are significant. The measures contained in the Bill are estimated to yield $270m in total and $60m in 1983-84, and they should be given the approval of the Parliament. As usual with amendments of the taxation laws, an explanatory memorandum giving details of the amendments contained in the Bill is being circulated to honourable senators. It will be clear that while the Government stands by the principles of the earlier Bill, it has nevertheless been prepared to modify its stance to meet all reasonable criticisms of the original measures. In that light, I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Mr David Combe-Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority-Telegram Expenses of Member for Kingston-Excise on Grape Spirit The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 11 p.m., under sessional order I put the question : That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(11.00) —On page 2 of the Australian of today's date there is an article headlined 'Combe denies Communist tag'. This article deals with responses given by Mr David Combe to cross-examination in the hearings of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies of 6 September. Mr Combe told the Commission that he had indicated to the Northern Territory Government that it would be accepted as a client in his lobbying business only with the approval of the Australian Labor Party Opposition in the Territory. In reporting the relationship of members of the ALP in the Northern Territory the Australian stated: Though Mr Combe did not claim Mr Collins- he is the Leader of the Opposition of the Northern Territory- gave his blessing to this business deal he had the approval of current Northern Territory members of the House of Representatives and the Senate who are in the ALP. I cannot speak for Mr Collins, MHA, or Mr Reeves, MHR, but I would like to place on record the fact that I was not contacted by Mr Combe prior to his acceptance of the Northern Territory Government as a client. Reports in the media would suggest that my colleague Mr Reeves opposed the utilisation by the Northern Territory Government of Mr Combe's services as a lobbyist. I make this comment because Mr Reeves is at present overseas on parliamentary business and unable to respond personally at this time. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.03) —There is a matter I wish to raise with the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) concerning an answer to a question she gave on 25 August last. In relation to the Australian Capital Territory school system, the Minister pointed out that there was an additional sum in the Budget this year, a real increase of $300,000 . I quote from Hansard of 25 August what she went on to say: I have already had discussions with the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority as to how that money can best be spent to overcome defects in Australian Capital Territory Schools. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is an independent body which conducts its business under an ordinance of the Austalian Capital Territory and it is in the best position to make decisions as to the allocation of that money. The Minister in that statement was clearly conveying to the Senate that the Schools Authority was in the best position and had the right to determine how that money was to be spent. It is a fact that pursuant to the Schools Authority Ordinance, section 6, sub-paragraph (iii), the Authority must 'perform its functions in accordance with any directions given by the Minister'. From the Press release of the Schools Authority of 26 August, it is in fact apparent that the Minister did direct the Authority as to how to spend the $300,000, but for some reason she was not prepared to tell the Senate that she had done so. The Schools Authority in its deliberations had clearly determined that the top priority for any additional funding available in the Australian Capital Territory was to be for the improvement of the resourcing formula for schools. The Press statement that I have referred to says: In making this recommendation, the Authority took into consideration the Government's decision that funds should not be applied to improving the resourcing formula for schools. The Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, Dr Richard Campbell said: 'This means that the Authority cannot begin reducing class sizes in Kindergarten and Years 1 and 2 despite its being the Authority's top priority.' The Authority was disappointed at the amount allocated for initiatives. The priorities it proposed involved a 2 per cent real increase in resources covered; reduction of class sizes in kindergarten; 'cushioning' the effects of declining enrolments in small schools; further implementation of the resource teacher scheme; computer education for high schools; full provision of English-as-a- Second-Language services; integration of early childhood services and restructuring of secondary school curricula. At its special Budget meeting yesterday the Authority expressed regret that the National Government had become involved in deciding matters of local detail. The Authority believes that within broad policy guidelines, local educational priority setting should be left to the statutory authority whose members have direct knowledge of, and are responsible for meeting, the educational needs of Canberra. As a result of the Minister's directive to the Authority, it has now recommended to the Minister what apparently she wanted it to recommend to her-that the $300, 000 be spent as follows: Computer education $172,000; resource teachers $92,000; curricula for youth $20,000; and early childhood $16,000, a total amount of $300 ,000. It is very clear to me, from the correspondence I have been getting recently in my office, that many parents regard the resourcing formula-that is, class sizes, especially in the early years of schooling-as having a very high priority. They seek to have changes made so that there is a reduction in kindergarten and primary school sizes. It is very clear from the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority's own Press statement that it regards as its top priority the reduction of class sizes in kindergarten and years 1 and 2. I think the electorate is entitled to know why the Minister rejects class sizes as an important issue and has directed the Authority to ignore its own selected top priority. I think this chamber is entitled to know why the Minister misled the Senate by not disclosing that she had directed the Authority as to how the additional money should be spent, in spite of her assertion that the Authority was best equipped to determine how the money should be spent. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.07) —This afternoon during Question Time in the Senate I raised the matter of the new Australian Labor Party member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) running up a $10,000 telegram bill in one day, all at the taxpayer's expense. I told Mr Bilney that I would be speaking on this matter in the Senate tonight and I see that he is present in the gallery. In order to save time and to set out a brief account of this extraordinary incident, I ask leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard an article dated 7 August from the Adelaide Sunday Mail. I have shown it to the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh). Leave granted. The article read as follows- The Kingston quickstep One-time career diplomat and, latterly, Labor MP, Mr Gordon Bilney, is, on occasion, somewhat less than diplomatic. The former High Commissioner to Kingston-Jamaica-turned Federal member for Kingston-south-western suburbs- recently made what would be politely referred to in the cercle diplomatique as a faux pas avec volte face rapide. Or, in other words, the $8000 boo-boo and the $1200 quickstep. Being a loyal friend, Mr Bilney was concerned at the ignominious fate which befell the former Special Minister of State, Mr Mick Young, and promptly sent off telegram to the other 104 Labor MPs saying so. Actually, the words he used were: ''Increasingly dismayed.'' Among the other 480 words in the 104 telegrams flying about the country were: ' 'At the least, some key decisions which have been taken seem to have involved a considerable degree of over-reaction . . . I include the decision to accept Mick Young's resignation.'' Other words included ''air of total unreality,'' ''whole fantasy'' and '' incumbent on people of common sense to stand up.'' None of those, of course, are exactly tactful things to say about your boss- especially not when he's going to read them in one of the 104, 480-word telegrams you've been sending all round the place. Which, perhaps, is why a second telegram was sent a short time later- only 55 words this time-which started out: ''Dear Colleague, on reflection, I think I have been somewhat hasty . . . '' According to Telecom, the cost of a 480-word telegram is $79.80-multiplied by 104, equals $8299.20. Admitting to being ''somewhat hasty'' is cheaper-$11.80 a time, of a mere $1227 if you want to tell 104 people about it. Asked yesterday who would be picking up the bill, Mr Bilney said: ''Well, one is entitled to an allowance for telegrams and that sort of thing.'' But not from Mr Hawke. Senator TEAGUE —I thank the Senate. Not only members of this Parliament but also the electors of Kingston are concerned about this matter. The answer given by the Government to the question I asked this afternoon is not satisfactory. Certainly it does not satisfy me, nor, I suggest, does it satisfy most members of this Senate. My question was directed to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), representing the Special Minister of State, as this Minister is responsible for the office and other facilities, such as telegrams, provided to members of parliament. However, in an unusual step, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) intervened instead because it was regarded by the Government as a matter to be taken very seriously at a wider level. I appreciate the genuine and serious answer that the Leader of the Government in the Senate gave to me and to the Senate. The Minister acknowledged that it was a gross abuse of the taxpayers' money. Nevertheless, I was not satisfied with this serious answer. Meanwhile the Government back bench senators were all deathly quiet. They had all received the offending telegrams at a cost of about $100 each and they recognised that a lot was wrong. The Leader of the Government said that his response was immediate. He had put Mr Bilney on the mat and reprimanded him for such an expensive abuse of the facilities paid for by the taxpayers. Senator Button said that he had demanded an explanation. This is where all credibility has to be suspended for it is lacking in this part of the answer, on the part of both the Government and Mr Bilney. The excuse given, and weakly given-I suspect that it is not really believed by Government members-is that Mr Bilney said that he thought the 208 messages he was sending were going by telex and not, as it turned out, by telegram. There are four reasons why this excuse cannot be believed. Whilst this directly reflects on Mr Bilney's lack of credibility, it also reflects on the credibility of the Government. Why did the Leader of the Government in the Senate put this up as an excuse which it appears the Government accepted? The Leader of the Government in the Senate put it up today in the Senate as an attempt at an explanation of what happened. The first reason for rejecting this explanation is that it was not Mr Bilney's first excuse. When asked by the Press about this at the time Mr Bilney said: Well, one is entitled to an allowance for telegrams and that sort of thing. There was no mention of telexes in that explanation. Moreover, this first excuse is misleading because it refers to an allowance. There is no such allowance. There is no concept of a limited grant allowing expenses on telegrams to be used according to the priorities of members of parliament. In fact there is no limit, there is no need for priorities for budgeting out an allowance, so-called, over the year. The second reason for rejecting the explanation-that is the second attempted explanation referring to telexes-is that all of us know that only very few senators and members actually have telex facilities. In answer to my question here today Senator Button said he did not know, but there might be only eight members who have telexes. But 104 members received $100 telegrams. The third reason for rejecting the explanation is that it is not possible to send telex messages to a list of addresses. They can be sent only to a list of telex numbers. It is true that the $100 telegrams could have been instead $13 telexes. That would still amount to well over $1,000 in the all up cost for the day's messages-that is, about one-seventh of the cost of the telegrams. But to achieve that there would have had to have been a long list of telex numbers, and these plainly just do not exist. The fourth reason for rejecting the explanation is that in any event why was it that when $8,000 had already been expended on the first bunch of telegrams the whole process was repeated on the same day? Surely his telexes which were mistaken for telegrams would have come to light by then. At the same time, can we believe that when there was so clear a risk of abusing $10,000 of the taxpayers' money, Mr Bilney did not take very cautious steps to ensure that extraordinary expense was not incurred? Probably what happened was this: Some of Mr Bilney's Australian Labor Party colleagues, offended by his telegrams attacking his own Prime Minister, rang up and said: 'I have your telegram and disagree with you. Why be so hasty?' Surely Mr Bilney knew that the first set were in fact telegrams. He then straightaway sent off the second set. The explanation is not an explanation. The new honourable member for Kingston could have avoided it all by plainly owning up to what he has done. Why the evasion? Why the unconvincing excuses? Why even try? At the same time, how is it that the Government seems to have accepted this explanation, which is no explanation at all? There is an entire lack of credibility on the part of Mr Bilney and on the part of the Government. Mr President, the lack of credibility shown by Mr Bilney in this matter of the $10,000 telegram bill is compounded by the same dearth of credibility in his response to the newly imposed tax on fortified wine, imposed a fortnight ago in the Budget introduced by his own Labor Government. The electors of Kingston have once again been misled by their new Labor member of parliament, Mr Bilney. He even refuses to admit that the new $15m per annum wine tax breaks his own and his Party's undertaking given before the election. He does not recognise that a substantial proportion of this tax will have to be paid by the wine industry in his electorate, in the McLaren Vale area, the Southern Vales, that produce some of South Australia's best fortified wines. Unrepentant, Bilney's assertion in Parliament, even after the bad news of the Budget was announced, was that the ALP promise of no wine tax had been 'completely honoured'. That is recorded on pages 272 and 273 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 25 August. Where is the credibility in this? Bilney, in trying to hide-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the honourable member use the prefix 'Mr'. Senator TEAGUE —Mr Bilney, in trying to hide from and confuse his electorate, is putting his own head in a barrel. But evading the facts is no escape for a politician. What will be the impact of the new tax on South Australia? The grape growers of South Australia will have to pay about $10m per annum in the new tax because two-thirds of Australia's grape spirit is produced in my State of South Australia. This directly undermines their livelihood. It directly undermines the well-being of their families and it directly undermines the viability of the whole industry. In addition, the new wine tax will be payable at the point of blending the fortified wines; that is, unless the Government relents and backtracks on its decision given the Opposition's pressure on it to do so. The tax is payable at the point of blending the fortified wines; that is, before the many years of wine maturation are completed; rather than at the point of sale. Consequently, an enormous additional burden for the wine industry will be the loss incurred in raising bridging finance to pay the tax some years before recovering some of it from the consumer. How will it raise the millions of dollars of bridging finance involved? What was the Australian Labor Party's promise that was made to help win Kingston at the last election? Let us remember that even with this promise, Kingston was won by the ALP by a voting margin of only 2 1/2 per cent. During the 1983 election campaign the Labor Party chose McLaren Vale, the southern part of the Kingston electorate in South Australia, as the place to announce the Labor policy for the wine industry. It was there, on 14 February, that the now Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, said: I pledge that Labor will not contemplate a wine tax. Beside him sat the candidate for Kingston, Mr Bilney, happy that that assurance could well win the support of the grape growers of the southern vales. This promise, to which Mr Bilney was party, has now been broken. The promise not to contemplate a wine tax now joins the long list of very clear and specific promises which the Labor Government has blatantly broken since coming to office six months ago. What is the nature of the new tax? The Budget last week imposed an excise tax on fortified wine. The new tax based on alcohol produced from grape spirit at the rate of $2.50 per litre of alcohol is a very severe blow to the many grape growers and wine producers of South Australia, not least those of McLaren Vale in the Kingston electorate. The new tax applies to ports, muscats, sherries, madeiras, vermouths, frontignacs, tokays and all other fortified wines. Not only has a promise been broken; in addition, Mr Bilney has not attempted to come clean with his electorate. Rather than admitting the truth- Senator Bolkus —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Tonight we are seeing nothing less than a scurrilous attack on the honourable member for Kingston. I put it to you that this well rehearsed written speech by the honourable senator, which I contend is in contravention of the Standing Orders, also offends Standing Orders in that it is offensive to a member of either the Senate or the House of Representatives, in this instance, the House of Representatives. I put it to you that this sort of scurrilous attack within the Parliament should not be allowed to continue. It reflects on the honourable member for Kingston. The PRESIDENT —In response to the point of order taken by Senator Bolkus, I draw Senator Teague's attention to the fact that there is a standing order which says that no senator shall read his speech. In response to the second part of the honourable senator's point of order I will listen carefully to Senator Teague's remarks. As far as I can see, he is still within the ambit of standing order 418 . I do not uphold that portion of the point of order. Senator TEAGUE —I am using careful notes. I acknowledge that this Parliament is a robust place in which its members ought to expect robust debate. If there is an offence to Government members opposite, they need to face up to their own statements and promises during the last election campaign and see whether their members are maintaining credibility. Mr Bilney, rather than admitting the truth that the promise not to introduce a wine tax was a trick to win, at any price, the vote of the wine and grape producers in the southern half of his electorate, told Parliament this week that the promise has, in fact, been kept. He claimed that the promise not to introduce a tax on wine has been 'completely honoured'. One can only ask now: Where is the credibility of the new Labor member for Kingston? Lest honourable senators disbelieve that the honourable member for Kingston could not be so ostrich-like, so adament in denying the facts of this new tax on fortified wines, I quote from his statements in the House of Representatives on the last sitting Thursday, that is the Thursday two days after the Budget. He made a personal explanation in response to remarks made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the member who represents South Australia's Barossa Valley, the Riverland and the Clare Valley. In a personal explanation aimed directly at this wine tax issue, he said: The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) in his remarks referred to the fact that I appeared on a platform with the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, in McLaren Vale during the election campaign. It is quite true that on that occasion I appeared on that platform. The promise was given to the wine industry that there would be no sales or excise taxes on wines. I regard that promise as being completely honoured as a result of this Budget. On the next page of Hansard, this statement appears: My point is simply that the honourable member for Wakefield seemed to imply that somehow I had misled the electorate of Kingston. I do not believe that the electorate was misled. I believe that the promise that I associated myself with has been completely honoured. I reject any implication that the Government has not honoured its obligations to the wine industry. I conclude by repeating this question: In light of this new $15m per year tax on fortified wine, where is the credibility of the new Labor member for Kingston, Mr Bilney? There is no credibility at all. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.22) —In response to the matters raised by Senator Reid, I am advised that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is a statutory authority with powers as set out in its ordinance. The Authority is fully independent in the general conduct and management of schools, for example, the school curricula and general policy. Nevertheless, the Schools Authority Ordinance gives the Minister powers of approval and direction over the Authority in a number of areas, in particular in the area of finance. It is necessary for the Authority to follow the general policy parameters set by the Government in its overall Budget strategy. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, has received the Authority's recommendations for the expenditure of the additional $300,000 that the Authority was given in the Budget. Senator Ryan is in the process of consulting with the Authority about those recommendations. I turn now to matters raised by Senator Teague, who had incorporated into Hansard some beat-up from the Adelaide Sunday Mail, which is another one of the Murdoch Sunday papers. I do not think I need really say any more about the calibre or credibility of Murdoch's Sunday papers. Senator Teague then supplemented the article with some of his own casuistry which was very tedious and boring at this time of night. I do not intend to delay the Senate much longer, but in view of Senator Teague's strong interest in the question of expenses incurred by members of Parliament I will endeavour to obtain information regarding expenditure on the particular facility to which he referred and other services such as car and air transport and charters and the use of parliamentary warrants to travel to country towns to provide professional services for personal gain. Where these expenses are clearly well above normal levels, I will seek to provide that information to the Senate at an appropriate time. I expect that some familiar names, well known perennial plunderers of the public purse, will crop up again when that information is presented to the Senate, and it might well be that the undertaker will be buried. In regard to the latter part of his speech and his allegations that Labor Party pre-election commitments were broken, the simple fact is that there is no tax on wine. An excise has been applied on spirit which is used for boosting the alcohol content of some wines. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.25 p.m. The following papers were presented: Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 149. Australian Capital Territory Representation (House of Representatives) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 154. Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 153. Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 157. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 143, 144. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 148. Health Insurance Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 152. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 145, 151. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 156. Northern Territory Representation Act and Commonwealth Electoral Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 155. Radiocommunications Licence Fees Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 146. Salaries and Wages Pause Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 150. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1983- No. 20-Building ( Amendment). No. 21-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 22-Hawkers (Amendment). No. 23-Dog Control (Amendment). No. 24-Weights and Measures (Amendment). No. 25-Money Lenders (Amendment) (No. 2). Regulations 1983- No. 6-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). No. 7-(Building Ordinance). No. 8-(Weights and Measures Ordinance). No. 9-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). Wireless Telegraphy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 147. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 229 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 2 June 1983: (1) How many research projects in the last three years by Australian scientists in the Antarctic have involved killing, wounding, capturing or molesting of any native mammal or native bird. (2) How many permits have been issued under the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act for killing, wounding, capturing or molesting of any native mammal or native bird. (3) For what purpose and to whom was each permit issued. (4) Will any persons who have killed, wounded, captured or molested any native mammal or native bird since the coming into force of the Antartic Treaty ( Environment Protection) Act be prosecuted under that Act if their activities were conducted without a permit. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1 to 3) Since the coming into operation of the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act in December 1980, a total of 17 permits have been issued in connection with research on the productivity and dynamic functioning of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. The information requested by Senator Mason concerning the names of permit holders, their affiliations, and the projects for which permits were granted is quite extensive and, hence, the Minister for Science and Technology has chosen to pass this information by letter to the honourable Senator. To the maximum extent possible, research on Antarctic wildlife utilises passive sampling techniques which do not place wildlife at risk. (4) The Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 provides strict legal controls for the protection of wildlife in Antarctica. Persons who unlawfully kill, take, injure or otherwise interfere with wildlife in contravention of the provisions of the Act will be prosecuted accordingly. Question No. 263 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Are oil tankers permitted to use the Prince of Wales Channel in the Great Barrier Reef; if so, do any restrictions or regulations apply to such use. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Prince of Wales Channel is the only suitable channel for large ships through Torres Strait and is used by oil tankers. Tankers generally are required to conform to a number of international conventions on the prevention of pollution and on ship safety. There are no special regulations for the Prince of Wales Channel. The Commonwealth Department of Transport's Marine Information Manual recommends that masters who are not familiar with Torres Strait waters and in particular masters of vessels with limited under keel clearance, embark a pilot of the Queensland Coast and Torres Strait Pilot Service for passage through these waters. Most oil tankers use the services of a pilot. Pilots require a minimum permissible under keel clearance for vessels up to 11.89 metres draught of 1 metre. For draughts of 11.89 metres to 12.2 metres the permissible under keel clearance is 10 per cent of the draught.