Thursday, 6 October 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: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 55 citizens), Childs (from 37 citizens) and Richardson (from 34 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 Covenant 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. (5) Subjecting Australia to monitoring and control by foreign nations. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 59 citizens) and Lewis (from five 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 the Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme (TEAS Allowance) has been progressively reducing in real terms throughout the 1980s, and is no longer at an adequate subsistence level. 2. that the situation where the independent TEAS allowance is substantially below the single, no dependant, unemployment benefit is inequitable and not supportable by cost relativities. 3. that the low level of TEAS allowance is detrimental to maintaining the proportion of students currently partaking in tertiary education. 4. that effective immediately the TEAS allowance should be increased to the same level as the single unemployment benefit and thereafter be maintained in line with changes in said benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 73 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That in 1911, as part of its new responsibility for the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth accepted a binding legislative commitment to construct a railway from Adelaide to Darwin-a promise which has never been fulfilled. The lack of essential transport links has had, and continues to have, serious consequences for the economic and social development for the Northern Territory, and indeed all of Australia. That the future expansion of new industries in the Territory and new trade opportunities for Australia, particularly with South-East Asia and the Western Pacific, depend on the development of the railway to link the port of Darwin with the rest of Australia. The railway is therefore an essential national project related directly to Australia's overall prospects for all future economic growth. We therefore protest the Commonwealth's continuing failure to construct the railway. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Prime Minister and Members of the Federal Government honour the promise made by the Commonwealth over 70 years ago , the promise made by the previous Commonwealth Government this year, and endorsed by the present Government in opposition to complete the construction of the railway by 1988, Australia's Bicentennial year. We call on the Prime Minister to give his personal assurance that the Commonwealth will honour its past and present promises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 236 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are deeply concerned for the well-being of Mr Mart Niklus, a leading Estonian and Baltic human rights activist who is in ill health and imprisoned in solitary confinement in Perm Labour Camp No. 389/36 in Siberia. (2) That Mr Mart Niklus has been imprisoned as a 'prisoner of conscience' for the non-violent exercise of his beliefs and is denied visiting and communication rights. (3) That the Australian Government give its support to any initiatives in this case by Amnesty International which has adopted Mr Mart Niklus. Amnesty International believes he has committed no real crime and has never used or advocated the use of violence. (4) That we urge the Australian Government to make representations to the Government of the Soviet Union to promptly release Mr Mart Niklus and grant him a passport and exit visa. (5) That in its representations to the Government of the Soviet Union advise that the Australian Government has approved the sponsored entry of Mr Mart Niklus into Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 58 citizens). Petitions received. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move: That the Senate 1. Congratulates the South Australian Premier Mr Bannon on the initiative he has shown in finalising arrangements during his visit to Japan for the construction of the $140 million Adelaide convention centre-hotel complex and office block. 2. Recognises that the project is the biggest of its kind in Adelaide's history . 3. Recognises that the project will generate 3,600 new jobs, which is almost exactly the same number of jobs which were lost in South Australia during the last year of the Tonkin Liberal Government. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Hamer proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The urgent need for the Government to come to a decision on the long term future of uranium mining in Australia, and the importance of that decision to the economic development of this country. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.03) —The matter of public importance that we are debating today is: The urgent need for the Government to come to a decision on the long term future of uranium mining in Australia, and the importance of that decision to the economic development of this country. This is the third time that the Opposition has been forced to raise, as a matter of public importance or as an urgency motion, the subject of the Labor Government's total confusion on the question of the mining and export of uranium -and we shall raise it again and again until the Government finally stops shilly -shallying and appeasing its crazies and gets around to making a clear decision in the national interest. At the very moment, uranium is the tenth largest export earner for Australia- tenth behind coal, wool, meat, iron ore, aluminium, wheat, sugar, grain and nickel. In 1982-83 uranium earned $360m in export income for Australia. It must be remembered that we have hardly begun in this industry. We are sitting on nearly half of the world's readily recoverable uranium reserves and about one quarter of the world's total uranium reserves. These are inescapable facts. In this decade we have the opportunity to develop an industry generating export earnings of $1 billion a year. At the moment we have two operating uranium projects. Together they produce close to 4,000 tonnes of uranium a year, equal to 10 per cent of the West's present nuclear power station consumption. These projects are Energy Resources of Australia's Ranger mine and Queensland Mines Ltd Nabarlek mine and each has the capacity to produce and sell more uranium. Nuclear power stations account at present for more than 10 per cent of the world's electricity. According to the International Atomic Energy Authority, at the end of 1982 there were 294 operating nuclear power stations in 25 countries with a generating capacity of 173,000 megawatts. At the end of last year, an additional 215 nuclear power stations were under construction in 27 countries. I have here a table which shows the proportion of electricity generated from nuclear power in various countries. At the head of the list is Finland with 40.3 per cent, followed by Sweden, a country that the Labor Party often sets up as a model, with 39 per cent, France with 38.7 per cent, Switzerland with 28.2 per cent and so on. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- TABLE: I The leading nuclear fuel users in 1982 are shown in the following table. Percentage of Total Electricity Production Generated from Nuclear Power-1982 Finland 40.3 Sweden 39.0 France 38.7 Switzerland 28.2 Belgium 27.7 Bulgaria 25.0 Federal Republic of Germany 21.0 Japan 20.3 United Kingdom 15.7 United States 12.5 German Democratic Republic 12.0 Canada 10.0 U.S.S.R. 10.0 Figures supplied by International Atomic Energy Agency. Senator HAMER —The United States of America was the largest producer of uranium in the world until last year when it was superseded by Canada. In the United States there is no doubt that the nuclear power industry and uranium mining industry are in deep trouble. That has nothing to do with safety. It is because the Americans are extremely litigious people and they have enmeshed themselves in a web of laws and regulations which makes sensible development of their energy resources almost impossible. I can see why. A recent poll showed that 60 per cent of American people believed that under certain circumstances a nuclear power station can blow up like an atom bomb. Everyone with the slightest technical knowledge knows that this is quite impossible. Senator Mason —What about a fast breeder? Senator HAMER —I am talking about existing nuclear power stations. Senator Mason —A fast breeder will blow up. Senator HAMER —I will come to fast breeders in a moment. I am talking about existing nuclear power stations. The American people believe that under certain circumstances they can blow up and if they believe that, which is absolute nonsense, it is not surprising that they do not want them as neighbours. They have been able to tie up the whole nuclear power industry in America in a web of litigation. But this is not happening in the rest of the world. Look at Finland, look at Sweden, look at Switzerland. The nuclear power industry is growing and will continue to grow. I repeat that the United States was the largest producer of uranium in the world until last year when it was superseded by Canada. There are only four other countries in the West with significant resources in uranium. Australia is one. The others are in Africa. South Africa will supplant the United States as the world's second largest producer of uranium fairly soon. The other three uranium producers are Namibia, Niger and Gabon. Our two major competitors, as production in the United States declines, are Canada and South Africa. What are the problems for Australia while the Government shilly-shallies on this very important natural resource? We had potential mining of uranium by Pancontinental Mining Ltd. That company was approached last year from British Power Utilities for supplies from its 200,000 tonne Jabiluka uranium deposit. The company cannot get permission to export and the British will now buy from South Africa. One of the managers of M.I.M. Holdings Ltd recently commented that while the Government equivocates and the anti-uranium demonstrators demonstrate, 'those of us in the mining industry only hear the popping of champagne corks in the board rooms of Toronto and Johannesburg'. Those people will be the chief beneficiaries if Australia ceases to mine uranium. Western Mining and BP Australia have spent $90m so far and have uncovered what could be the largest mine in the world. It contains more than 30 million tonnes of copper, one million tonnes of uranium, one million kilograms of gold and seven million kilograms of silver. There is a catch-it will not be economic unless all the minerals are extracted. The Olympic Dam project covers 20 square kilometres on Roxby Downs station. With the mine in operation there will be permanent jobs for as many as 8,000 workers, with export earnings from this project alone matching the total present export sales of the Australian sugar industry. The present situation in the uranium industry seems to be fairly good and the future certainly even more so, so what is the problem? The problem is that this Government cannot make up its mind. In 1982 the Australian Labor Party platform made a categorical statement on uranium: . . . a Labor government will-- a declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia; b repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium; That was in 1982. Yet in May of this year the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, signed a communique from the meeting of the International Energy Agency which 'stressed the importance of encouraging stable trade in nuclear equipment, fuel cycle services and nuclear fuel'. In June this year the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, announced: The Government will allow two uranium mining companies, i.e. the two I have already mentioned, Energy Resources of Australia and Queensland Mines to negotiate for sales of uranium to the United States. So we have the situation where the Labor Government's Cabinet favours the writing of further sales contracts for uranium and also the development of the Olympic Dam project on Roxby Downs. But the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has also said: Of course the policy within the ALP will be given effect to by me when in Government. Of course he has already broken the ALP platform by continuing to export uranium to the United States. What will be the decision of this Government? Will it be forced to wait until July of next year, since the ALP platform can be changed only at the Federal Conference? It is a dilemma for the Prime Minister but it is an even worse dilemma for Australia. Why do members of the ALP, or perhaps the left wing of that Party, so ardently oppose the mining and export of uranium? Why do they not object, say, to the mining and export of coal? The mining of uranium as it is conducted in Australia now is one of the safest mining operations. It is far safer than the underground mining of coal-in fact, about 100 times safer. One has only to recall the tragedy at the Appin colliery when 14 miners were killed. Imagine the outcry there would have been had that happened in a uranium mine. This was only one of typical accidents in coal mines. All uranium mines in Australia are open cut mines and the risks in uranium open cut mining are well established. They are the lowest of any of the available sources of energy. I have here a table which shows 16 non-nuclear energy related accidents that occurred during 1982. I wonder whether any honourable senators have heard of any of them-a coal mine explosion, 17 killed; an oil line explosion in Mexico, 8 killed; an oil rig sank off Newfoundland, 84 killed; a coal mine collapsed; a hydro-electric dam collapsed in Libya, killing 200; a coal mine explosion in Poland killed 18; and an oil-fired power station explosion in Venezuela killed 145. I doubt if any honourable senator noticed any of them, yet when there was an accident, in which no one was killed and no one was injured, in the nuclear power station at Three Mile Island, we had world headlines. We have very selective and misleading judgment. What we have to look at is the relative cost in human life, in suffering and in the shortening of life by the various means of power generation -a point I will come to in a moment. Coming back to mining, rational people cannot object to the mining of uranium on safety grounds when they do not oppose coal mining, which is far more dangerous. They cannot object rationally, if they look at any figures and any studies, because of the supposed long term health risk to uranium miners. There has been the most intensive study in connection with radiation and subsequent cancers. Uranium miners, by the way, are exposed to very low doses of radiation because in fact uranium is not very radioactive. If they object to the risk, not to us but to the people who are going to operate nuclear power stations overseas , this may be noble minded but it is misguided. Nuclear power stations have been in operation in Britain for a quarter of a century. An intensive study was made of all the available long term nuclear power workers. The health of nuclear power workers was in every respect, including cancer, found to be marginally better than that of their peer group in the community. If we are concerned about the way in which other countries might use our exports, let us look at the safety facts with regard to nuclear power generation. I am indebted to Lord Rothschild, the former head of the British Labour Government's think tank, for a table that shows the estimated deaths and the shortening of lives for a specified energy output from various sources. Put simply, the table shows that the estimated number of deaths for the production of 10 gigawatt years of energy would be coal, 800; oil, 700; wind, 450; hydro, 100; solar or space heating, 95; and uranium, 8 1/2. Coal is 100 times as dangerous as power generated by uranium; wind is 60 times as dangerous; and solar power is 12 times as dangerous. Every method of power generation, of course, has its risks. One might think that hydro-electric power generation is nice and safe, but it is, as I pointed out, about 12 times as dangerous as generating the same amount of power by nuclear power stations. In recent years two large hydro-electric dams have collapsed, one in France which caused 420 deaths, and one in Italy which caused more than 2,000 deaths. The generation of power by nuclear means is the safest method available for large scale power generation anywhere in the world. So if we assume that people opposed to nuclear power are rational, there must be other reasons for their objections. Do they object because there have been problems in the past with the disposal of nuclear waste materials? I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the current situation in regard to the disposal of high level nuclear waste. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Country Current Practice Future Plans Belgium Liquid wastes from Eurochemic reprocessing plant are stored in stainless steel tanks. Vitrification processes are being considered for waste solidification, including the incorporation of a granular product into a metallic matrix. Solidified waste will be placed in engineered surface storage. Investigating clay formations for waste repository. Canada Engineered storage of irradiated fuel assemblies, both surface and underground. Storage of fuel without reprocessing is considered satisfactory for at least 75 years. Methods for disposal of irradiated fuel and/or separated wastes in deep underground rock formations are being developed. CSSR Fuel reprocessing in another country. Two-step solidification process on a pilot scale basis (10-20 litres/h) should be completed in 1982. An experimental storage facility for vitrified wastes is designed and will be constructed in the late 1980s. Finland Fuel reprocessing in another country. Investigating crystalline rocks for repository of any returned solidified waste. France Liquid wastes are stored as acidic solutions at the Marcoule and La Hague reprocessing plants in stainless steel tanks. The PIVER pilot plant to solidify wastes into borosilicate glass was in operation from 1969 to 1973. It has been superseded by the AVM plant which commenced operation at Marcoule in 1978, capable of vitrifying wastes from essentially an 800 ton/y fuel reprocessing facility. Solidified waste will be stored in air-cooled vaults. A similar vitrification plant (AVH) will be installed at La Hague after confirmation of routine operation of the AVM plant. Investigating salt and crystalline rocks for waste repository. Germany, Federal Republic of Liquid wastes from WAK reprocessing pilot plant are stored in stainless steel tanks. Studies of solidifying wastes into borosilicate and phosphate glass are in progress. Vitrification processes are being developed for conversion of the high-level wastes to glass after a three to five year cooling period. Salt formations similar to Asse are being studied for disposal of vitrified product and other solid radioactive wastes. India Liquid wastes stored as acidic solutions in stainless steel tanks. A waste immobilization plant using a batch glass making vitrification process is expected to be operating in 1981. Vitrified wastes will be stored in air-cooled vaults. Investigating igneous rock and sedimentary formations for waste repository. Italy EUREX pilot reprocessing plant began operation in 1970. Small quantities of liquid wastes are stored in stainless steel tanks. Batch solidification to form borosilicate or phosphate glasses under consideration. Disposal of solid wastes in clay formations of low permeability is being investigated. Japan Reprocessing plant commenced operation in 1977 and liquid wastes are stored in stainless steel tanks. Solidification processes being developed and a pilot plant will be constructed in early 1980s. Investigating granite and zeolite rock formations for waste repository. Netherlands Fuel reprocessing in another country. Investigating rock salt formations for repository of any returned solidified waste. Sweden Fuel reprocessing in another country. Any returned solidified high-level waste will be stored in underground air- cooled vaults and eventually disposed of in a repository deep in Swedish bedrock . Switzerland Fuel reprocessing in another country. Investigating evaporite formations for repository of any returned soldified waste. UK Liquid wastes are stored as acidic solutions at Sellafield and Dounreay reprocessing plants in stainless steel tanks. Highly active waste is currently stored as a liquid. It is planned from the late 1980s to vitrify the waste using the French AVM system. Because of the temperature, the vitrified blocks will be placed in a specially designed store, cooled by air or water, on or near the surface for at least 50 years. The possibilities for disposal being considered are placing the blocks on or under the bed of the ocean or in deep geological formations on land. Research into the feasibility of ocean disposal and drilling programme to investigate the properties of certain rock formations and the feasibility of geological disposal . USA Liquid wastes from government operations at Hanford and Savannah River plants are alkaline and stored as concentrated salt solutions or salt cakes in mild steel tanks; heat-generating caesium-137 and strontium-90 are chemically separated from Hanford wastes, encapsulated and stored in water-cooled basins. At the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho, acidic wastes are stored in stainless steel tanks prior to calcination; calcined wastes are stored in stainless steel bins. No commercial plants are operating. The Nuclear Fuel Services Plant in New York State operated 1966-1972 but is now shut down. Most high activity wastes from this plant were made alkaline and are stored in a mild steel tank but small quantities of special wastes are stored in a stainless steel tank. The Barnwell Nuclear Services Plant in South Carolina is awaiting authorization to commence operation. All high activity wastes are to be solidified as soon as practicable. Long-term options being evaluated including storage in existing tanks or vaults, storage on-site in underground caverns, or shipment to off-site federal repository. Commercial fuel reprocessing was delayed for the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) study and may be delayed indefinitely with the spent fuel being stored or disposed of. Any high-activity waste from fuel reprocessing is to be converted into an immobile form within five years after generation and transferred to a national repository within ten years. Pilot plant demonstrations during 1966-72 and 1978-79 at Hanford established necessary technology for waste solidification processes with development still proceeding. Both surface storage and deep geological disposal concepts for soldified waste and/or spent fuels are being considered within a National Water Terminal Storage Programme. USSR Liquid wastes stored in stainless steel tanks. Solidification processes to produce phosphate and borosilicate glasses have been investigated on a laboratory scale with radioactive wastes and on a pilot plant scale with inactive simulated wastes. Industrial scale plant to vitrify wastes is expected to begin operation in the 1980s. Storage of solidified waste in near-surface facilities and deep geological disposal concepts are being studied. Senator HAMER —The solution envisaged in all countries is to deposit the waste in a mine repository. The technology to drill very deep holes-as deep as four kilometres or more, with diameters up to three metres-has recently become available. A series of holes of this nature offers very considerable possibility for nuclear waste disposal. Senator Tate —Possibility? Senator HAMER —Yes. It is a certainty, actually. Senator Childs —Make up your mind. Senator HAMER —It is not the only solution. I say it is a possible solution; there are a number of solutions which are all viable. To quote A. E. Ringwood: Initially immobilise waste in Synroc, then deposit the synroc cylinders in the bottom 2,500 metres of such a hole, and finally seal the upper 1,500 metres. A single hole of these dimensions is capable of accepting the waste from one hundred large nuclear power stations operating for a year. There is no technological problem in dealing with waste. There is a social problem because of widespread ignorance and exaggeration of the risks involved, and that is a task for all of us to overcome. Does the Australian Labor Party object to the mining and export of uranium because of fear of its use for nuclear weapons? I have repeatedly stated in this chamber and elsewhere that if I thought that Australia, by refusing to mine uranium, could in the slightest degree reduce the risk of nuclear war or the spread of nuclear weapons, I would be the most ardent advocate of leaving uranium in the ground. Whether we leave our uranium in the ground or not, there are at present between 40,000 and 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Whether we mine uranium or not will not make the slightest difference to their existence. They are there. They have none of our uranium in them. Any country wanting nuclear weapons can get uranium out of sea water if it has to. The cost of uranium is trivial when compared with the cost of nuclear weapons. If we are worried that somehow we might export uranium that might be put in a nuclear weapon, why do we not ban the export of iron ore because steel might be used in a nuclear weapon, or aluminium because aluminium might be used in the vehicle carrying the nuclear weapon? The attitude of some of these people is the most incredible nonsense we can imagine. Whether we like it or not there is a great deal of uranium in the world. If we wanted to, we could create an artificial shortage. But if we do cease exporting uranium we will have even less effect on the availability or the use of nuclear weapons. At least if we are an exporter we will have some effect on the enrichment of uranium into weapons grade material. It is not a perfect system; no one could claim that it is. But at least it is something. By being an exporter we have some chance of influencing the way it is used. If we did somehow manage to create an artificial shortage of uranium for power generation, all we would do would be to force countries into reprocessing their waste material or to go in for the fast breeder reactor.The way to avoid either of those-both of which would create free plutonium, of great danger to the whole world-would be to have uranium available reliably and readily. If we do not do that, if we create an artificial shortage or uncertainty of supply, other countries will not go in for nuclear power stations; they will go in for reprocessing or developing fast breeder reactors. I think it is time that the Australian Labor Party and the Government realised that they have moral and economic obligations in the mining and export of uranium. In relation to mining, not only is there the opportunity for the creation of a very large number of jobs but also exporting uranium is the only opportunity that Australia can have in influencing a degree of control over safeguards and the reprocessing of nuclear material. It is not enough for Senator Walsh to say that the price is not right at the moment. This is nonsense . The price is firm and rising. In any case, that is not a matter for governments. Governments are bad predictors. Let the people who want to take the risk make the decision. If they want to take the risk of mining uranium that is a decision which they should make. The Government should not back-seat drive them in that area. We must not allow our policies to be decided by fears, ignorance or political manipulation. There can be no dispute that uranium mining and export will create many jobs and will effect a substantial improvement in our balance of payments at a time when we desperately need something to balance our oil import bill. But, beyond this, we have responsibilities to the rest of the world. We have three moral questions which we must ask ourselves. The first question we must ask ourselves is: Have we the right to decide for other countries whether they should use nuclear power generation, or is that a decision for the governments of the countries concerned? The second question is: Have we the right to neglect to use our power to improve nuclear safeguards and to prevent the world from moving into the plutonium age, with all its attendant dangers? The third moral question which we must ask is whether this country, with 0.4 per cent of the world's population, has the right to deny the rest of the world access to 25 per cent of its most important energy source. I submit that the answer to each of these questions must be an unequivocal no. A responsible government must make the decision to make our uranium available for the world. This is one of those rare cases where our moral duty to the world and our own economic interest coincide. The Government has a duty to make an early and clear decision. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.24) —The Government rejects the claim that the Opposition has raised once again that it is a matter of public importance that there is an urgent need for the Government to come to a decision on the long term future of uranium mining in Australia, and the importance of that decision to the economic development of this country. When Senator Hamer introduced this matter of public importance he said that the Opposition-the Liberal and National parties-would raise this issue again and again in this chamber as it has done so many times before. How true, and how tedious it is becoming. Three times in as many sitting weeks the Opposition, which is bereft of ideas on how this country ought to be developing and on alternatives as to the government of this country, brings up this one issue on which it thinks it can embarrass the Government. It cannot. I will explain why it cannot as the debate progresses. I ought to say also why this subject has been submitted as a matter of public importance today. Yesterday, on broadcast day, no matter of public importance was brought on for discussion. The Senate has decided, quite extraordinarily, to meet tomorrow, on a Friday and then to meet on Friday fortnight to get through the urgent business which the electorate expects us to deal with so that we may get through a certain amount of legislation in the Government's program before Christmas. As we all know from around the corridors last night, the Opposition is demonstrating petulance at the fact that yesterday evening the Government would not agree to the program which the Opposition wanted to force on this chamber last night in relation to the Budget debate. So what we have here is a petulant matter of public importance designed to disrupt the progress of business in this chamber. Senator Kilgariff —It is the first MPI of the week. Senator TATE —I am coming to that. Whilst it might be mildly disruptive of the work of the chamber, it will not be disruptive of the due deliberate consideration of this matter by this Government. What we say-of course, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) touched on this in answer to a question yesterday in relation to another matter-is that within the Parliamentary Labor Party we will not be stampeded. We have our internal democratic processes which ensure that Ministers alone do not make decisions on the basis of professional advisers submitting briefs to them. Rather, the committees of the Parliamentary Labor Party will have access to the best possible advice before the Parliamentary Labor Party comes to a decision, which will accord with the policy of the Party. As I say, we will not be stampeded on these matters. When we have completed our internal review we will come to a decision. We are taking time over that internal review precisely because we see the importance of the issues involved. We can contrast that absolutely with the attitude of honourable senators opposite in the Liberal and National parties-of course, I exclude the Australian Democrats on this issue-because they want fast decision making and hasty decision making. Senator Robertson —Anything for a quick quid. Senator TATE —As Senator Robertson said, anything for a quick quid. The only criterion mentioned in the matter of public importance concerning the development of this industry is the importance of that decision to the economic development of this country. That is the sole criterion offered in the matter of public importance for the development of this great industry. I know that Senator Hamer at the tail end of his speech found it helpful to assuage the consciences of honorable senators opposite to find three moral points which happened to coincide with our economic well-being as a nation. But in fact, if one looks at the wording of the matter of public importance, the only criterion offered is the economic development of this country. That is a perspective and a ground from which to judge the necessary decisions in relation to the development of this industry which we utterly reject. But it is not surprising, as I have pointed out before in this chamber, that the parliamentary members of the Liberal and National parties take that attitude. I tried to identify and find out what the Federal platform of the Liberal Party of Australia was on uranium. When I looked in the library under the heading ' natural resources', where one might hope to find some mention of uranium, there was nothing. Then when I had a look under the heading of, I think, 'development and energy' I found that the only criterion offered for development of energy resources in Australia was reliance to the greatest extent possible on competitive market forces, including the pricing mechanism. If ever there was prevarication and shilly-shallying around in the sense of a failure to face up to the real issues involved in the development of this natural energy resource, it is in the Liberal Party platform. The competitive pricing mechanism is the guidance that the Liberal Party offers to the people of Australia in coming to this decision. Senator Robertson —There are no morals in its policy. Senator TATE —No, it is only bluff and bluster. The actual policy is therein laid bare. Of course, it is not surprising, therefore, that in the course of his remarks Senator Hamer should take note of the diminishing demand in the United States of America for this particular form of energy production. He blamed that diminishing demand on the web of regulations which surround the public energy utilities which use this source to generate energy. What an admission that is that Senator Hamer, on behalf of the Liberal and National parties, finds that he would much prefer the unfettered, unrestrained and unregulated attitude to the generation of power by public and private power utilities in the United States to the very stringent regulations which the United States authorities, reacting to the concerns of their constituents, think appropriate. But, as I have said, we should not be surprised because the underlying philosophy of the Liberal and National parties in this matter is bereft of anything except a reference to competitive market forces. On the other hand, the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats have dealt very publicly and painfully in their various conferences with the real decisions that have to be made. They have identified in their policies not just in occasional speeches from platforms, the issues which have to be confronted. Nuclear non-proliferation issues are of concern to all of us as we try to stop a situation where the holocaust that could bring an end to human history hovers as a quite imminent possibility. We want to ensure that the international community in 1985 continues to give allegiance to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. For that reason this Government has appointed an ambassador for disarmament, Mr Richard Butler, who is making that his first priority under directions from Mr Bill Hayden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We are extremely concerned that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty ought to be extended to those countries which at the moment will not give their allegiance. We are equally concerned, of course, that the super-powers, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, adhere to article 6 of that treaty which required them to reduce their nuclear arsenals as a sign of good faith to encourage other countries to come into that regime. We are working very hard at that but we recognise the matter and are taking practical steps to try to ensure that it is addressed. Senator Hamer was very confident that solutions for the disposal of waste products exist. He spoke of certainty in relation to these matters. He quoted Professor Ringwood. Professor Ringwood, the Director of Research in the School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University, is a scientist for whom I have the highest regard. I think most honourable senators would have received from Professor Ringwood some two weeks ago a document-Senator Hamer possibly quoted from that document-in which he claimed to have developed a method of immobilising high level and toxic nuclear wastes in synroc which could then be further incorporated in a geologically stable structure to prevent the movement of those toxic wastes into the environment over eons of time, as will be required. But I think it is also fair to point out, as I did at the time of the tabling of the report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council late last year-Senator Sir John Carrick will recall this-that that Council made it clear that no toxic nuclear wastes had yet been incorporated in the synroc material, not even at the laboratory stage, let alone in a prototype of the size that would be necessary. I think the Government did the right thing in the last Budget in allocating funds to enhance further the resources available to the synroc program. This is the correct way to go about it and I know that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), on his imminent overseas trip, will look at ways in which that particular research project can be furthered. I concede-I am only speaking personally-that Professor Ringwood may have a solution to the problem of waste disposal but it has not-one has to be fair about this and Senator Hamer , I believe, did not acknowledge this fact-yet been proved even at an experimental laboratory stage. I think it is a great advance on glassification- honourable senators should make no mistake on that-but it has not been proved and that has to be said. The Australian Labor Party Government is aware of those matters. It is also aware that it would not be fair and responsible to come into Government, immediately create havoc amongst the townships and the workers who are dependent upon the Ranger and Nabarlek mines, and snatch away their livelihood. There are hundreds of workers. It would not have been a fair way in which to act, nor would it have been responsible to have put in jeopardy overnight the various arrangements for the Aboriginal comunities which have been entered into in relation to those operating mines. I emphasise that they are existing and operating mines in connection with which people are employed and that economic relationships have been established with the Aboriginal communities concerned. To create an immediate situation of havoc and disruption would not be to take our responsibility as a federal government seriously and responsibly. Far from prevaricating or shilly-shallying around, I believe the Government has been very responsible. We have addressed and identified the issues in a responsible way. We, too, have taken urgent decisions where they have needed to be taken and they have not been very easy decisions. For the Australian Labor Party Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to meet with the French President, a colleague in the Socialist International, and tell him of our concerns about testing in the Pacific and to suspend a shipment of yellowcake that was due to go to France, was not an easy matter but a decision that had to be taken quickly and urgently. The overall development of the uranium industry in Australia if, indeed, it is to go ahead at all is something which requires a prudent consideration. That is what we are undertaking. I believe that the Australian people in entrusting the Australian Labor Party with the mandate of government in March expect us to be prudent in that best sense. For that reason our taking of a cautious and practical attitude will, in the end, lead to better decision making. For that reason the chamber ought to reject the matter of public importance. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.36) —The Australian Democrats tend to agree that there is an urgent need for the Government to come to a decision on the long term future of uranium mining in Australia. We would not like to force the Government into a hasty or ill-considered decision. But I suggest that the factors now exist to make that decision and that it is not likely that, in the next days, weeks, months or even years, matters will be brought up which will substantially alter the practical moral issue which lies behind this matter. I do not agree with the second part of the matter of public importance relating to the importance of the decision to the economic development of this country. That is sheer absolute nonsense. Everybody in the world knows that there is an enormous oversupply of both natural uranium and yellowcake all over the world. Utilities in America are flogging off their stockpiles to one another at increasingly lower prices. This situation can be expected to continue at least well into the 1990s and possibly well into the next century. A factor which is often underrated here is the extent to which other new developing technologies are improving and lowering costs whereas, at the same time, the nuclear industry is increasing its costs. There has to be a point, very soon I think, where there will be major other new developments, which I will deal with shortly, for the generation of electric power which will be far more regional, cheaper and safer than nuclear power. It is quite a strong possibility that the market for uranium will collapse completely and that there will not be a market at all for any uranium within 10 or 15 years from now. As a result, to accept infrastructure development, say in South Australia for Roxby Downs, is the most imprudent and stupid thing that can be done. It is a betrayal of the people of South Australia because it is an inducement to them to put vast sums of money, many millions of dollars, into what will almost certainly be a clanger, an industry which cannot be justified on economic terms. The Australian Democrats certainly believe that we need a clear-cut decision. The clear-cut decision we need is against nuclear power and thereby exerting, as one of the world's largest owners of uranium, a moral influence of enormous and historic importance to the world which I think could be quite decisive. I think it is wrong to say, with all respect to Senator Hamer, that we will have any kind of influence on proliferation by giving people our uranium freely. I would have thought that we would be much more likely to do it by putting even harder and tougher conditions and saying: 'Okay, you will not have our uranium until we can be absolutely guaranteed that it is not going into weapons'. Of course, that is not the case now. I will deal with that matter in a few minutes time. Senator Jessop —They do not make weapons from nuclear power stations. That is a lot of ignorant nonsense. Senator MASON —I have chapter and verse for Senator Jessop. He should listen carefully and I will do what I can for him. There is nothing more dangerous to the world than the proliferation of nuclear materials. Plutonium 239 is only one of the long lasting pollutants which are associated with the generation of electric power by nuclear methods. Every school child knows that one of the major pollutants, one of the major isotopes that is taken out of the spent fuel rods of a nuclear power-house, is plutonium 239. In fact most so-called peaceful power-plants produce plutonium 239 faster than a fast breeder reactor can. 'Fast ' refers, of course, to the speed of the neutrons. So there is enormous danger. Let us recall the situation in London a century and a half ago when pollution from coal and smog was a serious problem and people died regularly from it. If we go to London now we find nothing of that kind because those pollutants were of a nature that could be removed from the environment quickly and easily. The half-life of plutonium 239 is 24,400 years, further into the future than we can look back. At that stage its dangerous radioactivity would be half of what it is now. That is only one of the dangerous isotopes which are floating around the world. Senator Hamer made the point, and I think it is worth taking up at this stage, that we have to sell our uranium freely or we will get into the plutonium economy. That seems to me the most false type of logic one can imagine. What Senator Hamer is really saying to us is this: 'You have to con the world into relying absolutely on nuclear power using uranium, then when uranium runs out we will have no alternative but to go into faster breeder reactors in the plutonium economy'. That is the real point at issue. I should like a later speaker from this side to answer that point. I believe it is unanswerable. I should very much like it taken up and to be given a view on it because I think it is a serious matter for consideration by the Senate. That is a crunch issue. Are we going to develop nuclear energy to the exclusion of other forms of energy, rely on that and then find that when the time comes, as it must inevitably do because we know that the supplies of uranium are finite, the only answer is a fast breeder reactor? To answer Senator Hamer, and I think he knows this himself, that is a device which can explode like a nuclear weapon, but it is unlike any other nuclear weapon the world has never seen because a fast breeder reactor has tonne lots of plutonium in its core and in the breeding blanket around the core. It has been estimated that an explosion of a fast breeder reactor would be a disaster which would eclipse anything that has ever happened on the face of the earth, short of the explosion of Krakatoa. It would be of that order, and the contamination of radioactivity would be formidable indeed. It is interesting that Senator Hamer mentioned Sweden as a country which generates electric power by nuclear means. That country certainly did get into this, but it is trying to get out of it as fast as it can. The Swedish people have decided by referendum that they will phase out all nuclear generation of electric power in Sweden and replace it with other forms of power as fast as they can. The absolute last date set by that referendum is the year 2010. At that stage there will be no more use of nuclear power in Sweden. I suggest that is only one of many countries which will eventually do that. The State of California, by referendum of the people, has already decided that it does not want anything to do with nuclear power. It is interesting that in the State of California some of the most advanced, successful and enlightened research into alternative forms of energy is going ahead-that is not an accident-and going ahead successfully. I said in the Senate only yesterday that there are now under construction in the Mojave Desert large solar-powered plants which hard-headed, competitive American utilities are building and from which they have promised to supply power at prices lower than those for ordinary fossil fuel reactors and lower than those for nuclear. That is because economies of scale and modern computer science have made it possible for these new power-stations to operate at much lower levels of staff and cost than they did in the past. Are we going to say that that should not go ahead? If it is going to go ahead it will need all the research and money we can get. If the enormous subsidies which are going all over the world to the nuclear power industry were devoted to these other alternative areas we would make an enormous breakthrough in the alternatives within the next decade or two. I have mentioned once or twice in the Senate the tremendous work done in amorphous silicon cells, which is the placing of amorphous silicon on a substrate of plastic or metal. So the time will come quite soon, probably within five or six years, when sheets of plastic will roll out of a machine on a mass production basis and be put in arrays anywhere and produce electric power in good quantities wherever there is sunlight or even light available. Remote areas could thereby be provided with power. The enormous power reticulation losses, which are contingent with a nuclear powerhouse, because of its size, will not be a factor. One of the problems of nuclear powerhouses is that they operate most efficiently if they are very large. If we have very large amounts of electric power we will have a situation which, as I have said in this place before, encourages the wasteful use of electricity because literally so much of it is produced. The question of waste disposal is a critical one. Waste disposal methods would be of benefit if they could succeed. I agree with Senator Tate that they have not really been brought to the stage of being proven; in fact, glassification which was hailed for years is now regarded by all nuclear scientists and physicists as being quite dangerous because the glass in fact does fracture. It has been found that it is not as good as it was once thought it would be. The latest experiments show that there is an almost inevitable leaching over periods of historic time. We have to look at periods of historic time-not at 10-year or 20-year periods, but at a period of thousands of years-to see how this thing will react then. The latest reading I have had-and I think this is regrettable-is that Professor Ringwood's synroc process has been rejected by the United States Government. Senator Sir John Carrick —That is absolutely wrong. Senator MASON —Well, it was published recently in a-- Senator Sir John Carrick —Produce the facts. Produce your reading. Senator MASON —I will do that for the honourable senator. I make the point that I am saying that only on a reading of a statement I read in a popular magazine, but it is a reliable, normally authoritative magazine which I will provide for the honourable senator to look at later. I regret that the United States has rejected the synroc process. I think it would be better if it were to look at what Professor Ringwood was doing a little more carefully, because the writer of that article, as it happened, supported Professor Ringwood rather than the view of the United States Government. Senator Hamer questioned our right to say to other nations that they cannot use nuclear power. The answer to that, of course, is: Yes, we have a perfect right to do so if they propose to use the power in a way which might even have the faintest risk of contaminating the atmosphere, the sea, or anything outside their boundaries. It is not possible for a country to make nuclear power houses and have them without that kind of risk. That brings me to the issue of safeguards. There is no way of ensuring that Australian uranium will not be transferred from countries favoured by Australian export and safeguard policies to those that are prepared to operate outside their guidelines. For instance, the European Economic Community countries to whom we are selling uranium freely, through France, have entered into several nuclear agreements with other countries, including Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, South Korea, Argentina and Brazil. I think one of the most irresponsible acts of the previous Liberal Government was to allow that kind of situation to happen. To come into this Senate and say that there are adequate safeguards when, in fact, those safeguards do not exist and are not worth the paper they are written on is irresponsible. Later in this debate I would like someone to tell me whether there is any way it can be ensured, for instance, that Australian uranium cannot be substituted for uranium from other sources which could as a result then be fed into military development programs. How can anyone identify our piece of uranium after it has gone through , say, a reprocessing process? All of us know perfectly well that that is impossible. Therefore, our safeguards policy in Australia is in ribbons, in tatters; it is not worth the paper it is written on. It is a gross betrayal of the planet. It is a fact that nuclear power will never solve any energy crisis in the industrialised nations. First, electricity consumption is only 30 per cent of all energy consumed, and nuclear energy contributes about 10 per cent of that 30 per cent. In overall terms, nuclear energy at present contributes 3 to 4 per cent of the world's total energy needs. That could be far more than compensated for by a quite limited international conservation program using known technology at relatively low cost. That is not being done in areas where nuclear power is being generated because, as I said earlier, there is an interest on the part of owners of nuclear power houses to flog off just as much power as they possibly can. It is a bad thing for the world that that should be so. A proper conservation program could eliminate the need for nuclear power completely. Nuclear power will never be able to replace fuel sources such as oil and coal. Indeed, 50 per cent of all usage of oil and coal is for the petro- chemical and transport industries, industries for which electricity cannot be applied. So there is no question of there being a coal-oil-nuclear choice. Of course, there are excellent alternatives for the generation of electric power. I mentioned them earlier when I referred to things such as Solar I and its later developments which will provide power in the range of approximately 100 to 110 megawatts and which are now on the drawing board. These sorts of powerhouses will be a cheaper, easier, safer means of generating electric power. I think they will come into operation quite soon. Of course, this is recognised in the United States. I found it to be recognised when I went there last year. That is the reason that there have been no orders for nuclear reactors in the United States since 1978. In fact, all nuclear plants ordered in the United States of America since 1974 have now been cancelled. Over the period 1972-82, over 100 plants have been cancelled throughout the world, and many of these cancellations involved huge cost penalties, of up to $500m. But indeed, the hard-nosed people in business know that it is not a goer and, because of that, they are getting out of it while the time is right. Is this, then, a time for us to be getting into it? Of course it is not. It could not be a more disastrous decision for us to get into that now. From a purely economic point of view, it would be quite crazy to do so. I should like, briefly, to look at the world situation, and the implications of nuclear power-houses all around our cities throughout the world in the event of a time of war. If anyone thinks that we can get an agreement by which nations would be gentlemanly enough not to attack nuclear power-houses with bombs, he is a fool. Of course that would happen. The research has been done on this subject. It has been done by many reputable people. I refer to that excellent book The Fate of the Earth, serialised in the New Yorker and recently published in Australia and America by Jonathan Schell. I inform Senator Sir John Carrick that there Jonathan Schell quotes very carefully his sources for his information. The dangers and risks to a city in the case of nuclear war if it has a power-station are about 35 times what they would be if it did not have one. So one places one' s cities in hostage to an enemy, because if the nuclear powerhouse is blown up, all its isotopes, all the products which are in its fuel cells, will then be distributed throughout that city, with the rest of the contaminants. On that sobering note, I end my speech. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.51) —Today the Senate has heard two contributions, that of Senator Tate and that of Senator Mason. Both presented a gross distortion of the facts, and I shall proceed to demonstrate that. Senator Tate has said that the delays, the ambiguities and the confusions that are occurring day by day in the uranium debate inside the Australian Labor Party are based on one thing: That its members will not be hurried into reaching a conclusion; that they need time; that they have not had time. What nonsense. They were seven years in opposition. They had all the time necessary to go to their Federal Conference and to make a policy-which they presented and for which they sought a mandate. Senator Tate asks about a mandate. The mandate-if he was given one-was to phase out uranium. Let us not pretend otherwise about that. What a nonsense it is to suggest that they have not had time. The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, the Fox Inquiry, was held eight or nine years ago . What nonsense it is to suggest that its findings have not been thoroughly debated. What nonsense it is to suggest that the Fraser Government was short on time on this matter. I sat patiently in this Senate as a Minister day after day, for weeks, going through an enormous package of some seven Bills on all aspects of uranium, all the aspects deriving from the Fox Inquiry. The Labor Party had every ounce of time to look at the findings of the Fox Inquiry, to see how they were to be translated into legislation. Now members of the Labor Party say that they have not had time. The truth of the matter, as they must admit, is that they are riven apart. Senator Coleman —We are not saying at all that we have not had time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Coleman can answer, if she speaks later, a very simple thing. Senator Tate has said that members of the Labor Party will do nothing on this business until they have come to conclusions, that until then they will make no decisions. But why did they make a decision to wind down and to get rid of the uranium enrichment plant inside the Atomic Energy Commission if they are not going to make any decisions? A uranium enrichment plant could not possibly increase any dangers of radioactivity. It was done, of course-as they have told me privately-to appease the left wing, because, on the one hand, they were going ahead with contracts in certain cases, and they said 'We shall have to do something to appease the left wing'. What a mealy-mouthed explanation we are given here, when in fact what they are saying is 'We did it to save money '. Time after time the arguments that members of the Labor Party have put up have been absolutely spurious. Let us not hear again that they have not had time. They have had seven years, the Fox Inquiry and all the debate on legislation in this place, week after week. They reached a conclusion. That conclusion was that they would phase out uranium mining and exports. In that long time they reached that conclusion. The real tragedy is that at this moment they know they were wrong, yet they are not willing to do the right thing. Their Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) tries to say that he will do the right thing-that is, to continue exports -but the others deny it. What a lot of humbug we hear day after day. I had to wring out of the responsible Minister in Estimates Committee C a reply as to whether there had been any policy decisions regarding Roxby Downs. Indeed, it was only yesterday that finally I managed to get-because I said that I would not accept the Estimates Committee report unless the answer were there-the final answer. Let us look at this matter. It is very interesting. In questioning Senator Walsh on this, I said: 'But Roxby Downs expects that they will get the go-ahead'. It is very interesting that Senator Walsh's answer to me was: The formal policy decision on this has not yet been made. I understand that the company has written, seeking the Commonwealth's policy attitude on proceeding with it. He said 'I understand that the company has written'-and he is the responsible Minister. But what is the reply that we forced out of the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen)? Over Senator Walsh's signature, it is as follows: I have now been advised by the Minister for Trade that no such assurances or undertakings have been given to the Roxby Downs Joint Venturers. I am further advised that the Joint Venturers have not applied for an authorisation . . . Where do we stand in this situation? The Prime Minister says one thing-'Roxby Downs will go ahead'. On the other hand, Senator Walsh says 'I know that they have written a letter', and now the reply from the Minister for Trade denies that. Of course, we have an absolute nonsense in this situation. We have a Labor Party which is, as I say, utterly divided. I pause there because I want to come to the fundamentals of this matter. I know nothing that does more discredit to this Senate than the statements day after day by Senator Mason based on corrupt and distorted, twisted facts. I can only say, when I look at Senator Mason and listen to him here when he talks of the fuel cycle, that Shakespeare had it right, and that he was thinking of Senator Mason when he had Bassanio say, in The Merchant of Venice: Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice: His reasons are two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them; and when you have them they are not worth the search. He could not have had a greater concept than that of Senator Mason, because day after day he talks such nonsense here. Of course, he does that to play upon the emotions of the people. It is a fact that solar energy research in this world is at such a primitive stage that everywhere it is recognised that it cannot in the medium term future make a significant contribution. Let me now make it perfectly clear, and let me demolish the arguments that have been put. There were two arguments put today, and one was put by Senator Tate-'We need time to think'. I think that members of the Labor Party should be put back into opposition for seven years and given time to think. The other argument is: 'You don't need nuclear fuel because the world can get energy in other ways'. I served for years on the International Energy Agency. Twenty-two nations of the free world, socialist, non-socialist, all the leading nations, were represented. I shall quote what they said: It is impossible for the living standards of the people of the world to be maintained and to be prevented from falling seriously unless there is a very substantial increase in the development of nuclear power generation in the world . Twenty-two nations said this, but Senator Mason knows better. Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing. Even if we have maximum energy conservation, even if we use renewable energy by way of biomass or solar means, even if we develop coal and all the other things, we will still have to have an immense input of nuclear power if all countries, and particularly the countries of the Third World, are not to suffer seriously. Lest anybody has any doubt about that, the Hawke Government agrees with this. In fact it took an active part in the deliberations of the International Energy Agency at its last meeting. It signed and agreed with the communique that was issued. I seek leave to have the whole communique and Senator Walsh's statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY-MINISTERIAL MEETING The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Peter Walsh, today released the Communique of the meeting of the IEA Governing Board at Ministerial level. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bill Hayden, represented Australia at the meeting, which was held on 8 May under the Chairmanship of Mr W. F. Birch, New Zealand Minister of Energy, National Development and Regional Development. The Principal item of business at the meeting was a study of future energy requirements and security which had been prepared by the Secretariat of the Agency. The analysis had confirmed that the main problem would continue to be in the field of oil supply, although imports of gas could pose some difficulties unless suitable policies of diversification of sources, and preparations to deal with supply disruptions, were implemented effectively. ''The future role of coal from OECD countries such as Australia has been enhanced by the study'', said Senator Walsh, welcoming the Governing Board's continued recognition of the need for expansion of coal production and trade, in order to reduce further the dependence on oil of the Western economies. The IEA Ministers had considered recent reports by a special committee of the Agency's Coal Industry Advisory Board on current and prospective developments in the coal industry, and on environmental aspects of coal use. In the light of difficulties being experienced by the Australian coal industry, it was pleasing to note that endorsement of the view that current problems in the coal trade occur largely on the demand side. Ministers decided to give particular attention in their own countries to the removal of constraints on greater coal use and trade. The easier conditions in the international oil market, and in particular the relief which lower oil prices is giving their hard-pressed economies, were discussed. At the same time, the danger of a complacent assumption that oil supply problems had been solved permanently was recognised. ''Such easy judgments had proved disastrously wrong in the past'', observed Senator Walsh. It was necessary that oil importing countries, in particular continue to improve the efficiency with which they used oil, and to substitute other forms of energy such as coal wherever it was economic to do so. Australia was involved only marginally in the US/European discussions about future dependence on imports of natural gas from non-OECD sources. We have the good fortune to be self-sufficient in gas, and in a few years' time hope to be exporting liquefied natural gas to Japan. Nevertheless, Australia appreciates the concern about possible over-reliance on a single external source of supply, and is pleased that its IEA partners have agreed on a continuing review procedure to ensure that any potential risk is identified and corrected at an early stage. During the meeting, the Governing Board of the IEA placed great emphasis on reactor safety, waste management and disposal, and non-proliferation policies in the future development of nuclear energy in those countries which have adopted this technology for generating electricity. This emphasis accords with the Australian Government's philosophy. Senator Walsh also announced that the Government had accepted an invitation from the IEA for Mr A. J. Woods, Secretary, Department of Resources and Energy, to chair the Governing Board at Officials' level. In welcoming the appointment, the Minister said this appointment was an honour both for Australia and Mr Woods personally. Enquiries: K. P. McHugh (062) 45 3223Canberra TEXT OF COMMUNIQUE ADOPTED BY IEA GOVERNING BOARD MEETING AT MINISTERIAL LEVEL IN PARIS ON 8 MAY 1983 The Governing Board of the International Energy Agency (IEA) met at Ministerial level on 8th May 1983 in Paris, under the Charimanship of the Honourable W. F. Birch, Minister of Energy, New Zealand. The Current Energy Situation Ministers assessed the current energy situation and particularly world oil markets. They welcomed the relief provided in the world economy by today's conditions, characterised by price adjustments which take account of reduced economic activity world-wide. They believe that these developments also reflect growing efficiency in energy use and production from a widening range of sources . However, they recognised that conditions could change in the future, as the world economy picks up and the current stock draw down comes to an end. They expressed concern that sharply lower oil prices and uncertainty about future oil market developments could slow down investment in energy efficiency, hydrocarbon development and alternative energy sources thus creating over the longer term the possibility of renewed instability in energy and oil markets, with adverse effects on the world economy. They agreed that the easing of the oil market was no reason to change the agreed objectives of energy policies, given remaining uncertainties about short-term developments and the underlying trends pointing towards tighter market conditions in the longer term. They therefore reaffirmed their intention to fulfil the policies of oil substitution, energy conservation, and energy research and development. They instructed the Governing Board at official level to follow developments in the world oil market closely, particularly further movement of oil inventories. Energy Requirements and Security Ministers assessed energy requirements and security for the next two decades, bearing in mind the importance of adequate and secure energy supplies to the prospects for sustained economic growth and considering the study Energy Requirements and Security prepared by the Secretariat. They recognised the continued likelihood of heavy reliance on imported energy, particularly oil, and for the first time addressed the question of natural gas in detail. They reached the conclusions set forth in Annex 1 regarding the need for strong and cost- effective energy policies, re-confirming previous action taken within the IEA, and emphasising the need for a balanced approach which puts each aspect of energy policy into its proper perspective, including: improved energy efficiency and appropriate pricing and fiscal regimes; further expansion of the production, use and trade of coal and other solid fuels; a major and increasing role for nuclear power in many countries; obtaining the advantages of increased use of gas on an acceptably secure basis; continuation of efforts to improve energy security in the case of oil, which will remain by far the most important factor in energy imports; and development of new and renewable sources of energy. Coal Industry Advisory Board Ministers considered a report from the Special Committee of the Coal Industry Advisory Board on the current status of developments in coal and its prospects for the future. They noted the Special Committee's concern that the present oil market situation could jeopardise the effectiveness of coal in meeting the objectives set forth in the IEA Principles for Action on Coal. Ministers requested the Governing Board at Official level and the CIAB to give prompt and active consideration on these matters, taking account of the conclusions reached at the meeting concerning coal. Ministers welcomed the publication of the report Coal Use and the Environment prepared by the CIAB and undertook to consider its recommendations carefully in formulating national policies. Ministers also agreed on the desirability of promoting the development and increased use of other solid fuels, such as lignite and peat which have specific geographical importance. International Energy Relations Ministers emphasised that energy remains a decisive element for progress in the world economy, and is particularly important for developing countries. Ministers welcomed the contribution which the various contacts between oil producing and consuming countries are making to improved understanding by all parties of world oil and energy markets. They again stressed the importance of enhanced exchanges for greater stability in the world energy situation and an improved world economy. Ministers expressed their deep appreciation of the leadership and advice provided by Ambassador Hiromichi Miyazaki of Japan, Chairman of the Governing Board at Official level since October 1980. They welcomed the willingness of the Government of Australia to make Mr Alan J. Woods available to succeed Ambassador Miyazaki as Chairman of the Governing Board at Official level. ANNEX 1 CONCLUSIONS 1. Ministers assessed world energy requirements and security for the next two decades, bearing in mind the importance of adequate and secure energy supplies to the prospects for sustained economic growth. They noted with satisfaction the progress that had been made since 1973 in reducing dependence on imported oil by increasing energy efficiency and the use of alternative fuels, notably coal, gas and nuclear energy. The progress has contributed to the lowering of oil prices which is now bringing an important and welcome relief to the world economy. Ministers agreed, however, that such relief was likely to be temporary and that there is a risk of a renewed energy constraint on growth later in this decade unless the industrialised countries strengthen their policies to restructure their economies. Ministers noted, in this context, that dependence on imported oil, though reduced, remains high in many of their countries and that this remains the major risk to their energy security; that the contributions of coal and nuclear energy are running significantly below earlier expectations; that the prospect of growing imports of gas to help reduce dependence on imported oil could lead to heavy dependence by some countries on single sources of gas supply ; and that the outlook for investment in the efficient use of energy and for the development of indigenous energy sources is less than satisfactory. They agreed that some of these problems could be accentuated by the uncertain outlook for oil prices. 2. Since industrialised countries as a whole will, in any event, continue to rely heavily on imported energy, smoothly functioning world energy markets over the long-term will be essential for their economic well-being. Industrialised countries must seek to reduce the risk of disruptions and be prepared to minimise the effects on their economies of any which occur. The balance between energy security and costs will have to be struck under the responsibility and in the circumstances or individual countries, having regard to their international commitments. Each country will, however, continue to develop strong and cost- effective energy policies based on that combination of market forces and government action which is best suited to its circumstances but including: - implementing and as necessary strengthening present policies to promote the efficient use of energy and the continuing replacement of oil by other fuels: - rapid and, where appropriate co-operative, development on an economic basis of indigenous energy resources-fossil fuels, nuclear energy, hydropower and other renewable energies-to the maximum possible extent consistent with environmental and social factors and the need to secure supplies beyond the turn of the century; - seeking to remove impediments to its trade in energy; - substantial programmes of research, development and demonstration; - pricing and fiscal regimes which promote the rational use of energy and the development of indigenous energy resources; - diversification of sources of energy imports; - co-operation on a regional basis or as otherwise appropriate to improve the overall flexibility of energy systems and to overcome transit problems; - effective co-operative measures for dealing with disruptions in energy supplies. Ministers recognised that energy security and smoother functioning of world energy markets is not a matter for industrialised countries alone. More effective energy policies in the industrialised area should ease the world energy situation and thereby the energy situation of the non-oil developing countries. They emphasised the importance of mutual understanding with energy exporting and importing developing countries to the achievement of these aims. Development of the indigenous energy resources, including new and renewable energy, of the developing countries could in its turn make an important contribution to improving the world energy situation. 3. IEA Ministers reaffirmed the commitments of their Governments to: - the International Energy program, which remains the primary international protection of their countries against tighter oil markers in the longer term and , through the IEA oil emergency allocation system, in times of a major oil market disruption; - the Principles for Energy Policy adopted by IEA Ministers in October 1977; - the Principles for IEA Action on Coal agreed in May 1979, which continue to provide a valuable framework for expanding world coal production, use and trade; - the Lines of Action for Energy Conservation and Fuel Switching agreed in December 1980; - the Governing Board decision of December 1981 regarding minor oil supply disruption. Energy Efficiency 4. Ministers recognised the important potential contribution of improved energy efficiency to overall energy security and agreed to give particular attention as appropriate to: - financial or other measures to stimulate the efficient use of energy and conversion from oil including help to industry and others to overcome the high initial investment costs of certain energy-saving and fuel-switching measures; - the development of energy conservation services capable of offering a comprehensive package which would include information on rational energy use and oil substitution, provision and installation of equipment, and financial advice tailored to the needs of customers; - the publication of technical and financial information on the efficient use of energy and of any assessments which governments may make of long-term trends in energy demand, supply and prices; - demonstration by governments within their own operations of the value of energy efficiency; - inclusion of energy efficiency as an element in industrial policy; - energy efficiency in transport and in the building sector through higher voluntary or mandatory standards; - policies to overcome structural barriers which mute the impact of market signals. Pricing and Fiscal Regime 5. Ministers agreed to pay particular attention to: - removal of those price regulations which discourage the development of indigenous energy or the displacement of oil by other fuels or the efficient use of energy; - the pricing policies and where it exists regulation of the tariffs of electricity utilities so as not to impede the provision of funds for investment in new generating capacity. - reviewing energy pricing policy, with the aims that energy prices should be more transparent and more closely reflect market prices or the long-term costs of maintaining supplies, as appropriate; - the structuring of fiscal regimes for oil and gas production so as to encourage timely development. Coal and Other Solid Fuels 6. Ministers agreed that to promote on an economic basis further expansion of production, use and trade of coal and, where appropriate, of other solid fuels including lignite and peat: - their countries should continue to reduce impediments to a major expansion of coal use in electrical power generation and in industry; - their countries should take steps to provide the infrastructure needed for increase production, transport and marketing of coal; - coal-exporting countries should facilitate reliable coal exports in times of supply difficulties; - their countries should promote the development of a flexible and diversified coal trading system, paying particular attention to the need for long-term contracts. 7. Coal use must be environmentally acceptable. Ministers agreed to accelerate cooperative efforts to promote strategies for the clean use of coal, including research, development and demonstration regarding coal use technologies, and to establish effective regulatory frameworks which allow coal users to choose the most economic means to achieve environmental goals. They will assess available and new technologies and review regularly the pace and impact of their introduction. Nuclear Power 8. To fulfil its important potential for contributing to overall long-term energy security which is the concern of all industrialised countries, nuclear power will have to play a major and increasing role in many countries. Ministers : - stressed the importance of encouraging stable trade in nuclear equipment, fuel cycle services and nuclear fuel. Export and import regulations must be predictable, and based on the strict respect of current non-proliferation policies; - agreed that Member countries would maintain reliable standards of nuclear reactor safety and continue to co-operate in various fora on these matters. Procedures for the approval of reactors and nuclear facilities should be as clear and expeditious as possible. - stressed the importance of international co-operation on spent fuel storage and waste disposal. They appealed to the governments of those countries in a position to do so to stimulate further progress in developing and applying effective and timely methods for managing the back end of the fuel cycle in ways best suited to their national situations and compatible with international agreements. The IEA and NEA were requested to work together on periodic consultations on the progress of Member governments into waste disposal programme; - requested the IEA and NEA to identify for prompt examination new possibilities for research and development in advanced technologies that support these conclusions. Action on these lines will provide the basis for both institutional impediments and public acceptance concerns on nuclear power to be vigorously addressed and allayed wherever possible. Gas 9. Ministers agreed that gas has an important role to play in reducing dependence on imported oil. They also agreed, however, on the importance of avoiding the development of situations in which imports of gas could weaken rather than strengthen the energy supply security and thus the overall economic stability of Member countries. They noted the potential risks associated with high levels of dependence on single supplier countries. Ministers stressed the importance of expeditious development of indigenous OECD energy resources. They noted that existing contracts are currently insufficient to cover expected gas demand by the mid-1990s, and agreed that in filling this gap steps should be taken to ensure that no one producer is in a position to exercise monopoly power over OECD and IEA countries. To obtain the advantages of increased use of gas on an acceptably secure basis, they agreed that: - their countries would seek to avoid undue dependence on any one source of gas imports and to obtain future gas supplies from secure sources, with emphasis on indigenous OECD sources. Additional supplied from other sources would be obtained from as diverse sources as possible, taking into account supply structures, the share of gas in energy balances, and the geographical situation of individual countries. In assessing the full costs of gas supply sources, gas companies and, as appropriate, governments will consider security factors; - their Governments would either encourage gas companies and other undertakings concerned to take or take themselves the necessary and appropriate cost- effective measures suited to each country's situation to strengthen their ability to deal with supply disruptions; these measures could include increased gas storage facilities, contingency demand restraint programmes, improved fuel- switching capabilities accompanied by adequate stocks of oil or other alternative fuels, a more flexible grid structure, greater flexibility of contracts, more surge capacity, measures to accelerate into OECD trade on short notice through standby contracts for supplies in a disruption, and interruptible contracts with consumers; - action should be taken to develop at economic cost indigenous gas resources, particularly in North America and the North Sea, which show promise of alleviating overall or particular pressures on energy imports; - concerned member governments noting the potential for further development of North American gas resources and noting that part of the Norwegian Troll field may be declared commercial by 1984, would encourage their companies to begin negotiations on deliveries from these sources as soon as possible, with a view to making supplies available at prices competitive with other fuels in the mid- 1990s; - trade barriers and other barriers which could delay development of indigenous gas resources should be avoided or reduced; - their governments would encourage the companies concerned to undertake feasibility studies, if appropriate in cooperation with member governments, to determine the economic, engineering, technical and financial factors, relevant to possible imports from a variety of non-OECD sources; - governments within one region where there is scope for effective cooperation should invite gas companies operating in their jurisdictions to address and negotiate on a commercial basis cooperative arrangements to meet a disruption of supplies to any one country or to the region as a whole; - special attention should be given in the annual country review process in various international organisations to the future pattern of gas supplies, to the progress on the development and implementation of security measures, and to whether gas imports into the OECD from any single source constitute such a proportion of total supplies as to give rise to concern about the timely development of indigenous resources and the vulnerability of supplies, either for an individual member country or collectively; - in considering the degree of vulnerability, relevant factors include the share of imports in total gas consumption and in total primary energy requirements, the reliability of particular sources, the flexibility of other supplies, sectoral distribution, stocks and fuel-switching possibilities; - an in-depth exchange of views about this question would take place within the normal review process whenever considered necessary. To allow a full assessment of its energy situation, the country concerned shall inform the other member states if it plans major changes in its energy policy or gas supply pattern which are significant in the context of development of indigenous OECD resources and vulnerability of gas supplies. Ministers expressed the view that special attention should be given in relevant international organisations to the gas import situation of individual countries and regions. IEA Ministers instructed the Governing Board to keep this issue under continuing review. Oil 10. Ministers noted that since 1974, considerable progress has been made in improving energy security as far as oil is concerned. A continuation of these efforts will be necessary, however, as oil will remain by far the most important factor in OECD energy imports. Thus, in the year 2000 oil will still constitute more than 75% of all OECD energy imports. Ministers therefore agreed on the importance of strong cooperative arrangements for handling a major oil supply disruption and, in the case of IEA Ministers, on the need for continued improvement of the existing emergency allocation system, and the need to continue to encourage oil companies to support the improvement and, if necessary , the operation of the system. To strengthen their overall emergency preparedness, Ministers also agreed to continue to pay particular attention to the continued adequacy of their countries' oil stocks in terms of amount, structure and flexibility. Other Energy Resources 11. Ministers reaffirmed their readiness to pursue policies both at the national and international level, aiming at exploitation of other indigenous energy resources such as hitherto unharnessed hydropower. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let me read what the 22 nations said, although of course Senator Mason, speaking an infinite deal of nothing, would disagree with them. In relation to this matter those 22 nations, including the Hawke Government, said: Nuclear Power 8. To fulfil its important potential for contributing to overall long-term energy security which is the concern of all industrialised countries, nuclear power will have to play a major and increasing role in many countries. Ministers : - stressed the importance of encouraging stable trade in nuclear equipment, fuel cycle services and nuclear fuel. Export and import regulations must be predictable, and based on the strict respect of current non-proliferation policies; That was the statement made in May of this year, but Senator Mason says: 'I, Senator Mason, am right and 22 nations are wrong'. All of these nations, including Sweden, including the Scandinavian nations, including the nations that he quotes in this debate say: 'Unless we go ahead with this the world will be threatened with lower living standards'. but he has dreamed up some kind of nonsense, some kind of solar power situation which in fact the scientists of this world through the IEA say is just not so. Let me again be emphatic: The nonsense that Senator Mason talks does great harm to the security of Australia and this world. He talks as though the people who want to make atomic weapons need to get the uranium from power stations. Nothing could be more wrong. Uranium ore is distributed over the length and breadth of this world, both in land and sea. It is there in quantities, in definite quantities, for the decades ahead, for anybody to dig out and to refine if they want it. Let me hit now at the basic fallacy. There is no need for anybody seeking to make nuclear fuels to seek to buy yellowcake in the orthodox markets of this world. Indeed, the best way to keep the monitoring of yellowcake production honest, to make yellowcake non-available for weapons production, is for it to be handled commercially through the International Atomic Energy Agency. The situation is the very reverse of what Senator Mason has said. I say to the Senate that the world is engorged, sadly enough, with more plutonium than it would ever know what to do with if we are talking about nuclear fuels to make weaponry. It is utterly wrong to equate weaponry with nuclear power stations. But the corruption goes on within the Hawke Government. The Government says: ' Give us time. By July of next year we will have reached a decision. We will square it off with the Federal conference of the party. Give us time. The last seven years did not give us enough time. All the debates in this Parliament did not give us time. But give us time and we will reach a conclusion'. The truth is that the Labor Party is in a state of civil war. It wants to delay or simulate for the moment. I repeat that more serious than that is the kind of nonsense that Senator Mason talks here when he pretends to take scientific facts and distorts them in order to frighten the people. The world is in enough fear from the threat of nuclear weapons without that. No one should add false information to this situation just to further his cause. I know of nothing more ugly than the kinds of situations in which someone gets up in this chamber and says: 'I know that you can get solar rays which will provide electricity cheaper than existing power stations or nuclear power stations'. That is absolutely factually incorrect and every worthwhile scientist- Senator Mason —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Is the honourable senator accusing me of misleading the Senate on this point? The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am accusing the honourable senator of seeking to delay my speech so that I do not underline the inaccuracies of what he said. I say emphatically that the advice I have received in the past over the years as a Minister, the advice that 22 nations have given to us, is that solar development at this moment is primitive, is costly and could not in fact do more than make about a three per cent contribution to the whole of the world's energy output. I say again that we should not equate nuclear power stations with atomic weaponry. That is corrupt propaganda. I say again that nothing could be more wrong than the Labor Party's pretence that it is delaying this matter so as to think. It is delaying this matter so as to line up its forces in the civil war within its ranks. The Labor Party will adopt another resolution in July of next year. During that time the Australian people will be prevented from making the kinds of contracts and developing the kinds of industries that will provide them with employment and will provide the people of the world with nuclear energy in a peaceable fashion, will keep their living standards up and do much to preserve peace and not to aggravate war. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(11.08) —I will respond briefly to some of the things that Senator Sir John Carrick said because, apart from the word ' corruption', the most used word in his entire speech was 'nonsense'. The Senate might recall that the week before last when we debated a very similar matter of public importance, as I closed the debate and brought on the business of the day I said that the matter of public importance was a nonsense. I say now that this matter of public importance is a nonsense. Perhaps I would agree with Senator Tate that it is a petulant matter of public importance. It is a nonsense because this is the third debate on uranium that we have had in as many sitting weeks. It is designed purely and simply to waste the time of the Senate. This matter of public importance states: The urgent need for the Government to come to a decision on the long-term future of uranium mining in Australia, and the importance of that decision to the economic development of this country. Let us look at the economics of this matter and let us look firstly at the figures involved. I think it is terribly important that we look at the figures which are tossed around as to the sums of money involved in uranium mining. They may sound very impressive. They may not sound so impressive if they are taken into consideration in the overall economic context. We cannot take figures in isolation without looking at other areas, the social effects, the political factors, the effect on the economy and income and employment. Let us look at the two existing mines. We have Nabarlek which commenced operation in June 1980. The mine and mill was constructed at a cost of $75m. If we look at Ranger, which commenced operation in October 1981, the mine and mill were constructed at a cost of $366m. More than $400m was involved in construction at those two mines. Let us have a look at the economics as far as employment is concerned. In both of those mines approximately 500 people are employed. it is a very expensive employment operation. Possibly 350 people are employed indirectly, giving us a total of 850 people employed. It is definitely not economical. There is no way that anything that has been said here today can prove that on a jobs/investment ratio that is an economical situation. But we also have to look at what is happening in other parts of the world. If we look at the nuclear power situation we see that there has been a downturn in the industry. There has been a downturn in the United States, for purely economical reasons. I think we have to stop and recognise that it is perhaps the most significant nation in relation to nuclear power, but if we look at what has happened since 1978 we see that no new nuclear power plants have been ordered. The latest problem to hit the United States has been the incredible rates shock because suddenly the owners of these utilities have discovered that the massive injection of money into the power plants has meant that their consumption rates have to be extraordinarily high, and the domestic consumers are starting to react unfavourably. They are saying: 'We don't want to be paying this amount of money just for the provision of electricity, because we know that it can be produced cheaper'. The electric utility companies have been forced to write off those nuclear projects that they originally intended to go ahead with because they just cannot afford to proceed with them. Incidentally, some of these companies have already generated money amounting to some billions of dollars. If we are really serious about looking at the economic development of this country and if we are looking at the role that uranium is to play in that economic development then we have to recognise that other countries that are not using uranium to the same extent in nuclear power plants will be hard pushed to purchase our uranium. There are similar problems with economic development in the United Kingdom. It was originally estimated that the latest power plant to be built there would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $A425m and in actual fact it finished up costing a total of $A1,156m. The operators have said that the plant will take 30 years, running at full capacity-no one can give a guarantee that a nuclear power station can run at full capacity over such a period-to pay for itself. I remind honourable senators that the cost was $A1,156m. In France, the Government has already introduced new plans to manipulate energy usage in an endeavour to promote the demand for nuclear power. The European countries have problems, as has Japan, with waste disposal. They have really come up with only short term and very politically divisive solutions. For instance, Japan still wants to dump it in the Pacific Ocean. Perhaps the least safety conscious country of all, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, has now seriously had to look at its nuclear power schemes because of major setbacks that have beset the industry and the fact that it also has problems with the disposal of waste. So if we are talking about the economic situation of the industry, all of those things have to be taken into account. Honourable senators cannot divorce themselves one from the other. Nor can they or should they divorce themselves from other very important areas of consideration including industrial health, worker safety and waste disposal. I am sure that everybody would be quite aware that industrial health and worker safety has never been terribly high on the list of priorities as far as members of the Liberal-National Party Opposition is concerned. Senator Jessop —I beg your pardon! Senator COLEMAN —I am sure that even they, including Senator Jessop, will be very concerned about the incident at the Ranger plant only last week. If he is not concerned about it then he is doing the country a grave disservice. The plant design there is so totally inadequate that it allowed a plumber-- Senator Jessop —Have you been up there? Senator COLEMAN —I have been there. It allowed a plumber to connect potable water-that is, the water that people drink-with water that was radioactively contaminated. The people there were washing in it and were drinking it. Senator Jessop —Most of the water up there is radioactive anyway, and was even before the mine started. Senator COLEMAN —It was considered to be highly radioactively contaminated water . If the honourable senator is not concerned about that then he should go and talk to the workers at Ranger who have already expressed their concern about it. I am vitally concerned about it because I think the most important factor in the whole of the uranium industry is worker safety and waste disposal. Neither of those problems has been sorted out. People can talk all they like about Professor Ringwood's solution with synroc. That is not yet past the laboratory experiment stage. There has not been, nor is there at this point of time, any manner of safely disposing of radioactive waste. The companies themselves will agree with that, if they are honest, but I doubt that we will find very much honesty among the companies that operate particularly in Australia. We are constantly pushing the barrow that our economy will fail if we do not go ahead and mine our uranium. Our economy will not fail for that reason; we do have adequate supplies of other resources. I was interested in some of the things that Senator Sir John Carrick had to say, which just went to prove that he is entirely ignorant of some of the things that are happening in Australia. For instance, he talked about primative solar power. That was the word the honourable senator used-primitive. If he reads the report of Telecom Australia, which I understand is being tabled today and which I will be addressing, he will see that Telecom has already put in a solar powered despatcher unit in the north west of Australia which is responsible for the total coverage of the north of Western Australia as far as telecommunications is concerned. Solar power in this country is no longer primitive. There has to be a recognition by the Opposition of this point. Of course we have other very important natural resources such as coal, oil and gas, not to mention sun, wind and tide-none of which, I might add, has ever had adequate financial resources poured into it particularly under the Liberal-National Party Government that operated until March this year. People involved in these areas have never had sufficient funding to enable them to proceed with some of the things that they wanted to do. But let me tell honourable senators about some of the subsidies that have gone to the uranium industry in Australia. In 1981-82 Federal subsidies to the uranium industry amounted to $83.6m of taxpayers' money. Senator Sir John Carrick —Read out the subsidies for solar power, biomass and all the others. Senator COLEMAN —It is nowhere near $83.6m. If the honourable senator has those figures he is entitled to present them but he cannot justify those figures to compensate for the amount provided as subsidies to the uranium industry. An amount of $37.8m went to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission; $8.2m on uranium exploration and development; $23.2m on the Commonwealth uranium stockpile; $4.4m on environmental protection, a disgraceful amount; and $10m on infrastructure for the Jabiru township. Ownership of Australian uranium reserves is 64 per cent in the hands of foreign investors; it is not even owned by the Australian people. I am always dramatically reminded about the Australian Labor Party anti-uranium stand, and I noticed that Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned in his speech-I think I counted seven occasions-the ALP and whether we support or do not support mining and whether we will or will not go ahead with it. Senator Sir John Carrick —Are you opposed to it? Senator COLEMAN —My attitude on uranium has been well and widely known throughout this country for many years. I am totally opposed to uranium mining and I will remain totally opposed to uranium mining, and because my Party is democratic, I will have the opportunity to maintain that total opposition to it. Senator Martin —Until it makes a decision. Senator COLEMAN —I will have to make a decision when that decision is made. Let me tell the honourable senator that I will make it being well aware of decisions I have made over the past years as a member of the Australian Labor Party and this Parliament. I remind the Senate of what Jim Falk wrote about the Australian Labor Party's anti-uranium stand in his book Global Fission. He put forward a principle that I uphold. He said: For the first time in the world, a major political party had taken a principled stand against nuclear power, not merely because of the effects on the people who vote at the next national election, but because of the effects world-wide. That is my principle. It is the principle that is expounded in the Labor Party's policy and in its general philosophy. As I said at the beginning of my speech, when I closed the debate on the previous matter of public importance on this same issue only two weeks ago-this was the second occasion on which we had had a matter of public importance on uranium-I said that it was a nonsense matter of public importance. I say again that this is a nonsense matter of public importance. At a time when we have already agreed that the Senate will sit on two Fridays to enable us to catch up with business, this matter of public importance has been put forward purely and simply to waste the time of the Senate and the time of members of parliament. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.22) —I think it is most important that this topic is discussed, and the fact that it has been discussed on three occasions in the last three weeks or so is a good thing. So much can be said about the subject to inform people of the facts that I think we ought to have a debate on the issue every week for the next several months. I am grateful to Senator Kilgariff for drawing my attention to an article on page 130 of the current issue of the Bulletin. The article, which is entitled 'Australia: Uranium Giant Limps on Export Front' states: Australia's proven and potential uranium reserves dwarf those of any other country. Already, uranium products are one of our major exports. The tide in the market is turning, David Haselhurst argues, and the potential is there for a huge expansion. But will politics be allowed to interfere? I commend that article to honourable senators and suggest they should read it so as to get an idea of the potential of this resource, the effect it could have on the economy of Australia, and the job opportunities that would be presented. I have listened with interest to Senator Townley during the debates. The honourable senator can bring to bear some intelligence on the subject, particularly because he has two engineering degrees and a pharmacy degree. He realises from a scientific point of view that what is being said by the anti- nuclear group within the community is, to a large extent, nonsense. I refer to the political aspect of this issue. I am afraid that Hawke will never be able to fly. In fact, I think he is in a spiral at the moment because of the devastating condition of his left wing. Until that left wing can be cured to enable the bird to fly in the right direction for Australia I think we will continue to suffer. I was interested to hear what Senator Mason had to say. The honourable senator informed us today that the question of nuclear power economics is a problem. I can tell him that the Electricity Trust of South Australia is extremely concerned about the economics associated with coal fired power-stations. This problem is not only peculiar to Australia, it is also of concern to people in our Asian-Pacific region. I said the other day in a speech that the South Koreans at the moment are generating 9 per cent of their energy through nuclear power-stations and by 1992 that amount will grow to 51 per cent. One of the main reasons behind their decision to generate power by nuclear means is the economics associated with the transportation of coal to fire their conventional power-stations. It is interesting to note when talking about waste and the usage of energy that a 1,000 megawatt coal-fired power-plant will use 60 million tonnes of fuel in 30 years and will produce millions of tonnes of various gaseous wastes and 15 million tonnes of ash. We must remember that for every tonne of coal that is burnt, 2.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide is emitted into the environment. It is also interesting to note that 15 million tonnes of ash would constitute a heap one square kilometer in area and 15 metres high. The ash containes cadmium and mercury, which are non-degradeable and do not decay. So billions and billions of tonnes of highly toxic waste are generated from that source of power. A 1,000 megawatt nuclear power-plant and its associated fuel cycle facilities generates about 2 cubic metres of solidified high level radioactive waste and 23 ,000 cubic metres of lower level solid waste per year. These wastes remain under control and can be safely disposed of in special waste repositories. The information that is available to all honourable senators suggests that the solidification, the glassification, of highly radioactive wastes is a satisfactory way in which to deal with the problem. I think we are all concerned about the need to get on with the technological development of nuclear fusion. I know that in America at the moment millions of dollars are being spent on that technique. It is a difficult technique. We can do it in the laboratory; we can do it at Flinders University, and no doubt other universities in Australia can do it in a matter of seconds. Senator Townley —It will be years and years. Senator JESSOP —It will be years before this technique is perfected. The Americans are experimenting and spending a lot of money-billions of dollars-on the containment of this one million degrees centigrade technique through electromagnetic and laser containment. I think electromagnetic containment seems to be the way to do it. Sir Mark Oliphant, with whom I talked about this subject a few years ago, seemed to think that it be about 40 years before that technique was developed to any industrial extent. He said that the only way to look at solar energy is to utilise the hydrogen economy which will result from this technology. However, it will probably be 30 or 40 years before we get anywhere near the stage where we can use that technique to activate the globes in Parliament House. That is what we ought to be doing, of course, and the Americans are progressing fairly well in that area of research. I have an interesting Press article headed 'Mine Uranium, says Union Chief', which states: Uranium, as Australia's tenth largest export earner, should be mined, a union leader said today. He is Mr Harry Hurrell, National Secretary of the Federated Ironworkers Association. Mr Hurrell was backing a statement by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, who said it was wrong in principle to leave Australian uranium in the ground. 'Last year Australia earned over $360m in export income from the sale of uranium,' Mr Hurrell said. Senator Hamer —Who said it was immoral to leave it in the ground? Senator JESSOP —Mr Hawke is the person who made that statement, and he is being supported by a union leader, the National Secretary of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia. Senator Sir John Carrick —Very good fellow, Harry Hurrell. Senator JESSOP —He has good sense because he recognises that this industry, when properly developed, will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in the long term in other industries that will develop as a result. Mr Hurrell goes on to say: This will rise substantially once Roxby Downs begins production. What the communists and their trendy left-wing supporters never tell us is that the Western world, the Soviet Union and the Comecon countries have over 294 nuclear plants successfully and safely in operation. I think that my colleagues Senator Hamer and Senator Sir John Carrick referred to that. This is the support being given by a top union official, one of the sensible trade union leaders of this country. According to a gallup poll which I saw recently, his view is shared by 79 per cent of the members of the community who participated in that survey with respect to uranium. In addition to those 295 or so power stations that are operating at the moment in 25 countries, 243 are in the course of construction. Those stations will be of a greater capacity than those that are in service at present. Those 243 will be progressively brought into service over the next decade. At that stage of development the uranium required for generation of electricity for those stations will represent something like 23 per cent of the total amount of electricity to be generated at that time. This seems to me to be a trend in Asian countries and in other countries, which realise that this source of energy is with us. There is no denying that. There is no way in which the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Democrats can tell the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to stop building its 7,000 megawatt nuclear power station in, I think, Smolensk. There is no way in which it will stop nuclear power programs being carried out by the Eastern bloc nations. Senator Townley —They just want to stop Australia. Senator JESSOP —They want to stop Australia. That is what worries me most of all . The other day there was a demonstration of anti-nuclear people at Olympic Dam in South Australia. Some 400-odd people, many had children with them, took part. They came from a demonstration in South West Tasmania. I ask the question: Who is paying for those people to go there? I apprehended a young man who was polluting the environment in North Terrace. He was attempting to stick an anti- Olympic Dam placard on a wall in North Terrace. I made a comment to him that he did not know what he was talking about. I carried on my dignified stroll up North Terrace. He caught up with me and said: 'Aren't you worried about your grandchildren?' I said: 'Why do you say that?' He said: 'Because of the plutonium'. There is no nuclear weapon state in the world that has acquired its weapons through civil nuclear power. That is nonsense. Senator Sir John Carrick made that point. I gave that kid a little lecture for about 10 minutes on alternative energy sources. He did not know anything about the subject. I asked him whether he had a job. He did not have a job. He was unemployed and on the dole. Senator Townley —Where did they come from? Senator JESSOP —That person came from Sydney. Senator Townley —Where did he get the money from? Senator JESSOP —That is what I want to know. I strongly suspect that money is coming into Australia from overseas to pay the expenses of these people to go to Olympic Dam and other parts of Australia to be professional demonstrators with the objective of doing exactly what Senator Townley suggested, that is, retarding the economic progress of Australia. I think that it is treachery. To do those sorts of things is bordering on high treason, particularly when one talks to union leaders such as Mr Hurrell and members of the Australian Workers Union in Port Augusta who are very anxious to develop the uranium resources that we have in the area. South Australia has a large percentage of the world's deposits. In the interests of time-I do not have time to go through these points -I pose four questions and ask the experts in the industry to answer them. Firstly, is the Australian uranium industry economic? Secondly, does it have access to world markets? Thirdly, are contracts available for the sale of Australian uranium? Fourthly, what is the situation of uranium enrichment studies in Australia? I seek leave to have a document in this regard incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Notes on the Australian Uranium Industry These notes deal with the following topics. (1) Is the Australian uranium industry economic? (2) Does it have access to world markets? (3) Are contracts available for sale of Australian uranium? (4) The situation of uranium enrichment studies in Australia. Economic Viability The quality of Australia's uranium resources in terms of grade, quantity and physical accessibility is higher than most deposits in other countries. Consequently, and as has already been demonstrated by the existing mining operations, our resources are competitive on the world market. The competitiveness of Australian production has been recently demonstrated by the fact that the Ranger and Narbarlek projects have commenced successful and profitable operation in the Northern Territory while simultaneously a number of United States producers have ceased or curtailed production due to market conditions. United States mine production in 1981 was 14,810 tonnes of contained uranium metal. In 1982 it had fallen 10,190 tonnes and for 1983 the estimated production is around 7,300 tonnes or less than 50 per cent of the 1981 level. This 1981/83 time span is precisely the time when Ranger and Narbarlek were coming into successful production and confirming their competitiveness against many of the operators in the worlds largest producing (and consuming) country, United States. The outcome of these recent changes is that the United States will become a nett importer of uranium instead of a nett exporter since it now produces only half of its annual requirements, estimated at 13,000 tonnes of uranium for 1983. The significant but as yet undeveloped uranium deposits of Australia are capable of producing on a basis competitive with overseas producers in the same way as Ranger and Narbarlek have demonstrated. The larger undeveloped deposits are at Jabiluka and Koongarra in Northern Territory, Yeelirrie in Western Australia and Olympic Dam in South Australia. All of these deposits are of world rank. The first three were discovered before 1972 and Olympic Dam was discovered in 1975. The companies involved in the discovery evaluation and development of these projects have of necessity made a very close study of the world uranium market over more than ten years. That all of them wish to proceed with development is a consequence of their judgment that the large investments required to develop these projects are worthwhile. These are the people of commercial judgment who are close to and understand the market in detail. Access to World Markets The Australian minerals industry has accumulated a great deal of experience in selling mineral products on world markets. Those responsible for the commercial operations of the uranium industry have this background available to them. These professionals are convinced that markets are available to Australia for the sale of uranium. Such sales are of course subject to the Australian Government conditions including Safeguards requirements and are restricted to countries with whom bilateral safeguard agreements have been completed or may be negotiated in the future. The government has recently withdrawn the '' determinations'' from those Australian companies who are seeking sales contract arrangements abroad. It is therefore not possible to conclude any further sales of Australian uranium at present. The consumption of uranium for electricity production throughout the world is continuing to grow. During 1982 production of nuclear electricity increased by almost 10 per cent, making nuclear by far the fastest growing energy sector, which supplied approximately 10 per cent of world electricity. This share will reach 17 per cent in 1985 and 23 per cent or more by the year 2000. In January 1983, 295 nuclear power reactor units were in service in 22 countries. This capacity is more than seven times larger than the total Australian electrical generation system. In addition to the 295 reactors in service there are approximately 243 nuclear power reactors under construction throughout the world. The average capacity of the units under construction is considerably higher than the average of the in- service units. The commissioning of the units under construction will take place progressively over the next ten years and will more than double the annual rate of consumption of uranium for electricity production. Commitments for new reactors will add to demand into the 1990s. Six new reactors were ordered during 1982, a year of deep economic recession. The managements of nuclear electricity generation utilities are obliged to secure fuel supply at least three and up to five years before any new unit comes into service. Security of supply is critical and therefore utilities seek long term supply contracts for uranium. These contracts must also be co-ordinated with the necessary conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication contracts. First physical deliveries of yellowcake are usually required to commence two years before reactor commissioning. Some of the reactors now under construction and which are due for commissioning in the later 80's have not yet secured fuel supplies and these represent opportunities for Australian sales contracts. Whilst the world market weakened during the past 2-3 years the position is changing due to the combination of declining United States' production on the one hand and increasing comsumption of uranium on the other as the world nuclear electricity industry continues to grow. The crossover point between supply and consumption cannot be accurately predicted but it is expected to take place in the second part of the 1980's. A further complicating factor is the considerable stock of uranium oxide held by producers and consumers which will influence the market for some time. The condition of the market over the past two years was reflected by the decline of the spot price from over $US40 in 1979 to as low as $US17.50 per lb uranium last year. The price has now recovered to $US23.25. However only 10 to 15 per cent of transaction tonnage is through the spot market and long term contract purchases are based on much higher price levels. Although the spot price is an indicator of short term conditions in the market it should not be regarded as relevant to the long term situation which is the concern of Australian producers and intending producers. Inquiries continue to be received by the Australian industry for long term uranium supply. Contracts Available for Australia As already mentioned the Ranger and Nabarlek projects have secured long term contracts for much of their total forward production and are operating efficiently and profitably under those contracts. However in assessing whether contracts would be available for new projects in Australia it is relevant to consider the Canadian position. What will become of the world's largest uranium mine, Key Lake, in Canada, will commence production in July of this year. It has a planned maximum capacity of 4 ,600 tonnes of uranium metal per year. Adequate contracts have been completed to enable production to commence and some 58 per cent of cumulative production up to 1990 and about 40 per cent up to 1995 has already been sold. The Canadians have a long experience in uranium mining and sales and whilst the Canadian Federal and Provincial Governments take a responsible attitude to this industry and its export business they nevertheless support its development and exhibit a flexible policy which takes into account commercial and market situations from time to time. Australia's uranium deposits are on a par with those in Canada in terms of quality and basic competitiveness. In addition there are a number of other factors which will favour new Australian producers in competing for satisfactory long term sales contracts. Firstly, Australia has very large proven resources of uranium and potentially could emerge with the largest resources in the western world when in Olympic Dam deposit has been more fully evaluated. Our assured and probable resources now stand at about 550,000 tonnes of uranium. Indicated resources at Olympic Dam many increase this by one million tonnes. Secondly, Australia represents to large uranium consumers an additional substantial and reliable supplier which would enable them to spread their risks of supply security. There is an additional incentive for countries which share Australia's views on international safeguards to seek supplies from Australia in preference to other sources. A number of countries are obliged to source uranium from South Africa, Namibia and other African countries which incur for them some political and supply security risks which would not be involved if Australian uranium was available. The main disadvantage under which intending Australian producers find themselves at present is the uncertain posture of the Federal Government as to its uranium policies. However the people in the industry believe that if government provides a supportive framework for its productive and commercial activities then inquiries that are being received at present could be converted into satisfactory contracts. Enrichment The Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia (UEGA) comprising a group of Australian companies reported last to the Federal Government in September 1982. This report was later tabled in parliament. No work is proceeding at present while the new government policy on enrichment is being clarified. Senator JESSOP —There is not much in those questions to do with uranium enrichment. In closing, I wish to say that it is regrettable that the initiatives taken years ago by Mr Dunstan, the former ALP Premier of South Australia, have been neglected and overlooked by the ALP Government here. As the former Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick, knows, South Australia was leading the way. Dr Tonkin, when he was Premier, tried to keep that ball going because it would have been in the interests of our State to have that significant industry, which is non-pollutant. There is no radiation. It is a chemical process which, under proper management, has no effluent that would cause any problem at all. In fact, the effluent that comes out of the uranium enrichment plant at Lucas Heights is purer than the waters of the river into which it flows. I think it is a very important subject to deal with. I am grateful to Senator Hamer for being able to say a little more about the subject which ought to be discussed as often as we possibly can. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(11.36) -It is with some reluctance that I take part, once again, in this debate. It could be a very valuable debate in this and in other places and one to which I would be happy to contribute if it were not for the fact that at least half of the contributions do nothing but drag out the tired old shibboleths, expose extraordinary paranoia and do nothing to add any light at all to the subject. Perhaps Senator Jessop's wits are somewhat dulled by his anxiety for South Australia's lack of energy. I suggest that South Australia buy some of Western Australia's natural gas. We seem to have an embarrassment of the stuff as a result of some excruciatingly bad decisions by the Court Government. The question of uranium mining seems to obsess the Opposition. I am quite amazed that so much emphasis should be given to the fact that Australia is exporting quantities of uranium which earn something like $380m in one year. Senator Townley —It would have been $1,200m by now if- Senator GILES —I inform Senator Townley, with all his scientific qualifications, that currently accepted macroeconomic policy holds that a zero balance on the balance of payments should be aimed at. In short, this means that any increase in a particular export would lead to an equivalent reduction in other exports, an increase in imports, an increase in incomes payable abroad, or some combination of these three results. The result would be in effect that an increase in any export area would produce an equivalent decline in the total of all other items in the current account of the balance of payments. This occurrence allows us to make some estimates of overall employment effects. If the uranium mining workers receive the industry average pay of twice average weekly earnings and if various taxes, royalties, et cetera, are imposed on an industry average, we can estimate the value of these two components of the total average of exports. The remainder is corporate gross operating surpluses plus the value of intermediate goods, services, energy costs, et cetera, which are assumed to be split 50-50. With such macroeconomic assumptions this means that if additional net exports of $380m are generated by uranium exports other net exports must fall by $380m. Exports in other areas will fall; imports will replace local production, or some combination of the two will occur, which means a fall in Australian production of $380m. The job loss has been estimated at something like 10,000 jobs in less capital extensive industries and multiplier effects would cause much greater job loss. It is abundantly clear that whatever decisions are finally made-we will not be steamrolled or coerced by the Opposition or anyone else-the uranium industry is hardly the one on which this country depends for financial or employment recovery. Senator Collard —Who wrote this for you? Senator GILES —It is all in my own fair hand. Even if there were such an argument I for one would consider the costs much too high, outweighing any so- called advantages as currently defined by the Opposition. Let us examine once again the facts about uranium mining. I will leave the economic theory if Opposition senators find that embarrassing. It is inefficient in the extreme in its social use of capital. Along with other failed elements of the so-called resources boom, it has had the effect of reallocating resources away from other parts of the economy, with devastating effects on the Australian work force. Capital available for development in Australia must be utilised to generate and maintain employment. Let Opposition senators disagree with that if they dare. Where many more jobs per dollar should be provided in secondary and tertiary industries, uranium mining provides few jobs but generates profits to be repatriated overseas or put into more labour destroying technology. We have plenty of evidence of that. Foreign capitalists clearly do not share the sensitivity that the Australian business community has lately shown. Unemployment and its corollary, lack of demand, has concentrated the minds of local entrepreneurs quite wonderfully. Is it the interests of foreign capital which concern the Opposition to the exclusion of all else? Does the Opposition really believe that the Australian Government should without serious investigation allow the commitment of social resources, capital, technology, labour and expertise to the production of a material which has an intrinsically negative value in being the raw material for nuclear weapons and having unaccepted social costs in safety, environmental and cultural problems throughout the process of production and usage. If in the long run we are not all dead and the exploitation of uranium can be shown to be safe, Australia's deposits will still be there. They will not go rusty or mouldy, get flyblown or disappear. In the meantime may I repeat something that I said during the debate on 7 September. 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 in the course of a debate on a matter of public importance such as this. They can be resolved only in the context of a responsible government prepared to face up to these crucial issues. I move: That the business of the day be brought on. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I present the first report of the sixty-first session of the Standing Orders Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That consideration of the report in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth 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. Commonwealth Grants Commission Fourth Report 1983 on Special Assistance for the Northern Territory-pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 2. Museum of Australia-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 38 of the Museum of Australia Act 1980 3. Australian Telecommunications Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 4. States Grants Commissions-New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania-Recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual Councils-pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 5. Review of the Crimes Act 1914 and other Crimes Legislation of the Commonwealth-Human Rights Commission report-pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981-together with the text of a statement relating to the Report by the Attorney-General Report Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —I seek leave to have a statement on this paper incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- TABLING STATEMENT BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SENATOR THE HON. GARETH EVANS Human Rights Commission Report No 5-Review of the Crimes Act 1914 and Other Crimes Legislation of the Commonwealth Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 I present Report No. 5 of the Human Rights Commission on a review conducted by the Commission of the Crimes Act 1914 and other Crimes Legislation of the Commonwealth. One of the functions of the Human Rights Commission is to examine enactments for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are inconsistent with or contrary to any human rights, and to report to the Minister the results of any such examination. The human rights with which the Commission is concerned are the rights and freedoms recognised and declared in certain international instruments, being- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons, and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. The full texts of all of these instruments are set out in Schedules to the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, and the articles which are most relevant to this particular report are contained in Appendix 2 of the Report. In addition to its functions under the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 the Commission has functions relating to racial discrimination under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and in particular the function of propagating the purposes and principles of the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination. The present Report indicates that the legislation reviewed has been examined in the light of that Act and that Convention. The particular Acts subjected to review in this report are as follows: Crimes Act 1914 Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963 Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1973 Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972 Crimes at Sea Act 1979 Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980 Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 Crimes (Biological Weapons) Act 1976 Crimes (Overseas) Act 1964. It is reported that ten provisions are inconsistent with human rights. In addition, questions are raised concerning three other provisions. The report does not go so far as to conclude that those provisions are inconsistent with human rights, but it alerts me and the Parliament to the possibility that this is so. The provisions which the Commission concludes are inconsistent with human rights are as follows. Crimes Act 1914 Section 17-which empowers a Court, when declaring a person to be a habitual criminal, to direct that on the expiration of the person's imprisonment, he be detained during the pleasure of the Governor-General. The Commission's view is that this provides for 'arbitrary detention'. Section 20B-which requires that where a person has been charged with an indictable offence and is unfit to be tried by reason of unsoundness of mind or is acquitted by reason of unsoundness of mind at the time of the commission of the offence, the Court is required to direct the person to be kept in strict custody until the pleasure of the Governor-General is known. The view taken by the Commission is that this provision provides for 'arbitrary detention'. Section 30FD-which provides for a disqualification from voting for the Parliament for seven years of persons who are members of the Committee or Executive of associations declared unlawful. The Commission's view is that this is an unreasonable restriction for a person who was not aware of the matter which gave rise to the association's being declared unlawful. Section 78-which deals with the subject matter of espionage and, according to the Report, contains an unacceptable reversal of onus of proof. Section 79-which deals with the subject matter of official secrets and, according to the Report, contains a similar reversal of onus of proof. Sub-sections 82 (4) and 84A (2)-which contain provisions that female persons should only be searched by females and not that persons generally should be searched, where necessary, by a person of the same sex. Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963 Sub-section 25 (1)-which empowers the person in command of an aircraft to arrest persons found committing offences against Part II of the Act or suspected of committing such offences. The Commission's view is that sub-section (1) should have a requirement that the bringing of the person concerned before a judicial authority should be done 'promptly'. Sub-section 25 (2)-which empowers the commander of an aircraft in certain circumstances to place a person on board the aircraft under restraint or in custody, and if the aircraft is not in the course of a flight, remove a person from the aircraft. The Commission has stated that there is no requirement in this sub-section that the commander have reasonable grounds for considering it necessary to take the action envisaged. It has also stated that there should be a requirement that a person placed in restraint or in custody be brought promptly before a judicial authority. Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1973 Sub-section 9 (2) and (3)-which are viewed by the Commission as giving rise to the same problems as arise under sub-sections 25 (1) and (2) of the Crimes ( Aircraft) Act 1963. Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972 Sub-sections 12 (2) and (3)-which are viewed by the Commission as giving rise to the same problems as arise under sub-sections 25 (1) and (2) of the Crimes ( Aircraft) Act 1963. The provisions which the Commission concludes may possibly be inconsistent with human rights are- Crimes Act 1914 Section 30AB-which permits the Attorney-General to require persons to provide information or documents relating to ''unlawful associations''. Section 30D-which makes it an offence to donate, or contribute to or receive or solicit for an ''unlawful association''. The Commission has drawn attention to the possible application of this provision to a person who does not know that an affiliated association is in law, by reason of its affiliation, an unlawful association. Section 70-which makes it an offence for a Commonwealth officer to disclose information acquired by virtue of his office which it is his duty not to disclose. The view taken by the Commission is that this provision may go further than is justified in restricting a person's right to impart information. The provisions reviewed in this report are important provisions of our criminal law. It is very desirable that they should in no way be inconsistent with human rights and I shall be giving close consideration to the views which the Commission has expressed. At this stage I can say that I am inclined to accept the Commission's conclusions relating to the two provisions for searches (sub-section 82 (4) and 84A (2) of the Crimes Act 1914). It is desirable that these provisions be suitably amended, although I understand that in practice administrative arrangements already provide for searches to be conducted in the manner that the Commission has proposed. In relation to the recommendations on sections 78 and 79 of the Crimes Act, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has furnished a report on the desirability of avoiding provisions which reverse the normal onus of proof. I presently have that report (to the preparation of which I contributed as a then member of the Committee) under consideration and I will be taking into account the views which the Commission has expressed in this regard. I am not inclined to agree with the conclusions the Commission has expressed in relation to section 25 of the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963, nor the corresponding provisions in section 9 of the Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1973 and section 12 of the Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972, which are all important provisions for the protection of airline passengers. The conclusion that sub-section 25 (1) should have a requirement that the bringing of the person concerned before a judicial authority should be done '' promptly'' is of course acceptable in principle, but inclusion of this language in the sections in question would appear to add little or nothing: the recommendation does not appear to have sufficient regard to the fact that the power to hold the arrested person in custody already operates only until he '' can be brought before'' the judicial authority. Nor would there appear to be a need for sub-section 25 (2) to be amended to require the aircraft commander to have reasonable grounds for considering it necessary to exercise his powers under the sub-section. The sub-section already requires that the commander consider the exercise of his powers ''necessary . . . in order to prevent an offence . . . or to avoid danger to the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board'' it. If the commander does consider that to be the position there should be no doubt about his ability to act. The Commission's conclusions that sections 17 and 20B of the Crimes Act 1914 provide for ''arbitrary detention'' will need to be examined more closely. Regrettably, the Commission's report does not refer to any relevant authorities or learning on what constitutes arbitrary detention. The fact that detention during the pleasure of the Governor-General is directed by a court is not adverted to; nor is there any discussion of the possible implications of provisions for administrative review. The Commission's comment that section 70 of the Crimes Act may go further than is justified in restricting a person's right to impart information deserves close consideration, particularly in the light of the attention that this and related sections have received in the context of the Hope Royal Commission. It would appear, overall, that-while this report makes a useful start-a good deal more work remains to be done to identify those provisions of Commonwealth criminal law which give rise to actual or possible human rights problems. The task would appear to be necessary not only in relation to the statutes specifically considered by the Commision, but also in relation to a number of other specific pieces of Commonwealth legislation-e.g. the Atomic Energy Act 1953 and the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971-which have given rise to spirited criticism in recent years. I propose, accordingly, to establish early in 1984 a Task Force to fully review the human rights aspects of the Commonwealth Crimes Act and other major Commonwealth criminal legislation, in the light not only of the present Human Rights Commission Report, but also in the light of such advice as emerges from the conclusions (if any) of the Hope Royal Commission on the scope and application of section 79 of the Crimes Act and related provisions. Departmental resources for this purpose should become available when the Task Force presently working on a legislative package involving the enactment of an Australian Bill of Rights and amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act, Racial Discrimination Act and related legislation completes, or substantially completes, that project, as I expect it will early next year. The proposed review of Commonwealth criminal law will be fully publicised when it gets under way and submissions are formally sought, but in the meantime I would welcome submissions or comment, including reactions to the Report tabled today, from any interested groups or individuals in the community. Fourth Report 1983 Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(11.46) —On behalf of Senator Kilgariff, I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debated adjourned. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.47) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make just a brief comment. Earlier this year the Senate had presented to it a report on the subject of the setting up of the Museum of Australia-a significant and very detailed report. This is the annual report of the Museum of Australia Interim Council for 1981-82. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that this report is for the financial year prior to the year for which we would expect to receive reports at this stage. On page 8, the report contains a letter to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen, from Mr Dix, the Chairman of the Interim Council, who points out that a change of procedure in relation to financial statements delayed presentation of the report and said that it was outside the control of the Council. I note that the Auditor-General' s statement, which is contained on page 17 of the report, is dated 1 June 1983, 12 months after the actual end of the period for which the Interim Council was reporting. This is a matter to which the Senate has drawn attention in the past. At least there is some indication in the report of some sensitivity to the fact that the report is extremely late. It is a subject that has been debated in the Senate and the Estimates committees at great length. I make the point again, and specifically in relation to this report, that when we have new bodies-the Interim Council was a new body when it was operating during this period-great difficulties seem to be experienced by them in sorting out just what the Auditor -General and the Department of Finance require of them in their financial recording. Getting reports presented to the Parliament within a reasonable length of time has been a perennial problem. I am not sure of the present procedure of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, but it is my impression that under previous conditions a report that was presented at this late date with these sorts of dates on it would have been referred to that Committee. It is up to the new Committee to decide whether it still places that sort of priority on this subject of late tabling of reports. The report contained some interesting information which is now so dated that it is not worth commenting on. It is information that would have been interesting prior to the tabling of the report of the Museum of Australia that we received in the Senate months ago. Consequently, I do not intend to comment in any detail on the content of the report. I simply say that it is a report that would have been useful several months ago. Given that the Museum of Australia had difficulty in getting its financial clearances from the Auditor-General, I just wonder again, as I have wondered in the case of a number of other reports, why consideration was not given to the tabling of the interim report from the museum of Australia Interim Council, minus the financial statements but containing the bulk of the information in the report which is the sort of information the Parliament and the public is entitled to have when it is current information. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(11.49) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make a few comments on it because in the brief time that I have had the report available to me I have not been able to find anywhere in it mention of the number of personnel employed by Telecom Australia. That causes me a little concern. However, on page 9 the report states: 99 per cent of telephone services in Australia now have access to fully automatic telephone facilities. During the year, 10,000 services were upgraded to automatic. That pleases me very much. Coming from Western Australia I have always been conscious of the need to have adequate communications for those people who live in the outback and in the north of Western Australia, particularly in the Kimberley and the Pilbara. I was interested to receive in the mail a copy of the report on the Kimberley microwave system which I mentioned briefly during the matter of public importance on the uranium industry. I pointed out that one of the very important areas into which Telecom is moving is the provision of solar communication systems, which will create a much needed service. Nevertheless, it concerns me that nowhere in this report have I yet been able to find what is happening to those people who will be displaced or disemployed-I think that is the buzz word at the moment-because of the transfer to automatic systems. I know that the operators at Telecom have been expressing concern to all members of Parliament for some months now that they are being put out of work. I am particularly concerned because in those country areas the majority of people who work on telephone exchanges, for instance, are women who would not normally have access to any other forms of employment. I will take a minute or two to comment also on the pages entitled 'Occupational Safety and Health'. They establish that as an industry Telecom is becoming vitally concerned with occupational safety and health. As I have pointed out, it is a major part of this Government's concern that there are adequate safety provisions for people employed in industry. It is interesting to note that the report states: At the close of 1982-83, two years into our second five year accident reduction programme, Telecom achieved a lost time on duty accident frequency rate of 27.0 accidents per million man hours worked. This is by far our best performance. This current trend indicates that we have high hopes of achieving our target accident frequency rate of 20.0 by June 1986. The administrators of Telecom are to be commended on that. I am also interested in the number of suggestions that were submitted by Telecom staff during 1982-83 which totalled 458. Of these, 72 were adopted and awards totalling $8,185 were made. The comment is also made that among those suggestions were a number which resulted in significant improvements in removing safety hazards. This will add to the occupational safety and health program that Telecom has undertaken. I have to return to the problem that occasioned me to speak when this report was presented, that is, the concern about the employment of the telephonists, especially those in country areas. I would appreciate-I am sure that the administrators at Telecom read the Hansard-if someone could inform me at some time what is happening to those people who will be displaced and who have absolutely no opportunity in the isolated areas, particularly in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland, of obtaining other employment opportunities in their townships. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Recommendations Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(11.54) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I want to comment briefly on the situation in Western Australia. I was one of many members of Parliament in that State and, I am sure, in all other States, who were inundated with letters from various shires and councils-local government-who were concerned that the personal income tax sharing system was to be changed under the new Labor Government. I have made a point since the Budget was brought down of writing to all the individual councils reminding them that they have all, I think with two exceptions, had increases in the amounts paid under the personal income tax sharing arrangement. I hope that they will recognise that the new Hawke Labor Government and the Commonwealth Parliament is concerned that local government is seen as the very important third tier of government and that without adequate funds it has no other method, apart from raising taxes and its own ratings, of being able to carry out the programs that are so necessary for people who contribute in various communities. The response from some individual councils has already been quite marked in their appreciation of the increases in the amounts that have been paid to councils and shires. I welcome the detailed definition that has been put before members of parliament in the recommendations for the distribution of Commonwealth funds to individual councils with which we have all been provided. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(11.56) —In speaking to this paper I point out that the distribution of 2 per cent of income tax collections is a carry on from a policy which the Liberal-National Party Government brought in following election promises over a period. I point out that the Australian Labor Party policy is a little different from ours. It has acknowledged the 2 per cent of Federal personal income tax collections as a general revenue grant to local government but it has also stated that the allocation in any year should be not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation. Of course, this year's allocation falls down on that premise. In 1982-83 the consumer price index rose to the tune of 11.2 per cent whereas income tax collections rose by only 8.2 per cent. I understand that on that basis and on what the Labor Party policy indicates local government is missing out on around $13m this year. I point out to the chamber that the Labor Party policy has not been brought in and that local government is missing out. As well as that it has copped the increase in excises, and the loss of exemption from sales tax on lubricating oils and, therefore, its expenses have gone up considerably. It has not been paid the amount it would have expected if the Labor Party had introduced its policy to the full. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Human Rights Commission Report Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.58) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This appears to be a most important report of the Human Rights Commission. It is accompanied by the text of a statement on the report by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans), which was submitted to me only about an hour ago. This is very much in breach of the conventions of this chamber whereby the Opposition should be given adequate notice of statements of this kind. It is a very bad practice, one that seems to be growing, that ministerial statements are made in conjunction with the presentation of a report. It may be justified if the statement is a fairly minor one dealing, perhaps, with some factual matters but where there is a major report, as this is, and a major response to it is required, I think it is completely inadequate that it be dealt with in this way. Clearly, this is a matter that should be debated by the Senate at an early date and I hope that an opportunity will be given to do so. I have moved that the Senate take note of the paper in the hope that the debate will be adjourned to an early date and an adequate debate can take place. I have had little opportunity of studying the Human Rights Commission report, but I have had the opportunity to look at it. It is a very important report because it contains a review of a great many criminal law provisions of the Commonwealth such as the Crimes Act, the Crimes at Sea Act, the Crimes ( Protection of Aircraft) Act, the Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act, the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act, the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act and several other crimes Acts of the Commonwealth. It has considered them in accordance with its function of examining enactments that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human rights and reported to the Attorney-General the results of any such examination. The examination which the Human Rights Commission made of these very important statutes of the Commonwealth has revealed the inconsistency of a number of provisions of these statutes with the international covenant. The Attorney-General has acknowledged that there will need to be an early review of these matters to determine whether amendments are required. In its summary the Human Rights Commission has noted six main areas of concern. They are: Firstly, the detention of certain prisoners at the Governor-General's pleasure; secondly, the procedure for dealing with children and young persons who offend against Commonwealth law; thirdly, offences relating to unlawful associations; fourthly, disclosure of official information by Commonwealth officers; fifthly, reverse onus of proof and averment provisions; and sixthly, procedures for arrest, detention and trial of persons charged with criminal offences. They are of major concern. I think we are certainly indebted to the Human Rights Commission for its very thoughtful review and report. It is clearly in line with the object that the Fraser Government had in establishing the Human Rights Commission that it should tackle major questions of this kind in the light of its charter and should report to the Government and the Parliament, but that the decision on such matters should be made by the Parliament and not by some extraparliamentary or judicial body. I congratulate the Commission on the very careful and thoughtful report it made which, as I said, merits and demands very close consideration and debate in this Parliament and by the Government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so that the number of members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the number of senators. Bill presented by Senator Macklin, and read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.04) -by leave-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- It is with great humility that I wish to bring before the Parliament of Australia today, a Bill which has had very distinguished support in this Parliament over a great period of time since it was first introduced by one of this nation's greatest parliamentarians on the 11th November, 1965. This is a Bill of immense importance but of not great complexity in itself. It is designed to break the nexus-a term which we have all come to understand- created by section 24 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Section 24 states-and I want to state this matter with all possible clearness because I think that is vital to an understanding of it- The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators. With these words, the then Prime Minister of Australia, and founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, first introduced this Bill. In concluding his speech he stated that: I profoundly hope and I deeply believe that when this [Bill] is adequately explained to the people of Australia they will say ''Yes'' and they will change this rule and thereby make a tremendous contribution to making this Parliament an effective agent of the popular will. Sir Robert was supported in his speech by the next speaker, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Calwell, who stated that 'We regard it is vitally important to the well-being of the people and the welfare of the nation and the health of democracy that they [the two Constitution Alteration Bills being debated] should be carried. On their merits they deserve overwhelming endorsement'. The Bill passed both houses on the 2nd December 1965 but the matter was not put to the people within the required period of time and so was re-introduced by the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt on 1 March 1967. The Bill was substantially the same as that passed in 1965 except in that the minimum number of people to be represented by each House of Representatives seat was increased from 80,000 to 85,000 people. In concluding his speech, Mr Holt stated that if the proposals contained in the Bill were approved by the people 'this will constitute a significant advance in the efficient working of our parliamentary system.' The next speaker was none other than that great statesman, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Gough Whitlam. In his opening remarks Mr Whitlam stated that 'I can assure honourable members and all our fellow citizens that my Party, in the Parliament and outside the Parliament, will support this Bill and the referendum without reservation, equivocation or qualification.' Amongst other notable speakers supporting the Bill at that time was the then Minister for the Interior, and now Leader of the National Party, Mr Doug Anthony . Speaking in the House of Representatives he stated that 'The weight of work and the volume of legislation that has come before the House and is on the statue book has grown tremendously. This is why we believe that the size of this chamber (the House of Representatives) particularly needs to be increased. How are we to do it? It has been fully explained that there is a link between the two chambers-the nexus which prevents us from increasing the size of this chamber without increasing the size of the Senate by half the number. This has been looked at closely and it is thought that the Senate can continue to do a satisfactory job in protecting the rights of the States if it is kept at the present level of ten senators to each State. However the duty of preparing legislation and of looking after individual electorates has increased and there is a need to increase the size of this House. The clean and satisfactory way of increasing the size of the House of Representatives is to break the nexus with the Senate. To do this we must hold a referendum to permit us to alter the Constitution. I have always supported the view that the nexus should be broken.' I, for one, hope that Mr Anthony still holds that view and that he is able to convince other members of the coalition parties to back him up on this matter. It would appear then, from the Hansard record, that there was strong emotional support from the Labor, Liberal and Country Parties on this matter on the two previous occasions when it was debated in Parliament. The arguments so ably put by Mr Anthony which applied in 1965 and 1967 still apply now. We are faced with a situation that in order to adequately represent people in the people's house, we must increase the number of representatives in that place, but in order to do so we are currently forced by the Constitution to also increase the number of Senators, an expense which is completely unwarranted at a time of limited budgetary resources, and at a time when the Senate has so ably demonstrated its ability to 'do a satisfactory job in protecting the rights of States' without an increase in its size. The Australian Democrats are proposing this Bill at this time in an attempt to resolve the predicament which the Parliament now faces in regard to the need to increase its numbers in the House of Representatives at a time when any increase in the number of Parliamentarians is likely to be electorally unpopular. In sponsoring this Bill we seek to both allow an increase in the number of members in the lower house and to limit the powers of the Parliament in the extent to which it can increase its size. Constitutionally, we can enlarge the membership of the House of Representatives indefinitely and at will. The Constitution imposes no restriction on the numbers . In fact, it is to the contrary, as it insists that if the numbers in the House of Representatives are increased then we must also increase the numbers in the Senate in the ration of one to two. Under the proposal now before us, that burdensome necessity would be ended. And the Bill goes further. It proposes, for the first time in our history that there shall be a restriction placed on the size of the House of Representatives, by establishing that there will be 'not less than' 85,000 people for each seat. That is 85,000 men, women and children-whether they be voters or not. It could, at the discretion of Parliament be higher than that-90,000, 100,000 or even more; but it cannot be less than 85,000. At present there is no such restriction. Let me emphasise the re-emphasise that currently there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent us from deciding that there shall be one seat for every 30 or 40 thousand people, or whichever figure we might choose. As long as we also simultaneously and proportionately increase the Senate we can make the other house as large as we like. I do not think anybody wishes to do that. If this proposal is carried, we shall not be able to do it. As Mr Calwell said in 1965: 'It is not those who support this proposal who want an extravagant increase in the number of Parliamentarians; it is, rather those who oppose it who would commit Australia in the quite near future to an excessive, extravagant and unwarranted increase of both senators and members of the House of Representatives. This is the inescapable consequence of the opposition of the people to whom I have referred, if their opposition is successful.' Let us who still have some sense of responsibility to the people who elect us, rather than to the creation of more jobs for the boys and girls, show some leadership and put our support behind this Bill now. The other issue which must be discussed is the effect of increasing the numbers in the Senate from 64 to 76, a proposal currently being considered by the Labor and National Parties, one can only imagine, for vested interests. The matter was, I believe, ably addressed by Sir Robert Menzies when he first introduced the Bill in 1965 and I would like, with the Senate's indulgence to include the relevant part of that speech so that Senators can read at their leisure what that honourable parliamentarian had to say on the issue. 'Suppose that the Senate were increased in number to 72 . . . That would mean 12 senators from each State, six to be elected at each election. Under the present system for Senate elections-and nobody has been able to suggest a better system-the election of six senators from each State would almost guarantee in every State the election of three Government senators and three Opposition senators and so we would produce a deadlocked Senate, with every motion and every amendment defeated. I remind honourable members that section 23 of the Constitution states- Questions arising in the Senate shall be determined by a majority of votes, and each senator shall have one vote. The President shall in all cases be entitled to a vote; and when the votes are equal the question shall pass in the negative. I have always rather liked that phrase-'the question shall pass in the negative '. What it means is that the question will not be passed at all but will be resolved in the negative. That is the position in the Senate. A deadlocked Senate would not be any good to a government in this House, elected by the people, because nobody could pass a resolution and nobody could pass an amendment. Therefore, if there is to be a Senate in which a clear majority becomes possible, the numbers of the Senate would need to be such under the existing Constitution that an odd number would be elected every three years. Having mentioned the present odd number of 5, I must, therefore, go on to the next odd number of 7. If 7 were to be elected every three years there would be a Senate of 84 members and under the Constitution as it now stands, the House of Representatives would have 168 members . . . Nobody pretends for a moment that we want 168 members in the House of Representatives. Most people, realising the duties of members of the Parliament and the enormous and growing population that must be represented, would say: 'We ought to have 130 or 135 or whatever it may be, but we do not want 168'. I want people to understand that, under the Constitution as it is now, if this referendum were defeated, we could not increase the number of members in this House to fewer than 168 if at the same time we were to increase the membership of the Senate to an extent that made that institution workable. This seems to me, and I think to all of us, to be quite clear. It follows from this that, as long as the present section 24 remains, the membership of this House must stand still or vary by perhaps only one or two, unless a massive increase is made in the numbers in the Senate.' Honourable Senators will realise that in 1965 we did not have representation in this place from either the A.C.T. or the Northern Territory so that when Sir Robert refers to 72 and 84 we need to add another 4 and make appropriate adjustments to the corresponding House of Representatives figures. The Democrats strongly support Sir Robert's arguments believing that on current voting figures the result would be more or less the same today. Perhaps it was an omen of history that this Bill should have been first introduced to Parliament on the 11th November; that the only Parliamentary Political Party to oppose the Bill at the time (and later in 1967) was the D.L.P .; and that the 26th Parliament, the Parliament which eventually put this matter to the people, was opened by the then Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick. Perhaps it was an omen of history that the D.L.P., the party which exactly 10 years after the Bill was first introduced was to bring about the 1975 constitutional crisis in this country, was successful in getting the people of Australia to defeat this proposal. It is now time to rectify the mistakes of the past by supporting this proposal and going to the people with a united Parliamentary party support for this timely and imaginative Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Hamer) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend section 57 of the Constitution to provide that a dissolution of both Houses of the Parliament shall not take place by reason that the Senate has twice rejected, failed to pass or unacceptably amended a proposed law, if more than three months has elapsed after the Senate so treated that proposed law. Bill presented by Senator Hamer, and read a first time. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(12.07) —by leave-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 my proposed amendment to the Constitution is to bring the deadlock power back to its original, and still proper, purpose. It may be of interest that there was no double dissolution power in the 1891 Constitution, and it was only inserted in the 1897 Constitution after a prolonged campaign, primarily by Victorian delegates. The purpose was quite clear. It was to provide a mechanism by which a vital piece of government legislation which was vetoed by the Senate could somehow be put to the people for their decision. The original proposal was that this should be done by means of referendum, but ultimately it was agreed that it should be done by a double dissolution of both Houses of Parliament, after which, if the Senate was still obstructive, there should be a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. For the first 70 years of our constitutional history this provision was little used-only twice in fact, in 1914 and 1951, but in the last 10 years it has been used 3 times-in 1974, 75 and 83, and the way things are developing it will, in my view, continue to be used very frequently, possibly going as far as to have a double dissolution every time there is an election for the House of Representatives. This would destroy the Senate as the continuing body envisaged by the Constitution. The reason for this development is obvious. Prime Ministers feel that they may have a better chance of winning control of the Senate in a double dissolution than in a half Senate election and it has become almost customary to put up to the Senate a Bill known to be unacceptable and put it up again 3 months after it has been rejected and thereafter the Government has the trigger so it may have a double dissolution at any time the Prime Minister chooses. This is, I believe, very de-stabilising for our whole political system. Worse still, I have heard no arguments to justify it. It is a gross distortion of the original purpose of Section 57 of the Constitution which I repeat was for the very narrow purpose of allowing a deadlock between the two Houses on a particular piece of legislation to be resolved by the people as a whole. It has reached the absurd situation that only one of the 64 present Senators-you Mr President-has ever served the full 6 year term. What my amendment would do would be to provide that if the government had the grounds for a double dissolution because of deadlock over a particular piece of legislation, its power to have a double dissolution would lapse if it were not exercised within 3 months of gaining power. This would bring Section 57 back to its original purpose of resolving a dispute over a particular piece of legislation and prevent its being used in the grossly improper way it has been used in recent years. In 1983 for instance, the last election was ordered because of incurable deadlock between the two Houses, but most of the Bills concerned were about a year old, and we had no intention of re-introducing most of them even if we won the election. I don't think this sort of thing is a proper use of Section 57 of the Constitution and my amendment is aimed to prevent it happening again. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I present the report from Estimates Committee A on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1983-84 and the expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the report from Estimates Committee B on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1983-84 and the expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. I move: That the report of the Committee be printed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.10) —Mr Deputy President, can you tell me when I can ask some questions in relation to information we have subsequently received from Estimates Committee B? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Hamer) —Senator Walters, there will be a full debate in the Committee of the Whole on the Estimates. At that time you can ask any questions you like on what arose or did not arise in the Estimates committees. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —On behalf of Senator Primmer, I present the report from Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1983-84 and the expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee' s proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee D on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1983-84 and the expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —As Acting Chairman I present the report from Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1983-84 and the expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year 1982- 83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee F on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1983-84 and the expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year 1982-83, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Consideration resumed from 8 September 1983. Clause 47 (Proceedings in absence of parties). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.13) —Mr Chairman, could you give me some indication of where we are up to? The CHAIRMAN —Clause 47, and you have a motion to leave out proposed section 98A and to insert a new section. Senator WALTERS —It has been some time since we debated this legislation. I do not know quite how long it has been, but is it any wonder that in picking up the threads after so many stops and starts there should be a bit of confusion. Senator Gareth Evans —We are on the home stretch now. Senator WALTERS —Senator Evans says we are on the home stretch. Senator Haines —Not if Senator Walters has anything to do with it. Senator WALTERS —Senator Haines is not quite right in saying not if I have anything to do with it. I have been very brief in my comments, and interjections like that will only make the debate linger on. Senator Haines —Is that a threat or a promise? Senator WALTERS —Both. I have already spoken on this clause of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983. I had outlined my concerns on the effect of divorce by post on the psychology of people approaching marriage. In 10 years time our children will have no concept of what it means to be married for life. If we put through an amendment that enables them, after being separated for 12 months, to fill in a form, send it in and at some later time receive a letter saying: 'Dear Mr or Mrs So and So, your divorce went through on such and such a date and you are now divorced', then the coming generations will have no idea of what the terms ' marriage for life' or 'a stable marriage' mean. As we have indicated all the way through this debate, the figures for divorce are going up at such a high rate that surely this Parliament needs to do something about it. Making the climate so easy that people will not think much about the marriage is, I believe a great disservice to the coming generations. I will have more to say about this later, no doubt. I know that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has already gone half way by not allowing parents to procure divorce by this method and I thank him for that. As far as I am concerned, that does not go far enough. As I have already indicated, and I have circulated my amendment, I want the whole procedure to be taken more seriously. I do not think that this is the way the Parliament should go about it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.18) -Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 is an important piece of legislation and that, like me, a number of honourable senators did not believe that this would come on before 12.45 today, I draw your attention to the state of the Committee. (Quorum formed) The Committee is debating an amendment moved by Senator Walters to the amendments moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to clause 47 which, in shorthand, has been described as the divorce by post clause. The amendment that has been moved by Senator Walters has some merit, but there may be honourable senators who may not wish to support it, but may wish, in fact, to vote against the proposal advanced by Senator Evans. My view about the proposal- having regard to the fact that Senator Evans has accepted the proposition that there should be attendance in court where children are involved-is, nevertheless , that I find myself against the proposition that has been advanced because I believe the issue is one of the nature of marriage and the educative role of legislation. Marriage celebrants are bound under the provisions of legislation to furnish to the parties, when they have given the prescribed statutory notice of their intention to marry, form 14A referred to in section 42 (5A) of the Marriage Act. This form contains the words: Marriage and family life have been basic to the strength of our society for a long time. The Parliament in the Family Law Act has placed great stress on their importance . . . The form then goes on to quote section 43 of the Family Law Act. Those injunctions become meaningless if the Parliament now adopts the amendments to proposed new section 98A contained in the Attorney-General's proposition. Australians contemplating marriage would be entitled to express confusion, if not alarm, if great stress were placed on their legal responsibilities prior to marriage with the knowledge that by proposed new section 98A their mutual rights and responsibilities could be terminated in what might be considered a perfunctory and inconsistent approach if the amendments to proposed new section 98A are adopted. Marriage in Australia is a matter of public importance. Rituals are observed and, indeed, are required by legislation. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine, I do not like to interrupt you in the course of your argument, but there seems to be some confusion as it is some time since the Committee last considered this legislation. I should make it clear that the two amendments moved by the Attorney-General to proposed new section 98A were adopted by the Committee. So that is history. Senator Walters then, by leave, moved for the omission of the whole proposed new section 98A and for the substitution of a new section. So the Attorney-General's amendments have already been adopted by the Committee. Senator HARRADINE —But the clause will be subject to being voted out? The CHAIRMAN —That is correct. Senator Walters, by leave, moved an amendment to delete the whole proposed new section 98A and to substitute a new one. That is what we are now debating. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am anticipating that Senator Evans' s amendment will not be adopted. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Evans's amendments have been adopted. Senator HARRADINE —But with the deletion of the whole of clause 47 they will not be. The CHAIRMAN —Yes. It is an unusual procedure, but Senator Walters did it by leave of the Committee. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Chairman. Marriage in Australia is a matter of public importance. Rituals by legislation, indeed, are observed prior to marriage by the couples themselves to demonstrate and acknowledge this fact. Engagements are announced; banns used often to be read, but not so often now. The banns are sometimes now read as external evidence of the forthcoming marriage. There are other external features such as the exchange and wearing of rings; they are a constant public reminder to the community at large of a couple 's commitment to each other and, indeed, to marriage as an institution. Both in church and in civil ceremonies the presence of an authorised celebrant and the presence of witnesses to the ceremony and to the contract are required by law. Celebrants are bound to emphasise the voluntary, exclusive and permanent nature of the contract in the words that they address to the couple during the ceremony . What Parliament is now asked to do is to reverse the public character of marriage and to abandon any safeguards where parties take the far more important and far more consequential step of seeking a civil dissolution of marriage. This step demands a public recognition that the parties have given recognition and deliberation to the effects of their terminating a marriage, at least equal to that which they gave upon their entering into the marriage. The public order and common good of society demand that the couple are aware of their continuing responsibilities to each other. They had obviously entered into legal commitments to each other. They need to separate with dignity and with respect for each other and for their ongoing legal undertakings. Quite frequently one spouse earnestly desires that divorce proceedings be defended. However, that spouse is also very well aware of, and frequently disenchanted with, the legal process when he or she realises only to well that there is no further recourse open to him or her once a mere 12 months separation can be demonstrated. Proposed new section 98A can become yet another unremitting weapon with which to bludgeon a spouse into submission. Senator Missen —Oh, really! Senator HARRADINE —Senator Missen obviously does not understand the educative effect of legislation passed by this Parliament. In fact, proposed new section 98A makes provision for disillusionment amongst a large number of people, particularly those who would dearly love to see the divorce not take place and would like it to be defended. The proposal under proposed new section 98A, the divorce by post proposal, can further weaken the resolve of one of the parties to attempt reconciliation. Under this proposal, paper rather than people, becomes important. Mutual trust and respect can be further undermined. I am saying this largely in prospect; it can be undermined. The evidence is clear that interviews conducted with wives seeking to improve and sustain the marriage or to separate with dignity and without recrimination are double the number conducted with husbands who present for counselling. In 1981-82 the approved counselling organisations conducted 47,010 joint interviews , 52,597 wife alone interviews but only 23,967 husband alone interviews. Many of those wives may well be the victims of our legislation and appreciate only too well who are the victims and the long term casualties of the family law legislation. The proposals by the Attorney-General which are before us would further increase the tendency towards justifiable grievance already being experienced by those spouses who seek the protection of the law and for the ultimate strength of society, to which I referred in my opening remarks. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.31) —I have read the Hansard report and have seen the point I had reached on 8 September. I find that there is one more point I should like to make. I had come to the point at which I was saying that the opposition to my motion had been based on the ground that the Government's proposal would be much cheaper. Indeed, the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act that brought in the first recommendation of divorce by post said: The real issue is one of costs, both to the State and to the parties involved. I refer to Senator Gareth Evans's own letter, which he sent to all honourable senators and honourable members, on the divorce by post amendment. I shall quote part of a paragraph on page 2. The other part of it refers to couples with children, and I shall omit that because that matter has been overcome. He said: First-number one-there will be significant cost savings for those parties who do not wish to be present or to be represented at undefended divorce hearings. Secondly, there should be a considerable saving of court time . . . So the people who are for this divorce by post are mainly concerned with costs, both to the people involved and to the state. Whilst I agree that cost has some relevance in most of the things that we do in our lives, I believe that cost should not have the major relevance in this area. The decision as to whether one gets divorced or otherwise is a serious one and it should not be based on costs alone. The Government makes it possible for people to file for divorce and, indeed, at present to be defended in divorce cases, for those who cannot afford that. But the proposition that there should be no cost at all to the state or to the people because they want to get a divorce as quickly and as easily as possible has no grounds. Under my amendment there would be no need for legal representation. There would be no need for legal costs. The people would just have to appear before the judge on their own, with their own statements that they have been separated for the required time, and answer the questions that the judge puts to them. Under my amendment there would be no need for there to be legal representation, and therefore the only additional financial cost to the couple involved would be the fares to the court. The savings of court time in this regard would be acknowledged. There would be savings of court time under divorce by post, but certainly not to the individuals involved. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.35) —The clause that the Government seeks to retain in the Family Law Amendment Bill, new section 98A of the Act, as it will be, is designed simply to enable regulations to be made to give the Family Court a discretion, in certain really very limited circumstances , to determine undefended divorce proceedings without the necessity for the parties or their legal representatives attending a court hearing. It has been labelled 'divorce by post'. Perhaps a less tendentious description would be ' divorce on the papers'. But the implication is clear, in either event, as to what is involved. I do not think that it has been sufficiently appreciated by most people who have contributed to this debate, certainly not outside the Parliament, that what is proposed is very little different from the situation that prevails at present. The parties are not required to be present in court at the moment but need only be represented by their legal advisers. In fact, in undefended divorce proceedings this is required only of one party-namely, the applicant. I know that this is not a misapprehension shared by other senators in this place, but it is certainly shared by very many people in the community at large-the belief that as the situation stands the parties must be physically present at the time that the dissolution is accomplished. That is not so. Of course, the effect of Senator Walters's proposed amendment would be to make it so, because she proposes-I quote her amendment-that: At the date fixed for the hearing of proceedings for dissolution of marriage, both parties to the marriage shall attend the court, unless the court, in its discretion, determines that the attendance of either or both parties is not practical. But the situation as it stands certainly does not require the attendance of either of the parties in any of these situations. The circumstances in which the Family Court, under this proposal, would be able to exercise the discretion to grant the dissolution on the papers, the affidavits before it, are these. I indicate them because they constitute significant safeguards against the cavalier use or misuse of this particular procedural proposal. First, the proceedings have to be of an undefended kind, not contested by either party. Secondly, one of the parties has to have positively requested the court to determine the proceedings in the absence of the other party. Thirdly, the other party, after having been given proper notice of the intention to conduct the dissolution proceeding in this way, has to have not advised the court of his or her intention to be willing to be present. So we have to have a situation in which it is an undefended case, one of the parties specifically wants the matter to be dealt with in this way, and the other party, after having been told about this, has gone along with that state of affairs. The benefits that flow from this are essentially those in the letter of mine that was read out by Senator Walters. So far as the parties are concerned, there will be savings in terms of personal convenience. Senator Walters may not rate that very highly, given the significance that she and Senator Harradine ascribe to the dissolution proceeding, but the convenience factor must be taken into account. Senator Missen —It could be quite costly. Senator GARETH EVANS —More particularly, I move beyond convenience to cost, so far as the parties are concerned, because there are many instances in which it is not the case that both parties are resident in the metropolitan area where the particular registry is located and parties may have to come from interstate or the country or elsewhere, and it is a matter, applying Senator Walters's criteria, as to whether the court would regard that as constituting an impracticality for the purposes of the operation of her proposed clause. Certainly she seems to ignore completely the fact that for very many people in the community attendance at a court in this way would involve the loss of a day' s wages and represent quite a significant cost penalty to the individuals in that way. The other consideration-Senator Walters clearly acknowledged this-is the considerable saving of court time, which would enable the more difficult contested proceedings relating to children and property to be heard and determined more speedily. To the extent that the opposition to this had been based on concerns about the welfare of children, then of course that matter has now been amply taken into account, I would have thought, by the amendment that has already been moved by me and accepted by the Senate which confines the availability of this procedure to cases where no children are involved. That, of course, is an additional criterion which has to be satisfied and I should have listed it earlier on. That, of course, as I have indicated a number times earlier in this debate, on the figures to which we have become accustomed, means that something like 40 per cent only of dissolutions would become eligible, even at the threshold, for this procedure because it is the case that something like 60 per cent of marriages that are being dissolved do, regrettably, involve children under the age of 18 years. So it is only in a very limited set of circumstances that this amendment is proposed to apply and it will, undoubtedly, produce the benefits that I have indicated. What do the criticisms of this boil down to? Basically, they seem to be twofold . One of them, and it has not been very strenuously canvassed in this debate-it certainly has been in the popular reaction to this proposal-is the suggestion that divorces will somehow be easier to obtain under the proposed procedure. But whatever the particular procedure that is adopted under this amendment, and that is still to be spelt out in regulations, the Family Court will still have to be satisfied on the basis of evidence before it that the ground for granting a divorce has been established and that there is no reasonable likelihood that cohabitation will be resumed. The evidence on which the Family Court relies right now is overwhelmingly documentary evidence in the form of affidavits. It is on the basis of that evidence that the court does now act in the overwhelming majority of cases and will continue to act in the case of the divorce on the papers procedure. In the event that the court is left in any doubt as to whether the proper grounds had been made out, there is provision for requisitions to be made and for further requests to the parties for further information. So there is simply no foundation whatsoever for that particular kind of concern. If we take that out as being without foundation and if we take out the concern that somehow the interests of children are not going to be sufficiently taken into account in a hearing not involving the presence of the parties physically or their representatives, all that one is really left with is the proposal which waxed so large in both Senator Walters's and Senator Harradine's contributions to this debate and that is the objection really based on considerations of symbolism-the symbolic significance in supposedly devaluing a marriage further, they say, by a procedure of this particular kind. It is said that given the seriousness attaching to the termination of marriage, both parties should be present in court when the decree is pronounced. This is not, of course, a requirement under the existing law, I repeat, but it would be the requirement if Senator Walters's amendment were to carry the day. I think it has to be said, and said over and over again, that to-- Senator Macklin —No, it does not. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will say it only once but I will put a sort of squared sign on it. To approach the problem in this way is to misconceive wildly what goes on in the Family Court at the moment, to ascribe a far greater degree of ritualism and symbolic significance, gravitas and pietas and all the rest of it than actually exist. It is not in denigration of those who conduct the Family Court proceedings or anyone else to say that the dissolution hearings, as they operate at the moment, represent nothing so much as a highly efficient sausage machine, with the dissolutions going through at the rate, on average-I had a brief experience of this process at work and I suspect that proceedings were rather elongated for my benefit-of one and a half or two minutes. That may or may not mean a great deal to the parties if they happen to be there at the moment, as they are not required to be. I doubt it. I suspect that the requirement of 12 months separation that is necessary to establish irretrievable breakdown of marriage is of far greater importance than a brief courtroom appearance in bringing home to parties and to intending divorcees the consequences of a divorce. It is a matter of impression and impressions will differ on this particular subject. But I would hope that we do not have too much sentimental claptrap talked on this particular matter. We do recognise on this side of the Senate that divorce is a serious business. I think everybody who has ever been associated with the operation of the legal system in this respect acknowledges that fact. Let us appreciate the very limited scope of the amendment that is now being sought. Let us appreciate the advantages that flow from it and let us accept, without further demur, the particular proposition that has been put forward by the Government. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 8 September 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a first time. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.46) —I take the opportunity of speaking today, in this debate on the first reading of a money Bill during which senators can raise any particular subject which concerns them, about a matter which I believe is a very serious problem not only in our capital cities but also in the outback of Australia. I refer to glue and petrol sniffing. Honourable senators may have noted that in the last few months there has been quite a lot of media coverage regarding petrol and glue sniffing despite, apparently, some type of official policy of silence. I can well imagine that the authorities most conversant with this matter and who have the statistics on petrol and glue sniffing at their fingertips would know the serious problem that exists. Because of the wish to have this mantle of silence on this matter, I can only assume that the authorities believe that the problem is so immense that they cannot handle it. They seem to have their heads in the sand. I hope not. But in any case I believe that action is most necessary now to bring about some understanding of the problem and to alleviate it. This problem is a serious one in many Australian communities. Children from all social classes are involved. It is prevalent in the cities, the towns and the country. It is not a new problem. In fact in the Northern Territory it has apparently been around since the Second World War when troops sniffed glue and petrol to get some kick. But it has become increasingly worse over the last few years. Between May 1974 and February 1979 there were some 20 deaths from petrol and glue sniffing. There have been a number of fatalities this year. The products that are abused are petrol, glue, gas lighter fuel, pain relief sprays used in sport, typists correction fluid and thinners. Fatalities from the use of all of these products have occurred during the last eight months of this year. The sniffing problem, as I have already mentioned, has been a very serious one in Aboriginal settlements in the Northern Territory. Over the last month I have covered most settlements in the Northern Territory. Indeed, I have covered several thousand miles. I have been concerned to see that the practice of petrol sniffing has been extended. It is not being confined to a particular area but is actually spreading. I have known petrol sniffing to exist in certain Aboriginal settlements for many years but now I find that the practice is being extended. As I say, it happens not only in Aboriginal areas but also in towns, involving pupils at schools. This serious problem is probably brought about by boredom, loneliness, unhappiness, problems of escapism, peer group pressures and the like . It has very serious consequences for the children on Aboriginal settlements and in the towns. I know of personal injury and illness involving Aboriginal people, as well as accidents, threats to police, increased violence and the destroying of buildings. It is a major problem in dry areas where there is no alcohol, but it is a problem also where alcohol is available. Petrol is cheaper and more easily obtained-petrol can be stolen. I have noted, too, from my visit only last week to a couple of settlements in Arnhem Land that there has been an attempt to introduce a vile type of additive to the petrol in an endeavour to stop people sniffing it. But there is a means of overcoming this, and that is by separating the additive from the petrol. I will not indicate how that is done in a public speech, but the additive is not a success. It is mainly petrol that is sniffed but there is also the problem of aerosols and cleaning fluids which are easily obtained at any shop. The problem is becoming more widespread in Australia as more children discover it. I believe that the Senate should take up this matter. I seek the support of the Senate in taking action to eliminate the problem. A wealth of material is available on the issue, and I draw honourable senators' attention to an organisation called SOS-Save our Sons. This organisation was formed in Australia ; it is a working party comprising parents who have lost children. They say that considerable information is available regarding petrol sniffing. This working party covers very many organisations and it is my intention to have incorporated in Hansard a letter from that organisation and also a description of the work of SOS, its aims and a petition for which signatures are being collected at present . Leave granted. The documents read as follows- 19th September 1983 The Honourable Senator Kilgariff C/o Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600. Dear Senator Kilgariff, Thank you for expressing an interest in the work of S.O. S. We have amassed a wealth of material on the subject of 'sniffing' through the resources of organisations such as the Australian Consumers Association, Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute, N.S.W. Drug and Alcohol Authority and National Press. We are unfortunately not in a position to photocopy all of this material for you-you see, we are just two ordinary parents who have limited financial resources. We are however enclosing lists of the material currently available for your information and would be happy to photocopy any specific articles, or sections on particular topics (e.g. Aboriginal sniffing, treatment ideas, legislation, etc.) provided you could arrange photocopy facilities here in Sydney (or payment in lieu thereof). For your information we are also enclosing a brief history of S.O.S. which, as you can see, started following the deaths of our son and other local children. We have obtained press clippings from just one media source which detail many deaths since 1975, and of course these are only reported sniffing deaths-largely in the Sydney area. The currently abused products are pain relief sprays (as used in sports), butane gas lighter fuel and lighter fluid, petrol and typist correction fluid and its thinners. Fatalities have occurred from all of these products within the last eight months. With regard to petrol sniffing in Aboriginal Communities as you are no doubt aware the N.T. Drug and Alcohol Authority organised a major conference in 1982 and produced a report (see 1.2.1). A much more detailed study of the problem was conducted in South Australia (see 1.6.1). And finally the Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute (based in Sydney), has produced three booklets aimed specifically at isolated Aboriginal Communities. Copies of these are enclosed. We believe that there is a need for action in three areas-Legislation, Education and Treatment. We have formed a working party comprising ourselves (parents who have lost children), a representative from the Australian Consumers Association, the Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute, and WHOS (We Help Ourselves). The working party is currently preparing information leaflets designed to be aimed at specific audiences (police, parents seeking information, politicians, media ( guidelines) and professionals offering treatment services, etc. We are unable to give a date when these pamphlets will become available as we are currently without means for printing them. As a result of our radio and television appearances, which of course breached the official policy of silence, we are also in possession of over eight hundred letters, from all over Australia. They came from three categories of people: (a) parents who have children who are 'sniffing' and who are seeking help from us; (b) teachers and social workers who have come across the problem and are seeking information and advice from us; (c) many, many concerned people who have seen, read or heard about us on the media and want to help or are requesting more information. Finally we are intending to prepare a detailed research report which extracts major information available overseas and places it within the Australian context as seen from our own experience. (Again we have no definite production date-nor, as yet any idea of whether we will be able to obtain any support in printing and distributing it). Senator, we are determined that the subject of 'sniffing' must be brought out of the closet and handled in a sensible, responsible manner and that parents and professionals be made fully aware that the current policy of silence and inaction should not continue. If you need any further information or photocopies of news articles, letters received etc, please contact us again. Yours faithfully, JAN OSWALD. S.O.S. SUGGESTED WAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN HELP US Become a member of S.O.S. and (give us power in numbers). Approach and/or write to your local member of Parliament and seek assistance for the S.O.S. aims. Inform the appropriate people about S.O.S. and its aims. Set up your own self help groups (in consultation with your local Drug and Alcohol authority). S.O.S. A network of concerned parents which aims to bring to an end the increasing common habit of deliberate inhaling (''sniffing'') of intoxicating substances ( from consumer products) which has caused illnessess and irreversible long term effects with many sad cases resulting in the deaths of their children. P.O. Box 134.Marrickville, N.S.W. 2204. AIMS 1. To educate the community as to the serious dangers of the deliberate inhaling of intoxicating substances from consumer products. To do so in such a way so as to not arouse interest in such experimentation. 2. To raise public awareness as to the growth of this serious problem. 3. Conscience raising of manufacturers and retailers. Urging them to take the responsibility for correcting this dangerous situation, by proper marketing with safety instructions. 4. To lobby for the elimination of dangerous products from sale to minors. 5. To lobby for relevant Health authorities to become responsible for the safety of children in relation to such dangerous products. 6. To lobby for new legislation for stricter product control. 7. To become a referral service for those experiencing the consequences of this problem and for those interested in helping others. 8. To become an umbrella organisation for self-help groups and individuals who are interested in eliminating this danger. 9. To be a supportive network for those faced with this problem both directly and indirectly. To inspire the setting up of self-help groups aimed at helping individuals to overcome dependency on these dangerous substances and to those who have their loved ones participating in this. 10. To give the opportunity for those interested in this problem to become involved in the aims of S.O.S., either as members or indirectly. PETITION TO BE PRESENTED TO COMMONWEALTH MINISTER AND STATE MINISTERS FOR HEALTH AND EDUCATION We the undersigned, do hereby declare our support in respect of representations to be made to the various Ministers for Health and Education, seeking the following: 1. The re-scheduling of all aerosol pain relief sprays containing fluorocarbons and/or hydrocarbons and any derivative thereof to a schedule 2. 2. The restriction of sales to minors of pain relief sprays, products containing trichloroethane, thinners, glues that contain toxic chemicals, acetones, lighter fluids and other dangerous toxins. 3. That a more effective legal approach to the labelling and packaging of the above-mentioned is sought. 4. That controls be placed upon manufacturers and retailers in respect of the manufacture and sale of the items referred to above. 5. That a compulsory government backed and funded Health and Drug education programme be instituted in all schools as soon as possible, and must include, Volatile Substance Abuse. 6. The abolition of fluorocarbons in aerosol cans. Senator KILGARIFF —Perhaps honourable senators have heard of Jan Oswald, one of the organisers of SOS, who is endeavouring to have this problem rectified. In bringing her plea to the Senate I ask that this problem of petrol sniffing be taken seriously by the Senate. Later I will come back to the Senate with a further proposal, for I believe it is most necessary that we investigate the matter. Honourable senators will gain much more information on the petrol and glue sniffing problems from the letter of Jan Oswald, who is the President of the organisation. In closing, I did feel that the problem of petrol and glue sniffing was confined mainly to the outback, to those people in isolated areas where I guess remoteness, loneliness and boredom have created a situation on which this problem feeds. But I note in the files given to me by the SOS organisation that there are very many pleas from people all around Australia-from parents, from school teachers and from people seeking information on what they can do to assist our youth in breaking the practice of glue and petrol sniffing. Glue and petrol sniffing can bring about permanent illness, irreparable damage to the body and particularly to the brain. Our young people can be destroyed by this practice which they pick up from others; they can be mere vegetables for the rest of their lives. As I have indicated, there is evidence of severe illness in these young people and also deaths have occurred. I believe it is timely for the Senate to take up the matter. I look forward too to Federal and State health authorities moving to attack the problem. As I have said before, to quite a degree the authorities seem to have thrown a blanket of silence over this matter . Do they think that making the matter more public will lead to more glue and petrol sniffing? Is that their attitude? All I can say is that the practice is so widespread now that their fear that it will be further spread by publicity no longer applies. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(12.57) —I wish to take the opportunity during this first reading of the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1983 to draw attention to a problem which was the subject of an excellent article in the National Times of 27 May of this year, which stated: . . . the number of young Australian women dying from cervical cancer has taken a sudden sharp increase. The great tragedy of this is that carcinoma of the cervix is a substantially preventable disease but until very recently its cause and incidence have been matters largely of conjecture. Over the last three decades increasing use of oral contraceptives and a consequent decrease in the use of barrier methods of contraception has meant that the sexually active of both sexes are more liable to sexually transmissable diseases such as the herpes virus, gonorrhoea and non- specific urethritis. Recent work at the Westmead Hospital, as recounted in the National Times article to which I referred earlier, implicates the genital wart or papilloma virus as a cause of carcinoma of the cervix, having demonstrated that cervical tumours have actually contained DNA and protein from that virus. Such tumours develop slowly and the woman with genital warts may be completely unaware of their presence unless or until she has a thorough examination and a cervical smear. Screening programs exist in all main cities and careful health authorities everywhere should remind women to have regular tests. The conventional wisdom has been that the woman at risk is one whose sexual activity commenced at an early age and who has frequently changed partners. It is manifestly unfair that women who become victims of carcinoma of the cervix are at least by inference blamed firstly for being promiscuous and secondly for failing to take the precautions which medical authorities believe could practically eliminate the disease. The bad old double standard still flourishes, as indefensible as ever, especially in the light of recent evidence which suggests that the epidemiological approach which I earlier described is too narrow. A paper entitled 'Carcinoma of the Cervix: Occupational Risks of Husbands and Wives and Possible Preventive Strategies', by Jean Robinson, published in the proceedings of the Ninth Study Group of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in October 1981, suggests that an examination of social and occupational risks may offer more opportunities for preventative action and may also provide clues for unanswered questions as to why some early lesions progress and others do not and why some apparently low risk women become victims . While previously the search, as described in the National Times article, had been for a virally transmitted carcinogen in organisms such as herpes simplex and the wart virus, it is now thought that the agent may be purely chemical. The obvious choice would be a heavily metallic ion picked up as a by-product of ordinary contamination from an unhygienic man. A study of smears from almost 300,000 women in Manchester from 1965 to 1972 found a high correlation of mortality rates from cervical cancer and certain occupations of husbands. Wives of fishermen, deck and engine room ratings, and barge and boatmen were heavily over-represented in the sample, with the added acknowledged risk of having husbands whose jobs entail long absence from home. Miners' wives had a higher incidence than other women of the same social class as defined by the British Registrar-General. Other high risk women in England and Wales were married to forge and foundry workers, metal furnacemen, steel riggers-who themselves suffer disproportionately from carcinoma of the scrotum, probably from exposure to mineral oils-glass and ceramic process workers, chemical production and process workers, plasterers, brick layers, metallurgists and chemists. Robinson acknowledges the difficulty in distinguishing between the risks which may arise from the woman's own occupation and that of her husband, for example in textile towns where many women work in the mills, and there is clearly 'some factor increasing the risk of cervical cancer', to quote a 1955 study. Her purpose, she says, 'is to raise questions which have not hitherto been asked, to avoid possible real injustice to women whose deaths are at present attributed to their own promiscuity, when other causes have not been examined'. The crusade against this disease has concentrated on screening rather than prevention, a policy now being questioned by women themselves. Regardless of the health care system, those at greatest risk are the least likely to submit to regular tests, and to be effective every woman during her childbearing years should attend for a smear, pelvic and breast examination at regular intervals of 12 months. Robinson believes that carcinoma of the cervix is preventable and advocates a number of simple measures. Health education should include genital hygiene, especially washing before intercourse. The use of talc in the genital area should be avoided by both sexes. Barrier contraceptives having been associated with reduced risk, boys should be educated in the importance of using condoms rather than expecting their partners to be on the pill. I am told that users of condoms in Australia should be warned against using the green condoms which the magazine Choice has demonstrated to have a lower bursting point, making them totally ineffective, if not downright dangerous. In view of the reduced incidence of cervical cancer in women with vasectomised partners, where a choice is to be made about sterilisation male sterilisation appears to be preferable to female especially when the male is exposed to metals, tars or other chemicals. Women taking oral contraceptives should be encouraged to attend a clinic annually at most to have breast and pelvic examination and a papanicolaou smear. Cervical cancer is a potentially lethal disease but if pre-cancerous cells are detected early local treatment can be 100 per cent effective. My principal point, however, is this: If the occupation of a woman or her sexual partner increases cervical cancer risks, safety in the work place takes on a new dimension. Safety legislation is designed to protect the worker, and in dirty occupations it is only the lungs which are assumed to need protection. It seems highly probable that women-young women-have died for want of simple preventative measures. Precaution takes on a new meaning. To require of males the liberal application of soap and water and the use of condoms is surely not unreasonable and offers a far greater scope for mass preventive measures than permanent virginity or taking of the veil, which one might have previously deduced was the only sure way of avoiding carcinoma of the cervix. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(1.05) —I take the opportunity on the first reading of the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill to make some comments in relation to two cases which are currently before the courts. I will not, of course, be commenting on the substance of the cases but rather on the Commonwealth Government's obligations in regard to these cases. The first case I wish to raise is that of Bird v. the Commonwealth of Australia. This case is being funded by the Legal Aid Office in Queensland as a test case to define the rights of Australian nuclear veterans. The legal assistance granted to the plaintiff extends only to the plaintiff's own costs and does not currently extend to any costs awarded against him by the court. In actions such as this costs are likely to be large and, because new legal ground is being broken, there must undoubtedly be a substantial risk of failure. The Commonwealth has so far given no undertaking not to act upon an order for costs against the plaintiff. Unless it does so, the rights of the Australian nuclear veterans will not realistically be able to be fully ventilated in court. The law is uncertain as to whether or not the Crown can be liable to a serviceman, assuming, of course, that the service man or woman can establish all necessary elements of negligence on the part of the Crown. This raises the possibility that the parties may spend several years prosecuting this action and exhausting avenues of appeal only to find that, even if the plaintiff can establish all the elements of his claim, as a matter of law the Commonwealth may not be liable. This opens up an area that is of concern to all Service personnel , both past and present. A procedure exists whereby this question could be determined at a preliminary stage without the additional costs of a full case, as is currently being undertaken. I believe that one avenue for avoiding the problem that the Australian Legal Aid Office and the Attorney-General's Department have might well be to take to the court a case stated involving servicemen and related matters peculiarly pertinent to the case of the Australian nuclear veterans. If this were done, probably a limited amount of money would be involved and the Commonwealth would have some justifiable basis on which to predict the outcome as to costs and what they amount to. This course of action may be open to the Government if it feels unable at this stage to agree to pay all costs which may be awarded against the plaintiff in pursuance of a claim following on from a case stated. I believe that the current situation is that the Commonwealth is unreasonably forcing the plaintiff to incur substantial potential liability in the event that he is unsuccessful. The situation, of course, is that if the Commonwealth is unsuccessful it is in no real sense concerned about the cost. A further point in relation to nuclear veterans which I wish to raise before I go on to the second case concerns the problem of the nuclear veterans who are currently dying of cancer. Currently there is no step under way to preserve their evidence. I think that if the Bird test case ultimately resolves that the Commonwealth is liable to the nuclear veterans, it will be necessary in each subsequent case to prove that the veteran concerned was exposed to radiation and that he suffered injury as a result of that exposure-evidence would have to be obtained as to the extent of the disability suffered by the veteran-so that these matters may be reflected in the quantum of damages which the court may wish to award. These matters are ones of direct evidence and not ones of legal principle. If, in the pursuance of the case to ultimate success, and in other cases following, many of the dependants of those nuclear veterans are deprived of the ability to mount a successful action in the absence of evidence, a procedure currently exists-it has been used in associated cases-under the rules of the court for the taking of evidence on commission before trial from a crucial witness who is in danger of dying. I believe the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) ought to provide assistance at this time to all such veterans who wish to avail themselves of such a possibility. The other case I wish to discuss is that of Fulton v. the Commonwealth of Australia. The problem in this case is slightly different. I believe the problem raises a very real possibility of a conflict of interest on the part of the Commonwealth. This action is currently funded by the legal aid section of the Attorney-General's Department. However, when the current operating solicitors for the plaintiff took over the case in May 1982 they were issued with specific instructions from the Attorney-General's Department that nothing further was to be done in the prosecution of the case without specific instructions from the Attorney-General's Department. Since that time there have been excessively lengthy delays in the Attorney-General's Department taking instructions and communicating them to the legal advisers of Fulton. In looking at what is currently going on, one could very well draw the inference that the Attorney-General's Department is not now merely operating as a financier but is seeking to involve itself much more closely in the conduct of this action. Of course, the surrounding possibility is that the royal commission is inquiring into the very items that Fulton is raising. Fulton, of course, is raising them in relation to service in Vietnam. The Government may very well feel that because the royal commission is pursuing this matter there is no further need to provide funds to Fulton to pursue his case through the courts. However, I believe that under the law any plaintiff ought to have the right to pursue a claim regardless of what other methods are being taken within the community at large, even if they be of the standing of a royal commission. I do not believe that the royal commission looking into this area in any way impinges on the rights of that plaintiff to pursue his case. However, a plaintiff cannot pursue his case without instructions from the Attorney-General. A plaintiff cannot pursue his case without legal aid. So currently such a person is in a really most invidious situation. Not only that, but of course, many other people are not able to apply for legal aid in relation to this item because it has been granted already by way of a test case to Fulton in his case against the Commonwealth. Not only is one plaintiff being severely disadvantaged before the law but also all other prospective plaintiffs in this area have been unable to proceed. In addition, the Commonwealth has failed to give an undertaking that it will not plead the relevant statute of limitations as a purely technical defence regarding this matter. I believe it is of serious concern that such an undertaking ought to be given on the part of the Commonwealth. I believe the cases which I have mentioned are important. They are extremely important to the veteran community in Australia. They raise issues of law and issues of justice which are, I believe, crying out for resolution. The Government is to be commended for acting in relation to the Vietnam veterans in establishing a royal commission. However, I believe the current epidemiological studies, other statistical studies and the royal commission in no way ought to prevent an individual in the community from pursuing, through the courts, what he considers to be a justifiable claim. The fact that those people have been granted legal aid, I think, suggests that the Commonwealth at that time was willing to pursue such claims and to support such activity through the courts. However, last year and this year the Commonwealth hedged around those proceedings with technical barriers of such an insurmountable kind as really to constitute giving with one hand and taking away with the other. I think that surely the time has come when the Commonwealth should allow both these cases to proceed. It is within the power of the Commonwealth, through its legal aid system, to allow such cases to proceed to their conclusion so that we can test before the courts the very real principles that are involved in the Bird case and in the Fulton case. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1.18 to 2 p.m. Senator MISSEN —My question, which is addressed to the Acting Minister for Health, relates to a recent report by the Australian Consumers Association on the marketing of breast milk substitutes in Australia and, in particular, to the criticisms made in the report of the way in which manufacturers and distributors in the infant food industry have been promoting and selling their products. Is it correct, as alleged in this report, that the new Australian code introduced in May 1983 was drawn up by the Government in consultation with major manufacturers and that the Australian Consumers Association and other consumer groups were not included in the negotiations? Is it also correct that, because of significant loopholes and omissions in the code, all the major manufacturers have failed to comply with the international code of marketing adopted at the World Health Assembly in 1981? In the light of these alleged violations and the concern that I have previously expressed in this chamber about the foodstuffs produced for consumption by babies and young children, I ask the Minister: Firstly, why has the Government decided to base Australia's new code of marketing on voluntary regulation by industry rather than legislation? Secondly, will consideration be given by the Government to government regulation in the area of infant nutrition and to a revision of the Australian code in an effort to implement fully the guidelines of the World Health Assembly? Senator GRIMES —I am afraid I do not have the details which Senator Missen requires in his question. However, I will see whether I can obtain an answer before the end of Question Time. Senator BOLKUS —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen recent reports suggesting that the Federal Government should decrease its personal income tax revenue by $5 billion per annum? Can the Minister say what effect this sort of policy would have on both Federal revenue raising and Federal policy planning, as well as on the revenues of the States? Senator WALSH —I did see a report in the Age of last Monday that the Leader of the Opposition had said that the next Liberal government would cut $5 billion off personal income tax. Senator Bolkus rightly draws attention to the consequences for the recipients of Commonwealth money, including the States, of a cut of that magnitude in personal income tax. If income tax were to be cut by $5 billion and other taxes were not to be increased, all defence spending would have to be eliminated. Total payments to the States would have to be cut by 42 per cent if no other changes were made to either income or expenditure. Alternatively, pensions, unemployment benefits and family allowances could be cut by 30 per cent. That would mean a reduction of $22 a week in income for single under 18 unemployed people. For married unemployed people it would mean a cut of $44 a week. Until the Leader of the Opposition offers a better explanation, we must assume that that is what he is proposing: To take $22 a week away from the single unemployed and $44 a week away from the married unemployed, to cut age pensions by 30 per cent, to eliminate defence spending or to cut total payments to the States by 42 per cent. Let us consider the direct effects of the tax sharing arrangements on State revenue. There is a direct linkage, I remind the Senate, between the collections of personal income tax and the tax sharing grants made to the States. The States get 21 per cent of personal income tax. If the promise of the Leader of the Opposition were actually to be implemented, it follows that tax sharing payments to the States would automatically be cut by 12 per cent and they would be subject to 80 per cent of the other cuts I mentioned also. But if we concentrate on the tax sharing and go through State by State, the effects of that sort of cut in personal income tax would be that the State of Queensland, for example, would lose $217m-- Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. Clearly, this is just a debate. There is no semblance of an answer to the question. A purely hypothetical series of figures is being trotted out, relating to a single line that was supposedly uttered by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you to ask the Minister to confine his remarks to matters that are within his departmental responsibility. The PRESIDENT —I listened to the question asked by Senator Bolkus and I have listened to the answer by Senator Walsh. The answer so far is relevant to the question asked. Nonetheless, I ask the Minister to confine his answer as much as he possibly can. Senator WALSH —As always, Mr President, your ruling is correct. Mr Peacock promised that the next Liberal government would cut personal income tax by $5 billion. Senator Bolkus asked me, among other things, what would be the effects on payments to the States under the tax sharing arrangements of a cut of that magnitude in personal income tax. I have just told the Senate that the effect on the State of Queensland would be to reduce the payments under personal tax sharing by more than $200m. More than $200m would be cut from the payments to the State of Queensland if indeed the promise given last weekend by the Leader of the Opposition were ever to be implemented by a Liberal government. There is no way that cuts of that magnitude could be avoided unless the personal tax sharing arrangements were changed. For all the other States-I am quite willing to table or have incorporated in Hansard the relevant document if any member of the Opposition would like it-one could deduct in round figures 12 per cent from the payments they received this year if the Leader of the Opposition's promise were actually to be put into operation. Senator DURACK —Does the Attorney-General agree that the Commonwealth Government or Parliament has very wide authority under its constitutional powers, such as banking, overseas and interstate trade and post and telecommunications, to take action with regard to organised crime and in particular trafficking in drugs? Furthermore, is not Australia a party to an international convention relating to drug trafficking? In view of the Government's determination to utilise fully Commonwealth power in areas which it sees as being of national significance-I instance his answer to my question the other day-does the Attorney agree that the Commonwealth could play a much more active role in combating the involvement of organised crime in drug trafficking? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted for the opportunity to note Senator Durack's conversion on the road to some kind of Damascus and that he does acknowledge that there are areas of both Commonwealth constitutional capacity to act and Commonwealth obligation to act in areas which perhaps hitherto have been thought to be beyond the traditional ambit of the Commonwealth's concern. Yes, there is indeed an excellent case for the Commonwealth to act in the area of drug related crime, as indeed there is in the area of organised crime generally. It is for that reason that the Government is considering very closely and very actively the establishment of an appropriate agency to deal with both those matters. Senator JONES —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy say when the urgently needed country town water supply projects, to be funded under the community employment program in Queensland, will commence? I further ask the Minister: Is there some delay in finalising the list of projects? If so, what is the reason for such a delay in Queensland? Senator WALSH —The answer to the first question is no, I am not able to say when the list of country towns in Queensland will be finalised. A delay has been caused by the Government of Queensland. It has stated, in a burst of pre- election politicking, that it will not consider until 18 November-assuming the present Government in Queensland is still in power at that time, which is an unlikely assumption-the joint selection by the Commonwealth Government and the State Government of water supply projects for country towns in Queensland which are to be funded under the Commonwealth-wide $20m special allowance in the community employment program. As a result of that action by the Queensland Government, jobs which are urgently needed are being denied to people and country towns which have a great need for improvement in both quality and quantity of their water supplies are having a superior water supply postponed. In the meantime the Queensland Government has issued a general promise to provide $30m for local authorities throughout Queensland for roads and water supplies. This is a non-specific election-eve undertaking. But simultaneously, and far more importantly, of course, expenditure of Commonwealth money, which has already been appropriated in the Budget and which could be spent very quickly in Queensland in providing jobs and water supplies to country towns, is being delayed because of deliberate political action by the Queensland Government. It is refusing to consider, until at least 18 November, the selection of specific projects upon which that Commonwealth money would be spent . Senator PETER BAUME —Is the Attorney- General aware of allegations by the New South Wales Minister for Corrective Services, Mr Jackson, that criminal acts have been committed by the unauthorised tapping of telephone conversations of people in that State 'including the Premier, Ministers and heads of departments' ? Will he tell us whether there is any basis to Mr Jackson's allegations or whether it is possible for him to investigate whether there is any such basis? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand that when Mr Jackson first made noises to that effect to the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, the matter was investigated and the conclusion was reached that there was no foundation whatsoever for the allegations in question. However, I will, in the light of the question, double check and ensure there are no loose ends in that respect. It is certainly my understanding that there was no foundation whatsoever established for that. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to you, Mr President, as a presiding officer of the Parliament. I know you are aware of the importance of the contribution made by women in this Parliament. You will also be aware that two women made an initial contribution in this chamber and in the other place. I refer to Dame Dorothy Tangney, who served in the Senate for 23 years, and Dame Enid Lyons, who served in the other place from 1943 to 1951. Portraits of both women are hanging in King's Hall with plaques stating their terms of service and the fact that they were the first to serve here, and both portraits, at present, hang behind pillars at the rear of King's Hall. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator COLEMAN —I am well aware that there are members of the Opposition who feel that that is a woman's place but I know that the Government does not feel that way. Will you, Mr President, as a presiding officer of this Parliament, ensure that the portraits of the two women who played such an important and historic role in this Parliament and in the nation are at long last allowed to see the light of day and be seen by the enlightened people who come to visit this Parliament? The PRESIDENT —The long established practice has been, and still is, for the portraits of former Prime Ministers and Speakers of the House of Representatives to be displayed on the House of Representatives side of King's Hall and in the lobbies of the House of Representatives and for portraits of former Governors- General and Presidents of the Senate to be displayed on the Senate side of King' s Hall and in the Senate lobbies. Representations were made recently to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Miss Fisher, the daughter of the former and late Prime Minister of Australia, suggesting that the portrait of Andrew Fisher be moved to a much more important place in King's Hall. Representations were put forward also to the Speaker by certain lady members of the House of Representatives suggesting that the Presiding Officers look at the present positioning of the portraits of Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney and Dame Enid Lyons. The Speaker and I have discussed the matter. The suggestion has been made that we look at the possibility of moving portraits around from time to time, probably on a sessional basis. Senator LAJOVIC —Is the Attorney-General aware that the New South Wales Commissioner of Police is being recalled to take charge of a further internal investigation into allegations of corruption in New South Wales? Does he believe that such serious matters can properly be dealt with by an internal investigation? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I am aware that Mr Abbott, the New South Wales Commissioner, is being recalled to report further on the matters in issue of the last couple of days. In relation to the second question, my belief as to the adequacy or otherwise of investigative procedures in New South Wales is utterly irrelevant to the conduct of my portfolio as a Minister of the Commonwealth Government. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Health. My concern arises from the implementation of the policy announced in the May economic statement which aimed at reducing the price differentials between multi -branded or equivalent pharmaceutical products under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Is the Minister aware that one of the products adversely affected by this policy is imported insulin? This imported insulin is 99.9 per cent pure, far purer than locally-produced insulin, and is therefore of vital importance to those dependent on it. Is it the case that if the imported insulin were removed from the PBS its price would rise dramatically? If so, is the Minister aware that this measure can lead only to increased economic hardship for many thousands of Australians who suffer from diabetes? Will the Minister alleviate their anxiety by informing the Senate of Government's intentions in respect of imported insulin and its standing in the PBS? Senator GRIMES —Yes, as Senator Richardson said, the policy to change the pharmaceutical benefits scheme where there are multi-listed and equivalent items on the list with great price differentials did, at first sight, seem to affect the insulins, in particular, the imported insulins, the Danish insulins, which are widely used in this country. Insulins issued by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are considerably cheaper than the Danish insulins. The implementation of such a policy would result in a considerable increase for the Danish product. Several questions arise. The first one was alluded to by Senator Richardson. Are the Danish insulins, the imported insulins, and the CSL insulins , really equivalent substances? The second question asked is whether the difference in price between the Danish insulins and the CSL insulins is justified as the Danish insulins are considerably more expensive than the CSL insulins. Discussions have been going on between the Department of Health and the importers and manufacturers of Danish insulins. It is for that reason that Dr Blewett, before he left for overseas, announced that the Danish insulins were not being removed from the list of pharmaceutical benefits. Discussions are continuing concerning whether they are actually equivalent and just what arrangements can be arrived at on this matter. No decision will be taken on price relativity for the Danish insulins until the question of whether current users of these products can be satisfactorily transferred to other insulins is satisfied, so people using those insulins need have no concern at all at the moment. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and follows the apparent inconsistency in the answers he has given to Senator Durack and Senator Lajovic today, where he said initially that he thought there was an excellent case for the Commonwealth to act with respect to organised crime, and, to Senator Lajovic, that in his opinion the State's investigations did not bear on his duties as Attorney-General. I preface my question by expressing the concern of the Opposition in this chamber about the seemingly endless succession of allegations concerning criminal activity in New South Wales, and our belief that unless appropriate Government action is taken by the State, or in the event of failure by the State, the Commonwealth, it may be necessary for the Senate to use whatever powers it has in this area. I ask the Attorney-General: Does he acknowledge that the Commonwealth has an interest in allegations which have been made about the New South Wales prison system and telephone tapping because of the presence in State gaols of offenders against Commonwealth laws and because of his own responsibilities concerning telephone interceptions? I ask: Will the Commonwealth Government urge the New South Wales Government to institute an immediate judicial inquiry into these allegations? I ask him: If the State will not so act, will he consider using the powers at his disposal-the powers he has described so widely in this place-to establish a Commonwealth royal commission into these matters? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no inconsistency in the positions I have espoused today. The Commonwealth has a degree of legislative power in relation to organised crime should it choose to exercise it under the heads of power that were indicated by Senator Durack, whose question was put specifically, it will be recalled, in the context of narcotics law enforcement. It can be said in reply to that: First, the Commonwealth has to a considerable extent exercised its legislative power in respect to narcotics law enforcement; but secondly, it has not done so in the area of organised crime generally, although arguably it might have the capacity to do so at some stage in the future should it choose to exercise in an adventurous way its powers in relation to banking, insurance and other matters of those kinds. Given the way in which those powers have been exercised legislatively at the moment there is no capacity under any existing law for the Commonwealth to intrude into matters of purely State criminal law administration. It has not been suggested in any of the commentary I have heard today-- Senator Chipp —Do not narcotics offenders offend against a Federal Act? Senator GARETH EVANS —Only insofar as imported narcotics are concerned, as Senator Chipp would be well aware as a former Minister for Customs. Entirely domestic or home grown offences are not a matter for Commonwealth jurisdiction at the moment. I do not understand any of the allegations that have been made in recent days to have concerned narcotics offenders in the sense in which Senator Durack would suggest that there is some capacity or obligation on the Commonwealth to do more than it has done, which is, as was stated by Mr Beazley in the context of a narcotics investigation, to find certain evidence coming to light with respect to the possible commission of an entirely different kind of crime as purely a matter for New South Wales administration. In this situation the Commonwealth's power and duty extends no further than to refer that matter back to the New South Wales authorities. So there is a consistent thread through what I have stated. There is no exercise of the legislative power such as creates any obligation or power for the Commonwealth to act in an executive capacity at the moment in respect of the matters that have been raised. There may be in the future, should the Commonwealth choose to exercise that legislative power, a capacity to investigate further certain matters of this kind. But until that occurs-it may occur in the context of the establishment of a national crime authority or something of that kind-in light of the basic principles under which the Federal system operates and which the other side is constantly urging us to adopt, there is no reason, justification or rationale whatsoever for us to pursue the various courses that are pressed upon us by either Senator Durack or Senator Chaney. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Attorney- General failed to address the specific questions which I asked him about whether the Commonwealth Government would urge the New South Wales Government to institute an immediate judicial inquiry into these allegations. He also failed to answer my question whether, if the State would not so act, he would consider using the powers at his disposal to establish a Commonwealth royal commission. There is nothing in his answer which suggests to me that there is a lack of power in his hands or in the hands of the Commonwealth Government to establish such a royal commission should the State refuse to do its duty. Senator Walsh —Centralism. Senator GARETH EVANS —Apart from the obvious irony to which Senator Walsh has just referred I think the answer is simply this: As to the urging of a certain course of conduct upon New South Wales, it was apparent from the answer given by Mr Beazley the other night that the New South Wales Government was indeed urged at the instance of the Prime Minister and the then Special Minister of State, Mr Young, to follow up the particular suggestive matters that had come to the notice of the Commonwealth law enforcement authorities. It is a matter for the New South Wales Government as to how it chooses to follow that up. My understanding is that the investigations have not been concluded in New South Wales and that indeed is the basis on which Mr Abbott has been asked to come back and produce a written report. Until such time as the investigations are concluded to the manifest satisfaction of the New South Wales Government it would be entirely inappropriate for the Commonwealth even to give consideration to the course of action which Senator Chaney has suggested. Senator COATES —My question to the Minister representing the Treasurer refers to Commonwealth-State financial relations and in particular Commonwealth Government payments to Tasmania. I ask: Is the Commonwealth still receiving proposals from Tasmanian Government Ministers for the Commonwealth to fund new programs in Tasmania or to increase the funding of existing programs, or has the situation changed to be in line with Mr Gray's announcement last weekend referring to Federal-State financial arrangements that the begging bowl days must come to an end? Senator WALSH —I was advised earlier this week of discussions held, I think, on 23 September between Commonwealth and State officials in Tasmania at which, I was advised, the Tasmanian officials on behalf of the Premier demanded that the Commonwealth provide funds for 8,800 years of employment at a per annum cost of, I think, $42,000, the total cost being something like $350m. In a more general sense I have noted in the Press comments of the Tasmanian Premier which were made at the Liberal Party conference over the weekend. He was reported in the Age as having said: The party must acknowledge that the future lies with demassification, with the breaking down of Government into smaller and more responsive units closer to the local level . . . He was also reported as saying that the Tasmanian Government had coped 'robustly with an artificially created centre of Federal government largely insulated from the harsh realities of the market economy which affects the rest of Australia'. Any coherent thoughts which are buried in that gobbledegook which I have just quoted would, I think, have to be interpreted as a support for what was called new federalism by the previous Prime Minister, prior to and for a short time after he became Prime Minister. The central thrust of it was that the governments which spent money were to be held equally responsible for raising the funds that they spent. That indeed is a philosophical proposition which would attract a good deal of support, I believe, from across political party boundaries. I observe, however, that it was never done by the previous Prime Minister. I do not believe that it would be done by Mr Gray or that he expected it to be taken seriously unless he had a sudden rush of blood to the head before the Liberal Party conference. If such a policy were to be applied and the States were to be held responsible for raising all the revenue that they spend, the effects for Tasmania of course would be quite catastrophic because the per capita payments estimates to Tasmania for this financial year are $1,855 as against an average for the Commonwealth of just under $1,200. In other words, $ 655 per capita is currently distributed from the other States to Tasmania. If Mr Gray wishes seriously to pursue the implicit support for the principles of new federalism as robustly expounded by the former Prime Minister in 1975 and for a couple of months in 1976, I do not believe the Commonwealth would have any objection to his pursuing that policy. No formal notice has been served on the Commonwealth that the Tasmanian Premier is requesting that the present arrangements, which redistribute income on a per capita basis quite heavily in favour of Tasmania through the Commonwealth, be terminated. Indeed, all the actions of the Tasmanian Premier suggest that his real objective, as distinct from the rhetoric which gushes from his mouth at Liberal Party conferences, is in the opposite direction. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Attorney-General a question similar to others he has been asked today. I sympathise with the legal difficulties he experiences in appointing a Federal royal commission to inquire into the activities of a State. I point out that if police and law enforcement authorities prosecute and imprison people who have been convicted of Federal offences and allegations of corruption are levelled against either the police or the people who are responsible for imprisonment, surely it does come within Federal jurisdiction. Thus, I ask the Attorney a question about the fresh allegations of corruption in New South Wales. In doing so, I make it absolutely clear that the Democrats support the thrust of Senator Chaney's question, particularly that part which referred to possible action by the Senate. Four weeks ago-this can be found on page 514 of the Hansard of 8 September-I pointed out that several strange happenings concerning Mr Abraham Saffron and others which had occurred in New South Wales had been exposed by the National Times. I then asked the Attorney- General whether he was prepared to establish a royal commission into police and political corruption in Australia. I now ask the Attorney-General again whether he is prepared to establish such an inquiry, not just into the matters of immediate concern but also into allegations of corruption against previous State administrations in New South Wales, if a suitable State judicial inquiry is not set up. Senator GARETH EVANS —Quite apart from questions of political comity in the Federal system-I am not talking about it in the sense of partisan comity-and the whole question of Federal-State relations and the proper relationship of the Federal Government to the States, which is a vexed and difficult one, there are very real legal difficulties about the course Senator Chipp has suggested. It may well be that the Commonwealth has executive power to inquire into anything it chooses in the sense of conducting an inquiry which generates suggestions or recommendations as to appropriate courses of action. However, the legal difficulty which arises for the Commonwealth in this area is if it chooses to exercise any coercive or compulsive powers in relation to that inquiry. I am sure Senator Chipp would appreciate that on matters as sensitive as this we are unlikely to generate very much evidence of a hard or useful kind except by the exercise of coercive or compulsive powers. It may be, as Senator Durack was suggesting earlier, that by a patchwork quilt of reliance upon the banking, insurance and corporation powers and matters of that kind one could, one way or another, stitch together the wherewithal for some inquiry of this kind to involve itself in at least a limited area of inquiry. After careful consideration of the earlier matter raised by Senator Chipp and, indeed, the whole question of how best to deal with organised crime and official corruption in this country, I have come to the personal view, the Government has come to the view, and one hopes that in due course the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party will come to the view, that the best way of approaching this is through the establishment of a proper national investigative authority, a national crime authority, which depends for its successful operation not on the coercive exercise of such a patchwork quilt of Commonwealth powers as could be put together but rather on the co-operative-- Senator Chaney —You sold that down the river, in this chamber. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is not quite true. Senator Chaney ought not to believe anything he reads in the newspapers. He ought to take a leaf out of the book of Senator Withers in that respect. I think he will find in due course that is not the case. I have taken the view and, as I indicated, the Government has taken the view-it is perfectly evident from the speeches of the Prime Minister and the policy stated by the Party that this is at least the Government's view- that the best way to approach these questions is through the establishment of a properly constructed investigative body, an intelligence gathering body, call it a crimes authority or a crimes commission if you like, which will operate on a co-operative basis with the States. Precisely how we put such a body together in terms of its composition, functions, powers and, overwhelmingly important, the safeguards on the exercise of those powers, is a matter of obvious policy difficulty. It has exercised a great many minds in this country for quite a period, as was evident in the conference in this chamber in July. It will no doubt go on causing a considerable degree of controversy for a good deal of distance into the future. Senator Chipp —It always founders on the question of precious States' rights. Senator GARETH EVANS —I believe that that, in short, is the way forward in this area. I readily acknowledge that there is a case for systematic investigation and monitoring of organised crime and official corruption at whatever level, but I believe, and I believe the Government believes, that the best way forward is the way I have suggested. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It concerns the problems many self-help groups for the adult unemployed in South Australia are having in obtaining the agreement of Commonwealth Employment Service managers to pin up notices regarding their activities in CES offices. Can the Minister explain why the CES is prevented from advertising voluntary and welfare type activities in its offices? Does the Minister agree that groups such as the self-help programs for the adult unemployed are worthy of more sympathetic treatment by the CES? Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, look into the situation and, if necessary, consider changing the Commonwealth Employment Service Act to overcome the difficulties currently being experienced? Senator BUTTON —Senator Foreman was kind enough to give me advance notice of this question. I simply state that requests similar to that implicit in Senator Foreman's question have been made on a number of occasions in the past. In fact, a review was conducted into this matter in December 1982 by the previous Government. The present policy on the display of materials in CES offices restricts display to information which is government produced or sponsored, and to information regarding CES services, facilities and things of that kind, such as career guidance, job training, unemployment benefits, the community youth support scheme and so on. When the policy was examined in December 1982 the review identified a number of difficulties with the proposal to lift these restrictions on information approved for display. The review was told of a considerable list of difficulties which would make it impossible to lift the restrictions. It referred to such difficulties as limited display space on boards and the like in CES offices, the fear that there would be substantially more requests for display space and the list goes on and on. It all seems pretty bureaucratic to me, and I must say that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is of the same mind. He has directed his Department to have a fresh investigation into the possibility of relaxing these guidelines. That investigation is currently under way. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the Hawke Government's intention to extend parliamentary superannuation benefits to de facto spouses of members of parliament, does the Government intend that the declaration of pecuniary interests by Ministers and members of this Parliament which applies to their families should similarly be extended to include de facto spouses? Senator BUTTON —It was stated explicitly in the announcement in relation to the pecuniary interests of Ministers and the hoped-for future declarations of statements of pecuniary interests of members of parliament that Ministers and members would be requested to adjust their statements of pecuniary interests from time to time as circumstances arose. The legislation to which Senator Reid refers is a circumstance which may require adjustment in some cases. I am sure that Ministers will attend to that and I hope that members of parliament will do so in due course. Senator GILES —Can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs provide figures on the representation of women in senior positions in his Department, as against their representation amongst all departmental employees? Does he agree that women's level of representation in these senior positions is far from satisfactory? What steps has he taken to attempt to redress the inequality? Senator GIETZELT —The question of women occupying positions in the Public Service has occupied some attention on the part of the Government. We are committed to a principle of establishing a more equitable degree of representation. As one who sat in on Estimates committees just recently, in the autumn session as well as the spring session, I was struck by the fact that there were very few women occupying senior positions, or even middle management positions, in the various departments with which I was associated on Estimates Committee F-the Department of Administrative Services, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Department of Territories and Local Government, the Department of Transport, and the Department of Aviation. So the Government has expressed a view that there should be some dramatic improvement in the level of representation of women in the senior positions in the Public Service. I am advised that about 57 per cent of those working in the Department of Veterans' Affairs are women, yet in regard to senior positions, only 17 per cent are at or above Class 9 level, which represents about one in six. Obviously great attention needs to be paid to this matter in reaching a much more equitable distribution of women in senior positions in the Public Service. As for my own Department, I have attended two management seminars this year. There has been an appreciable increase in the presence of women at such seminars. As some very senior positions in my Department will be falling vacant very shortly, it is certainly my intention, after having discussed the matter with the Secretary to my Department, to see that some emphasis in selection is made that will improve the representation of women in senior positions in my Department. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. When is it expected that the Queensland Government will be paid the shortfall amount of $21.2m due to it as a result of the Medicare funding arrangements? The Queensland Government requested $36m and to date only $15m has been allocated in the Budget by the Federal Government. Why is Queensland not being provided with compensation equal to that for the other States? Is it because Queensland has maintained a free hospital system? Can the Minister assure the people of Queensland that they will receive the rightful amount due to them, $36m, and not only the $15m allocated in the Budget, which would mean that Queensland was indeed being shortchanged? Senator GRIMES —Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question is based on a premise which is hers-that the claim by the Premier of Queensland and his colleagues for $36m is a fair and correct one. That is a claim which would not be accepted by many people who look at the situation rationally. There have been negotiations between the Government of Queensland and the Commonwealth Government about the amount of money which should be paid to Queensland as a result of the introduction of Medicare. I always find it interesting that someone like Senator Bjelke-Petersen can sit over there and praise the free hospital service in Queensland when all her colleagues around her condemn such an introduction as contributing to overservicing, et cetera. However, I suppose that she can work that out with her colleagues. As I do not keep in my head the exact details of the negotiations between the Australian Government and the Queensland Government , I shall get for Senator Bjelke-Petersen the explanation, and which I am sure she has had many times, in any case, which sets out the basis for the compensation for Queensland concerning Medicare and free hospitals. I shall provide it for her and for the Senate for, I think, the third, fourth or fifth time. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I have received a number of queries about the current position of college-based education for nurses. The people asking about this are as concerned as I am that such education for nurses, currently at the end of a pilot study stage, be continued and extended. What is the current position? What steps will be taken to implement this policy? Senator RYAN —The Government's position on nurse education is that we accept the arguments that it ought to be transferred to colleges. We accept those arguments not only because they have been advocated so persuasively by the various organisations representing nurses but also because we share with them the hope that changing and upgrading the means of training nurses will lead to greater recognition of the contribution that nurses make to hospital teams and will lead to their participation on a more equal footing with doctors in those teams. So we are in accord with the objective of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation to upgrade nurse education by transferring it to colleges. What I have done in order to realise this commitment is to ask the Tertiary Education Commission to report to me on options for implementing the report of the Sax Committee of Officials on Medical Manpower Supply-the Sax Committee was the committee which made the recommendations about transferring nurse education to colleges-and to bring down that report in time for planning for the next triennium in tertiary education; that is, the triennium beginning 1985. It is not the case, as some people seem to have assumed, that I have asked the Tertiary Education Commission to reopen the question of the training of nurses; it is, rather, to report on options for implementation of the Sax Committee's recommendations. I am consulting various nurses organisations throughout Australia. I have a couple of meetings with different organisations scheduled within the next month. I look forward to their participation and co-operation in developing the means by which we can transfer nurse education to the colleges, as they wish. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In recent answers to Senator Chipp and Senator Mason, the Minister has repeatedly stated that: A nuclear war is in fact unlikely- And that: Global nuclear war is assessed as remote. Can the Minister explain on what basis the Government makes this assessment? Is the Minister aware that the prestigious Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Bulletin Clock, a symbol of the threat of the nuclear doomsday hovering over mankind, now stands at four minutes to midnight, the closest it has been since 1945? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first part of the question, all my recent references to the remoteness of global nuclear war stress that the basis for this judgment by the Government rested largely on the constraints imposed on both super-powers by mutual deterrence. Both super-powers manifestly have no illusions whatever about the catastrophic consequences of nuclear conflict for their own countries and the rest of the world. The Government's assessment in this respect followed careful study of all available information, including the views of its senior advisers. The assessment presumes the continuing durability of nuclear deterrence consequent upon broad nuclear parity and the fear of retaliatory devastation and the maintenance and development of consultative mechanisms between the super-powers. As to the second part of the question, yes, I am aware, or have become aware-- Senator Chipp —How can you have consultation with only three minutes warning? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Chipp takes the view that the kind of disarmament negotiations with which I am presently proceeding are not worth pursuing for that reason, he is entitled to that view, but it is not one that will be shared, I believe, by other honourable senators. I am aware that the front cover of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists displays a clock which is the Bulletin's symbol of the threat of nuclear doomsday hovering over mankind. It has become a very familiar symbol of this concern, which is shared, obviously, by everyone around the world. The hands are currently shown at four minutes to midnight, where they have remained since they were last moved 2 1/2 years ago, in January 1981. I note, however, that when the position was reassessed in January 1982 the Bulletin's editor noted the development then of several positive trends which could, he said, ultimately provide good reasons for moving the hands further away from midnight and he urged that those trends be encouraged. All I can say is that this is precisely the Government's view. The Government's disarmament policies, including as they do the commitment to the process of international negotiations and consultations on this subject, are designed to further that objective and reduce the risks of nuclear war. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Acting Minister for Health aware that the present medical insurance arrangements discriminate against patients receiving private psychiatric treatment by placing limits on reimbursement of fees? Will such patients continue to be discriminated against under Medicare and, in particular, will the provision limiting the cost to the patient for prolonged treatment apply equally to all patients, whatever the nature of their illness? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware of the difficulty facing those patients receiving private psychiatric treatment under the existing health insurance programs. I am unsure of the details of what changes will be made on the introduction of Medicare, particularly in the private health area. I will get the answer for Senator Zakharov as soon as I can. Senator LEWIS —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs prepared to do anything for the more than 300 Victorian country students of tertiary institutions whose hostels are being closed by the Cain Labor Government? Senator RYAN —This matter has been brought to my attention by one of my parliamentary colleagues, but as yet I have not seen any representations from Mr Fordham, the Victorian Minister for Education, to this effect. It may well be that he has written to me but, as the Senate will be aware, there has been a mail strike in Canberra and it could well be that-- Senator Chaney —It has nothing to do with the mail strike. Senator RYAN —I am very surprised at these expressions of-- Senator Lewis —Just answer the question. Senator RYAN —I am answering the question. I have not yet seen any representations from Mr Fordham on this matter, although I do not wish to imply by that that he has not attempted to make any. Until I do, I cannot really comment on what arrangements he has in mind for the continuation of these hostels. I point out to the honourable senator that the matter of accommodation for tertiary students is currently being reviewed by the Tertiary Education Commission. Many needs and many serious problems exist with regard to the provision of low cost accommodation for tertiary students. Senator Chaney —In which year will that review be completed? Senator RYAN —I think I might answer that interjection by Senator Chaney, who is interested in the year in which the review will be completed. It will be completed in this year and it will certainly be completed in time for me to make appropriate recommendations in my Budget submissions for next year. The Federal Government, having as it does a strategy of increasing participation in higher education-in particular increasing participation by previously disadvantaged groups-is very aware of the need to have available low cost accommodation for tertiary students. So naturally we are most concerned to hear that some such accommodation is in jeopardy. I will certainly be giving the matter close attention. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Arising out of what the Minister has said, actually in answer to the interjection by Senator Chaney, does that mean that there will certainly be nothing done for these students during 1984 but that she will be bringing down something for them in the 1984 Budget, possibly to apply in 1985? Senator RYAN —No, it does not mean that. It means that I will address the problem of these particular hostels when it is presented to me in detail. Senator ROBERT RAY —Is the Acting Minister for Health aware that if Mr Peacock's plan to dismantle Medicare is implemented when the Liberals next get into office , Australia will have had eight major changes to its health system in 30 years? As the Liberal Party of Australia will not be in a position to announce its alternative health scheme until next April, will the Minister allow officers of his Department to be available to assist the Opposition in the formulation of its policy? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware that Mr Peacock has announced that his government -if there ever is a Peacock government, and one can hardly imagine that there will be after statements like that-will dismantle the Medicare arrangements which have been brought in by the present Government. I suppose, if one can go on the record of the previous Government, that is unlikely to happen, as Mr Fraser made it a prominent part of his election campaign in 1975 that 'we will retain Medibank' and then proceeded, as Senator Ray says, to introduce five different health schemes between 1975 until his political demise this year. The present Opposition has announced that it will have its new health scheme ready by next April. If that is so, it will be the first health policy that it has had in opposition. One can imagine the agony of someone like former Prime Minister Gorton who in 1969, realising the disastrous situation of the Australian health insurance scheme, instigated an inquiry and then attempted to bring in changes of the type that were eventually brought in under Medibank. One can imagine his agony, watching the party that he once led spend its last 10 years or more in government thrashing around trying to develop a policy and then, having come into opposition, announcing that its only policy was to dismantle the existing policy. I have represented the health portfolio for the Australian Labor Party in this place since 1976. I have been through endless debates. I have heard Senator Baume and others in this place talk about introducing health insurance on the basis of community ratings; introducing levies, and saying that levies are bad things and getting rid of them; regulating the health insurance funds and then wanting to deregulate the health insurance funds. I suppose the best thing we could do would be to get officers of the Department of Health to help the Opposition in formulating its policy. But I doubt whether it will want them. It did not take any notice of them in the years it was in government, from 1975 to 1983; I do not see why it should take any notice of them now, nor do I see why the people of this country should take any notice of any utterances of Mr Peacock or anyone else on the Opposition side on matters of health policy or health insurance policy. Senator ARCHER —My question, which is in three parts, is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Firstly, in view of the hostility poured on the airline pilots by the Government while the pilots were on strike, why is none being levelled against the employees of Australia Post, whose actions are just as selfish but far more damaging and inconvenient to business and family alike? Secondly, what support will the Government provide to those pilots who were endeavouring to maintain the service for which they were engaged by putting the survival of their employer and the requirements of their customers first, if action from any source is taken against them? Finally, when will the Government take the actions necessary to get the mail delivered? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether it is implicit in Senator Archer's question that he thinks governments should go about picking winners and losers in industrial disputes, and compensate the losers and chastise the winners or something of that kind. Senator Chaney —You do in uranium mines. You may as well in industrial disputes. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney has drawn the brilliant analogy with uranium mining, which I thought might have eluded even him as a graphic example of an analogy to the industrial relations area. Senator Chaney —You pick winners and losers there without any qualms at all. Senator BUTTON —And at the races-one picks winners and losers at the races. Senator Chaney —Some of your people pick very big winners, apparently. Senator BUTTON —We are talking about industrial relations. I understand that steps have been taken by the Minister for Communications in relation to the postal dispute. It is anticipated that, as a result of those steps, that matter will be resolved very quickly. As to whether we should help air pilots-I take it the honourable senator means pilots from East-West Airlines and the like-I do not believe there is any need to do that; I believe they can look after themselves. But certainly, as I indicated in answer to a question yesterday, there are very serious differences of opinion amongst the air pilots about the course of action that has been advocated by their executive. I believe that those differences of opinion will grow as air pilots generally become aware of the long series of negotiations which the Government has had with them regarding this matter and the generally totally anti-social position which they have adopted in relation to this dispute. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Acting Minister for Health. Is the Minister able to report on Government plans to publicise the possible harmful effects of the drug diethylstilboestrol, a synthetic oestrogen widely prescribed to pregnant women in Australia from 1941 to 1971 to prevent miscarriage? In view of the concern about the long term effects of DES on the daughters of women prescribed this drug, can the Minister give an assurance that the Federal Government will monitor this situation and give the States assistance in bringing this potentially serious health matter to public attention? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware of the potential long term effects of DES on the daughters of women who used that drug in the 1940s and 1950s and I am aware that the unusual carcinoma which can develop in such people is very distressing and is a very difficult one to treat. I well remember a former senator, Senator Melzer, asking many questions on this subject. From memory, I understand that the Department of Health was monitoring the matter but I cannot say for certain that it is doing so now. I will find out the details from the Department of Health and get the answers that Senator Reynolds requires. Certainly, on a personal basis, I believe that such monitoring is essential in order for the early detection of the disease where possible and its adequate treatment when detected. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the possibility of the Australian Government initiating prisoner exchange schemes with Thailand and other such countries where Australian prisoners, both male and female, are being held for long sentences on mainly drug related convictions. Has the Government considered conducting bilateral and multilateral discussions with other countries to establish voluntary repatriation of Australian prisoners abroad? If it has, what action has been taken? Further, has the Government consulted with the State governments on the possibility of transferring prisoners out of Australian prisons to their home countries and providing accommodation in State prisons for Australians returned from overseas? Finally, does the Minister have any additional information on the international prisoner transfer scheme? Senator GARETH EVANS —It may be that I can supply a more detailed answer in writing to Senator Kilgariff and I certainly undertake to do so, but broadly the position is this: The question of international prisoner transfers is something of a long-standing chestnut. The matter is before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, where, as no doubt Senator Durack will recall, it has been residing for some considerable time. The difficulty so far as the Commonwealth is concerned in engaging in bilateral or multilateral international negotiations is that we do not ourselves have control over the prison system within Australia . That is a matter for State governments. The States are constitutionally obliged to house Commonwealth prisoners but the Commonwealth itself has no gaols to which it could readily resort to accommodate prisoners who are the subject of transfers to Australia under any international scheme. Therein lies a considerable problem which can be resolved only by consultation and, hopefully, longer term agreement with the States. Those consultations have been taking place. However, the momentum is not as rapid as I would have wished and I have been endeavouring to stimulate it. Against that background I will endeavour to prepare a progress report, as it were, for the honourable senator and let him know precisely where things are. I am wholly sympathetic to the aspirations which lie behind his question but, translating that into reality, particularly again in the situation where there is an imbalance between Australian prisoners housed abroad and overseas prisoners in Australia with consequent potential financial disadvantage involved , the difficulties cannot be underestimated of bringing about anything sensible in the short to medium term in that respect. Senator GRIMES —I wish to add to an answer I gave to a question asked by Senator Missen earlier in Question Time concerning the code of standard for the production of breast milk substitutes in Australia. I am informed by the Department of Health that the code referred to is a code of practice for industry to adhere to as part of overall action towards the implementation of the World Health Organisation International Code for Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes. The Australian Industry Code of Practice requires all infant breast milk substitutes to meet at least the standard of the Codex Alimentarious which is recognised as a world standard for quite a range of food products. The Department of Health chaired a working party, consisting of representatives of infant formula manufacturers, the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Department of Primary Industry, which developed the code of practice accepted in June 1983. That obviously means there was no consumer representation on that working party. In view of the fact that the Australian standard is at the level of at least one international standard, consumers have some protection, but in addition the National Health and Medical Research Council is developing a food standard which will require infant formulas to have a higher nutritional content than that provided in the current standard. I will seek the further details asked for by Senator Missen and get the replies to him as soon as possible. Report 1982 Debate resumed from 4 October 1983, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.08) —When the report of the Film Censorship Board was tabled I moved that the Senate take note of the paper to enable some consideration and debate of it if honourable senators were minded to do so. There was no opportunity to consider the report before it was tabled. In view of the widespread interest in this matter I thought it desirable that the Senate have such an opportunity. We have now had the opportunity of reading the report and it is an interesting and valuable document. I think it is worth noting that only comparatively recently has the Parliament had the opportunity of receiving a report on the activities of the Film Censorship Board. The present Chief Censor is to be congratulated on the pioneering work that she has done in making this report available. As I said, the making available to the Parliament of such a report was instituted only recently, I think in the last two or three years but certainly since the appointment of the present Chief Censor. It contains quite a lot of interesting statistics as to the reasons for the various classifications that the Board gives to films. The report reveals the valuable work that the Board does and the success it has had in broadly giving effect to community standards in this very sensitive area. It is worth noting that there have been considerably fewer complaints about the classification of films during 1982-the period covered by the report-than in previous years. I think the combination of the regard that the Board has for community standards and the availability of appeal to the Films Board of Review has worked very well. One of the problems that the Board is faced with and which is revealed in the report is the great increase in its work as a result of technological developments and in particular videotapes. One of the matters that has been of concern is the explosion in the use of videotapes and how best to deal with them because they do not come within the ordinary joint Federal-State classification of film legislation. The Board is obliged to register imported videotapes. I am pleased it was agreed at the recent meeting of Federal and State Ministers responsible for censorship that their ought to be a joint Federal-State scheme in relation to videotapes and that the Film Censorship Board should be given the responsibility of classifying such tapes broadly in accordance with the same classification system that is adopted for cinema films but with an additional X category. Certainly the objective is still to retain control over highly objectionable matter such as child pornography, drug abuse, extreme violence and cruelty, terrorism and so on. I think that the recent decision by the Ministers is a sound one. I am very pleased that use will continue to be made of the very high qualifications and experience of members of the Films Board of Review to give effect to this decision. I hope that the decision will be brought into operation without undue delay. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.12) —I would like to take up the same theme that was followed by Senator Durack. I commend the work that the Film Censorship Board has done on the censorship and classification of films. However , as Senator Durack said, censorship and classification currently applies only to films and videotapes intended for public viewing. Videotapes for private sale and hire are not classified. As a result, people may hire tapes which they may then find offensive. The Film Censorship Board's views on videotape censorship and classification were expressed at the convention of the Motion Picture Exhibitors' Association of Queensland last year by Ms Janet Strickland, the Chief Censor of the Board. Ms Strickland said at that time that all videotapes for sale and hire should be registered and classified by the Board. She also said that a comprehensive classification system for videos should have an X rating to include some currently prohibited material. She said that in her eyes this classification would meet public demand for consumer advice, provide an avenue of appeal for importers and distributors, enable consumers to make their own decisions on what they see and avoid unintentional exposure to offensive material. It would also provide more effective control over matters such as child pornography, drug abuse, acts of extreme violence, terrorism and all those matters that are offensive to many people in Australia, particularly children and youth to whom these tapes are readily available. I would strongly commend the Board's views on videotape classification and censorship. I urge the Federal and State governments to adopt such a system for the sale and hire of videotapes . I must say that many people in Australia are concerned that children are able to hire unsuitable tapes very easily from local video hire shops. I do not think we should classify all video hire shops as being in the category of making such videos readily available. However, of course, some shops will sell and hire any type of tape for gain. As I indicated, many people have shown extreme concern in regard to this matter. The Catholic Womens League convention was held in Darwin some three or four months ago. Some 400 delegates representing thousands of women throughout Australia discussed international and national matters at the gathering. One of the matters that they discussed, of course, was the sale and hire of videotapes. They passed a motion requesting that authority take action in regard to this problem. With this in mind, I would ask the Government to review the censorship legislation relating to videotapes and to pick up the expressed view of the Chief Censor of the Film Censorship Board, Ms Strickland. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.16) —I enter this debate very briefly. The general matters about which I wish to address my remarks concern not only the principles of film censorship but also the question of imports and prohibited imports. A good deal of concern has been expressed, as indicated by Senator Kilgariff, about the videotape issue. Indeed, concern has been expressed about the real meaning of what the Film Censorship Board describes on page 3 of its report as its understanding of its functions within the framework of its statutory responsibilities. The report states: The Board aims at reflecting the plurality of community standards which exist in Australia. With this in mind I would like to refer to the Board's comments relating to videotapes set out on pages 15 to 16 of the report. The Board states: Although certain short-term procedural decisions relating to the treatment of videotapes for sale/hire were taken in 1982 . . . broader questions relating to the appropriate controls for this material remained unresolved. The Board detailed certain views. It then went on to say: The Film Censorship Board's view, embodied in an address delivered by the Chief Censor to the Convention of the Motion Picture Exhibitors' Association of Queensland held in Surfers Paradise in July 1982, is that- That view is then listed. The second point made by the Board in this context included the following statement: . . . further implement the Federal Government's philosophy that adults have the right to make their own decisions regarding the material they read, hear or see, but that people generally should be protected from exposure to material that may be offensive-or, in the case of children, harmful-to them- The Board also said: . . . provide more effective control over material that depicts such matters as, for example, child pornography, bestiality, drug abuse, and acts of extreme violence, cruelty or terrorism. I should have thought that, bringing all those things together, the latter types of video films particularly would have had no place at all in Australia or anywhere else for that matter. I wonder whether bestiality and child pornography are really appropriate classifications or whether I have misunderstood what the Board was aiming at when it talked about its aim of reflecting the plurality of community standards which exist in Australia. I trust that I have misinterpreted that comment, but I wonder whether I have. I would be very concerned if my interpretation of what the Board is saying is correct. I have not had the opportunity of discussing the matter with either the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) or members of the Film Censorship Board. Therefore, I would suggest at this stage that that is a possible interpretation of anybody reading the document. I think that every member of the Senate and every person in Australia would consider that videos or even films relating to child pornography , bestiality, drug abuse and acts of extreme violence, cruelty or terrorism have no place in Australia. The Board made a comment on page 15 of the report concerning videotapes. The report states: Videotapes intended for sale/hire would be allowed entry into Australia under amended Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. The Board spoke of a view which is held, but it did not say who holds that view. Perhaps for completeness one should mention this point. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(3.22) —I rise to join briefly in this debate and support the remarks that have already been made. I understand that, regarding the censorship of video films, there is now agreement between the States and the Commonwealth that the matter needs to be looked at. It is not enough to have censorship of video films that are for public exhibition. This was brought to my attention some weeks ago when a mother, who is a friend of mine, telephoned me and said that she had hired a video recorder for the weekend because the family wanted to see a film it had missed. They did that, and her two lads asked whether they could hire some more films. She said that that was all right and the boys got a couple more films. They used their discretion, as young male juveniles will, and the result horrified their parents. This lady telephoned me the next morning and complained about the incident. That really brought to my attention the fact that there is no censorship of such films. I can only add to the remarks- Senator Harradine —That is the point I was about to make. These are allowed in under the existing Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations when those regulations prohibited them. Have a word with some of the Customs officers. It is not being properly policed. Senator COLLARD —I thank Senator Harradine. I am sure we are all on the one wave length. The idea is that there ought not be a classification for some of these films, that they just be banned entirely and not allowed into the public arena at all. I add those brief remarks in support all that has been said. I hope something can be done about it very shortly. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney General)(3.24) —Can I say quickly, in response to at least some of the remarks that have been made on the report of the Film Censorship Board, that it deals only with the calendar year 1982. Since the change of government a number of matters referred to in the report have been addressed by the present Government. There are many reforms- Senator Durack —They were well under consideration before. Senator GARETH EVANS —Many things were under consideration by the previous Government and very little visible achievement was actually recorded. I think the honourable senator will find that the situation is changing rather rapidly in that respect, as in many others. I think it is unfortunate that the speakers, at least the ones I have heard, who have contributed to this debate, with the possible exception of Senator Collard, have not referred to the tabling statement that was meant to be circulated simultaneously with the report that answers, I think, some of the questions that have arisen in the debate and which were addressed specifically to indicate to honourable senators what progress had taken place on matters that were the subject of comment by the Chairman of the Film Censorship Board. In respect of at least two of those matters, let me simply say this: The videotape question has been the subject of extended discussion, as Senator Durack will no doubt recall, over a long period by the Ministers responsible for censorship. In July this year hard agreement was actually reached on what was going to happen about this. Agreement was reached on a new uniform system of videotape censorship classifications and accompanying point of sale controls to ensure that there was some sensible control over what is a burgeoning market. There is a lack of any kind of sensible control over it at the moment which is causing quite reasonable and understandable concern in many sections of the community. The elements in that proposed new uniform system of classification can be summarised in six points. Firstly imported videotapes for home use are to be no longer subject to compulsory registration by the Film Censorship Board. Secondly , videotapes for sale or hire are to be classified by the Film Censorship Board at the request of the importer, the distributor or the retailer. Thirdly, the classification standards to be applied for videotapes are to be the same as for cinemas, namely, G, NRC-although possibly the PG rating will substitute for that in due course-M and R, with a further category, X, to be added for stronger material which would be refused cinema showing. Only child pornography, terrorism and perhaps some other classes of similarly very extreme material would be refused classification altogether. Fourthly, the States and the Australian Capital Territory, or the Commonwealth Parliament by means of an ordinance, are to pass laws imposing appropriate point of sale restrictions for R and X classified material, in particular to ensure that there is no sale of such material to minors. Fifthly, the existence of a classification is to be a complete defence for retailers against prosecution under State obscenity laws. That is, of course, the encouragement to retailers and distributors to get into the classification system. Sixthly, classification recommendations by the Film Censorship Board are to be subject to review by the Commonwealth Films Board of Review. That system is now being put into legislative form, as I understand it, in every jurisdiction in Australia. So far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned, revisions are proceeding, and I hope will be in place by the end of this year, to the Australian Capital Territory Objectionable Publications Ordinance which will clarify and rationalise the censorship law generally as well as specifically in relation to videotapes. We are looking forward to appropriate complementary State legislation and the whole administrative system being in place by early next year. This matter has been the subject of some favourable comment, I believe, editorially and elsewhere in the media, including by people in the industry who were worried about the way in which it was getting under control. Senator Durack —I just made a favourable comment on it. Senator GARETH EVANS —Bless you, Senator Durack. I am sorry that I missed it because it would be a unique phenomenon in this chamber. It is one that I wish I had been here to observe. That matter is under way. As to the question of amendment of the Customs Regulations to cope with a number of anomalies, difficulties and gaps between the law and the practice, which have given rise to concern by Customs officials who have been charged with the task of enforcing a rather muddled law at the barrier, work is now proceeding very urgently to finalise some really quite long outstanding amendments to these Regulations. In conjunction with the proposed amendments to the Australian Capital Territory Objectionable Publications Ordinance, I will be promulgating, I hope, amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations to tidy up the present situation. There will also be changes to accommodate the recommendations of the Mahony report, which will be the subject of tabling in this place quite soon, I hope, in relation to customs administration generally and regulation 4A of the Customs Regulations in particular. There are other matters relating to common standards and so on in the application of these various new rules and procedures which are the subject of continuing discussions between the States and the Commonwealth at both an official and ministerial level. I hope that very soon we will have not only a rationalised legislative framework but also a sensible administrative framework to go with it that will meet the concerns that have been expressed both in this report and by honourable senators in this place. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 22 September 1983, on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick: That the Senate- (a) deplores the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640 million five year Bicentennial Water Resources Program; (b) stresses the vital importance for Australia's future of the maximum conservation of our limited water resources; (c) emphasises that the main projects in the program had been indicated by the States as having high priority, advanced planning and preparedness, short lead times for commencement and relatively short construction times; (d) stresses that many of the projects would create both immediacy of useful employment in the construction period and significant long-term new job opportunities in new industries dependent on water; (e) focusses attention upon the importance in New South Wales of the following projects (i) Split Rock Dam, (ii) Glenbawn Dam-Stage 2, (iii) Mid-Murray Storage (Euston), (iv) Menindee Lakes Storage, (v) the proposed Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation feasibility study for the construction of a major Upper Murray storage, and (vi) the proposed feasibility study for the diversion of the Clarence River inland; and (f) regrets that the Hawke Government has given no indication that it will continue to support the existing National Water Resources Program which is a Federal-State dollar-for-dollar sharing program of great significance to all Australians. Question resolved in the affirmative. (Quorum formed) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I point out that notices of motion Nos 22 to 24 have been called on but, as they have not been moved, they have lapsed. I should explain to the Senate that what happened was that we had a cognate debate on a number of notices of motion. The only one actually moved was that moved by Senator Sir John Carrick in regard to water resources in New South Wales. We are now going through the other notices of motion. If an honourable senator wishes to move a motion which is on notice, he may do so. Motion (by Senator Collard) put: That the Senate- (a) deplores the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640 million five year Bicentennial Water Resources Program; (b) stresses the vital importance for Australia's future of the maximum conservation of our limited water resources; (c) emphasises that the main projects in the program had been indicated by the States as having high priority, advanced planning and preparedness, short lead times for commencement and relatively short construction times; (d) stresses that many of the projects would create both immediacy of useful employment in the construction period and significant long-term new job opportunities in new industries dependent on water; (e) focusses attention upon the importance in Queensland of the following projects: (i) Dawson River Weir, (ii) Macintyre River Weir, (iii) Awoonga Dam, and (iv) the proposed feasibility study for the diversion of the Northern River systems inland; and (f) regrets that the Hawke Government has given no indication that it will continue to support the existing National Water Resources Program which is a Federal-State dollar-for-dollar sharing program of great significance to all Australians. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S.Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E.Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R.Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J.Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. 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. Reid, M. E.Evans, Jack Townley, M.Haines, J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G.Harradine, B. Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Ray, RobertColeman, R. N. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Georges, G. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. McIntosh, G. D. Teague, B. C.Sibraa, K. W. MacGibbon, D. J.Primmer, C. G. Scott, D. B.Elstob, R. C. Watson, J. O. W.Hearn, J. M. Rae, PeterCook, P. F. S. Hill, R.Button, J. N. Guilfoyle Dame Margaret Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-When I last spoke to notice of motion No. 22 standing in my name, it is my recollection-I do not have the Hansard record-that I used the words 'I move notice of motion No. 22 standing in my name'. Prior to that Senator Sir John Carrick moved notice of motion No. 84 standing in his name and suggested that there be a cognate debate. I am advised by the Clerk at the table that, because at that time Senator Sir John Carrick's notice of motion was before the Senate, my words endeavouring to move my notice of motion in fact were ineffective and that I had not, therefore, moved the notice of motion. Apparently the other notices of motion, standing in the names of Senator Hill and Senator Crichton-Browne, also were not moved notwithstanding the fact that they used words similar to mine. The whole point of this personal explanation is to explain to the Senate what has happened and to seek leave of the Senate to move now notice of motion No. 22 standing in my name, listed on the Notice Paper today, which apparently at this stage is deemed to have lapsed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I explain to the Senate that only one motion can be before the chair at any one time. Senator Sir John Carrick's motion was before the Chair at the relevant time. The other motions were debated with it cognately, by leave. Of course, if Senator Lewis wishes, it is now in order for him to seek leave to move his notice of motion. Is leave granted? Senator Grimes —I wish to-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The only question before the Chair is: Is leave granted? There is no question of debating it, Senator Grimes. Senator Grimes —I will add to the personal explanation if I may. Senator Lewis was making a personal explanation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted to do what he wishes? Senator Grimes —No. With due respect, Mr Deputy President, Senator Lewis rose and said he wished to make a personal explanation. After making his personal explanation he proceeded to seek leave to do something in the Senate. When he rose to make that personal explanation he gave no indication that he would seek leave on a matter of procedure. By doing this he is precluding me or anyone on this side from responding to his personal explanation or from making any comment on it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes, with leave you may make any statement in this chamber you like. But the situation at the moment is that Senator Lewis made a personal explanation by leave, at the end of which he sought leave to move a motion. The only question I have before the Chair is whether leave is granted. If leave is granted, when he moves his motion there may be a debate on it. Senator LEWIS —Could I withdraw my request for leave to allow Senator Grimes to make a statement at this stage, if he wishes? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes may, if he wishes, make a statement by leave. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-As the Deputy President said, we have a situation which does not usually arise. We debated cognately six motions, of which notice had been given. A strange situation arose in that only the first motion was moved and Senator Lewis, apparently not understanding the situation, failed to move his motion at the right time. I accept that he has the right to move that motion. I accept that we could delay the Senate all afternoon by opposing each motion one by one. I think it is a pity that the Opposition did not decide to move them all together but if the Opposition wants to go through the ritual of moving them one by one, that will be all right. We have opposed one for symbolic reasons; we will not oppose the others, although we have stated our opposition to them in those circumstanaces. Motion (by Senator Lewis)-by leave-agreed to: That the Senate- (a) deplores the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640 million five year Bicentennial Water Resources Program; (b) stresses the vital importance for Australia's future of the maximum conservation of our limited water resources; (c) emphasises that the main projects in the program had been indicated by the States as having high priority, advanced planning and preparedness, short lead times for commencement and relatively short construction times; (d) stresses that many of the projects would create both immediacy of useful employment in the construction period and significant long-term new job opportunities in new industries dependent on water; (e) focuses attention upon the importance in Victoria of the following projects : (i) Lake Merrimu-Stage 3, (ii) Piping Wimmera-Mallee water supply scheme-Stage 1, (iii) Mitchell River Dam, (iv) Mid-Murray Storage (Euston), (v) Menindee Lakes storage, and (iv) the proposed Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation feasibility study for the construction of a major Upper Murray storage; and (f) regrets that the Hawke Government has given no indication that it will continue to support the existing National Water Resources Program which is a Federal-State dollar-for-dollar sharing program of great significance to all Australians. Motion (by Senator Sir John Carrick on behalf of Senator Hill)-by leave-agreed to: That the Senate- (a) deplores the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640 million five year Bicentennial Water Resources Program; (b) stresses the vital importance for Australia's future of the maximum conservation of our limited water resources; (c) emphasises that the main projects in the program had been indicated by the States as having high priority, advanced planning and preparedness, short lead times for commencement and relatively short construction times; (d) stresses that many of the projects would create both immediacy of useful employment in the construction period and significant long-term new job opportunities in new industries dependent on water; (e) focuses attention upon the importance in South Australia of the following projects: (i) Adelaide Water Filtration Scheme, (ii) Northern Towns Water Filtration Scheme, (iii) Lock 2 to Lock 3 Salinity Control Works, (iv) Mid-Murray Storage (Euston), (v) Menindee Lakes storage, and (iv) the proposed Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation feasibility study for the construction of a major Upper Murray storage; and (f) regrets that the Hawke Government has given no indication that it will continue to support the existing National Water Resources Program which is a Federal-State dollar-for-dollar sharing program of great significance to all Australians. Motion (by Senator Crichton-Browne)-by leave-agreed to: That the Senate- (a) deplores the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640 million five year Bicentennial Water Resources Program; (b) stresses the vital importance for Australia's future of the maximum conservation of our limited water resources; (c) emphasises that the main projects in the program had been indicated by the States as having high priority, advanced planning and preparedness, short lead times for commencement and relatively short construction times; (d) stresses that many of the projects would create both immediacy of useful employment in the construction period and significant long-term new job opportunities in new industries dependent on water; (e) focuses attention upon the importance in Western Australia of the following projects: (i) Goldfields Pipeline Rehabilitation, (ii) Harris Dam, and (iii) Harvey Dam; and (f) regrets that the Hawke Government has given no indication that it will continue to support the existing National Water Resources program which is a Federal-State dollar-for-dollar sharing program of great significance to all Australians. Motion (by Senator Archer) agreed to: That the Senate- (a) deplores the abandonment by the Hawke Government of the Fraser Government's $640 million five year Bicentennial Water Resources Program; (b) stresses the vital importance for Australia's future of the maximum conservation of our limited water resources; (c) emphasises that the main projects in the program had been indicated by the States as having high priority, advanced planning and preparedness, short lead times for commencement and relatively short construction times; (d) stresses that many of the projects would create both immediacy of useful employment in the construction period and significant long-term new job opportunities in new industries dependent on water; (e) focuses attention upon the importance in Tasmania of the Craigbourne Dam Project; and (f) regrets that the Hawke Government has given no indication that it will continue to support the existing National Water Resources Program which is a Federal-State dollar-for-dollar sharing program of great significance to all Australians. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.46) —by leave-I move: (1) That the Senate notes- (a) the widespread disquiet in the community amongst those who are nearing the age of retirement and present age-pension recipients; and (b) that Ministers in the Hawke Government have a confusion of views on vital questions affecting pre-retirees and age-pensioners such as: (i) whether to replace income-testing by means-testing of age pensions, (ii) the harsher application of income-testing to age pensions, and (iii) the taxation of superannuation payments; and calls on the Government to immediately state its policy on these matters. (2) That the Senate- (a) recognises the proposed fundamental changes that the Government is making to Australia's retirement income systems; (b) acknowledges that the Government has received a number of reports on these proposed changes from a number of committees, including: (i) the joint ACTU/CAI/Government Official Working Group on the proposed superannuation changes, and (ii) a working party of public servants from the Departments of Treasury, Finance, Social Security, Prime Minister and Cabinet and Veterans' Affairs; (c) is of the opinion that there should be the widest possible informed debate on the Government's proposed changes; and (d) calls on the Government to release and make public all reports it has received relating to its retirement income policy changes. Since coming to office the Government has made three major changes in the area of retirement incomes. Firstly, there was the introduction of the income test for pensioners over 70 years of age; secondly, there were changes to arrangements for the taxation of lump sum superannuation payments; and, thirdly, there was the announcement of a proposed assets test which will come into effect next year. These changes have all been characterised by an ad hoc, piecemeal and ill-thought out approach. Their introduction has been by way of a two-bite process-firstly, in the May mini-Budget which included the superannuation changes and the over-70s income test; and, secondly, in the August Budget, which included the proposed assets test. Clearly, this was not part of any comprehensive policy but was, in fact, two different policies. The first two changes were justified on the grounds of stopping double-dipping. Yet people engaging in that practice under the old superannuation pension rules would be caught out by an assets test. The assets test introduced in the August Budget supersedes those earlier measures. Obviously this amounts to an overall grab for taxes. If the Government had a comprehensive policy, why were the changes introduced separately? That is a simple question. We look to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) to answer it. If the Government had intended an assets test all along, why did it introduce in May an income test for over-70s pensioners? An assets test clearly overrides such an income test. The income test was intended to operate for one year before the assets test was effected. Obviously this is a costly waste of money. In fact, during the hearing of Estimates Committee B it was revealed that the cost of making the changes which were announced in May amounted to more than $3m. Two hundred and twenty staff had to be hired to process pensioners' questionnaires and 55 permanent staff will be required to administer the income test. All that would have been completely unnecessary had an assets test been intended and put in place in May. If an assets test was intended, I ask why the Minister for Veterans' Affairs ( Senator Gietzelt) stated at the Victorian conference of the Returned Services League: Before I explain to you some of the rorts which are occurring under the system, I would like to give a few assurances. At my electorate office in Caringbah in Sydney there have been many calls from ex-service personnel alarmed by Press reports which suggest we are about to introduce an assets test on pension recipients. This is not what I am talking about at all. I further quote: I am seeking further information about just how widespread are the abuses of the kind I have already discovered, and what we can do to modify the income test on pensions to prevent such abuse. This must rate as one of the most despicable deceptions ever perpetrated on the Australian public. Can the Minister deny his own words? If not, how does he match them with the Budget action just six weeks later? I am sure that the answer will become clearer a little later as we examine a few other events that have occurred. It became clear, from the examination by Estimates Committee B, that the Government did not have any overall retirement income policy. Answers from officials and from the Minister revealed that on 30 March, 25 days after being elected, the Government established a working group of officials to examine policies on retirement. Included in the report which it handed down, a report dealing with issues relating to occupational superannuation and the age pension system, was the reintroduction of an assets test. That was submitted to the Government on 1 May 1983. It is obvious that the mini-Budget changes of 19 May flowed from that committee. But what did it recommend about assets testing? If it recommended in favour, why was not that too done in the May mini-Budget? I think it is relevant to refer to a quotation from Senator Grimes which appeared in the Bulletin of 10 May 1983. He said: 'Reform of the system involves examining the taxation laws, welfare payments and the economic ramifications. One thing we are wary of, is nibbling away on a piecemeal basis at the structure.' This is a two-bite method. The Government nibbled away rather than face up to the fundamental issue. Nine weeks after the mini-Budget the Government established a second smaller working group specifically to examine the assets test issue. It consisted of staff from the Department of Social Security, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It was established on 27 July and submitted its report on 11 August. The establishment of that second group raises two very important questions. First, if an assets test was intended all along, why did the Government wait until nine weeks after the mini-Budget and barely three weeks before the August Budget to start sorting out the details? Secondly, if an assets test was not thought to be a serious option earlier, what prompted the about-face? The answer to the first question is difficult, but the indecent haste with which the working group dealt with the test-15 days, including two weekends-is reflected in the anomalies and inequities in the Australian Labor Party's assets test. This has been thoroughly condemned in the community, as has been evidenced by newspaper reports and complaints from the community generally. Boats, antiques and works of art have been exempted from the assets test while other small capital items have not. It is as a consequence of this indecent haste that the Government is now being forced to look at its exemption provisions, in particular those relating to farms and holiday homes. But by what criteria of equity does the Government exempt a holiday house on wheels-for example, a caravan-and a holiday house on water-for example a boat-of any value at all while holiday houses on land, however modest, are not to be exempted? On what grounds of equity are sophisticated forms of investment like antiques to be exempt while traditional forms such as savings accounts are to be allowed to contain only small amounts of exempt money? Is it coincidence that paintings and antiques are to be exempted from the test and that, according to the statements of Ministers' pecuniary interests, both the Treasurer (Mr Keating), a well known antique dealer, and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) have collections of paintings, antiques and objets d'art valued at more than $5,000? While not suggesting that these items be hit, I simply ask whether these Ministers excluded themselves from all discussions on exemptions. Senator Grimes —What is your profession? Is it something to do with family trusts? Senator MESSNER —I simply ask the question: Were they present during the discussions in Cabinet as to the exemption of those items? Clearly one other factor is involved here, and that is the pressure from the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance as distinct from the Department of Social Security. In relation to the second group which I mentioned earlier that was established to examine the issue of asset testing, there are two possible answers to the question of what prompted the Government to change its mind on the issue and establish a working group to look at its implementation. The Government was forced into the option as a result of its dealings with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry on the superannuation issue, a matter which I will come to in a moment. Or did members of the Ministry use the nine weeks following the mini-Budget to build up support for such a test for purely ideological reasons? Looking at what happened during those nine weeks, it is important to recall the words of the then leader of the ALP, Mr Hayden, during the Lowe by-election in 1982. He stated: The argument about millionaires receiving pensions is a cruel and emotive device to cover up the Government's real intention . . . to justify ripping the pension off ordinary people with modest savings they have worked for all their lives. Yet during the winter recess this is precisely the argument Senator Gietzelt, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, used when he went about the country. In an address to the State Conference of the Returned Services League in Melbourne on 6 July Senator Gietzelt said: . . . people with hundreds of thousands of dollars, even some millionaires . . . were receiving a service pension. He repeated those claims many times during the winter break. But what were Mr Hayden's views about that, and, more importantly, what are the views of the Minister for Social Security? According to a recent article in the Australian Pensioner, he was asked in an interview whether he thought there were many millionaire pensioners, and he replied: Not the vast numbers that many people think. Was that line directed at his colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who at one stage promised to name all these people in the Senate, notwithstanding that he is bound by confidentiality under the repatriation legislation which he has sworn to administer faithfully? Is it the case, as some suggest, that the Minister for Social Security took a back seat to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in this matter? This may explain some of the confusion on the question of asset testing that occurred during the meeting of Senate Estimates Committee B. Many questions have arisen over funds directed to the Department of Social Security under Division 312 in the Estimates which relate to 'Special funds for expenditure in relation to Government programs at the direction of the Minister for Finance, $53,000,000'. The Assistant Director-General of the Department stated that the information that $20m would be allocated to the Department of Social Security under this fund had been communicated by the Department of Finance 'in broad terms subsequent to the introduction of the Budget'. The Director-General of the Department stated: The exact amount decided, no doubt, was the decision taken by the Department of Finance in its judgments of the circumstances. It seems that the Department of Finance, which was not a member of the second working group on assets testing, was calling the shots on the issue. It is obvious that there is only one inescapable conclusion-that the Department of Social Security was distancing itself from these funding decisions. During the time between the mini-Budget and the August Budget the Government was involved in attempting to sort out the superannuation mess. Its original announcement of 19 May contained a number of anomalies. These changes discriminated against the self-employed and introduced a de facto death tax. They discriminated against members of the armed forces. Lump sums received as benefits by people in the armed services for buying houses or starting businesses were to be taxed to the extent of about one-third. A number of other matters still remain to be clarified by the Government. What changes are to be made to the Life Insurance Act? What return will be determined for annuities? What other categories of contractual termination payments will be included in this item? Are life insurance payments payable upon death, or surrender policies , still to be included? These superannuation changes were made against the background of the fact that on 15 April it was reported that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had assured the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions that tax on superannuation payments would not be increased. This was at the time the first working group was specifically examining that matter. Thirty-four days later the tax increased sixfold. That is the sort of honesty or lack of it that we have come to expect from the Government over the last six months. On 31 May 1983, the Treasurer supposedly clarified the changes and their intent . Then, as the matter still continued to attract controversy, the Government established a joint working group composed of representatives of the ACTU, the Confederation of Australian Industry and government officials to examine certain aspects of the changes. As a result of that report, the Government announced further changes to its original proposals on 7 August. A number of issues were still ignored. Service personnel were still not exempted. The introduction of approved deposit funds offered no obvious advantages for the self-employed. What processes will be entered into to provide a decent return on annuities? In the midst of this controversy, the Minister for Finance intervened and revealed that on the latest available figures for 1980 and 1981 of people receiving lump sums only one per cent received more than $100,000. In fact, 92 per cent got less than $20,000, while 75 per cent of that number got less than $ 5,000. Surely that makes a mockery of earlier arguments about cutting down the tall poppies within the community. More importantly than that, it shows up the stupidity of trying to introduce a system of annuities when three-quarters of those who received lump sums could only buy a pittance in the form of an annuity by investing sums of less than $5,000. That is absolutely crazy and the Government stands condemned on that ground alone. As in relation to the assets test issue, it is clear that the Government acted with haste and without an understanding of the need to adopt an overall approach to retirement income policy in order to avoid creating confusion, concern and hardship amongst the retired. In fact, the Government's actions have caused widespread concern and confusion. That is a fact and the Government cannot get away from it. An attempt to suggest that all would be well within the pensioner community was tried by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) last month. That resulted in a disastrous meeting at the Parramatta Town Hall. Local pensioners were incredulous at the claims by the Minister that the Government had sorted out all the problems of the pensioner community. As a consequence of the Government's ad hoc approach I moved to refer to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare the matter of the existing retirement income system with particular reference to any changes necessary to ensure equitable and comprehensive income security for Australians. Despite Government opposition the motion was successfully carried, and the Committee is expected to report in early August 1984. It is imperative that prior to the introduction by the Government of its two proposed measures it release to the Parliament copies of the reports of the following: The first working group on retirement policy established by the Government on 30 March 1983; the second working group on the assets test issue established on 27 July 1983; and the joint working group of the ACTU, the CAI and Government officials on proposed superannuation changes announced by the Treasurer in the mini-Budget. It is only through those reports that the Government can actually prove that it has all along had a logical, consistent retirement income policy. No other evidence is apparent. If the Government again refuses to release these reports, I will try to find out ways of obtaining them under the Freedom of Information Act. The Opposition's move gained support at a meeting of pensioners held at the Melbourne Town Hall on 20 September when the following motions were carried: 1. That a Senate Committee provide an in-depth review of all matters relating to income security; and 2. That until this Committee tables its report, no legislation be passed by the Senate relating to changes in retirement tax or social security legislation, particularly asset and means testing. No ALP members were present at that rally. At the same time as the Opposition established the Senate Committee inquiry to take a comprehensive look at retirement income, we announced that we rejected the Government's ad hoc approach and that we would repeal Labor's proposed asset test and superannuation legislation as part of an overall approach that we would take. In adopting the present piecemeal approach the Government has shown a complete lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the fundamentals in the retirement income area. In a recent interview Senator Grimes rejected the view that most double dipping resulted from the incentives associated with the pensioner health benefit card. I must say that all my contacts and investigations show a different picture. In fact, the attachment of the card to the full pension is obviously a very major incentive for people to seek the pension. Rather than rubbish the Opposition's proposals, the Government should examine fundamental questions such as these so that it can establish whether access to the card is a major factor in people seeking to arrange their affairs to take advantage of the pension benefit. I quote also another statement made by Senator Grimes on 9 May 1979 when he described as nonsense a suggestion that an ALP government would impose a means test on the over-70 pensioners. I wonder how Senator Grimes will explain that today. Eighteen months ago the then Leader of the ALP said that the assets test would be '. . . another kick in the teeth for aged and retired citizens . . .', and that its introduction would be: . . . another example of the Government's persistent determination to hammer ordinary people into the ground-to force the burden . . . to be borne by those least able to pay . . . It appears that when the ALP threw out Bill Hayden it threw out concern and compassion for ordinary Australians. The Australian Labor Party has done a complete about face on this matter. We should note this and remember it for the next election. The record of the Government in making changes in the retirement income field is disastrous and borders on the deliberately negligent. It could not possibly have caused more concern and confusion amongst those in the community. It has all the hallmarks of shooting from the hip or an 'announce now , work it all out later' approach in this very important area. The Government's actions in backtracking time and again on its pre-election commitments are plainly outrageous. The actions of the Ministers concerned in the obfuscatory statements on this issue leading up to the August Budget are absolutely contemptible. They deserve to be condemned. Perhaps Senator Grimes is merely the hapless ball-carrier for this party's ideologues in this area. Clearly, he has been manipulated by Senator Gietzelt whose ideological predilections are well known. In a recent article in the Age on Senator Grimes and the assets test, Kate Legge reported: There are several unanswered questions about the proposed assets test which Senator Grimes, the consummate politician, has so far been able to fudge; for example, the cost of changes to administer the test . . . Fudging seems to have become a staple for Labor politicians throughout the country but Senator Grimes, along with Jack Wright, the Deputy Premier in my State, seem to be grand masters of the art. From the announcement of the assets test he has weaved and dodged trying not to commit himself to specifics, despite the specifics contained in the Treasurer's Budget Speech. As a consequence, he has caused considerable anxiety and distress. The extent of that distress and concern was brought home to the Minister at this week's pensioner rally in Sydney. We cannot, or should not, accuse Senator Grimes of deception, dissembling or fudging for, as we all know, he is an honourable man. But 18 months ago Senator Grimes accused the former Government of creating uncertainty and speculation amongst people about to retire. He said: There has been considerable anxiety and uncertainty among people who have arranged their affairs under the old rules as to just what is happening. When these same concerns are raised today the Minister washes his hands and says that discussions with his Department are continuing and leaves it at that. He refuses to address the question but, Micawber-like, puts it off in the hope that some miracle will occur to extricate him from his predicament. He must act to clear up confusion and deal with his colleagues, who are pressing him to take action he does not want to take. If he fails to do this, he must wear the name used to describe people who pretend concern and virtue one day-- Senator Gareth Evans —Why are you reading all this stuff? You know it all. Senator MESSNER —I am reading it. Senator Walsh —You do not have to read it. Senator MESSNER —Thank you very much. As to those people who change from one day to the next, from pretending virtue one day and then taking some other action the next day, there is obviously one name for their action, and that is hyprocrisy. That is the name of the present Government. It is the name that it is showing to the people. That is why it will stand condemned in the eyes of the people at the next election. I conclude with one final remark from the Minister, which was quoted in the Bulletin of 10 May. It will probably go down as his epitaph, but it is clearly an example of his confused thinking in this area. The Bulletin said: Apart from the fact that any government that tried to reduce the pension would, in the words of Social Security Minister Senator Don Grimes, 'be shot at dawn', the pension is not exactly over-generous. Clearly, the Government's actions have been against the interests and, I believe , the views of Senator Grimes in this matter. He has so often and for so long been on the public record as defending a system which is fair and just for all pensioners, and yet he has been forced to carry the ball for a government which is trying to force alternative actions on him. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.12) —Senator Messner's motion is most timely because there is great concern in the community at present and, indeed, confusion. I am sure that Senator Grimes would not laugh at that comment today. He faced the people at Sydney Town Hall, and he would be very thick-skinned and dumb if he did not understand their concern. The fact that he is so amused now makes me wonder whether those comments are not applicable. In this country we have a very proud history in social welfare. It was in 1908 that the Deakin coalition Government first brought in a scheme for invalid and age pensions. That is quite a record. We were the first of the major Western countries to do so following Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, so we have a very proud history. Successive governments have added to these benefits and have improved them, enabling our elderly citizens to plan. Governments have not cut the benefits drastically. They have added to them as time has gone on. I admit that the whole matter needs examination, but is this new Government looking at it as a whole? It is very obviously not doing that. It is again tampering with things in an ad hoc fashion. That is why in Sydney Town Hall last week Senator Grimes faced what the newspapers called the grey wrath of the pension community. I do not think that Senator Grimes would dare to face those people in the Town Hall with the mirth with which he has faced this motion today. For proof of the ad hoc situation that the Government has developed in this matter, we can trace it back. It was in the mini-Budget in May, following the release of a report of a working party, that the Government brought in two changes to the social welfare system. One was a tax on superannuation and the other an income test on the over-70s-two rather disastrous changes for people planning their retirement. If we consider the composition of that working party, it might become a little clearer why I am saying that the approach is ad hoc. The officers who constituted the working party were from the Treasury, which chaired it, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Finance, the Australian Taxation Office, and the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat. Note that I said the Department of Finance. So in the mini-Budget we had these two grave decisions. Three months later we had another decision. It was the Budget. The Government brought down an assets test. That test cut right across the mini-Budget decision on the income test for the over-70s. That Budget decision was taken after a further working committee had been set up. Looking at the people on that working committee, we find that there is one important group missing. The committee consisted of officers of the Department of Social Security, and again the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the Department of Veterans' Affairs was brought in, and the Department of Finance was thrown out, and I think that that is perhaps the crux of the matter. The first committee was asked to look at issues relating to occupational superannuation and the age pension system, including the reintroduction of an assets test. We have to make assumptions, because we have not been given the reports, but obviously that committee came down as opposed to an assets test, and as a result the mini-Budget had only the two decisions; or it might have come down in favour of an assets test but the Government of the day thought it too difficult to bring in. However, we have now another committee coming up. How many days was it given? It was given 15 days, including two weekends, to come up with another report. Is it any wonder that it came up with an assets test of the variety that it did? Let us look at the assets test that it proposed. It is all right for a pensioner to have his own home, at any price at all. It is all right for a pensioner to have a car, of any value. It is all right for him to have a yacht of any value. It is all right for him to have a home full of antiques, of any quality at all. It is all right for him to have his walls covered with works of art. It is all right to store jewellery, which, with the price of gold as it is today is a very good investment. It is all very well to make all those investments, but it is not all very well for a pensioner not to make that sort of choice, but to have his own home and perhaps a seaside cottage, because then the assets test starts biting. It is no wonder that that committee came up with this ridiculous assets test, with all its anomalies, when it had only 15 days in which to look at the matter. Let us look at the over-70s income test. That starts on 1 November. The superannuation decision and these other two decisions were taken in the mini- Budget. We do not know any of the detail yet. We have had several explanations of what that superannuation should come to. The over-70s test is the most cruel decision the Government has made because it is attacking the most vulnerable in our community. It is attacking those people, as I have said before, who cannot organise their own finances, whose relatives, often their children, have organised their finances about accommodation they can afford, with what the Government pension was giving them. At the age of 80-plus, these people will have to alter their accommodation arrangements because the Government has chosen to take back some of the pension. It seems to me that it is a quite incredible situation because, while that means test starts on 1 November, the assets test comes in later next year. So for 12 months only we will have a situation where by the Government is grabbing back from the most vulnerable people in our community money that it feels can be better spent. Let us look at what we were told at the Estimates committee hearings about the costs involved. This is the area I am particularly interested in. What is the Government saving on this over-70s income test? Senator Messner and I enquired about the cost of the over-70s income test and we were told that it would be about $3.2m. We were told that the cost of printing the questionnaire to be sent out to pensioners would be $1,756. There was a provision of $200,000 to cover the cost of posting the questionnaires to pensioners. This included return postage. We were told that it was anticipated that an additional 220 staff would be required, at a cost of $3.2m for 1983-84, to process the questionnaires returned from pensioners over 70 years of age. It will cost the Government $3.2m for 12 months to bring in this over-70s income test. So what on earth will the Government get out of it in view of its Budget measures and the introduction of the assets test? Perhaps we ought to look at the promises that this Government has made. I believe those promises are very important. I will come to them in a few minutes. Perhaps we should first look at what the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said because that is terribly important. The Prime Minister said in his speech in the Budget debate that he would not be touching pensions at all, he would not be touching the pensioners' cheques. As Senator Messner said, we find that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, at the Victorian conference of the Returned Services League said that he was not talking about the introduction of an assets test, he was just talking about the rorts that went on. Such deceit is incredible. He indicated to the people at that conference that he was not going to bring in an assets test at all, he was just informing them of the various rorts. But then all of that changed and we had the mini-Budget and the Budget coming overriding the over-70s income test. At the Estimates Committee hearings we were told how much this assets test was going to cost. We had officers from the Department of Social Security appearing before us in Estimates Committee B, telling us that they really did not know much about it. They thought it would cost about $20m out of the $53m in special funds for expenditure in relation to Government programs at the direction of the Minister for Finance. They thought it would cost about $20m but they really did not know much about it. After being asked a few more questions they decided to back off altogether and said that they would have to come up with the figures for us at a later date because they did not have them with them and they really did not know a great deal about the matter. This brings me to the two committees set up by the Government. The Department of Finance obviously did not trust the Department of Social Security with the $20m because the Department of Social Security could not come up with details of what it wanted to spend the $20m on. How could it? The Minister still does not know. The Minister still keeps saying that he is looking at the matter. Indeed, at the Sydney Town Hall he told the pensoners that he still had not made up his mind and that he would have to have a look at the holiday home situation. So how could the Department of Social Security come up with any logical figure for the Estimates Committee? So we see that there has been a sleight of hand undertaken and we have the Department of Finance keeping its foot on the $20m and saying that the Department of Social Security will have to justify the spending of that $20m. That $20m has never appeared in the estimates before. It is the first time, and as a committee we were unable to get the answers that we were seeking from the officers. Why were these three decisions, that is, the means test on the over-70s, the tax on the superannuation and the assets test, taken in such an ad hoc way? I would say that the whole thing was spurred on by ideology. Let us look at a few comments. The present Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, before the Lowe by-election-honourable senators will remember the Lowe by-election in 1982-said: The argument about millionaires receiving pensions is a cruel and emotive device to cover up the Government's real intention . . . to justify ripping the pension off ordinary people with modest savings they have worked for all their lives. I wonder how Mr Hayden's comments apply now and how other Ministers feel about them. Senator Gietzelt, in his address to the State conference of the RSL in Melbourne as recently as 6 July, said that there are millionaires everywhere. He said: . . . people with hundreds of thousands of dollars, even some millionaires, receiving a service pension. Mr Hayden tells us that that is not true, that it is a cruel device to say that there are millionaires in the pension system. We just do not know much at all about superannuation, except that a promise is being broken. On 15 April, the Australian Council of Trade Unions was promised by Mr Hawke that there would be no tax on superannuation. The airline pilots were also told that there would be no tax on superannuation. Mr Hawke told the ACTU that on 15 April; but 34 days later he increased the tax on superannuation six-fold. After all the protests and all the yells and screams about inequities from the ACTU, we suddenly had another statement on superannuation from the Government. On 31 May, changes were made. But the ACTU was still not happy and nor were the people of Australia. So a joint ACTU-Confederation of Australian Industry committee was set up and as a result of the recommendations of that committee, more changes were made. On 7 August a further number of changes were announced. We still do not know the details. We still do not know all there is to know about the superannuation situation. We do know from the latest available figures for 1980-81 that only one per cent of people who receive superannuation receive more than $100,000; we know that 92 per cent receive less than $20,000 and we know that three-quarters of those people receive less than $5,000. We were told by the Government that this superannuation tax was really just to cut the wealthy to bits. Three-quraters of the 92 per cent get less than $5,000. Is that really hitting at the heart of the wealth? As I say, we still do not know a thing about the detail of it. Let us look at Senator Messner's earlier motion, because I believe that that is possibly what will save this Government. He moved a motion to refer to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare the following matter: Existing retirement income systems, with particular reference to any changes which may be necessary to ensure equitable and comprehensive income security for Australians of retirement age. The Government did not want that motion to be passed, but the Senate in its wisdom allowed it to pass. As a result, the Committee will see whether it can overhaul the whole of the retirement system of this country. We need the three reports to which reference has been made. If we do not get them, I do not believe honourable senators will be able to vote successfully on the legislation that is to come before us. I ask Senator Grimes whether he will release those three reports. As Senator Messner has said, they ought to be available to us and I am quite sure that Senator Evans would insist, as the Attorney-General and because of his great support for freedom of information, that they come to the Opposition. I said I would come back to the promises that were made and not honoured. I know the Government is getting a bit sick of hearing about all the promises it has made that have not been honoured, but let us see what the Australian Labor Party policy speech said. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said that he would lift to $5,893 the tax threshold for pensioners. That has not happened. Indeed, because of the additional sales tax that has been instituted in the Budget, pensioners will pay more tax, not less. Because of that sales tax there is no way that pensioners will not pay more. The second broken promise was that there would be immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million taxpayers, with the greatest tax cuts going to those on the lowest incomes. A lot of those very low income people also receive part pensions, and again the pensioners will not be getting the tax cuts they were promised but, because of the sales tax to which I have referred, will be paying additional taxes. Mr Hawke also said: We are committed to raising over a period of three years the basic pension from 22 per cent of average male earnings . . . to 25 per cent. Once we reach that goal we will maintain that 25 per cent proportion by indexation until it is impossible to take the pension higher. That again has not been honoured. To date the Government has simply applied normal indexation rises to pensions. It has not attempted to make up the 22 to 25 per cent in any way. Mr Hawke also said: Pensions will be adjusted on the basis of the immediately prior six months CPI movement to cut the present lag from four months to one month. That is another promise that has not been honoured. How long need I go on? Senator Grimes —How long have we been in Government? Senator WALTERS —The Government has put down its first Budget but it has not abided by any of the promises that it made in its policy speech and I cannot understand why Senator Grimes, at least, is not saying something about it. Senator Grimes —I will in a moment; if you will sit down I will be up. Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator finds it amusing. I am sure the pensioners are not finding it amusing and I am quite sure that there will be many more Sydney Town Hall meetings for the Minister to face in the period ahead of him. If Senator Grimes does not give us the reports that we are asking for, if they are not made available, that will underline the ad hoc ideology and the rush job that was done with these three main decisions. Senator Grimes does know a fair bit about social welfare. I have been on a committee with him and he knows darned well that the most important things pensioners want-it is why they will go into double dipping-are the fringe benefits. The most important thing they want is the health card, yet the Minister in an interview denied that this was a fact. I know that that is not his thinking. He is brighter than that; he really does understand it. I do not understand why he is allowing this to happen . It is his portfolio and he is completely responsible for it. He cannot get out of it on the grounds that he 'would like to but can't'. He has caused tremendous confusion and concern amongst the elderly in this country and I feel that he, personally, owes the pensioner population an explanation, not only of his actions but also of those of his Government. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.37) —Nothing can indicate to the Senate more the poverty of ideas and the poverty of policy of members of the Opposition than the two speeches we have just heard on this matter, particularly the speech from Senator Walters. One can only describe it as pathetic. One can only describe the effort that she put into preparing her speech as pathetic, especially for someone who wanted to make some impact in this debate. If anyone in this place deserves a prize, both Senator Walters and Senator Messner deserve it for having the cheek, first of all in Senator Messner 's case, to put down a motion demanding the reports that he has demanded and, secondly, in Senator Walters's case for spending so much of her very brief speech requesting these reports, demanding them and threatening to use the freedom of information provisions et cetera. In all the years of the previous Government, from 1975 to 1983, Cabinet documents were produced by working parties of the type that produced some of the documents that this Government used in considering its policy. We had reports produced by strange committees made up of government back benchers, such as Mr Spender, Mr Sainsbury and Mr Hodges, accompanied by a few other back benchers, on which the Government allegedly based its policy decisions. How many of those reports ever saw the light of day in this place? What would the answer have been from Senator Chaney, or Senator Messner when he was a Minister, if we had had the gall to come in here and demand Cabinet documents? The answer would have been the same as the answer I gave in the Estimates committee hearings. They are Cabinet documents and Cabinet documents are not as a rule released, but I will consider with my Cabinet colleagues whether they should be released. To come in here and demand documents of this type, in the light of the record of the previous Government, is an absolute cheek and we should just laugh at it. The only report that received the light of day was the Spender report, and that fell off the back of a truck. We asked for the Hodges report and we asked for the Sainsbury report. After the Spender report was circulated throughout the length and breadth of this land we still asked: 'Could not the Senate have an official look at it?' Senator Chaney said: 'No, we do not release working documents like that. What sort of an affair would it be if governments came into this place and released documents like that on which we based policy?' The problem facing Senator Messner and Senator Walters is simply this: They were members of a party which was in Government from 1975 until 1983. In all of that time, with all of the resources available to government, they could not produce a comprehensive retirement policy in this country. Senator Messner has admitted that in this place. We now have the news that they will not be able to produce a comprehensive policy by next year. In order, as they thought, to embarrass the Government and in order to get someone else to do their work for them, they came into this place and moved that the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare look at a comprehensive retirement policy. They did so because they were in trouble. They were facing a government which had produced comprehensive retirement programs. They were in trouble. They knew they could not produce the goods themselves so they thought they would get a Senate Committee to do it. Now they have the gall to come in here and say that not only do they want the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare to do it but they also want the Cabinet documents-documents which they would never have released when they were in government-to produce the facts and figures and undertake the inquiry for them. They do not want to do the work themselves; they want the Senate to do it for them and they even have the gall to want the Cabinet to do it for them. I think the most disgraceful thing we heard this afternoon was Senator Messner' s comment about Mr Keating. It is disgraceful to suggest that the assets test was designed in a way to protect Mr Keating because Mr Keating has an interest in some antiques. Senator Messner was an accountant. Am I to get up in this place-- Senator Messner —I take a point of order. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator will sit down. Senator Messner —I take a point of order. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that I made no such remark. What I did was to seek an assurance that the two Ministers concerned did not take part in Cabinet discussions on this matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner came into this place and imputed improper motives to Mr Keating and this Government. Senator Messner was an accountant. Part of his job as an accountant was to take part in tax evasion schemes. Part of his job as an accountant was to have people avoid paying their proper tax. Did he ever excuse himself from any party meeting concerning tax evasion? Did he excuse himself from this Senate during the tax evasion and tax avoidance debate? No, he did not. He got up there and defended tax dodgers. He defended tax dodgers in this place to the extent that the Government lost some $500m in revenue. He did so in order to protect the people who used to pay his salary before he came into this place and who probably pay part of it now. He had the gall to get up in this place and say that I was a hypocrite. Apparently the use of that word is now accepted in the Parliament as he was not pulled up when he made that remark. He was not stopped from doing so. I think if one wants to look at hypocrites-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I point out at this stage that in fact Senator Messner did not call you a hypocrite. He alleged hypocrisy at the Government which I understand is in order. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President, but that was his second comment. His first comment was that Senator Grimes was indulging in hypocrisy. One who indulges in hypocrisy is a hypocrite. Let us look at what is hypocrisy. Let us look at the words of Senator Walters. Senator Walters got up and bleated about what she saw as the unfair treatment of people over 70 years of age. She described them as the most vulnerable group in the community. She said it was a terrible thing to introduce an incomes test in this area. What did the previous Government do? The previous Government introduced an incomes test on increases in the over-70s pension. The clear intention was to allow that pension to be eroded by inflation. When that happened, what did Senator Walters do? She did nothing. What did Senator Walters say in the debates in this place when this was happening? She said nothing. If the Senate wants an example of hypocrisy I refer it to the Hansard record of Senator Walters's speech today. Senator Messner has charged the Government with having confused views on vital questions affecting pre-retirees and aged pensions. That is apparently the gist of his charge. I put it to the Senate that in fact there is still, and there has been for a long time, a great confusion of views among members of the Opposition . It was members of the Opposition, when in Government, who presided over the evolution of the retirement income system which is acknowledged by anyone who looks at it, including Ministers of the previous Government, to be inequitable and ineffective in meeting its objectives. We have a system which allows those who can acquire large asset holdings and large cash holdings to enter into contrived schemes so as to avoid an incomes test whereas those on fixed superannuation payments and fixed incomes are subject to an incomes test. The retirement income of the latter group is reduced. We have a system which allows the leeching out of in excess of $2,000m in superannuation tax concessions and lump sum concessions. That system allows the leaking of an estimated $250m to $ 300m in the contrived schemes to which I have just referred. Such a system inevitably results in any government, be it Labor, Liberal or National, being severely limited in its capacity to increase the base rate of pension which goes to those who largely have no extra income and to increase the benefits which are available to those who need housing, to increase the benefits to those who need special accommodation and to increase the benefits and services available in the community generally. The previous Government presided over a system which directed excessive benefits to a minority, the already well off superannuitants such as the airline pilots whose protest collapsed so ingloriously yesterday. The previous Government failed to make any realistic efforts to prevent these people gaining access to age pensions meant to be directed to people in need. It failed to give any positive encouragement to people who wished to provide for a regular and secure income after retirement. The system that evolved under the previous Government in fact positively discriminated against people taking a superannuation pension and annuity and provided a staggering artificial distortion, such that Australia became unique in the world towards taking lump sum superannuation benefits. All the inquiries, including the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry, pointed out that a national superannuation scheme could not be introduced while we allowed the sorts of distortions about which I have been speaking. The distortion in the tax system was exacerbated when the previous Government changed the means test to an incomes test. This opened up widespread opportunities for the avoidance with which we are familiar. People with substantial assets were able to invest through artificial schemes and trusts and the like so as to still gain a considerable pension entitlement-often the maximum pension entitlement. From the day the assets test was removed we had a burgeoning industry of contrived investments to the disadvantage of low income people in the community. Successive Liberal Ministers for Social Security recognised this. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Chaney recognised it. They talked about the need for a needs-based welfare system. At one stage they even made a pathetic effort to do something about it. In the 1982 Budget Senator Chaney announced what was going to be a crackdown on income rigging arrangements to avoid the pensions income test. Nothing ever happened. At the time the then Government made the announcement we pointed out that it had no idea what it was going to do and no idea how to do it. A couple of months later the then Government withdrew from the area. If one really wants to cause anxiety among people and problems for pensioners that is the way to go about it. This Government knows what it is doing and it knows how to achieve it. We want to do so in consultation with the people concerned and with the organisations which represent them. All our actions have a clear and consistent rationale. We want to provide a secure adequate retirement income to those who need it. We are concerned that those who manifestly do not need it should not receive it. Despite the coalition Government's rhetoric about assisting those in need, it actually tolerated and sometimes even promoted a system of superannuation tax concessions which squandered billions of dollars on those who quite manifestly were not in need. On the latest Treasury estimate that action cost $2.5 billion. The Government's lump sum tax proposals, in a moderate and responsible way, have started to make modest inroads into this huge system of so-called middle and upper class welfare. These, along with other measures which were announced in the May statement, will provide a positive inducement for people to provide a continuing secure retirement income for themselves in the form of a superannuation pensioner annuity. The measures are welcomed by large sections of the insurance industry. They are welcomed by those sections of industry which have wanted to provide this sort of measure so that people could retire in a secure and reasonable way and yet not distort the taxation and welfare systems. I remind the Senate that the other measures which we are introducing are the removal of the legislative barriers, which have effectively prevented life offices and superannuation funds from selling annuities, and the removal of the double taxation of annuities in the hands of life offices as well as individuals . We are reviewing the present arrangements under which the return of a capital component of such a pension is taken into account in the age pension income test , a review now being continued in the context of the proposed introduction of an assets component to that test. We are canvassing the possible introduction of new types of securities, including indexed bonds, which could assist life offices and superannuation funds to meet the needs of retired people for secure and regular incomes. We are exempting from tax entirely, including the existing tax of 5 per cent of the amount, lump sum superannuation payments which are rolled over into such new schemes. We are exempting from tax entirely, again including the existing tax on 5 per cent of the amount, lump sum superannuation payments which are used to buy pensions. We are exempting from tax entirely that part of the lump sum which represents the return of the employee's own contributions unless they have already attracted a tax deduction. Taken together , these measures will enable many Australians to plan for their retirement with far greater confidence than they can at the moment. The arrangements enabling those changing jobs to roll over lump sum superannuation payments into new schemes, or to buy deferred pensions without paying any tax, will facilitate the preservation of accrued benefits and thus represent a significant step towards improving portability. The Government will be giving further consideration to measures to encourage portability after our discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and interested parties and in the light of the report of the Task Force on Occupational Superannuation which was tabled recently by the Treasurer. Each dollar that the Government forgoes in superannuation tax concessions, which accrue primarily to better off employees, is a dollar not available to improve basic age pension entitlements. Each dollar of pension paid to those with considerable income or assets is a dollar not available to the great bulk of ordinary pensioners who are not well off and who have not got the facilities that others have. These ordinary pensioners will not be adversely affected by changes to the over-70s pension or the introduction of a pension assets test. In fact, some of them will be better off as a result of the introduction of that test. In the light of this, the Opposition has accused us of confusion. How confused, I put it to the Senate, was its policy which allowed wealthy retirees to exploit , or even cheat on, our pension system? How confused was its policy on the over- 70s pension, or how hypocritical was it, when, instead of honestly showing what its intention was, what its policy was, in fact, aimed at allowing the value of that pension to be whittled away by inflation? How confused was its policy of directing assistance to those in need by a pension income test that was never indexed and was not increased until its last year of Government, while rich superannuitants, including former members of that Government, were able to take their money and run? That is confusion. That is the policy of confusion and anxiety. The Labor Government repudiates this. We have seen some extraordinary changes from honourable senators opposite. We have seen the former Minister for Social Security doing a dramatic reversal in his attitude to pension policy. He is reported as telling the Liberal Party Federal Council on Saturday that a needs-based welfare system could hurt Liberal voters. He said nothing about Labor voters. He said nothing about ordinary Australians. I note that that Council was so impressed by Senator Chaney's words and by the less than unanimous policy of the parliamentary Party on the repeal of the assets test that it passed a motion directly contrary to that policy. The Council said: This council expresses its support for a needs-based social welfare system and therefore believes that welfare benefits should be payable subject to a means test. That is a direct quote from Monday's Sydney Morning Herald. I have not heard anyone on the other side deny the report. If we want to clear up some confusion we had better ask the Liberal Party just what its policy is on the means test. Senator Chaney is further reported as saying that the system over which he presided for two and a half years: . . . also needs tidying up and improving to remove that sort of illogicality which is a very heavy burden on many of the sort of people that I think the Liberal Party is about . . . Certainly it is illogical, but the Liberal Party and National Party had all those years from 1975 to 1983 to do something about it. They failed to act. They failed to maintain the pension in relation to average earnings. The current rhetoric is a clear indication of their disinterest and their hollowness. At the same conference, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, said that he supported the means test resolution but he did not support the Labor Government' s foreshadowed assets test. Apparently Mr Peacock and Senator Walters believe that ordinary items of private possession in the home, such as antiques and the odd painting-not antiques and paintings that a person deals in-should be included in a means test . This would involve valuers going into every home. It would involve valuers going into people's homes to value their private possessions. As much as some of us on this side would like to see the result of a valuer going into Senator Walters's home and getting the valuation of everything in it, in the light of the poverty stricken State in which she lives we do not believe the people of this country would wear it, nor do we believe that they should. I think that one of the problems with the confusion that Senator Walters talks about is contributed to considerably by Senator Walters and her ilk. After all, it was Senator Walters's office in Hobart which informed people who rang in that people would lose their pension if they had $1,500 or $2,400 in the bank. That was a disgraceful and lying statement. Senator Walsh —Was it deliberate? Senator GRIMES —Of course it was deliberate; it had to be deliberate. Senator Walsh —I thought she might be too thick to understand it. Senator GRIMES —I know that Senator Walters is not very bright, but even Senator Walters is a bit brighter than that. She is willing deliberately to sow confusion in the community about this. Senator Walters came in here yesterday, I gather-she repeated it again today-and talked about the meeting that was held in the Town Hall in Sydney on Tuesday. It was in fact one of the best meetings I have been to. I understand Senator Chaney also enjoyed going to the Sydney Town Hall and being lambasted by people, some of whom were pensioners and some of whom were not. Senator Walters apparently said that I came sneaking back here with my tail between my legs after that meeting because of the abuse, et cetera, that I was supposed to have received. First of all, I should like to say that I am not that thick-skinned, but anyone who has had to put up with the stuff that Senator Walters, Senator Messner and particularly Senator Lajovic carry on with in this place, does not have much to worry about if he goes to a meeting of elderly people in the community. Secondly , after the meeting I stayed in the hall for half an hour talking to and discussing this matter with them. There were some people who were very annoyed. The lady who had two houses worth $100,000 in Sydney, a holiday home in Cairns, a holiday home in Noosa, and three blocks of land on the north coast of Queensland was very annoyed that she would not receive a full pension, but she did not impress many of the people around her. Most of the people there who were willing to discuss the matter and to talk about it understood the situation and realised that something had to be done, and they were concerned about the details. However, Senator Messner does not go to meetings like that. He goes to meetings in Melbourne arranged by the Australian Retired Persons Association. These are people who have exploited the income test, exploited the retired people in this country for their own gain, and have manipulated the system both of the friendly societies and the income test in such a way as to provide for themselves a very comfortable living and very comfortable working conditions under the guise of assisting retired people in this country. Senator Giles —I bet there were a few accountants. Senator GRIMES —There were a few accountants there; Senator Giles is right. Now what has happened to them? They bleat. Some of them are articulate. They are wealthy, and they can organise and hold meetings such as the meeting Senator Messner talked about. They are the meetings that Senator Messner will go to. They are the meetings at which he will turn up and try to sow confusion and discontent. What he would really like to do, and what they would like him to do, is get up and give some idea of what he thinks would be a reasonable retirement policy in this country, what he thinks should be done about the people who are poor and do not have homes, and what should be done to afford a greater redistribution of income in this community. These notices of motion brought forward by Senator Messner are typical of the sorts of motions that he brings forward. They frequently get support. They may get support today, but what they are about is attacking and nitpicking at a government which in six or seven months in office has taken positive steps towards creating a coherent retirement policy for people in this country, a policy which I point out has been supported widely by those in the community who know what a difficult situation we will face in the future with an aging population and what a difficult situation we will face if we allow the present distortions of the taxation and welfare systems to proceed. This Government's policy, by reforming the superannuation taxation system, reforming the assets test, reforming the parliamentary pensions scheme, is paving the way to the development of a contributory superannuation scheme in this country in line with schemes in most Western democracies. Such a scheme will provide for people what superannuation is supposed to provide, that is, a regular protected retirement income which will give people the right to contribute towards their retirement and have those contributions protected. It will give people the right to carry that protection when they change jobs. It will give people the sort of security that people in some of those Western social democracies have, and will result in the capacity of government to provide basic benefits at an adequate level and to provide the community services that are so lacking in our social security system, and in our economic system generally. It is for this reason that we persist with our policies. It is for this reason that the polls, despite the screams of Senator Messner and Senator Walters, demonstrate that the electorate, the community, accepts what the Federal Labor Government is doing. We are doing things because we know they are right and we are doing things to develop a better system in this country. We are not doing things with an eye on an election next year or the year after, in the way the previous Prime Minister did. We are not inhibited in our policy making by the fact that some people, of course, will not like change, that some people will resist change. We are developing our policies with the aim of helping our fellow citizens to have a fairer and more equitable society. We will persist in doing that despite the narking and the nitpicking of those opposite. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.06) —in reply-I will not delay the Senate for long but I want to comment on one or two remarks made by Senator Grimes. First and foremost, I must explain to him that I have not practised as an accountant since I entered Parliament nor have I had any serious involvement in accounting operations since then. I hope that he might accept that as an explanation for some of the actions he was attributing to me. Secondly, in regard to the confusion that has been generated in this community as a result of his Government's actions, I believe he would have done far better to have stood up here on 19 May when the mini-Budget was brought down and explained to people precisely what it was that he had in mind for a national superannuation scheme, rather than to keep justifying his approach by taking individual cases of proclaimed self-made millionaires or very wealthy people and using those as the fall guys for justifying his particular policy motions. It is pretty clear that that point has got through to the community generally. If he has a policy, we on this side of the fence would like very much to understand it better. I am pretty sure that nobody outside the Senate understands what the Government is on about. Clearly there is a need for us to see and judge for ourselves-the Standing Committee on Social Welfare particularly needs to do this-the documents which we seek as a result of the motions which are before the Senate. I hope that the motions gain the support of the Australian Democrats in such a way as to enable us to put more pressure on the Government to reveal information which is vital to our understanding of its approach in trying to solve the retirement income problem. From that point of view I hope that all honourable senators on this side will join with us to defeat the Government on these motions, and I look forward to the day when the Government will release these documents for our personal perusal. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business, order of the day No. 1 relating to the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983. (Quorum formed). Consideration resumed. Clause 47 (Proceedings in absence of parties). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.10) —Mr Chairman, what happens in the event of Senator Walters's amendment being defeated? Is proposed new section 98A then resubmitted to the Committee? The CHAIRMAN —If Senator Walters's amendment is defeated I will put it to the Committee that clause 47, as amended by the two amendments of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans), be agreed to. The immediate question is that Senator Walters's amendment be agreed to, in other words, that the words proposed to be omitted be omitted. Senator HARRADINE —For the benefit of honourable senators, the Committee has been considering this question which, in shorthand, is the divorce by post question. Consideration of that matter had virtually concluded by the time that the sitting was suspended for lunch. I am concerned that all senators be aware of the fact that the Committee will now vote on this matter which has had widespread public attention. I know it is very difficult to follow a debate such as this when it comes in between other matters of General Business and Government Business, but I thought I should rise to say that I thought we had virtually concluded the major debate on this item. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.12) —I thank Senator Harradine. I am quite sure that he knew that Senator Evans had, I suppose, rubbished me so much that I had to get up and have another go. Quite seriously, I was very sorry to hear Senator Evans say that all Senator Harradine and I were interested in was the symbolism of marriage. That is not true. If that is all that he has got out of the debate, then obviously either I am a very poor debater or he has just turned off and not listened. I think he said that I thought it was a symbolic gesture and that it was sentimental claptrap, to use his words. Both those statements are as far from what I am talking about as they could possibly be. There is nothing at all symbolic about my concern for the stability of marriage; nor is there any sentimental claptrap about my concern for the stability of marriage. Senator Gareth Evans —It is sincere sentimental claptrap. Senator WALTERS —I do not care how the Attorney-General puts it. I have told him before that he is intoxicated by his own verbosity. It really does get him into a lot of trouble. He keeps talking and he gets people so irate that they get up and speak. The main point I would like to put to Senator Evans is this: He described divorce by post as someone having to hunt around for the non-defending spouse to let him or her know that the divorce is taking place. Could Senator Evans tell me how long a person has to hunt down the non-defending spouse? What period of time is allowed for a spouse to look for a non-defending spouse to let that party know that he or she is being divorced? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.15) —Yes, the regulations make provision for the service of notices of this kind. A number of notices, of course, deal with different stages of the marriage dissolution process. I understand that the standard period that is allowed for the 'hunting down', as Senator Walters described it, of spouses is 42 days. That is not just in the context of this kind of notice which I assume would be common to the rules provided elsewhere, but for all other notices that have to be served in the course of the proceedings. The regulation in question is regulation 38 of the Family Law Regulations. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.16) —So Senator Evans is saying that five or six weeks is sufficient if, say, a wife does not know where her husband is. He believes that would be enough time if the husband is in England or wherever he happens to be, for him to be contacted? I think it is tremendously important that the spouse knows he is being divorced. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.17) —I fully appreciate that. Of course, this occurs only in the context of a 12 months separation and a number of earlier stages in the proceedings. One assumes that the parties have a reasonable idea of what is going on by the time they get to this stage. But in case they do not, the rule provides for a significant time lapse to take place. That applies to notices under the Act as they stand at the moment. It will be necessary to promulgate new regulations to govern the detailed procedures of this divorce on the papers procedure. I am sure the Family Court judges who will be drafting these regulations will take close account of what the honourable senator has said in attending to their task. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.18) —I rise to say that, really, it was not for the purposes described by Senator Walters that I had risen. I rose genuinely to alert people to the fact that this is a very important piece of legislation. I must say, and I do not mind whether it goes on the record, that though I have had some differences of opinion now and again with the Attorney-General I have always found him courteous and making an attempt to understand, if that is possible, what I am trying to drive at in certain aspects. I appreciate that. We do differ on this issue in a matter of approach. I believe that really what the Parliament is being asked to do at this point in time is undermine the public importance of marriage. As I said before, the parties to a marriage are told by the marriage celebrant, when they are being married, that the Parliament, in the Family Law Act places great stress on the importance of marriage and family life as the basis to the strength of our society. It is a fact of life that marriage is a matter of public importance to Australia. I believe that the proposed new section 98A, the divorce by post proposition, undermines that situation and reverses the public character of marriage. We should not forget that the law has a great educative role. Those contemplating marriage would be entitled to express confusion and alarm if great stress was placed on their legal responsibilities prior to marriage with the knowledge that under the provisions of proposed new section 98A their mutual rights and responsibilities could be terminated in what might be considered a perfunctory and inconsistent approach should proposed new section 98A be adopted. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Walters's amendment) be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Kilgariff, B. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Lajovic, M. E. Collard, S. J. Lewis, A. W. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Baume, Peter Hamer, D. J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Carrick, Sir John McClelland, DouglasChaney, F. M. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Chipp, D. L. Martin, K. J. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. Colston, M. A. Missen, A. J. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDurack, P. D. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Withers, R. G. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.27) —I have already indicated, in remarks I made I think during the second reading debate and perhaps during the early stage of consideration in the Committee of the Whole, that I have formed the view that the proposal in clause 47 of the Family Law Amendment Bill should not proceed. It is one which has given me a great deal of concern because it was a proposal that I accepted in the first place. When this Bill was introduced in the Senate it contained a similar proposal, although of course I concede that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) has greatly reduced the ambit of the proposal. It now will not apply where there are any children under 18 years of age in the marriage and will apply only in cases of undefended divorces when there are either no children or children who have grown up. That certainly is a great improvement. As I said earlier, I am concerned about the perceptions that the community has formed of the Family Law Act. I believe it has been a major social experiment and has created tensions and very deep concerns. I believe that by now going this further step and eliminating the need for any attendance at all by a party or a party's representative at the dissolution process, will be seen, and has been seen, by large sections of the community as a further weakening of the Parliament's attitude to the dissolution of marriage. We have had several debates on this issue in the Senate. Amendments have already been discussed, one of which-that moved by Senator Harradine-we will have to go back to. I moved amendments in relation to extending the period of separation and preventing the courts from taking into account the availability of pensions in assessing maintenance and property settlements. I think this is another of those key questions, the decision on which will greatly affect the future course of community attitudes to marriage and the family. I believe we should not take this further step for those reasons. Clause 47 seemed to numbers of people-probably the majority of honourable senators in this chamber-to be a sensible practical step. I admit that it seemed such to me when it was first proposed. But I have been particularly impressed by the criticism of the clause, coming as it has from very important sections of the community, particularly religious bodies. They are expressing what I think the Attorney-General termed a somewhat symbolistic argument. That is the only argument I am concerned with, but I have been very impressed by it. I believe it would be unwise for this Parliament to take this further step. When all is said and done the process of dissolving a marriage takes up relatively little time of the Family Court. It is hard to present this clause as any major practical step to improve the workings of the Court or to better use the resources of the Court and so forth. Indeed, the Attorney's amendments have probably reduced that argument by up to about 50 per cent anyway. But even so, I still believe that even if that consideration did not apply we should not-for the very broad but, I think, very important reasons that I have mentioned-support this particular proposal for divorce on the papers as set out in this clause. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.34) —I would like to support what has been said and to refer honourable senators to the comments that I made at about 12.20 p.m. today. In view of the time that is all I will say, but I say it with great conviction, believing that this is a retrograde step. Question put: That clause 47, as amended, be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baume, Peter Hamer, D. J. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Martin, K. J. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Missen, A. J. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Reynolds, M. Foreman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Boswell, R. L. D. Lajovic, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Lewis, A. W. R. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Townley, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Walters, M. S. Durack, P. D. Withers, R. G. Harradine, B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 48 to 56-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 56A. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.40) —I move: (18) Page 41, after clause 56, insert the following new clause: ''56A. After section 112 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part XIV: Interpretation '112A. In this Part, ''marriage'' includes a void marriage.'.''. The object of this amendment is to insert a new section 112A in the Act, the effect of which will be to put it beyond doubt that courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act can entertain proceedings for, in particular, injunctions in circumstances in which the marriage is void. There are other remedies available to the courts in dealing with void marriage situations, remedies which primarily arise as a practical matter in nullity proceedings. The kinds of circumstances in which marriages are rendered void are set out in section 23 of the Marriage Act; for example, in a bigamous situation where either of the parties is married to someone else at the time of the marriage; where there is a prohibited degree of affinity or blood relationship between the parties; where the consent of either one of the parties was not a real one, for reasons of mistaken identity, which can happen, or fraud or duress, or something of that kind; or where either of the parties is not of marriagable age. In all these situations, which are technically void marriages, problems can still nonetheless arise under the Family Law Act requiring the application of enforcement powers and procedures. This is simply to remedy an anomaly in the Act, the omission of a provision for the remedy, in particular, of injunction. Amendment agreed to. Clause 57 (Injunctions). Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(5.41) —Would I be in order, Mr Chairman, in moving amendments to clauses 57 and 58 together? The CHAIRMAN —I think that would be confusing. There are a number of amendments to clause 58, so let us clear up clause 57 first. Senator ZAKHAROV —I move: Page 42, clause 57, line 2, after 'work', insert 'or the place of education'. This is a simple amendment. It relates to a matter that I raised in my speech at the second reading stage, that is, the protection of children while they are at school. It deals with injunctions which the Family Court may grant or orders that it may make with respect to the matter to which the court proceedings relate. It relates to the personal protection of partners to the marriage or their children and provides for injunctions restraining one party from entering or remaining in the place of residence or work of the other party or of a child of the marriage. Clearly, the majority of children of a marriage do not have a place of work, and most of those not at work are in full time education. My amendment makes allowance for the protection of these children by extending this provision to cover places of education. These may be schools or, in the cases of older children of, say, 17, they may even be tertiary institutions. My reason for moving this amendment is based on my own experience as a counsellor working in a school. Parents do turn up at schools demanding, sometimes in a very threatening way, to talk to their children. The occurrence is common enough to have prompted education authorities to issue advice to schools on handling such situations, but the legal position of a principal or a teacher is not clear at present. Schools are advised to contact the custodial parent, but that is not always possible, and the child does not always know the legal position of custody and access. The child, too, is often most unwilling to meet those parents who have arrived at the school, or fears repercussions from the other parent, even if the child does not personally object to the contact. Even in cases in which the school knows that access has been denied, they are in a difficult position when the demanding parent is there, on the spot. An injunction would certainly strengthen the position of the school principal, and would, I hope, deter those parents who try to circumvent the denial of access by approaching the child in the place where it spends most of its time outside the home-that is, the school. My amendment is intended to clarify the existing wording and its clear intent. It aims to give added protection to children who may be under considerable stress already and to give backing to the adults in whose temporary care children are placed while at school. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.43) —The Government supports the amendment for the reasons that Senator Zakharov has outlined. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 58. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(5.44) —I move: Page 43, clause 58, line 14, leave out 'or area', insert ', area or place'. This is really a consequential amendment, following on my amendment to clause 57 . It clarifies the definition of place to which an injunction applies by the addition of the word 'place' to the term 'any premises or area'. Amendment agreed to. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.45) —I move: (21) Page 43, proposed new paragraph 114AA (3) (a), lines 16 to 18, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ''(a) he shall- (i) ensure that the person is brought before the court that authorized the arrest, or another court having jurisdiction under this Act, before the expiration of the relevant period; and (ii) take all reasonable steps to ensure that, before the person is so brought before a court, the person on whose application the order under sub-section (1) was made is aware that the first-mentioned person has been arrested and of the court before which he is to be brought; and''. This is a substitute amendment for the amendment of which I originally gave notice. The idea originates from recommendations which came from the Family Law Committee of the Law Council of Australia. It deals basically with the question of where someone is going to be dealt with and arrested, and in particular the other party, or presumably the party who probably has been assaulted or threatened with assault will know that the person is coming before the court and that party will therefore have an opportunity to be there and to give evidence. The CHAIRMAN —As other amendments have been circulated, to clarify this matter for the Committee, Senator Missen, you are moving amendment No. 21, circulated on the consolidated list? Senator MISSEN —That is so, Mr Chairman. In the recommendation that the Law Council made, it had this to say about this section: It is suggested that the police officer, upon arresting a person, should be required to forthwith notify the applicant of the arrest and the court before which the person is to be brought. This could then be added as a new paragraph 114AA (3) (c). It was pointed out to me that it may not always be possible to notify, so this provides that all reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the person is notified. As redrafted, I think that it probably has practical application. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.47) —The Government supports Senator Missen's amendment. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.47) —I move: (22) Page 44, proposed new sub-section 114AB (2), lines 25 to 33, leave out the proposed sub-section, insert the following sub-sections: '' '(2) Where a person has instituted a proceeding or taken any other action under a prescribed law of a State or Territory in respect of a matter in respect of which he would, but for this sub-section, have been entitled to institute a proceeding under section 114 or 114AA, the person is not entitled to institute a proceeding under the section concerned in respect of that matter. '' '(3) Any proceedings instituted by a person that are pending under section 114 at the commencement of this section in respect of a matter in respect of which the person has, before that commencement, instituted a proceeding or taken any other action under a law prescribed for the purposes of sub-section (2) are, by force of this sub-section, terminated.'.''. The effect of this amendment is to attempt to preserve the operation of State legislation aimed at the prevention of domestic violence. Proposed new sub- section (2) of section 114AB, as it will stand if this amendment is accepted, provides in effect two things: That where a person has commenced an action in respect of a particular matter under State law, he cannot then commence an action in respect of the same matter under the Federal Family Law Act; and secondly, that if at the date that this new section comes into force there are actions pending under both Commonwealth and State law in respect of the same matter, then the action under the Commonwealth law would automatically lapse. It is a transitional provision. The proposed sub-section as drafted originally caused some confusion, particularly to certain State governments which have a great interest in this provision. It is an interest which the Government is quite happy to accommodate. Therefore, the sub-section in the form in which it was originally drafted has been redrafted so as to be split into two sub- sections, just really for the purpose of making the meaning absolutely clear. It should be noted that it is not open to the Commonwealth to legislate to prevent persons who have commenced actions under Commonwealth law subsequently commencing State actions. This would be a matter for State law, and I shall be suggesting to the various State Attorneys-General such complementary legislation . Senator Crowley has drawn to my attention two questions that have apparently been referred to her concerning the operation of the new power of arrest provisions which are contained in this clause. I believe that it would be appropriate to put on public record the answers to those questions, which are no doubt interesting a number of people. The first question is: Which police force will execute the power of arrest orders which will be able to be granted under proposed new section 113AA? The answer to this is that both the Australian Federal Police and the State and Northern Territory police forces can execute such orders. This situation is expressly provided for in proposed new section 114AA (7). The second question is whether persons whose marriages have been dissolved will be able to obtain personal protection injunctions under the Family Law Act. The answer to that question is: Yes, the Act, in section 4 (2), already deems the term 'party to a marriage' to include a party to a dissolved or annulled marriage. Therefore, the new power of arrest provisions will be available to a party to a marriage which has been dissolved or annulled. I hope that that clarifies some confusion and uncertainty that has existed in people's minds as to the operation of this proposed new section. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 59 and 60-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 61 (Family Law Council). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.50) —I move: (23) Page 45, before paragraph (1) (a), insert the following paragraphs: ''(aa) by inserting in sub-section (2) 'magistrates ,' after 'judges,'; ''(ab) by inserting in sub-section (2) ', Senators, Members of the House of Representatives' after 'organizations';''. This amendment relates to the composition of the Family Law Council which does a great deal of useful work in surveying from time to time the operations of the Act. It has made many contributions to the suggestions that have come forward in this debate. In that respect perhaps I should first read section 115 (2) of the principal Act, which states: The Council shall consist of a Judge of the Family Court and such other judges, officers of the Australian Public Service or of the Public Service of a State, representatives of marriage counselling organizations and other persons as the Attorney-General thinks fit. The Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act felt that there were two other sources of membership that could be added to the Family Law Council. Recommendation 53 of the Joint Committee at paragraph 7.102 states: Accordingly the committee recommends that the membership of the Family Law Council be extended to include representations of federal parliament. This representation should be drawn from the Senate and the House of Representatives. There should also be representation of magistrates on the Council. Dealing firstly with the matter of magistrates, magistrates do have a substantial part to play in family law matters. Many of us regret that there has not been a much quicker operation and development of the Family Court throughout the jurisdiction. But I think that the guidance and help that a magistrate of considerable experience in family law dealings could bring to the Family Law Council would make it desirable that there should be at least one magistrate on that Council. At least it should be within the capacity of the Attorney-General to appoint such a person. So far as the parliamentary appointments are concerned, this is a matter which has been argued for some time. It comes about that we will have a review after a few years, and it is important, I think, that the Parliament should continue to be constantly aware of what are the problems. Those parliamentary representatives could make a contribution to discussions in the Family Law Council about such matters, and as well bring back to the Parliament the experience which they gained from those discussions. I believe that it is unfortunate that this recommendation was not taken up at an early stage and that there was no representation from the Parliament on the Family Law Council. It certainly was the desire and belief from evidence given to the Joint Committee that this would be a useful provision to make. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.55) —Whilst having some sympathy with the underlying thrust of what Senator Missen is saying, the Government is not disposed to accept this amendment. It has to be appreciated that section 115 of the Act as it now is does allow the Government to appoint either a magistrate or a member of parliament, as the case may be, to the Family Law Council. There is no prohibition on doing that. It simply does not require that such a person be appointed. I think there are difficulties about requiring an appointment of this kind. One is the question of getting the right balance on the particular organisation. Whilst it may be desirable for there to be lines into the Parliament, through whom should those lines be run? Should it be a Government member? Should it rather be an Opposition member, someone who has particular kinds of views? It would give rise to a degree of difficulty, I think . Senator Missen —It would be one of each, would it not? Senator GARETH EVANS —It may be one of each, but then that is not one, it is more than one, and one of each would not include an Australian Democrat, I take it, as Senator Missen and I would readily accept. Certainly one from each party may not adequately reflect the spectrum of conservative to small 'l' Liberal views that are reflected in the Parliament. I think that, taking all of those factors into consideration, there is something to be said for not binding and restricting the Government in its appointments to the Council. I certainly take on board what Senator Missen has said, backed as it is by an explicit recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. I will certainly have regard to that when the next batch of appointments to the Family Law Council come up. I am not inclined to accept on behalf of the Government this amendment which would require us to adopt this particular cause. I understand that that was the attitude of the previous Government to this same proposal when it was first put. Amendment negatived. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.57) —I move: (24) Page 45, at the end of sub-clause (1), add the following word and paragraph: ''; and (d) by omitting sub-section (9) and substituting the following sub- sections: '(9) The Council shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the Attorney-General a report of the operations of the Council during the year that ended on that 30 June. '(10) The Attorney-General shall cause a copy of a report furnished to him under sub-section (9) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the receipt of the report by the Attorney- General.'.''. What is proposed here is simply to make the reporting requirements for the Family Law Council the same as those for the Institute of Family Studies. There is no good reason why there should be different dates set for the production of such reports, and there is a considerable advantage, particularly in terms of the convenience of the Executive and legislators in considering these reports, to have them tabled and thus debated at more or less the same time each year. It is a purely administrative convenience matter, not one that would demand an amending Act of itself but rather an appropriate tidying up step to take in the course of a large scale amending Act of this kind. I commend it accordingly. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Proposed new clause 61A. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.58) —I indicate to the Committee that I will not proceed with this amendment, which is No. (25) on the consolidated list. It is the language that is embodied in the separate Bill, the Family Law Amendment (Legal Aid Costs) Bill, which passed this Senate last night . Ultimately those provisions will find their way into the Act, but it may be that the House of Representatives will debate the other smaller Bill sooner than it will get around to debating this one. Since that was a Budget measure it was desired to put it separately. That is the reason for the withdrawal of the clause. Clause 62 (Costs). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.59) —I move: (26) Page 46, proposed new paragraph 117 (2A) (f), lines 13 to 16, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ''(f) whether either party to the proceedings has, in accordance with section 117C or otherwise, made an offer in writing to the other party to the proceedings to settle the proceedings and the terms of any such offer; and''. This amendment relates to the determination of cost and what matters may be taken into account by the Family Court in determining these matters. One of the things in the Government's amendment, and this is to be found in clause 62(2A) ( f), is that what are taken into account are certain offers that are made under section 117C of the Act, specific offers which are filed in the Court. The Law Council of Australia's family law committee made a recommendation, which I do not think it has persisted with. However, I think it was a good idea and I certainly persist with it. I understand that the Government has some sympathy with it. The recommendation is: This paragraph limits the relevance of offers made by a party to the other party, in determining the question of costs, to offers made under the proposed S .117C. It is suggested that other offers might be relevant whether or not made in accordance with the procedure established by the proposed S.117C. The committee then proposes a form of amendment. The fact is, I think, that if various offers have been made, it is relevant and ought to be considered by the Family Court. Whether or not they fall within the specific category of the offers that are proposed under this new section or whether or not they are offers that have been made by a party to reduce the cost of proceedings, I think they ought to be known to the Court and the judge ought to be able to take them into account in determining whether or not there ought to be some order for costs. Therefore I think they fall into the same category and ought to be before the Court. That is why I have moved amendment No. (26) standing in my name. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.01) —I indicate that Senator Missen's amendment is acceptable, for the reasons he has indicated. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.02) —I withdraw amendment No. (27) on the consolidated list, standing in my name, for the same reason that I earlier withdrew amendment No. (25). Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 63 and 64-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 65 (Restriction on publication of court proceedings). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.03) —by leave-I move: (28) Page 48, lines 17 to 18, leave out ''is repealed and the following section is substituted:'', insert ''is amended by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2) and substituting the following sub-sections:''. (30) Page 49, proposed new sub-sections 121 (3) to 121 (6), lines 3 to 38, leave out the proposed sub-sections. In effect, these amendments relate to the removal of the proposal for increased publication of the proceedings of the Family Court. This matter is linked with another matter which went through rather swiftly and on which no comment was made; namely, the open courts proposal which at an earlier stage was not the subject of amendment and was carried. I, with a number of other senators and members of the House of Representatives on the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, took views critical of the proposal made by the majority of the Committee that there should be open courts. That seems to be acceptable to judges and therefore there seemed very little point in resisting that, although I think they have perhaps overlooked the importance of privacy in those proceedings. Privacy is even more relevant in regard to the matter of publication which is now proposed. What I am trying to do in particular is cut out the increased publication which is provided under the Attorney-General's amendments to section 121 of the Family Law Act. It has been said that it will be all right, that in fact allowing the publication of certain proceedings will lead to a great deal more knowledge by people of what goes on in the courts and less suspicion of the courts. I believe there is a fair amount of nonsense in that argument. I really believe that the people who want publication of court proceedings are the people who want to take advantage of the titillating circumstances and who will go to no end of trouble to ensure that people are identified and that salacious views and salacious activities are given a great deal of prominence. This question of publication was considered by the Family Law Council-it has generally supported an increase in publication-and in its fifth annual report in 1980-81 it drew, with some concern, attention to the necessity of looking carefully at the provisions that are made. I refer to paragraph 225 of its recommendations, although to be absolutely fair paragraph 224 states: The Council has now adopted the view that the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee both in regard to s. 97 (1) (closed courts) and s. 121 ( restriction on publication of evidence) be implemented as soon as possible. But in paragraph 225 it said this: While supporting in general terms Joint Select Committee recommendation 60 that steps should be taken to relax the restrictions on publication in s. 121, provided that the names of parties or other identifying information is prohibited, the Council has resolved to recommend to the Attorney-General as follows: (a) the legislation should operate so as to exclude from publication names of all parties and other involved persons, all names of places or addresses, and all other identifying features. This should not apply in relation to the identification of judges and legal practitioners; (b) that particular regard should be had to the position of parties from small towns and communities where identification would be easier; If I may say, I do not think that is satisfactorily covered in the amendments. Paragraph 225 continues: (c) that published court lists should identify cases by application number only . The names of parties should not be used as this may allow identification if a report of the proceedings is subsequently published; and (d) that particular regard should be had to the matter of television interviews of parties, even if not identified by name, as a person's voice and/or appearance are identifying features and the disclosure of one party's identity may well identify others involved in the proceedings; and That is the nub of the problem here. The paragraph goes on: (e) that power to authorise publication of a notice or report under s. 121 (5) (b) be maintained. I know that the Government and the Attorney-General have gone to fair lengths to try to ensure that those details are not disclosed. Section 121, as proposed, says that an account of proceedings shall be taken to identify a person if: (a) it contains any particulars of- (i) the name, title, pseudonym or alias of the person; Of course the point is made that it may be another person closely associated. If a person who is well known is involved in a television news coverage, and if some one who is known to be associated with that person-not necessarily a relation-goes into court and is shown going into court that may well tell everybody who he is. Likewise, of course, we have the problem in relation to small towns and particular localities where people will know that proceedings are going on and there may be no identifying matters except the circumstances of the particular scandalous activity. The situation in which this might do the greatest damage is in relation to children whose parents are well known. They may be famous or have a particular interesting standing in the community. Those children can be quite scarified by the experience of having people know what has been going on. If the case relates, as often these cases do, to some unfortunate conduct by parties in regard to the question of whether they are suitable parents to have custody of a child, then I fear that that may be something that is identified and causes a great deal of trouble. So far as witnesses are concerned, I think also that they may be identified and I very much doubt whether the terms in which the section has been phrased will be adequate. People who want to do so will put a carthorse through this section and will manage to get what they want. It will not be a matter of further edification and education of the community but rather of gratifying the tastes of the particulars newspapers-I do not need to describe them as all honourable senators will have them in mind-which have in the past made a lot of money out of this type of activity and interest. I will not go to the wall over this matter; I suspect that the community, despite the fact that in the past and when we brought this Act into operation we thought that publication should not be allowed, has become convinced of the fact that there ought to be more publicity. People fear that judges may be performing rather badly behind closed doors. I do not think that publicity is going to make a difference to judges and their actions. I believe most judges perform in a judicial way and properly. There are others who, I think, behave badly on occasions. I do not think, therefore, that this change will do very much good at all. I think that this matter will be back before us if in fact we find that people succeed in getting through the restrictions that are in this proposed section. I hope that the clause is defeated, but I recognise that public opinion seems to be rather in favour of what is in the proposed section and rather against a person's privacy at the present time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.11) —I recognise, of course, the concerns that Senator Missen has expressed about maintaining absolutely the privacy of individuals in proceedings before the Family Court of Australia. I believe that, although he has moved his amendments with complete sincerity, he has rather over-reacted to the dangers as he has perceived them. What the amendments are essentially about is seeking to maintain absolute prohibition on the publication of any account at all of Family Court proceedings. That simply does not sit very easily with the decision in principle that the Committee has now taken in fact to allow those proceedings to be open to the public, subject to certain safeguards. If we accept the principle, which Senator Missen, of course, did not originally in the report of the Joint Committee on the Family Law Act but which he has in the debate in this chamber, that the courts themselves should be open, it really is a logical corollary of that that there should be able to be some reporting of the proceedings that take place there in order to put the spot light of public scrutiny on how the Court goes about its business to keep, as Senator Missen said, although he did not agree with the argument, judges on their toes, to keep the Court behaving properly and fairly. I believe that a degree of publication ought to be possible provided that the privacy safeguards are there and are strong. I believe that they are there and they are strong and that they will be stronger as a result of the next couple of amendments that are to be moved which will deal with, among other things, persons who may be incidentally mentioned in the course of proceedings, which was certainly an omission from the text of the amendment list as originally circulated. Senator Missen —Have those amendments been circulated? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not in the running sheet, but a further amendment to section 121 has been circulated separately to cover- Senator Missen —The world is full of surprises. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not a surprise, because we are responding to the honourable senator's suggestion. We respond with alacrity to most of the honourable senator's suggestions in relation to most bits of legislation. Indeed , the suggestion has also come from Senator Durack. It is one that we have been happy to accommodate. That, I think, will meet at least part of Senator Missen's concern. The honourable senator mentioned the capacity for witnesses to be identified at the moment. I think that is based on an insufficiently careful reading of proposed new section 121 (1) (c) of the amendment as it already stands, which quite explicitly bans any account of proceedings which might serve to identify not only a party but also a witness to proceedings. So witnesses are already taken into account. There was the problem of persons who might simply be mentioned in the course of proceedings, particularly if they are of celebrity status or something of that kind. We are going to cover that. We will also cover some incidental problems about the publication of newspaper lists. We will get to that in a moment. I really believe that the force of this privacy protection clause, as it now stands, ought to be appreciated. There will be a very large onus on media publishers not to do anything at all which could serve to identify any of the parties to proceedings. If the circumstances are, as Senator Missen describes, a small town divorce which clearly is likely to serve in practice to identify the parties to it, if there is any kind of detailed report at all as to the nature of the proceedings, as this clause now stands, the publication of even that general account of the proceedings would clearly be prohibited. There are quite substantial penalties attaching to a newspaper or media organisation that went ahead nonetheless and said: 'Publish and be dammed'. So, I can only repeat that I think that, while the concern is there, it is shared by the Government and we believe that it is met by the terms of the amendments, particularly in the light of the further change that will be made. So, for the reasons I have indicated, I urge the Committee not to support the amendment that Senator Missen has moved. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.14) —Having seen the proposed amendment, which somehow did not get to me, I agree that it improves the situation. I do not think it overcomes it altogether but I certainly think that the amendment widens this matter and certainly is an improvement. Amendments negatived. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.15) —I move: Page 48, clause 65, proposed paragraph 121 (a) (b), line 26, after '' proceedings'', insert ''or is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate''. This amendment is not contained in the consolidated list but has been circulated separately. Its object, as I indicated a moment ago, is to ensure that there is prohibition upon the publication of any account of proceedings before the Family Court of Australia which identifies a person who has not greater connection with the proceedings than merely having been mentioned in them. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.16) —I move: (29) Page 48, proposed sub-section 121 (2), line 34, after ''who'', insert '', except as permitted by the Rules of Court,''. This is a proposal to insert into proposed sub-section 121 (2) the provision to permit rules of court to be made which in turn would permit lists of Family Court of Australia proceedings containing the names of the parties to those proceedings to be published in newspapers. That is in a context where the publication of such lists is as a general rule to be prohibited. What we are trying to do here is draw a line or strike a balance between the competing considerations which have just been debated and, in fact, some other considerations as well because we have to take into account the convenience of the Court in its administration and of litigants. It has been strongly put to us that for both those purposes it is highly desirable that newspapers be able to contain lists of the names of people in the day's proceedings. But that, of course, then gives rise to a potential privacy invasion concern, particularly in the sort of context that Senator Missen mentioned earlier on, of a small regional registry or court where it might be very easy with a small list of names so published and with the account of even just a handful of details about the case, to put two and two together. The object here really, without going into any more detail, is to vest in the Court a capacity to make its own rules to govern circumstances in which newspaper published lists may be made as an exception to the general rule that there shall be no such publication. We believe that the Court is sufficiently sensitised to the privacy considerations in the legislation not to make such rules in any cavalier fashion. There will be a very keen desire on the part of the Court to accommodate the kinds of concerns that have been expressed. We believe, after consultation with the Court and everybody else that we could, that this is a reasonable way through a difficult practical problem. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.18) —I move: (31) Page 50, after proposed sub-section 121 (9), insert the following sub- section: '' '(9A) Rules of Court made for the purposes of sub-section (2) may be of general or specially limited application or may differ according to differences in time, locality, place or circumstance.'. ''. This amendment is consequential to the amendment I moved to proposed section 121 (1) (b), which unfortunately was not in the consolidated list. However, they are interrelated propositions and they are moved with the same basic objective in mind. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 66. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.20) —by leave-I move: (32) page 51, proposed new sub-section 37A (1), line 10, leave out ''sub- section (2)'', insert ''sub-sections (1A) and (2)''. (33) Page 51, proposed new paragraphs 37A (1) (f) and (g), lines 21 to 26, leave out the proposed paragraphs, insert the following paragraphs: ''(f) the power, in proceedings under this Act, to make- (i) an order under section 77; or (ii) an order for the payment of maintenance pending the disposal of the proceedings; (g) the power to make any order in proceedings under this Act (other than- (i) a decree of dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage; (ii) a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or of the dissolution or annulment of a marriage; or (iii) an order approving a maintenance agreement under section 87), with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings;''. (34) Page 51, after proposed new sub-section 37A (1), insert the following sub- section: '' '(1A) A Registrar shall not exercise powers referred to in paragraph (1) (f) on application by a party to proceedings under this Act unless- (a) the other party to the proceedings appears at the hearing of the application; or (b) the Registrar is satisfied that notice of the intention of the first- mentioned party to make the application has been served on the other party.'.''. (35) Page 52, proposed new sub-section 37A (5), line 12, after ''may'', insert '', within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court or within such further time as is allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court,''. (36) Page 52, proposed new paragraphs 37B (1) (b) and (c), lines 37 to 42, leave out the proposed paragraphs, insert the following paragraphs: ''(b) a Registrar is subject to the direction and control of- (i) the Chief Judge; (ii) any other Judge authorized by the Chief Judge to direct and control that Registrar; and (iii) the Principal Registrar, and is not subject to the direction or control of any other person or body; and (c) a Deputy Registrar is subject to the direction and control of- (i) the Chief Judge; (ii) any other Judge authorised by the Chief Judge to direct and control that Deputy Registrar; (iii) the Principal Registrar; and (iv) the Registrars, and is not subject to the direction or control of any other person or body.''. Amendment (32) is consequential upon the passage of amendment (34). Amendment ( 34) prevents a registrar exercising his powers to make orders for urgent or interim maintenance where the application for the order is made on an ex parte basis. Amendment (32) is consequential upon that. The basic thrust of this series of amendments is to delegate to registrars certain powers of the Court, including in particular the power to make interim orders in all types of proceedings in which such orders are made. It has been recommended to the Government, notably by the Family Law Committee of the Law Council of Australia, that it is undesirable to have a Registrar making interim orders in proceedings where an interim order can, in fact, have some influence on what would be the final order. This is particularly so in custody proceedings and can be so in property proceedings. Accordingly, it has been recommended that the power of registrars to make substantive orders other than consent ones should be limited to urgent or interim maintenance proceedings. I have accepted this recommendation and amendment (33) will achieve that situation. Amendment (34) will prevent a registrar making an urgent or interim maintenance order on an ex parte basis, as I mentioned a moment ago. The Law Council Committee also recommended that it should be put beyond doubt that a registrar cannot approve a maintenance agreement under section 87 as a consent order. I have also accepted this recommendation. One of the amendments, No. (33), the one that is the substance of this series-the others are really consequential upon it -implements this recommendation. This is all part of an attempt, basically, to streamline court procedure to take some of the burden in essentially routine matters off the judges and enable them get on with the business that they are best qualified and properly paid to do, and that is, resolve difficult questions of custody and property distribution. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 67 agreed to. Clause 68. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.24) —I move: (37) Page 53, proposed paragraph 123 (1) (e), lines 39 to 42 and page 54, lines 1 to 3, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ''(e) making provision in relation to the exercise by officers of the Family Court of the powers conferred upon them by sub-section 37A (1) (other than in relation to the manner in which those powers are exercised by such officers) and in relation to the review by the Court pursuant to sub-section 37A (6) of exercises of those powers by such officers;''. Amendment (37) is a purely technical amendment to permit rules of court to provide the practice and procedure for the hearing of matters by registrars and the reviews by the Court of registrars' decisions. As such, it is linked with the earlier series of provisions governing the position of registrars. Amendment agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.25) —I move: (38) Page 54, proposed paragraph 123 (1) (g), line 6, after ''proceedings'', insert ''(including solicitor and client costs and party and party costs)''. Amendment (38), to revise paragraph 123 (1) (g), is really a clarifying amendment to put it beyond doubt that rules may be made prescribing the cost that may be charged by legal practitioners relating to proceedings under the Act . That is all the amendment does. I suggest that it has no particular substantive significance. Amendment agreed to. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.26) —I intended to move an amendment concerning a proposal to add to the powers of the Court in regard to the obtaining of reports . A fair amount of criticism of this proposal came from the Family Law Council and others. In those circumstances I am not prepared to proceed with the amendment. Clause 68, as amended, agreed to. Clause 69 agreed to. Schedule. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.27) —by leave-I move: (40) Page 57, after the amendment of sub-section 44 (1), insert the following amendment: ''Sub-section 44 (1B)-Omit 'prescribed form', substitute 'form prescribed by the Rules of Court'.''. (41) Page 57, leave out the amendment of sub-section 87 (8), insert the following amendments: ''Sub-section 87 (7)-Insert 'by the Rules of Court' after 'prescribed'. ''Paragraph 87 (11) (b)-Omit 'the regulations', substitute 'the Rules of Court' .''. Both of the amendments are purely consequential drafting amendments. Amendments agreed to. Proposed new clause 4BA. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.28) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, clause 3, after paragraph (1) (n), insert the following new paragraph: ''(na) by inserting after the definition of 'matrimonial cause' the following definition: ' ''notice of separation'' means a notice given under sub-section 15A (1);';''. (2) Page 6, after clause 5, insert the following new clause: ''5A. After section 15 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Notice of separation '15A. (1) A party to a marriage who is living separately and apart from the other party to the marriage may file in the Family Court or in the Family Court of a State a notice stating that the parties to the marriage have separated and are living separately and apart. '(2) Where a notice is filed under sub-section (1) by a party to a marriage, the Principal Director of Court Counselling of the Family Court or the person who administers the counselling facilities of the Family Court of that State, as the case may be, shall, not later than 14 days after the filing of the notice, cause to be served on each party to the marriage a notice requiring that party to attend at such respective times and places, and on such respective dates, as are specified in the notice- (a) an interview with a marriage counsellor; and (b) a conference with the other party to the marriage and that marriage counsellor, for the purposes of- (c) considering the legal, social and financial consequences of a dissolution of the marriage and, in particular, the effects of a dissolution of the marriage on any children of the marriage; and (d) having regard to the consequences and effects referred to in paragraph (c), considering the possibility of a reconciliation. '(3) Evidence of anything said or of any admission made at an interview or conference conducted pursuant to sub-section (2) is not admissible in any court (whether exercising federal jurisdiction or not) or in proceedings before a person authorised by a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, or by consent of parties, to hear evidence.'.''. (3) Page 13, clause 17, after paragraph (b), insert the following new paragraph : ''(ba) by inserting after sub-section (2) the following sub-sections: '(2A) An application for dissolution of marriage shall not, without the leave of the court granted under sub-section (2B), be filed by a party to a marriage after the expiration of a period of 12 months commencing at the commencement of Part II of the Family Law Amendment Act 1983 unless- (a) that party or the other party to the marriage has filed a notice of separation; (b) a period of not less than 12 months has elapsed since the filing of that notice; and (c) there is filed with the application a certificate in the prescribed form- (i) stating that the parties to the marriage have, pursuant to notices served on them under sub-section 15A (2), attended interviews and a conference for the purposes set out in paragraphs 15A (2) (c) and (d); and (ii) signed by the marriage counsellor who conducted the interviews and the conference. '(2B) Notwithstanding sub-section (2A), if the court is satisfied that there are special circumstances by reason of which the hearing of an application for dissolution of a marriage should proceed notwithstanding that a paragraph or paragraphs of that sub-section has not or have not been complied with, the court may- (a) if the application has not been filed-give leave for the application to be filed; or (b) if the application has been filed-at any time before or during the hearing of the application, declare that it is so satisfied, and, where the court makes a declaration under paragraph (b), the application shall be deemed to have been duly filed and everything done pursuant to that application shall be as valid and effectual as if the court had, before the application was filed, given leave under paragraph (a) for the application to be filed.';''. The amendments are in substitution for the amendment to postponed new clause 4BA . On 24 August the Committee considered my amendment to the Family Law Act regarding counselling. That consideration is recorded at pages 188 to 201 of Hansard of 24 August. Considerable in principle support was expressed for the amendment and consideration was postponed to enable a redraft. It is for that purpose that I have drafted the amendments which I have just moved. The amendments take into account not only the broad questions that were raised in the Committee debate but also a number of criticisms which were levelled in varying degrees against the previous proposal. I point out that not everybody was opposed to the previous proposal, but people in the field considered that some failings were inherent in it. Those failings were that, whilst the objective of the previous amendment was attractive, its success was questionable given the fact that the counselling under the previous proposal could take place after the application for dissolution had been filed with the Family Court. It was considered that that was a failing. Another failing related to the fact that the chance of reconciliation diminishes the longer the couple is separated. That appears to be a general view held amongst practitioners in this area. The final problem with the previous amendment was that it was felt that it confused conciliation with reconciliation. My current amendments overcome all those criticisms, as will be evidenced by a reading of them. The proposal envisages reconciliation counselling to take place well before the application for dissolution is filed. It takes into account the view that the possibility of reconciliation diminishes the longer the couple is separated, the converse of which is that the shorter the period the couple has been separated the more likely is the possibility of reconciliation. It certainly deals only with reconciliation and not conciliation. Thus, it has overcome the third hurdle in the previous amendment which confused conciliation with reconciliation. The proposal seeks to enable a party to a marriage, who is living separately and apart from the other party, to file a notice stating that the parties to the marriage have separated and are living separately and apart. Upon receipt of that notice the amendments that I have moved will require the Principal Director of Court Counselling or the person who adminsters the counselling facilities of the Court of the State, not later than 14 days after the filing of the notice, to cause to be served on each party to the marriage a notice requiring that party to attend a reconciliation meeting with the counsellor and a reconciliation conference with the other party to the marriage and the counsellor for the purpose of considering the legal, social and financial consequences of a dissolution of the marriage and, in particular, the effects of a dissolution of the marriage on any children of the marriage and, having regard to the consequences and effects referred to, of considering the possibility of a reconciliation. Of course, those words were used in the previous debate. Another word that was used was the desirability of reconciliation. But, as I understand it, that is inherently a question for the individuals themselves. Of course, the requirement would be on the counsellor to point out the consequences of the dissolution of marriage and, having regard to those consequences and the effects , point out the need for the parties to consider a reconciliation. Whether they do so is up to them. A major feature of this proposal is that anything that is said in these reconciliation meetings and conferences will not be admissible in any court. That is an important matter as it will allow free flow of discussion to take place. My amendments also seek an amendment of section 44 of the Family Law Act which would provide that, if there is a subsequent application for dissolution of the marriage, that shall not, without the leave of the court, be filed by a party to a marriage after the expiration of 12 months commencing at the commencement of Part II of the Family Law Amendment Act unless that party or the other party to the marriage has filed a notice of separation and a period not less than 12 months has elapsed since the filing of that notice, and unless there is filed with the application a certificate stating that the parties have, pursuant to notices served on them under section 15A (2), attended interviews and a conference for the purposes set out in paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 15A (2). Of course, there are provisions which entitle the Court to give leave for an application for dissolution to be filed where there are special circumstances notwithstanding that those procedural motions have not been undertaken. That is provided for in the amendments. We have come to the dying stages of this long debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill. But, if we look back at what we have done, we really have done nothing, in all of the amendments that we have moved and adopted in the Parliament, to give legislative support to the institution of marriage. If honourable senators take an objective look at that, they will see that we have done absolutely nothing. On the contrary, in my view, we have undermined the institution of marraige somewhat by our vote in respect of proposed new section 98A. This is the very last opportunity we will have of giving some genuine legislative support to the institution of marriage. An opportunity like this may not occur for a considerable period. The tragedy of divorce is quite evident. The latest figures put out by the Institute of Family Studies show that, if we assume that 1982 divorce rates apply throughout the lifetime of newly married couples, 40 per cent of all those marriages will end in divorce. That is startling. Senator Gareth Evans —Yes, it is startling by comparison with other countries-47 per cent in the United States, 38 per cent in England. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Evans says that the figure is 47 per cent in the United States and 38 per cent in England and Wales, but it is 27 per cent in New Zealand. A number of things have been said about the cost, and no doubt they will be canvassed in the debate. I have not got time now, but at a later stage, I will detail the cost of divorce in this country. Unless something is done that cost will escalate. Senator Peter Baume —The social cost, do you mean? Senator HARRADINE —I am not referring to the social cost. I am referring to the monetary cost at this stage. There has also been some suggestion, but no proof, that required reconciliation at the earliest stage is not successful. I have here the books which have been quoted. Gerald Sanctuary, for example, does not provide evidence for an assertion that required reconciliation in areas where there is no fault divorce is not beneficial. I would have thought that even those who are indissolubly wedded to the no fault divorce concept could lend themselves to supporting this proposal for reconciliation in the earliest stages so that those persons will have a chance and the devastating effects of divorce in Australia will be diminished. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.43) —Very briefly, as Senator Harradine has said, we have spent days and days in this chamber debating legislation that will make it easier for people to get a divorce but does nothing to uphold the institution of marriage, even though the legislation states that that is its prime aim. I am appalled by the figures that have just been quoted. We have known that that is the situation, but the fact that Senator Evans can quote figures to us from other countries that are worse than ours does not mean that we in this chamber should not attempt to do something, no matter how small and no matter how much we may think it may not work. We have been told that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink, that making sure that people attend counselling services will not make them accept it. I am not saying they will; they certainly will not in a majority of cases. But if it works for a very few, if it works for just one per cent, then the country will be far better off. We have instances in other areas of the law where there is compulsory counselling. Indeed, it is included in new legislation with which we will be dealing, the sex discrimination legislation. Under that legislation the commissioner can compel people to get together. I see no problem in this, and I hope the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) will accept the amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.45) —I had hoped that it might be possible, since we last debated this matter, to reach some kind of accommodation with Senator Harradine, but I regret to advise that that is not so . I am obliged to oppose the proposed amendment for reasons that I will spell out. Although Senator Harradine's revised compulsory counselling amendments are different in form from his previous amendments to section 14 (6), their fundamental purpose clearly remains unchanged, that is, that no person can be divorced without having counselling. I acknowledge that Senator Harradine's revised amendment provides for that counselling to take place before filing for divorce, as opposed to pre-hearing counselling, but it is, nonetheless, still compulsory counselling. The amendment is not couched in such a way that that counselling must take place right at the outset, at the time of separation or shortly thereafter, which on all evidence available to us is the only time that such counselling is likely to be practically successful in achieving reconciliation. The basic scheme which Senator Harradine proposes is that an intending divorcee will be unable, without the leave of the Court, to file a divorce application unless at least 12 months have elapsed since that person or his or her spouse has filed a notice of separation in the Family Court and the intending divorcees have attended, separately and together, counselling with a marriage counsellor and certificates in evidence of this attendance are filed in the divorce application. That is the scheme of the proposal. It is clearly to require a compulsory step to be taken before the filing for the divorce, but still some considerable distance down the track from the time, as a practical matter, the marriage is first showing signs of breaking up or when the parties first separate. There is no requirement, nor could there be probably, as a practical matter, for the counselling process to be set in train any earlier than that. While I have supported in principle the amendment originally proposed by Senator Harradine and still in many ways do because it is aimed at legislative reinforcement for the institution of marriage, the reservations about this that I have outlined before-the cost of it, its compulsory character and the likely counter-productive effect it has, and the low success rate in any event of compulsory counselling which does not take place right at the outset of a marriage crisis situation-still continue to apply. Since the debate on the proposed amendment was adjourned-- Senator Harradine —How do they apply? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will go through that with Senator Harradine in a moment, certainly as to the cost aspect of it, which ultimately comes to the crunch. Since the debate was adjourned I have received, as I believe other senators may have, numerous representations from counselling organisations and professional bodies opposing the amendment. A telephone survey which was conducted by officers of my Department of all approved marriage counselling organisations showed that they wholeheartedly opposed the amendment. They were not doing it on the basis of the cost considerations; they were doing it on the basis of the unlikelihood that it would achieve anything in the circumstances in which it was proposed to be put. Senator Harradine —You are talking about the previous amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, but what I am saying is that, in substance, the content of that amendment has not changed. I can repeat it only so often, but there is no requirement, and Senator Harradine must acknowledge this, that counselling take place at the time the marriage is breaking up, at the time the first separation occurs, within six months of the separation having occurred. The only requirement that Senator Harradine is legislatively posing is that the counselling take place before the filing for dissolution. Of course it may be the case that the counselling takes place earlier, and if it does, well so much the better, even though it would still be compulsory in character and there is still a negative psychological factor, we are told by counselling organisations, associated with that compulsion. But it is the combination of things, the compulsion and the inability for the counselling process to bite- Senator Harradine —But they have not had any experience of this. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry; Senator Harradine will have another go- Senator Harradine —Not of compulsory counselling as envisaged here. Senator Missen —But they have for under two-year marriages. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is exactly the same as operates-as Senator Missen has just said-for early marriages at the moment. There are certain technical distinctions which Senator Harradine has endeavoured to accommodate and to draw. But they do not go to the substance of the counselling environment as it will occur in practice. It will be perceived as a compulsion, a compulsory step that has to be gone through before the parties can file, and it will not be required at that very early threshold state where all the literature tells us and all the experience tells us the counselling may have some success in accomplishing reconciliation. The final point that really has to move the Government, even if all the other considerations were balanced the other way-which I believe they are not-is that the resource consideration simply cannot be ignored by any responsible government. An idea of the cost of the proposal can be gained by considering the increased staffing and other resources the Family Court and approved marriage counselling organisations would require to implement it. Let me go through the figures. In 1980-the last year for which we have separate section 14 (6) counselling statistics available-there were just 523 completed compulsory conferences. There is no significant percentage increase in the number of conferences under that section since that date. Under Senator Harradine's amendment which would require three counselling sessions per divorce application on the basis of some 44,000 divorces taking place each year, that would mean another 132,000 compulsory pre- divorce counselling conferences per annum would have to be provided for. Even when one compares that with the total counselling case load of the Family Court the situation is, as advised to me by the Principal Registrar of the Family Court, that Senator Harradine's amendment would increase the present case load of the counselling services and organisations by between 100 and 200 per cent. If all this counselling were to be done by the Family Court itself, the first estimate of cost that I have from the Principal Registrar of the Family Court, when we take into account-- Senator Harradine —Well, it would not be, of course. Senator GARETH EVANS —It would not be what? Senator Harradine —It would not be done by the Court facilities because they say they would rather it be done by the marriage counselling organisations. Senator GARETH EVANS —That may be so, but we still have to find the resources. Just to give an order of magnitude of the figures that are involved, what we would be talking about here is literally tens of millions of dollars when the extra counsellors required, the support staff and the facilities to go with it are all taken into account. The estimate for approved marriage counselling organisations is that what would be required are around 140 additional full time counsellors, at least two years involved for recruitment and training of the people in question, larger counselling premises to accommodate new staff and additional subsidies for servicing remote areas. I do not endeavour to put a precise costing figure on it, but obviously the magnitude of the task that we are here talking about is absolutely phenomenal. Senator Durack suggested earlier in this debate that people could pay for their counselling, they could make a substantial financial contribution and thus this cost factor would be leavened out in that way. But the reality of the matter is- I am sure Senator Durack appreciates this; it is largely simply a debating point that he is making-that not all people will be able to afford this. To the extent that one can give anything more than simply intuitive evidence of that I can say this: In 1982 the filing fee for Family Court divorce applications was remitted on the grounds of financial hardship in fully 23 per cent of cases. The other point about this, quite apart from the raw, hardship circumstance, is that all the evidence coming to us from counselling organisations is that if counselling is to have any chance of success it has to encourage people to enter the process at a very early stage. What we are talking about in the context of a fee being payable is clearly the discouragement of that occurring. All of these things might be able to be put to one side if there is any real or overwhelming evidence that the system operating in this way, with the extra 132,000 counselling consultations each year, would do something about significantly increasing the reconciliation rate among potential divorcees. But again the evidence is simply that this will not work. In the present section 14 (6) pre- hearing counselling conference for two-year marriages the success rate is of the order of only one per cent. It may be with the variations from that-- Senator Harradine —But please understand that that is a different matter. Senator GARETH EVANS —Okay, but even if the honourable senator doubles or triples-- Senator Harradine —It is not a conference you are talking about under section 14 (6) at the moment. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Harradine has to relate the prospect of reconciliation success to something in the existing real world. The closest approximation we have is of compulsory counselling taking place in the context of section 14 (6). I readily acknowledge that there are procedural differences contemplated in Senator Harradine's proposal as compared with section 14 (6) as it does operate in that context. What I am putting to the Committee is that those differences are not so substantial and not so qualitatively different as could encourage one to a belief that there would be a fundamentally different rate of success flowing from this, given all the considerations I have referred to. Senator Harradine —But existing 14 (6) does not provide for counselling separately and together. That is a qualitative difference. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Chairman, I do not think I can add anything else useful to this debate except perhaps to say this: Too often people do see marriage counselling as a service of last resort. If anything, I believe that Senator Harradine's amendment probably encourages that view. It helps to identify marriage counselling with divorce and with the final steps of marriage breakdown . I would prefer to see counselling identified rather with the improvement of the quality of married life. With that in mind the Government has made available very substantial increases in funding to marriage counselling organisations. Counselling is crucial-reconciliation counselling, not just post-breakdown counselling. It must be encouraged. It needs to be paid for by government. The kind of ad hoc, after the event, ex-post counselling of the kind that is being proposed by Senator Harradine-for all its good intentions which I share-I believe, the Government believes and all the marriage counselling organisations we have consulted in the process of reacting to this proposal believe, simply cannot work. For that reason I suggest the amendments be opposed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.58) —I am sorry that the Attorney-General has rejected Senator Harradine's amendments. In many ways I see more difficulties of a practical nature in the more elaborate amendments that are now before us than I did with the earlier amendment, which was of a more simple kind and I think may well have been of more practical application. Nevertheless the situation is, as the Attorney-General has conceded, that some real attempt has to be made to persuade people, either before or after they separate, that they should be forced to consider the question of reconciliation. Certainly the earlier that is done, the better. As I understand Senator Harradine's proposals that are now before us, there are some inbuilt provisions which would encourage notices to be given and for marriage counselling to take place as soon as possible after the reconciliation. It seems as though, on looking at one of the amendments, an application for dissolution cannot be filed unless a notice of separation has been filed and a period of not less than 12 months has elapsed since the filing of that notice. That amendment would seem to be encouraging people to take this step as soon as possible if they want to get the full benefit of the 12-month separation. In any event, I am not altogether satisfied with the views of the marriage counselling people. I believe that the overwhelming view of the marriage counsellors, certainly those attached to the Court, is that their role is to counsel people and conciliate differences that arise in relation to custody, property or whatever else in the divorce process, but that the object of marriage counselling seems to be to assist people through the dissolution process. What Senator Harradine and I are driving at-and what, I think, the Attorney- General himself has conceded-is that we want to have a new approach to counselling which is to try to persuade and assist people to reconsider their decisions to separate. In effect, it should be to dissuade them from separating. If any impact is to be made in lessening the incidence of divorce in this country, some new approach of that sort has to be taken. I did not make my suggestion about the fact that people might pay for this in a debating or a frivolous sense. People should be prepared to make some contribution towards making one of the most important, if not the most important, decisions they will face up to in their lives. Assistance from marriage counselling organisations is not likely to be particularly expensive. Certainly, in a proportion of cases-it may be as high as 20 per cent-it may be able to be proved that the people concerned cannot afford to pay a filing fee. That must be a pretty generous estimate, considering the size of the filing fee, but putting that aside and assuming that the figure is that high, it still represents less than a quarter of the people who would be obtaining counselling. When we consider the amount of money people spend on all sorts of other things that they see as having some merit, having to pay a fee to a marriage counsellor, I would have thought, would not be a particularly onerous burden in view of its importance. It may well be that only a small proportion of these counselling sessions are successful, but even if it is only a small proportion, I would think that that would be-- Senator Walters —One per cent would be all right. Senator DURACK —Well, that figure might be a bit low. But I really think that it is far too soon to say that the marriage counselling provisions would fail. If the counsellors participating tried to make it work and after a period of experimentation it did not work, I would be prepared to-- Senator Gareth Evans —If you were sitting over here would you be copping this amendment? That is the real test. Senator DURACK —If I were sitting over there we would be a government taking a far more responsible attitude to the overall costs and outlays of government. When the Government proceeds to spend billions of dollars more than the previous Government ever dreamt of spending-and we are talking about billions of dollars- and then says that a few million dollars more would be required for this purpose , I think it ought to look again at its priorities, cut down on some of its other expenditure and allocate some funds for this purpose. This is purely a question of government priorities. It is certainly not that the Government cannot afford to implement this proposal. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(7.05) —I rise very briefly to say that I oppose this amendment. I am opposed to compulsory things of this sort. It is very easy in this chamber to talk as though getting people together for counselling will bring them back together and they will not be divorced. People in this community have for the most part made up their minds by the time they separate. Divorce proceedings are not really entered into lightly by most people. Those who enter into them lightly will not be affected or helped by this provision at all. The question of cost to the Government and to individuals is important. If this amendment were passed, people would be told that as taxpayers they would pay for a lot more people to be employed in doing what in most cases is unnecessary and useless work. I am sure that other counselling work could be more usefully done in relation to both ongoing counselling and after-divorce counselling with regard to children and so forth. I believe this would be essentially a waste of money by the community and would force people whose financial situation is often difficult-for example, they may have to provide two homes and the like-to spend extra money. This is not the time to require them to do something which they see as nothing but a farce and something they are required to do in order to get their divorce. Those of us who have practised in this jurisdiction know what requirements in the law in the past had to be brought to the attention of those seeking a divorce. Such things tended to be regarded as mere formalities. The amendment which I will move when we go back to clause 16 will emphasise the availability of these things and-- Senator Harradine —No, it will not. Senator MISSEN —I am sorry, the amendment has been drafted to achieve that purpose. Senator Harradine —It will not because it deals only with conciliation. Senator MISSEN —It deals with conciliation, and conciliation is a much wider thing. Senator Harradine —No, it deliberately deals with conciliation. Senator Walters —That is not what we are talking about; we are talking about reconciliation. Senator MISSEN —Senator Walters is talking about reconciliation. I am saying that conciliation throughout is a much wider concept and it covers reconciliation. Senator Walters —No, it does not. Senator MISSEN —We will wait until we get to that amendment to discuss that point. Senator Walters will have her chance to speak then. This amendment is really an attempt to put a further hurdle in the paths of people so that they may fall at the barrier. There is in Senator Harradine's proposal a provision for people to avoid the counselling if they can show there are special circumstances under which the hearings should proceed. What on earth are those special circumstances? What do they relate to? The terms are so vague and so wide that people would be put to providing various evidence and so forth to establish those circumstances. Senator Archer —The judges would be able to tell. Senator MISSEN —One cannot tell what judges might require as evidence of special circumstances. The use of the term could well give judges an opportunity to be very difficult, or to be not difficult, depending on what they regarded as special circumstances. Senator Harradine —You have already voted for that. You have already voted for a clause which says exactly that. Senator MISSEN —I have not done so with regard to compulsory counselling. Senator Harradine —You did, and I will tell you how you did it directly. Senator MISSEN —No, I have not voted for compulsory counselling at all. Senator Harradine —You have not been following the debate. Senator MISSEN —Senator Harradine has not always followed the debate either. As I said, I have not voted for compulsory counselling. I do not believe in things of this nature being compulsory. Therefore, I think that this amendment would only serve to waste the money of the community and of persons who are already engaged in litigation in the divorce courts. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.09) — Here we have a most extraordinary thing. The comments of both Senator Evans, the Attorney-General, and Senator Missen show that neither of them is aware of what we have already done in respect of compulsory reconciliation counselling in an amendment which was moved by the Attorney-General himself. I refer Senator Missen to page 2 of the revised issue of amendments, the very good document that the officers of the Senate have prepared to assist us in our following of this debate. I draw attention to the fact that this is an amendment that was moved by the Attorney-General and agreed to. It says: An application for dissolution of a marriage shall not, without the leave of the court granted under sub-section (1C), be filed within the period of 2 years after the date of the marriage unless there is filed with the application a certificate in the prescribed form . . . stating that the parties to the marriage have considered a reconciliation, with the assistance of a specified person or organization, being- and then it says who- signed by that person or on behalf of that organisation, as the case may be. Senator Missen —That is the two years clause. Senator HARRADINE —Yes; but just a minute. Look at what it says there, Senator Missen. It says: Notwithstanding sub-section (1B), if the court is satisfied that there are special circumstances . . . Senator Missen has already voted for that, so why did he raise the question as to what are special circumstances? That is a red herring, and he knows it. So much for his opposition to this amendment. I suggest that his opposition to the amendment is based on his view of marriage. If he wants that view, all right, but so far as-- Senator Missen —What is my view of marriage? What do you know about it? Senator HARRADINE —We canvassed that in a previous debate. Perhaps Senator Missen wants me to read the interjection. I will just refer honourable senators to the interjection that was made by Senator Missen in one of my speeches. That is the basis on which I have just made that remark. I do so only on the basis of what is said in this Parliament. I refer to that interjection. So that disposes of Senator Missen's opposition to this proposition. Let me just say this about the matters raised by the Attorney-General. He has raised the matter of compulsion; the fact that the chance of reconciliation diminishes the longer the couple have been separated; the question of section 14 (6) of the principal Act, which is again the compulsory aspect; and, most importantly, the matter of costs. He says that he is concerned about the fact that my proposal will not ensure early enough the reconciliation procedures to be followed. I am perfectly happy to amend my amendment to provide that these shall take place within six months; but, as the Attorney-General says, nor could there be such a proposal, because obviously there are machinery difficulties, and not only in the system itself and in the approved marriage counselling organisations but with the parties themselves. Of course, one could not draw it in that way, so that disposes of that problem. As regards 'compulsory', as I said before, there is no hard evidence whatsoever to show that compulsory conferences in a no fault situation are not beneficial. What the Marriage Guidance Council and the approved marriage counselling organisations are saying is that under the existing section 14 (6) those procedures have not been successful. In fact, they have met with very little success. Senator Gareth Evans —What is the really significant difference between yours and section 14 (6)? Senator HARRADINE —The significant difference is the fact, as the marriage counselling organisations say, that there is very little chance of a successful reconciliation without both of the parties to the marriage attending the conference. The fact remains that section 14 (6) at present does not require the attendance of both parties at a conference. This is a compulsory conference idea , and the compulsory conference idea is widespread in conflict situations within Australia. As I mentioned in my speech on the previous proposal, they are widespread in industrial relations situations and in other conflict situations, including, as has been said, the sex discrimination legislation that is coming down the track, under which compulsory conferences will be required for the resolution of disputes in that area of human conflict. As I said on the previous occasions on which we were debating this matter, if it is good enough for industrial disputes and for disputes on the whole range of personal conflicts, surely it is good enough for problems which affect the basic institution of society. If there were a chance-it is conceded that one must get them early enough-obviously there is a likelihood of success. The other significant difference about the current section 14 (6) is that it is really compulsory reconciliation after the application for the divorce has been filed and before the court hears it. Certainly that is divorce talk. At that stage the married partners are so separated in their viewpoints that one of them has filed for a divorce. One of them has not threatened 'I shall divorce you', but has done it, has filed for divorce. Senator Gareth Evans —What is a filing of a notice of separation if not a preliminary to divorce? Senator HARRADINE —That is a different situation altogether. Senator Gareth Evans —It is still on the same track. Senator HARRADINE —No, it is not necessarily on the same track at all. That is the point about being wedded to the no fault divorce concept. I happen not to be wedded to it. If one is wedded to that concept, an ultimate application does not have to include anything other than that there has been a separation of 12 months. It does not have to be that someone has been abusive, adulterous or anything else. So the divorce talk and that sort of problem is not there. If a person files a notification, that person may be filing the notification because he or she is confused. I suggest that most people at that stage would be confused. Surely we must appreciate that. Of course, the Director of Court Counselling is the one who orders the parties into conference, not the approved marriage counselling organisation though, as the Attorney-General's officers themselves realise, the approved marriage counselling organisations have more show of obtaining a reconciliation because of all the situations relating to those organisations, and so on, than does the court counselling service with all its facilities. I do not know why they say that but it appears to be a generally held view. That is a basic difference between section 14 (6) which has been shown to be not successful and the proposal that I have put forward. It is an absolutely essential difference. The reconciliation counselling takes place after the application has been filed. On the one hand, this is not so. It is simply after a notice that the person has been separated and is living apart. That is when counselling takes place at the early stage. The last matter is the question of costs. That has not been quantified, but what has been quantified is the very dramatic cost to the community of divorce in Australia. That cost is contained in the cost of the Federal Court apparatus, the payments made to the Australian Legal Aid Office and the payments that we talked about last night. The Attorney-General was very concerned about the increase. Payments that are made to the private legal profession for legal aid purposes in family law matters are sky rocketing and he was concerned about that . The cost to the community does not end there. In 1982 $717.4m was paid out in widow's pensions and well over half those people receiving the widow's pension were divorcees or separated wives. Again, almost 70 per cent of those people receiving the supporting parent's benefit, at a cost in 1982 of $605.9m, are separated wives or de factos, which is an increase of more than 300 per cent since 1975. As I have mentioned to the Senate, the most recent figures published by the Institute of Family Studies show that the divorce rate in Australia is now 40 per cent. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Gareth Evans —Let us finish at half-past. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.23) —It is all very well for the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, to say let us finish at half-past. I was noting the length of his speeches. He takes the full quarter of an hour, although I can never understand why. If he took two seconds or two minutes in his reply to us and answered our questions quickly and concisely then we would get through this matter. Senator Bolkus —Why don't you do a deal? Senator WALTERS —I am trying to do a deal. Senator Harradine's amendment, as I see it, is one that is already enshrined in this legislation for the two year separation period. If we believe-as we all do in the Senate because it was passed-that with a marriage of two years, compulsory counselling can be undertaken and can be effective, even if it is only in a minor degree, then I believe that we are being irresponsible in not having a go. If, after a certain period, we find that this proposal does not work we can stop it. Counselling is done at a much earlier time in marriages of longer duration. If we find that this proposal does not work, then we can stop it. But at least if we give it a go for a period, we will feel that we have done all we can in this area. I would support the Attorney at least giving the proposal a go, perhaps with the addition of a sunset clause, if he likes. That is my suggestion, that there be a sunset clause for this particular amendment. I suggest that we give it a period of say, five years, or something like that and at the end of that time the Attorney could come back and say 'I told you so and that is the situation' or he could leave it there. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.26) -The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has not responded-I do not mind how long he takes to respond-to the point that I made. He has made statements here which are patently not correct. Senator Gareth Evans —What are you talking about? Senator HARRADINE —I am talking about section 14 (6). The Attorney-General's Department has made the survey on the basis of section 14 (6) which has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. I concede that it might have been relevant when considering the previous proposal but it is not relevant now. I was prepared, quite frankly, to ensure that the objections, all apart from costs , were met and that is what I have done in this amendment. I took notice of what the Department said and what the marriage guidance organisation were saying. They were not saying these things to the Attorney-General only, they were saying them to me. I took notice of that and I have come up with this particular amendment which, as I indicate, I understood was a matter which had some currency within the Department. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.27) —I was endeavouring to observe Senator Walters's strictures and not to get to my feet simply to repeat points I had made earlier on. But quickly, the answers are these: Of course there are differences, which I acknowledged in my opening speech, in the section 14 (6) model and the one that Senator Harradine proposes, to the extent that section 14 (6) does not require the compulsory conference concept of getting both parties together. The reconciliation counselling can take place, in a way, at the discretion of the counsellor and there is that difference. It may be that in practice something will flow from that but Senator Harradine cannot produce any evidence for the greater likelihood of counselling of that kind being successful because there is none available to him or to us other than in analogous areas such as industrial relations and so on. Senator Harradine —That is right. Senator GARETH EVANS —There are many points of similarity and difference but I suggest he is really flying on a wing and a prayer, with respect, to try to build an edifice based on that kind of analogy and that kind of metaphor. Really , all I am saying is that the similarities between his present model and the original one are still there, namely, that it is a compulsory process and it is not a process that will operate compulsorily right at the outset when the marriage breakdown first occurs and when the separation first occurs. He has acknowledged that in the nature of things that cannot be achieved. So the prospects of there being a greater degree of success here are not particularly great on all the evidence available to us about the likely reaction of people to compulsory situations. At least they are not so great as to justify the massive allocation of resources. The particular figures that I have-and I cannot quite believe them; that is why I did not put them into the debate-are $26m a year on the basis of no contribution from individuals. But whatever they are, they are certainly well over the $10m mark and I simply say that, if we do a cost benefit equation, the benefits are not so certain. Indeed, they are so problematic that it would simply be irresponsible, given the kind of advice we are getting from these organisations, to make this compulsory process, even in the revised format , part of the Family Law Act. I am afraid I cannot add anything more to it. Could we possibly get this point at least to a resolution tonight? The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Cyclophosphamide The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.30) —I advised Senator Grimes, the Acting Minister for Health, that I would be speaking in the adjournment debate as this is a matter which relates to the portfolio he is administering at present. I will not need to take terribly long. A doctor from Queensland wrote to me just a few days ago to say that a patient of his suffering from a rare disease, dermatomyositis, was being treated with the drug cyclophosphamide. As Senator Grimes will know, that is a drug normally used in the treatment of cancer. What has happened is that the drug is no longer available as a pharmaceutical benefit. The reason it is no longer available is that the drug company and the Department of Health are in dispute over the question of the price of the medication. I wish to speak briefly on this subject. Cyclophosphamide is a very powerful anti-cancer drug. It has been used for a number of years in the treatment of malignant disease. It has been found also to be effective in the treatment of certain rare diseases where immune systems are disturbed and it is prescribed by immunologists for certain of those diseases. Because it is an anti-cancer drug, some questions of occupational safety arose, among other things. The company had to put a large amount of capital expenditure into its Australian plant. Production costs have doubled and, in any event, the company has been in dispute with three Ministers for Health over the costs which the drug should attract as a pharmaceutical benefit. I do not mind that there is a dispute and I do not really mind how it is resolved, but the effect of the dispute has been that the drug has been delisted by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) because the company proceeded to raise the price. The drug will now cost a patient who has to buy it outside something like $20 every time he buys a normal prescription, which is fifty 50-milligram tablets. There is no remission of that $20 cost by way of pharmaceutical benefit , although it has been a pharmaceutical benefit until now. I have checked with one of the leading immunologists in this country, Professor Ronald Penny, whom Senator Grimes would know, as to whether or not it is a true bill of goods, whether or not the drug is essential for the purpose which concerns me. There are few people in Australia-the drug company tells me it might involve only 200 to 300 prescriptions a year-who have these rare diseases for which this is the best drug. I am told by Professor Penny that there are indirect substitutes available but no direct substitutes. Other drugs only modify the situation, they do not control it. If patients are inpatients in hospitals, say they are being treated for certain malignancies, they can have the drug given to them, but if they are outpatients, as some of these patients with chronic immunological disorders are, they can no longer get the drug. The dispute is clearly one involving the pricing of drugs. It is a very difficult area; these disputes do arise. My concern is that it is these patients who are the meat in the sandwich. I am not asking the Minister or the Government to give in or to resolve the matter in some inappropriate way. What I am asking the Minister to do is make some interim administrative arrangement so that the patients are not the ones who suffer. Surely there is a specific case in which no other drug will do. The dispute is an administrative dispute between government and industry, and the number of prescriptions is very small. Because it is the patients who are suffering, some arrangement is necessary. I believe that the case for the use of this medication is a valid one. It is sparingly used, it is used in the hands of experts, and some of the patients are suffering real disadvantage because of what has happened. Patients cannot afford the kind of cost involved, although they may have to. A price of $20 for each 50 tablet prescription will be a great imposition on them. I ask the Government: Is it not possible to devise some administrative arrangement so that the patients are removed from this conflict? The Government can then take as long as it likes to resolve it, and may the best man win. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security and Acting Minister for Health)(7.36) —Senator Baume let me know this afternoon that he would raise this evening the matter of the delisting of cyclophosphamide. Unfortunately, through a series of circumstances, I do not have the full details. As I understand it, the company has been in dispute, as Senator Baume says, with several Ministers for Health. The drug was delisted because the company unilaterally increased the price without agreement by the Government. As Senator Baume says, it is a special and difficult case. The drug is of great use to a small number of people ; he says a couple of hundred, and that is probably right. There is no reasonable alternative, and I think it is sensible that we try to get some administrative arrangements at least for those few patients who can in this unusual circumstance clearly be delineated. The whole situation can be quarantined to those few patients. I will seek advice from the Department of Health, of which I am the Acting Minister at the moment, and get a reply for Senator Baume as soon as possible. We certainly cannot have a situation where patients are the meat in the sandwich in a dispute between government and industry. That would be unfair and I will see what can be done in the near future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.37 p.m. The following papers were presented: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 196. Air Navigation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 202. Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 199. Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 203 and 204. Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 195. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determination-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 201. Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 198. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 193, 194 and 205. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 206 and 207. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 200. Social Services Act-Regulations 1983 No. 3. Wheat Tax Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 197. The following answers to questions were circulated: Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What is the estimated full year cost of increasing all standard rate pensions and benefits to a level of (a) 25 per cent and (b) 30 per cent of average weekly earnings for: (i) December quarter 1982, (ii) March quarter 1983, (iii) June quarter 1983, (iv) (estimated) September quarter 1983 and (v) ( estimated) December quarter 1983. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The estimated full year costs of increasing all standard rate social security pensions and benefits to 25 per cent and 30 per cent of average weekly earnings are- (a) (b) $m $m (i) December quarter 1982 1,350 3,460 (ii) March quarter 1983 1,470 3, 630 (iii) June quarter 1983 940 3,130 (iv) (Est) 1983 September quarter not available (v) (Est) 1983 December quarter not available The figures in (i), (ii) and (iii) represent the estimated cost of increasing the maximum rates of all standard rate pensions and benefits to 25 and 30 per cent of average weekly total earnings for all males for the respective quarters, with the combined married rate of pension being increased proportionately and the combined married rate of benefit being set at the same level as the corresponding pension rate. The costs are based on numbers of pensioners in December 1982, April 1983 and June 1983 respectively, average numbers of beneficiaries in 1982-83, maximum pension rates applicable from November 1982-(i ) and (ii)-and May 1983 (iii), and existing income test conditions for age pensioners aged 70 years and over. No allowance has been made for persons who may become eligible for pension or benefit as a result of the increased rates nor for any additional revenue which may result from taxation of the additional payments. The estimated full year costs of increases for the September quarter 1983 and the December quarter 1984 are unavailable, as average weekly earnings estimates for these quarters are not available. Question No. 81 Senator Colston asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: Are disability pensions payable under the Repatriation Act 1920 disregarded for the purpose of the income test for any pension or benefit payable under the Social Security Act 1947; if so, what are the details and what is the reason for disregarding disability pensions for this or these pensions or benefits, and why does a similar situation not prevail for all other social security pensions and benefits. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: If a disability pension is received by a person in receipt of unemployment or sickness benefit it is disregarded for income test purposes. The exception to this is where the sickness benefit is paid for the same incapacity as the disability pension. In this instance the amount of disability pension is deducted from the maximum rate of sickness benefit otherwise payable to ensure that two separate forms of assistance are not paid concurrently for the same incapacity. Where a disability pension is received by a person in receipt of an age, invalid or widow's pension, supporting parent's benefit or similar assistance, that payment is taken into account for income test purposes. Disability pensions are paid under the Repatriation Act and associated legislation, and as such are seen as a form of compensation to ex-servicemen and women and their dependants for death or various degrees of incapacity related to service for their country in the defence forces. Question No. 89 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What have been, for each State and Territory as at 30 June in each year since 1972, and monthly since 30 June 1982: (a) the number of invalid pensions; (b) the percentage change in the number of invalid pensions; (c) the number of outstanding invalid pension reviews; (d) the number of invalid pension reviews before the Social Security Appeals Tribunals; (e) the average rejection rate of invalid pension appeals; and (f) the mean and median time taken to determine the invalid pension appeals and reviews. (2) Are the different numbers and time in answer 1 (e) and 1 (f) statistically different. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) See table 1, below: Table 1 INVALID PENSIONS: NUMBERS CURRENT BY STATE AND TERRITORY, 1972 TO 1983 NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Aust. 30 June- 1972 57,260 32,575 22,825 12,132 8,485 4,498 643 400 138,818 1973 61,473 34, 244 24,945 13,355 9,518 4,855 722 497 149,609 1974 63,924 35,392 25,827 14,815 10,406 5,087 786 546 156,783 1975 68,928 38,257 27,464 16,348 10,961 5,460 799 567 168,784 1976 74,748 42,044 29,856 17,312 12,265 6,091 870 601 183,787 1977 82,486 47,698 32,592 18,577 13,263 6,612 997 738 202,963 1978 82,168 49, 379 32,453 18,873 13,653 6,463 1,136 819 204,944 1979 86,983 54,305 34,706 20, 169 15,045 6,411 1,260 964 219,843 1980 89,002 57,863 36,818 20,724 15,894 6, 376 1,415 1,127 229,219 1981 82,847 57,464 35,555 20,632 16,352 6,487 1,439 1, 175 221,951 1982 77,708 57,603 33,492 21,303 17,195 6,615 1,450 1,283 216,649 1983 75,735 60,551 32,390 23,302 18,598 6,767 1,534 1,412 220,289 30 Jul 1982 77,102 57,780 33,417 21,372 17,292 6,610 1,455 1,291 216,319 27 Aug 1982 76,804 58,033 33,258 21,404 17,355 6,596 1,463 1,296 216,209 24 Sep 1982 76,416 58,286 33,210 21,438 17,460 6,620 1,489 1,288 216,207 22 Oct 1982 76,266 58,293 33,100 21,603 17,541 6,616 1,494 1,298 216,211 19 Nov 1982 75,854 58,552 32,966 21,773 17,654 6,658 1,508 1,304 216,269 17 Dec 1982 75,820 58,696 32,794 21,966 17,766 6,672 1,521 1,320 216,555 14 Jan 1983 75,509 58,935 32,717 22,107 17,811 6,701 1,523 1,323 216,626 11 Feb 1983 75,359 59,129 32,631 22,315 17,946 6,717 1,522 1,328 216,947 11 Mar 1983 75,545 59,264 32,523 22,472 18,085 6,683 1,514 1,349 217,435 8 Apr 1983 75,542 59,445 32,381 22,629 18,189 6,699 1,515 1,360 217, 760 6 May 1983 75,329 59,706 32,262 22,870 18,299 6,699 1,513 1,366 218,044 3 Jun 1983 75,261 60,308 32,393 23,048 18,439 6,753 1,536 1,397 218,865 30 Jun 1983 75,735 60,551 32,390 23,302 18,598 6,767 1,534 1,412 220,289 (1) (b) See table 2, below: Table 2 INVALID PENSIONS: PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN NUMBERS CURRENT-ANNUAL 1972 TO 1983 AND FOUR-WEEKLY JULY 1982 TO JUNE 1983 NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Aust. 30 June- 1972(a) +1.5 +3.9 +4.8 +8.6 +4.0 +4.2 +14.8 +11.1 +3.5 1973 +7.4 +5.1 +9.3 + 10.1 +12.2 +7.9 +12.3 +24.3 +7.8 1974 +4.0 +3.4 +3.5 +10.9 +9.3 +4.8 +8.9 +9.9 +4.8 1975 +7.8 +8.1 +6.3 +10.3 +5.3 +7.3 +1.7 +3.8 +7.7 1976 +8.4 +9.9 +8.7 +5.9 +11.9 +11.6 +8.9 +6.0 +8.9 1977 +10.4 +13.4 +9.2 +7.3 +8.1 +8.6 +14.6 +22 .8 +10.4 1978 -0.4 +3.5 -0.4 +1.6 +2.9 -2.3 +13.9 +11.0 +1.0 1979 +5.9 +10.0 +6.9 +6.9 +10.2 -0.8 +10.9 +17.7 +7.3 1980 +2.3 +6.6 +6.1 +2.8 +5.6 -0.5 +12.3 +16.9 +4.3 1981 -6.9 -0.7 -3.4 -0.4 +2.9 +1.7 +1.7 +4.3 -3.2 1982 -6.2 +0.2 - 5.8 +3.3 +5.2 +2.0 +0.8 +9.2 -2.4 1983 -2.5 +5.1 -3.3 +9.4 +8.2 +2.3 +5.8 +10. 1 +1.7 30 Jul 1982(b) -0.8 +0.3 -0.2 +0.3 +0.6 -0.1 +0.3 +0.6 -0.2 27 Aug 1982 -0.4 +0.4 -0.5 +0.1 +0.4 -0.2 +0.5 +0.4 -0.1 24 Sep 1982 -0.5 +0.4 -0.1 +0.2 +0 .6 +0.4 +1.8 -0.6 0.0 22 Oct 1982 -0.2 0.0 -0.3 +0.8 +0.5 -0.1 +0.3 +0.8 0.0 19 Nov 1982 -0.5 +0.4 -0.4 +0.8 +0.6 +0.6 +0.9 +0.5 0.0 17 Dec 1982 0.0 +0.2 -0.5 +0.9 +0.6 +0.2 +0.9 +1.2 +0.1 14 Jan 1983 -0.4 +0.4 -0.2 +0.6 +0.3 +0.4 +0.1 +0 .2 0.0 11 Feb 1983 -0.2 +0.3 -0.3 +0.9 +0.8 +0.2 -0.1 +0.4 +0.1 11 Mar 1983 +0 .2 +0.2 -0.3 +0.7 +0.8 -0.5 -0.5 +1.6 +0.2 8 Apr 1983 0.0 +0.3 -0.4 +0.7 +0.6 + 0.2 +0.1 +0.8 +0.1 6 May 1983 -0.3 +0.4 -0.4 +1.1 +0.6 0.0 -0.1 +0.4 +0.1 3 Jun 1983 -0.1 +0.6 +0.4 +0.8 +0.8 +0.8 +1.5 +2.3 +0.4 30 Jun 1983(c) +0.6 +0.9 0.0 +1.1 +0.9 +0.2 -0.1 +1.1 +0.7 (a) Figures relate to movements from 30 June 1971 (b) Figures for 30 July 1982 relate to period of 30 days from 30 June 1982 (c) Figures for 30 June 1982 relate to period of 27 days from 3 June 1983 1(c) I understand this question seeks the number of appeals which, although they have been registered with a Social Security Appeals Tribunal-SSAT-are still with the Department of Social Security (the Department) for further assessment before an SSAT hears the appeal. It is not possible to provide details of medical appeals for the whole period. Social Security Appeals Tribunals-SSATs-were established in 1975 and at that time their jurisdiction was limited to 'non-medical' appeals-i.e. appeals against decisions other than those involving a medical assessment. A separate statistical collection of medical appeals to SSATs is available only from 1 January 1981. Statistics on the number of medical appeals outstanding before SSATs are not available by pension and benefit type. The statistics provided in the tables below, unless otherwise indicated, are for all medical appeals-i.e., they include pension, sickness benefit and handicapped child's allowance appeals. The number of medical appeals with the Department (after registration of the appeal with SSATs, but prior to referral to SSATs for examination) by year are: Table 3(a) As at As at 30 June 1981 30 June 1982 New South Wales 1,247 1,400 Victoria 616 494 Queensland 260 595 South Australia 151 140 Western Australia 42 64 Tasmania 9 29 Northern Territory 7 . . Australian Capital Territory 11 3 Total 2 343 2,725 Table 3(b) NUMBER OF MEDICAL APPEALS WITH DEPARTMENT (AFTER REGISTRATION OF APPEAL WITH SSATs, BUT PRIOR TO REFERRAL TO SSATs FOR EXAMINATION); AS AT END OF EACH MONTH FROM JULY 1982 TO MARCH 1983 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March New South Wales 1,499 1,774 1,767 1,112 1,155 1,190 1,075 839 944 Victoria 484 386 437 482 528 538 546 545 516 Queensland 766 645 610 507 467 470 452 443 497 South Australia 148 168 164 146 140 140 135 151 154 Western Australia 56 61 83 90 78 84 78 85 85 Tasmania 30 31 43 53 34 27 49 31 24 Northern Territory . . 1 . . 2 1 . . 1 1 . . Australian Capital Territory 5 2 5 5 4 5 6 8 13 Total 2,988 3,068 3,109 2,397 2,407 2,454 2,342 2,103 2,233 1(d) The number of medical appeals before SSATs by year are: Table 4(a) As at As at 30 June 1981 30 June 1982 New South Wales 306 990 Victoria 76 160 Queensland 141 164 South Australia 103 42 Western Australia 10 6 Tasmania 9 29 Northern Territory 15 9 Australian Capital Territory 6 3 Total 666 1,403 Table 4(b) THE NUMBER OF MEDICAL APPEALS BEFORE SSATS AS AT THE END OF EACH MONTH SINCE 30 JUNE 1982 TO 31 MARCH 1983 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March New South Wales 961 735 696 697 654 498 617 618 452 Victoria 168 121 76 59 52 106 120 104 93 Queensland 65 117 111 185 156 154 124 107 152 South Australia 49 51 60 77 74 78 76 77 54 Western Australia 24 19 20 19 18 32 38 32 44 Tasmania 21 26 25 15 40 47 39 58 62 Northern Territory 7 10 8 7 5 9 7 9 13 Australian Capital Territory 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Total 1,297 1,082 999 1,062 1,002 927 1, 024 1,008 871 1 (e) In the six-month period ended 30 June 1981 the percentage of invalid pension appeals (of total medical appeals finalised) which were recommended for dismissal by SSATs was 34.2 per cent. In this six-month period no dismissals contrary to SSAT recommendations were made. In the twelve-month period ended 30 June 1982 the percentage of invalid pension appeals (of total medical appeals finalised) which were recommended for dismissal by SSATs (and which were dismissed) and dismissals contrary to SSAT recommendations was 31.7 per cent. Monthly statistics for the percentage of invalid pension appeals (of total medical appeals finalised) which were recommended for dismissal by SSATs (and which were dismissed) and dismissals contrary to SSAT recommendations for each State and Territory are not available. These statistics are only available on a quarterly basis. Quarterly figures since 30 June 1982 are as follows: Table 5 Sept. 82 Dec. 82 March 83 New South Wales 22.7 29.9 37.4 Victoria 27.4 32.5 23.9 Queensland 23.0 30.6 31.6 South Australia 13.3 12.9 29.7 Western Australia 21.8 38.2 26.1 Tasmania 28.2 29.6 25.8 Northern Territory . . 23.1 28.6 Australian Capital Territory . . 14.3 . . Australia 23.0 29.0 32.3 1(f) Statistics on the arithmetic mean and the median processing times between the registration and the finalisation of medical appeals for SSATs have been maintained since 1 October 1981 on a quarterly basis. The statistics for each quarter since then are as follows (Processing times for 'reviews' not available) : Table 6 NUMBER OF FINALISED MEDICAL APPEALS CONSIDERED BY SSATS BY PROCESSING TIME: STATES BY QUARTERS Quarter ended N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. A.C.T. Aust. 31 December 1981 Arithmetic Mean (weeks) 50.0 25.3 17.7 23.5 16.6 18.8 22.9 27.5 25.5 Median ( weeks) 49.8 23.1 14.5 23.2 15.0 18.4 19.5 27.5 20.2 31 March 1982 Mean 55.9 31.9 23.7 32.3 21.0 16.4 31.4 45.5 31.5 Median 55.9 29.9 21.7 28.1 16.3 16.2 21.7 45.5 27.7 30 June 1982 Mean 64.7 32.3 24.2 33.2 14.9 15.8 13.9 56.3 38.0 Median 63.5 30.1 21.7 30.3 14.2 15.2 13.0 58.5 32.4 30 September 1982 Mean 61.7 24.9 35.8 39.6 22.7 24.8 19.0 59.1 45.2 Median 60.3 20.2 32.0 36.8 21.7 20.7 23.8 52.0 41.2 31 December 1982 Mean 55.8 34.4 28.6 33.5 18.7 25.3 48.4 65.0 41.7 Median 53.9 29.5 27.0 26.5 17.0 21.2 19.5 65.0 36.7 31 March 1983 Mean 51.9 28.8 36.7 35.5 15.8 29.3 23.1 65.0 42.3 Median 48.7 25.3 32.4 30.8 14.3 28.6 19.5 65.0 37.7 Table 6 NUMBER OF FINALISED MEDICAL APPEALS CONSIDERED BY SSATs BY PROCESSING TIME, IN WEEKS-STATES BY QUARTERS Quarter NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Aust. December 1981- Mean 50.0 25.3 17.7 23.5 16.6 18.8 22.9 27.5 25.5 Median 49.8 23.1 14.5 23.2 15.0 18.4 19.5 27.5 20.2 March 1982- Mean 55.9 31.9 23.7 32.3 21.0 16.4 . . . . 31.5 Median 55.9 29.9 21.7 28.1 16.3 16.2 . . . . 27.7 June 1982- Mean 64.7 32.3 24.2 33.2 14.9 15.8 . . 56.3 38.0 Median 63.5 30.1 21.7 30.3 14.2 15.2 . . 58.5 32.4 September 1982- Mean 61.7 24.9 35.8 39.6 22.7 24.8 . . . . 45.2 Median 60.3 20.2 32.0 36.8 21.7 20.7 . . . . 41.2 December 1982- Mean 55.8 34.4 28.6 33.5 18.7 25.3 48.4 . . 41.7 Median 53.9 29.5 27.0 26.5 17.0 21.2 19.5 . . 36.7 March 1983- Mean 51.9 28.8 36.7 35.5 15.8 29.3 . . . . 42.3 Median 48.7 25.3 32.4 30.8 14.3 28.6 . . . . 37.7 The above estimates of mean and median processing times are derived from grouped data. No estimates are shown where less than five medical appeals considered by SSATs were finalised during the quarter. (2) As regards rejection rates, the numbers of appeals involved are too small for meaningful statistical analysis. As regards appeal processing times, it appears that they are significantly higher in New South Wales than the rest of Australia and significantly lower in Western Australia and Tasmania. No statistically significant conclusions can be drawn as to whether processing times have changed since the December quarter 1981. Question No. 271 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Were the invalid pensioners who had their pensions cancelled able to take up any other benefit (for example, unemployment, sickness, or special), if so, what number and percentage took up each benefit in (a) 1980; (b) 1981 and (c) 1982 (see answer to Question No. 88, Hansard, 31 May 1983, page 1053). (2) What pensions were granted to those invalid pensioners, who had their invalid pensions terminated and classed as 'transfers to other pensions'. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Invalid pensioners who have their pension cancelled can apply for another benefit and, if eligible, will be granted such benefit. Statistics relating to transfers from pensions to benefits are not available. Such transfers are treated as new grants in the benefit payment system. (2) Statistics relating to transfers from invalid pension to other pensions for the years 1980-83 are shown in the table below. INVALID PENSIONS TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PENSIONS New pension type Sheltered Age employment Year ended 30 June pension allowance Other Total 1980 15,810 1981 14,987 n.a.(a) 1982 13,483 1,733 293 15,509 1983 12,665 1, 556 719 14,940 (a) The statistical system in operation prior to July 1981 was not able to separate all cases of 'transfers from other pensions' from 'new grants'. Question No. 272 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the results of an investigation carried out by the Castaing Commission for the French Government which show that : (a) there is no solution for long term disposal of radioactive waste and that projected packaging in glass, cement or asphalt may not be considered as definitive and moreover, there are no regulations in France to define the conditions for disposal; (b) France does not have important safety systems drawn up for the operation of reprocessing plants; (c) the Commission recommended that the reprocessing process be extended to remove not only the uranium and plutonium, but also long lived toxic alpha- emitters, neptunium, americium and curium, because of their long life, above 10, 000 years, which is said posed a greater risk than plutonium; (d) considering the cost of reprocessing has risen nine times since 1970 and the capacity to reprocess is lagging way behind, that final disposal of irradiated fuel rods should be regarded as an alternative to reprocessing; and (e) the price of a kilowatt hour produced by a fast breeder will be two to three times higher than the kilowatt hour produced by a conventional reactor. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: My attention has been drawn to the results of the study carried out by the Castaing Commission, which assesses the options currently available to France for the management of spent fuel from the nuclear fuel cycle, namely immediate reprocessing, delayed reprocessing and no reprocessing. It is the type of investigation any country utilising nuclear power should perform from time to time to enable a realistic understanding of the extent and nature of future requirements. The essential message of the report is one of caution against premature commitment to a particular option pending a fuller examination of alternatives. (a) The Commission considered that final proof had not yet been offered with regard to the long term disposal of radioactive waste. It therefore recommended against the irretrievable disposal of solidified high level waste or unreprocessed spent fuel at the present time and advocated more French research into deep geological burial. Such research would be directed at minimising current margins for uncertainty with regard to the containment of long-lived alpha-emitting actinides. (b) The report noted that a satisfactory safety record had been maintained at existing French reprocessing plants, but significant technical improvements and a detailed safety analysis remained to be made in the case of new plants still at the design stage. (c) The report considered that there was no uncertainty about the ability of borosilicate glass to provide adequate containment of high-level waste in the short and medium term. However, the Commission was concerned about the potential radiological dose from neptunium-237 in high-level waste and unreprocessed spent fuel, together with that from americium-241 and curium 245, which form neptunium -237 by radioactive decay. It therefore recommended that separation of long- lived emitters of alpha particles (neptunium, americium and curium) from fission products should be investigated for possible application in future reprocessing plants. The separated actinides would undergo special treatment, including immobilisation in ceramics such as Synroc, or nuclear transmutation. Neptunium separation would not involve any major technological difficulty but americium separation, which is currently being investigated at the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), would require considerable research and development prior to its commercial application. Industrial implementation of these processes in France was envisaged by the end of the century. The potential significance of neptunium-237 arises from the revision in 1979 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) of estimates of radiation dose from ingestion of certain radionuclides. In its revision, the ICRP noted there was considerable uncertainty in the data, which was based on a small number of experiments on rats, and that ingestion of neptunium in trace quantities or incorporated in food may reduce its absorption by a factor of 10. Studies on the absorption of neptunium are being carried out in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The technology for removing long-lived radionuclides from high level wastes for separate treatment has been studied by the Commission of the European Communities. In 1982, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that such removal was unlikely to be cost-effective in reduction of potential dose from waste repositories. (d) The Commission recommended intensive research on the behaviour of irradiated fuel in deep storage conditions. (e) The Commission concluded from one economic assessment that the cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) generated by a fast breeder reactor (FBR) could be two to three times that for a conventional pressurised water reactor (PWR), and from another that costs could be competitive. The Commission recommended that the French Government should take appropriate measures to ensure that satisfactory data on such costs are obtained. A number of countries are proceeding with FBR research and development programs in the expectation that when factors such as cost of electricity production, safety, nuclear waste management, energy supply security and non-proliferation objectives are taken into account, the fast breeder reactor will be a viable option. Question No. 351 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) On what criteria did the Department of Social Security decide on a ' notional return rate of 10 per cent' to be applied to non-exempt assets in determining entitlement to pensions under the proposed new assets test. (2) Will the rate be subject to change, if so, in what circumstances. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I refer the honourable senator to my parliamentary statement of 23 August 1983 (Senate Hansard of 23 August 1983). Therein, I stated that the Government has decided that the proposed assets test will follow in broad terms that which applied prior to November 1976. Under the pre-November 1976 test the notional rate of return applied was 10 per cent and the legislation then in force did not provide for that rate to be varied. I also stated that the final details of how the new test will work in pactice will not be settled until after I have consulted with pensioner organisations. That process is not yet complete.