Tuesday, 1 November 1983 The Senate met at 2 p.m. The Clerk-Honourable senators, the President is unable to attend the sitting of the Senate this day as he is attending a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nairobi. In accordance with standing order 29, the Deputy President will take the chair. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator D. J. Hamer) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That, during the absence of the President, the Deputy President shall, on each sitting day, take the chair of the Senate and may, during such absence, perform the duties and exercise the authority of the President in relation to all proceedings of the Senate and to proceedings of standing and joint statutory committees to which the President is appointed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) left Australia yesterday to lead a parliamentary delegation to Italy, Spain and Greece. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is Acting Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is acting Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce until Mr Brown returns. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill re-affirms the commitment of the Government in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women through: 1. Recognition of the dignity of all humans through equal rights for men and women. 2. Supporting the rights of women to choose education, employment and lifestyles beyond the traditional stereotyped concepts of the roles of men and women. The legislation in no way denies the validity of any particular role including traditional parental roles. 3. Providing legislative protection against discrimination to women living in States which have no existing discrimination legislation. 4. By acknowledging the discriminatory nature of sexual harrassment an occupational health hazard which seriously affects many women in employment. We the undersigned believe that passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983, will provide a legislative base to honour the principles of equality incorporated in the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. Your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that the honourable Senate will support the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 13 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, being parents and other persons concerned about the education of all children, showeth that the present Government has commenced a policy of reduction and eventual abolition in Government funding to independent schools. This policy has been adopted without an appropriate and reasoned consideration of the circumstances of those schools and the parents who choose to send their children to them. In particular the government, in making its decision, has failed to take into account the impact on the state school system of an increased enrolment of students who otherwise would have attended independent schools in the event that government funding had not been reduced or abolished. The change in policy overlooks the fact that the cost of educating a child in a government school is two to three times the cost to the taxpayer of educating the same child in an independent school. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled reverse the decision of the Government and re-instate funding on an equitable basis as has been the case in previous years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 264 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of residents of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth: (1) that temporary salaried and full-time sessional teachers working for Adult Migrant Education Services are disadvantaged in status and security by lack of permanency and (2) that this disadvantage is reflected in its effect on and implications for multicultural education. (3) Victoria is particularly disadvantaged as with 30 per cent of national Adult Migrant Education Program it has only one permanent member of staff. Your petitioners therefore pray that: (1) This imbalance be redressed by providing realistic funding for permanency. (2) Funding should be used to balance the present inequity of permanent positions throughout Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Senators Jack Evans (from 21 citizens) and Robertson (from 117 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: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of Government standard costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 66 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 of 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) (3) ''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. (4) 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. (5) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about the dumping of polyolifin circular woven sacks and cloth onto the Australian market. And that the Government should take an active role in preventing these cheap imports. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Increase the duty on all polyolifin circular woven sacks and cloth imported into Australia from any overseas country, by 13.5 cents per sack and 13.5 cents per metre, this duty to be in addition to the present duty of 35 per cent on F.O .B. price, and to take the place of the dumping duty. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jack Evans (from 57 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. by Senators Button (from 45 citizens) and Robertson (from eight 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 the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 67 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the post-school education sector has been neglected in recent years. Therefore we call on the members of the Senate to endorse: (1) Increases in TEAS to at least the level of the poverty line. All people should be guaranteed a living wage. (2) Increased funding for campus based childcare. (3) The abolition of the overseas student visa charge which is grossly discriminatory. (4) Increased funding for student housing. (5) Increased funding for libraries to ensure facilities are adequate. (6) The establishment or supplementation of campus based student loan funds which are interest free and short-term. (7) Increasing the level and number of postgraduate awards. (8) Extending services to part-time, mature age and external students to open access to education. (9) Increasing student representation at all levels. (10) Innovation in curriculum to ensure curriculum is relevant and critical. (11) Increasing education funding to improve existing facilities. (12) Funding quality student health services which help contribute to the successful completion of courses. (13) Expanding enrolments to open access to education. (14) Compensating institutions for the costs of amalgamation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Senate will support the above claims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever humbly pray. by Senator Robertson (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to the request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jack Evans (from seven citizens). 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 64 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 and Senator Susan Ryan's Sex Discrimination Bill would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray that the Government refrain from accepting or passing Senator Ryan's Sex Discrimination Bill. Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Giving effect to certain provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (clause 3). (2) The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels being a disruption of traditional values and likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. (3) The rewriting of school textbooks and curriculum (article 10c U.N. Convention) to eliminate any reference to stereotyped roles of men and women. The Bible comes into this category. (4) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of child care centres is likely to result in maternal deprivation and anxiety states in children. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the Senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. A Bill is now pending in your honourable House intituled ''A Bill for An Act relating to discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy or involving sexual harassment''. 2. Your petitioners say that the effects of certain provisions of the Bill if enacted into law will be to enable persons to coerce women to engage in paid employment, and to surrender the care of their children to child care institutions, to grant rights to foreign persons upon a United Nations Commission to enter upon Australian Territory with powers to inspect investigate and to seek to influence, to report and recommend, with the object of procuring total employment of Australian women, and that all of these things will lead to the elimination of the traditional family unit. 3. That your petitioners say that the Bill if passed into law as it now stands will be insulting to the women of Australia, harmful to our families, and a grievous interference with the freedom of the Australian citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands and your petitioners will as in duty bound, ever pray. by Senator Gareth Evans (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia repectfully showeth- (1) The concerns which people around the world have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; (2) The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; (3) The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; (4) The public concern that government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 198 citizens), Chaney (from 53 citizens), Childs ( from 49 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 779 citizens), Jack Evans (from 116 citizens), Richardson (from 93 citizens), Robertson (from 230 citizens), and Sibraa (from 278 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Since 1979 over 3,000 young people have participated in youth forum projects. Youth forum has the structure and network necessary to provide young people in New South Wales with the skills, information and opportunity to define, and solve some of their own problems. Apart from an international year of the child grant of $15,000 in 1979, youth forum has received no government funding, rather it has utilised a total of $320 ,000, raised from the private sector. Youth forum is in danger of closing in early October if government funding is not secured, and valuable youth skills and resources will be lost to the community. Youth forum is an existing project which is a perfect vehicle through which the Federal Government can pursue the objectives of international youth year-peace participation and development-in 1985. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should financially support youth forum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 1,319 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Intention to Withdraw Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that it is my intention on the next day of sitting to withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name. Postponement of Notice of Motion Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I seek leave to move a motion to postpone the notice of motion standing in my name concerning the Fireworks (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 to the next day of sitting, and to incorporate in Hansard a brief statement on the consideration of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances of the matter, which concerns the onus of proof of a defendant. Leave granted. Senator COATES —I move: That Notice of Motion (No. 1), standing in my name, concerning the Fireworks ( Amendment) Ordinance 1983, be postponed to the next day of sitting. I seek leave to have a statement concerning the matter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- On 4 October 1983 I gave notice as Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, of a motion to disallow the Fireworks (Amendment) Ordinance 1983. As I stated at that time, the Committee was concerned that the amending Ordinance contained a substantial reversal of the onus of proof on a defendant. Sub-section (2) of the amending Ordinance makes it an offence to sell fireworks to a person under the age of 18 years. Sub-section 3 (3) states that: 'It is a defence in proceedings for an offence against sub-section (2) if the defendant establishes that he believed on reasonable grounds that the person to whom the fireworks were sold was of or above the age of 18 years'. The Committee wrote to the Minister expressing its concern that the defence provided by sub-section (3) places on the defendant the onus of establishing that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the purchaser was aged 18 or more. The Committee drew upon the recent Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs-entitled 'The Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings'-in suggesting that every effort should be made to minimise burdens placed upon defendants. Consistent with this Report, the Committee asked the Minister to examine ways of redrafting sub-section (3) so as to minimise the burden imposed on the defendant. The Committee was particularly concerned to reduce the incidence of persuasive burdens being borne by defendants, as is the case in sub-section (3). Earlier Reports by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee have expressed similar concerns (see e.g. the Sixty-sixth Report, paragraphs 15 to 25). The Minister has responded favourably, and has undertaken to amend the persuasive provision to ensure that the onus cast on a defendant is an evidential one only. In light of this undertaking, the Committee has today decided to withdraw the Notice of Motion to Disallow the Ordinance. On behalf of the Committee, I commend the Minister for his promised amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Casino Control Ordinance 1983 contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 53 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government ( Administration) Act 1910 be disallowed. Senator CHANEY —I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the answer he gave me on 12 October when I asked about Commonwealth concern and involvement in allegations involving the New South Wales early release scheme. Does he recall saying that he had come to certain conclusions on the basis of reading Australian Federal Police transcripts of telephone conversations and that he was not 'relying solely on second hand information from police commissioners or anyone else'? How does the Attorney square that emphatic declaration with his Press statement last Friday in which he spoke of having scanned-that is his word -transcripts? He further said: The truth of the matter is that I have not made any detailed study of the whole Federal Police drug investigation transcripts. Is it a fact that, of those transcripts, he has looked at, scanned or read only the material which was selected for him by one of those commissioners, namely, Commissioner Grey of the Federal Police? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think the matter is best put to rest by quoting the whole of the relevant part of my Press statement of last Friday, which is as follows: The truth of the matter is that I have not made any detailed study of the whole Federal Police drug investigation transcripts-- I interpolate that those transcripts amount to some 700 pages- and it would not have been appropriate for me to do so. What I did read were those portions of the transcript directly involving Mr Jackson that were brought to my attention, at my request, by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, in order to confirm for myself the accuracy of the advice I had been given that no conclusive evidence of criminal behaviour appeared and that, in particular, no Federal offence of any kind appeared to be involved. I was anxious to ensure that those passages of the transcript involving conversations to which Mr Jackson was a party were brought to my attention and I did in fact read those passages of the transcript amounting, as I recall, to some six or 10 pages with some care as to the language that was used by Mr Jackson in the conversations in question. I also scanned-that is the appropriate word-rather more briskly the whole bundle of material in front of me and asked in particular to have my attention drawn to any other part of that material which might give rise to any possible suggestion of there being an element of a federal offence being involved. No other such material was drawn to my attention in the course of scanning in that way. Certainly, I saw nothing that would satisfy that description. I do not believe that I can usefully add anything to that answer. I do not believe that I was involved in any way in misleading the Parliament or involved in any other form of inconsistent behaviour in what subsequently occurred. My concern was with a couple of specific aspects of what was a very large bundle of material indeed, and as to those specific aspects my judgment was as I described it in this place and remains so to this day. Senator CHANEY —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of that answer, I ask the Attorney-General whether he has recently or at any time asked a member of his staff to make a rather more careful examination of that material than the rather cursory scanning which he has described to see whether there are in fact other elements of information which touch on the Commonwealth or indeed some of the major matters which have led to the resignation of a State Government Minister? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I have not, nor do I propose to do so. I have complete confidence in the capacity of Commissioner Grey, who with his officers has worked over this material very closely to draw to my attention any material which might give rise to any conclusion different from that which I have already drawn from my perusal of the material in the way that I have described. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen the article in the Australian Financial Review of Thursday, 20 October 1983, headed 'Occupational Diseases Threaten $bn Payouts'? In the article, a director of the Metal Trades Industry Association, Mr Boland, called for a uniform and co-ordinated discount system that would give employers a real incentive to invest in safety and accident prevention programs in order to achieve cost savings in workers compensation premiums. Can the Minister say whether employers besides Mr Boland are at last appreciating what unionists, workers and occupational health workers have known for a long time-that prevention of accident and illness is better than cure or death, will be cheaper and allows for increased productivity? How far has the Government's plan for the occupational health and safety program progressed? Can the Minister say what acceptance there is in industry for the introduction of occupational health and safety programs? Senator BUTTON —I had some notice of Senator Crowley's question. I have not read the article in the Australian Financial Review, but I am able to make some comment about the matters raised by the honourable senator. It is certainly true that occupational health and safety promise to be among the most important issues facing the Australian business community and unions in the 1980s as they have been for many years. The article in the Australian Financial Review focused on the question of compensation for accidents and the costs of compensation for accidents and occupational diseases rather than on prevention of accidents and occupational diseases. In our view as a government, this does not mean that compensation and rehabilitation should receive less attention. Workers are and will continue for a long time to be victims of occupational injury and diseases and will have to be compensated as humanely as possible. The question of how that is done and whether it is appropriately done by the Commonwealth or the State governments is another matter altogether. The cornerstone of any attack on occupational health problems and occupational injuries is prevention of those occurrences. Any reform to promote health and safety at work must emphasise prevention at every stage of any job and in all the circumstances that surround it. It has been said on a number of occasions previously, I think, that the framework for administering industrial accidents and occupational health prevention activities is chaotic. It was often used as an excuse by a previous Federal government that this was a matter for the States to sort out. The previous Government even disbanded the tripartite national consultative committee on occupational health and safety, which had been agreed to by all parties, before the body had formally met. Since coming to office this Government has considered it to be a priority to re-establish such a consultative committee. We have received the unequivocal support of both industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions in efforts to take positive steps to improve the performance in those areas. The Government is now finalising arrangements to establish a national occupational health and safety commission and office. The first step will be the establishment of an interim commission served by a secretariat to draw together interested parties and specialist expertise to plan for and implement the national strategies. With respect to that proposal, I can assure the Senate that the ACTU, industry groups and State governments have fully endorsed this Government's proposal. It is not just Mr Dolan, referred to in Senator Crowley's question, who has expressed concern about this matter; the major organisations of employers and unions are also very concerned about it and are co-operating with the Government in its desire to tackle this problem which has been of immense cost to Australian industry over many years-a cost which has largely gone unrecognised when other matters of much more peripheral importance have been discussed. Senator DURACK —I address my question to the Attorney-General in his capacity as the Attorney-General and also in his capacity as Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer him to the Press statement he made last Friday from which he has already quoted in an earlier answer today in which he said that he had asked the Special Minister of State to find out from the Australian Federal Police whether any material was held by them about an association between a crime figure and a New South Wales magistrate. Has any such material been discovered? If so, what action has either the Attorney- General or the Special Minister of State taken as a consequence? Has the Australian Federal Police been asked to interview Mr Bottom, the man who made the allegation, or has it received any information from the New South Wales police following Commissioner Abbott's meeting with Mr Bottom yesterday? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Special Minister of State issued his own statement later on Friday following my own statement and the communication to him which flowed from it in which he said that careful review of the transcript in question-I am paraphasing what he said-did not give any indication of support at all for Mr Bottom's views about what the supposed content of that transcript was . It is not my knowledge that the Australian Federal Police has any other information in its possession which would give credence or support to what Mr Bottom is saying. I will inquire further of the Special Minister of State to see whether that is so. But it is my present belief that there is not any such information and certainly none deriving from, as alleged by Mr Bottom, the particular transcripts in question. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to the new computerised mapping and information system devised by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which contains the most important socio-economic and demographic statistics gathered in Australia since 1966. I ask the Minister whether his Department has access to this information system. Is the Minister of the opinion that such a computer system has great potential in streamlining government activities in social planning, information campaigns and community development projects? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's new computerised mapping system which, as Senator Elstob says, does demonstrate some interesting and very important socio-economic and social data in certain areas of Australia. As Senator Elstob will know, as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, we are bedevilled in this country by a lack of data which is useful in the area of social planning and the planning of social legislation and social reform. That has been commented on in many reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare since I have been in this Parliament. I would assume that my Department has access to the information available to CSIRO but I will make a point of checking this. Certainly we need more such data and certainly any contribution in this area by CSIRO or anyone else is useful. One of the problems in the past has been the inability or reluctance of governments to collect such data for political and particularly economic reasons . I would hope that in future there will be general agreement on both sides of the Parliament that there is a need for such important data gathering and a need to establish a database so that we can make more rational judgments on the sort of reforms that governments may try to introduce. If the CSIRO, through its new computer system, can assist in this matter, it will be of great help to us all. I would hope that the introduction of computerised methods of data collection in any case, within the bounds of protection of privacy and civil liberties, can be used by departments and governments in the future. Senator CHIPP —Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce confirm or deny that Australia may build parts of the nuclear cruise missile? Has the Government demanded Australian participation in Boeing missile projects, which will inevitably include the nuclear cruise missile, in order to offset the purchase by Qantas Airways Ltd of Boeing jets? Is the Minister aware that the prestigious Centre for Defence Information in Washington has stated that the cruise missile 'will create increasing fear, distrust and suspicion between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' and that their deployment will ' undermine future attempts to halt the arms race'? If the Government is contemplating such a crazy deal, would not Australia's support for this devastating and destabilising nuclear weapon be contrary to the Government's professed arms control and disarmament policy? Senator BUTTON —Until the article in the Australian was referred to me, I suspected that Senator Chipp was trying to introduce a novel note into the uranium debate and the whole debate about nuclear weapons. I agree with the observations of the prestigious Centre for Defence Information in Washington, which Senator Chipp quotes in his question. The position about this Government's involvement in offset programs in relation to Boeing is as follows. Qantas has advised Boeing that it proposes to purchase six aircraft. The total cost will be over $400m. The announcement occurred prior to a satisfactory offsets agreement being obtained. There have since been discussions with Boeing, last week and the week before, about the nature of offset agreements which might be entered into. I simply make the point in passing, as one does, that the offsets arrangements which were entered into by the previous Government left this country with more than a billion dollars owing in offset work which had not been pursued and which will be pursued by the present Government. As Senator Chipp says, there was a report in the Australian newspaper which referred to cruise missile work as offsets. Before going into detail, let me say that there will be no cruise missile parts made in Australia under an offsets arrangement or under any other arrangement so long as this Government remains in office. Perhaps I may just explain the background in order to illustrate how this story came about. First, specific items of offsets relating to the cruise missile were not sought by the Government, nor is it, as I have indicated, the Government's intention that they ever would be sought. Offset arrangements have been negotiated with Boeing and the potential engine suppliers and against the potential aircraft simulator suppliers. Boeing has already placed offset work worth over $150m against previous purchases, and I expect that the company will continue its mutually beneficial relationship with Australian industry in relation to future offset work. An announcement will be made by the Government when the final details of these arrangements have been agreed and when the purchase by Qantas has finally been agreed. There have been no suggestions, either from the Government or by Boeing, that such work as suggested in Senator Chipp's question in relation to the cruise missile could be available as offsets , and there will be no suggestion of that kind from the Government. Senator ROBERTSON —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of a rumour being floated by some members of the Opposition that, under the new pensions assets test, pensioners will not be able to sell shares they own because that would be regarded as deprivation and that the value of shares will continue to be maintained in assessing pension eligibility? Can the Minister comment on the truth or otherwise of this rumour? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen such reports and they are completely untrue. Any such interpretation of the deprivation provisions of the present legislation or any future legislation is untrue and alarmist. The deprivation provisions of the legislation are designed to prevent circumvention of the means test by people giving away their assets. They will apply only in cases where assets are given away without adequate consideration in return. Where shares are sold on the market there will be no question of adequate consideration. The sale proceeds can, of course, be used for any investments or expenditures that the pensioner desires without any question of deprivation arising. Such fearmongering and deliberate misinterpretation of what in fact is in the legislation now, and what may be in the legislation in the future, is without any justification and I think should be deplored by members on both sides of this chamber. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I refer the Attorney-General to his statement of 28 October in which he said that he read: . . . those portions of the transcript directly involving Mr Jackson . . . in order to confirm for myself the accuracy of the advice I had been given that no conclusive evidence of criminal behaviour appeared and that in particular no Federal offence of any kind appeared to be involved. I refer also to his answer to Senator Chaney today that he read those particular passages with considerable care. I ask: Did that transcript reveal that the conversation between the former Minister, Mr Jackson, and the intermediary, Mr Keith Harris, was about the prospective release of prisoners? Did not Press reporting of Mr Jackson's answer in the New South Wales Parliament reveal that Mr Jackson claimed that the discussions took place after the release of the prisoners? Why did the Attorney fail to take any action about this major discrepancy which must have been obvious from his reading of the media reports? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did read with care the content of the transcripts as they affected Mr Jackson, as I said earlier. I did not take particular note of the dates in question but certainly the gist and substance of them was clear enough to me. What I did not read with equal care, and I readily concede it, was the terms of the Press reports of Mr Jackson's statement in the New South Wales Parliament which, had I done so, would no doubt have triggered the particular impression to which Senator Sir John Carrick adverts, namely, that an element of inconsistency was involved. I make no apology for not having read either the Hansard of the New South Wales Parliament or, with any particular care, the Press reports. It was in the middle of a parliamentary week. There were 200 or 300 other things happening simultaneously. The matter was out of the Federal Parliament's and Federal Government's hands. So far as we were concerned it was wholly a matter for the New South Wales Government which is where it now remains . It was not until I read the newspaper reports of Mr Jackson's resignation, which I confess I did read with rather more care, that I appreciated that there had been an inconsistency involved and that it would have been possible for me to have picked it up a few days earlier. I simply state that I am not in the habit of misleading Senator Sir John Carrick or anyone else in the Parliament. That is a simple and accurate statement of the truth of the matter. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand the Attorney to have said in his answer that upon the reading of those sections he understood them to relate to the prospective release of prisoners? I understood that to be the case from his answer today. Do I also understand him to say that he did not read any of the day to day reports of Mr Jackson's statement to the Parliament which were major news in every newspaper and in every media of the land in which he said that he did not have this conversation with Mr Harris until some three weeks afterwards? Are we to understand from what the Attorney said today that so little did he regard this situation that he did not follow a matter which had been critically his to study and to adjudicate upon? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Sir John Carrick can understand whatever he likes from what I said. What I said stands and stands unamended further by me. What he may well understand is that the way in which I have acted in this whole matter has been rather more cautious and rather more responsible than the way in which his coalition colleague Mr Sinclair has acted. He behaved in a manifestly disgraceful fashion in his desire to extract tendentious party political capital out of matters in respect of which he should know a darn sight better. Mr Sinclair is caught in the quite extraordinary situation of claiming that major bribe offers were made to him two or three years ago, which now turn out to be so lacking in substance that when pressed to give details about them by the New South Wales police he is forced to retreat in ignominious fashion, and conceding that there was nothing of substance whatsoever in the transactions in question. My behaviour and that of the Government has been cautious, careful, and absolutely impeccable in this matter. We have nothing to apologise for and nor will we apologise for the tendentious nonsense which comes from the other side. Senator PRIMMER —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Finance aware of allegations made in this chamber concerning the false medical retirement of Sir Nicholas Parkinson, aided and abetted by Mr Peter Henderson, head of the Department of Foreign Affairs? Were medical reports rigged to the effect that Sir Nicholas was unfit to do any work whatsoever, thereby costing the taxpayer an extra half a million dollars? In the 1983 Who's Who are Sir Nicholas's recreations listed as tennis and walnut farming? Is it a fact that Sir Nicholas is a director of the Sears Roebuck company of Chicago, a position involving frequent overseas travel and a salary of over $30,000 per year? Will the Minister conduct an investigation into these matters and report back to the Parliament? Senator WALSH —The first part of the question Senator Primmer asked was whether I was aware of the allegations. I am aware of them, although in a peripheral way. I did not know that Mr Parkinson was listed in Who's Who, although I suppose if I contemplated it for a while I may have assumed that he would be. I certainly did not know that his hobbies were listed as tennis and walnut farming. I am not able to give details of the other matters more specifically relating to Finance which are embraced by Senator Primmer's question, but I will refer them to the Minister and supply the answer to Senator Primmer and the Senate as soon as I am able. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the explanation which he has already given today that he has read only a small number-five, six or seven pages-of transcripts relating to the former Minister in New South Wales, and that these were culled from about 700 pages compiled from telephone intercepts. What steps did the Attorney-General take to satisfy himself that this selection was an adequate base for his statement to the Senate on 12 October? He said: I have also seen the transcripts of the tapes in question which set the initial hares running. So I am not relying solely on second hand information from police commissioners or anyone else in the answer I now give. He further said that the matters involved: . . . do not in any way, shape or fashion raise questions of possible breaches of Commonwealth law. In those circumstances, I repeat: What steps did the Attorney-General take to satisfy himself that the selection was adequate to enable him to make those very positive statements on 12 October? Senator GARETH EVANS —I congratulate Senator Rae on his persistence but I am afraid he is not going to crack too many walnuts with that approach. To repeat, the truth of the matter is simply this: After discussions with the Special Minister of State I sought a full briefing from the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and his senior officers, and that briefing was conducted in the office of the Special Minister of State. It took the form of a very substantial oral briefing lasting some 30 or 40 minutes, going through the various matters in issue and considering the nature of the material that in fact was available to the Federal Police. In the course of that I said that I would like to see the actual text of the matters in issue. It may be recalled that on one earlier occasion of some notoriety when I did not seek to see the actual text of a transcript in question I was pasted in various quarters for my dilatoriness and lack of enthusiasm in not so requesting. So on this occasion I thought it would be appropriate for me to see the actual text of the particular pages which had triggered the kind of concern expressed by the Commissioner and which was the subject of his communications to the Police Commissioner in New South Wales. So after half an hour or so, towards the end of the oral briefing, the material arrived. It was borne by a courier from the Federal Police office. It consisted of a very substantial folder of material-in fact, I think two folders-containing, as I have indicated, of the order of 700 pages. A number of passages were already flagged with bits of, I think, yellow paper, so I went through those particular passages in consultation and discussion with the Commissioner, asking in particular for my attention to be drawn to those flagged pages and those parts of the passages in question which had given rise to the particular concern and which had led to the Commissioner drawing the matter to the attention of the New South Wales Police Commissioner. Senator Chaney —What diligence! Senator GARETH EVANS —It was incredible diligence, and had the honourable senator and his lot demonstrated a quarter of that diligence when they were in office and confronted with any evidence at all of misbehaviour or criminality, they may perhaps still be sitting on this side of the chamber. He and his predecessors found themselves incapable even of reading communications from their own Commissioner of Taxation which were directed personally to them. So, Mr Deputy President, I can say very little more than that. As to the larger question of whether there was any element of Federal offences involved in this mass of 700 pages-other than in the context of the particular flagged yellow slipped pages to which I have referred-I asked specifically whether any other passages contained any ambiguity possibly involving a federal element. I was advised by the Police Commissioner that there did not appear to be anything satisfying that description, so under those circumstances I felt thoroughly entitled to make the statement to the Senate which I did on that occasion and which I have quite cheerfully repeated today. Senator PETER RAE —I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the admission now made by the Attorney-General that he was advised by the Police Commissioner that there were no further matters involving possible breaches of Commonwealth law, in view of his answer to Senator Durack that a careful review of the evidence and information was undertaken, but not by him, and in view of his answer 'So I am not relying solely on second hand information from police commissioners or anyone else in the answer I now give' and 'I have looked very carefully at this aspect to satisfy myself personally that that is so, and I am satisfied', will he now admit that he misled the Senate on 12 October? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will not admit anything of the kind because to make such an admission would amount to pathological incompatibility with the truth. The truth of the matter is as I described it last time round. To the extent that I said that there had been some further review of the material, in answer I think to Senator Durack, that was in the context of Mr Bob Bottom's allegations, which dealt, as Senator Rae would know if he had read the newspapers, not with the immediate subject matter of the early release system but another matter altogether allegedly involving a magistrate and people with charges outstanding against them. It was in the light of Mr Bottom's allegations, which appear on their face to have about as much substance as Mr Sinclair's, that I asked Mr Beazley, with his senior police officers, to check the material in question to see whether there was any foundation for those allegations. It was in the light of that review that I answered Senator Durack earlier today. There is absolutely nothing for me to change about the substance of my earlier answer. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It refers to the recent Press reports that General Motors-Holden's Ltd is largely converting to robots as part of its general restructuring and rationalisation program. Has the Minister been given any indication by GMH of the rate at which these robots will be introduced on to the assembly lines? What would be the likely consequences in terms of employment, particularly for those workers whose functions are expected to be rendered obsolete? Will the subject of automation and its ramifications be specifically considered by the Car Industry Council? Senator BUTTON —In a statement issued two or three weeks ago following the closure of the Acacia Ridge plant of General Motors-Holden's, the company indicated that it intended to rationalise its activities geographically into locations at Elizabeth in South Australia, Dandenong and Fishermens Bend in Victoria. At the same time the company indicated that it would be embarking on a considerable investment program at those plants, in the order of, I think $350m. I have received no information from the company. Indeed, in information which I have received there was no mention of investment in robots. I think Senator Foreman will be aware that on the assembly lines of most car plants in Australia now there are areas where robots are in operation, particularly in the areas involving heavy spot welding and welding underneath the chassis of the vehicle. I have gleaned from other car manufacturers that although they feel that that particular use of robots is worthwhile and useful, they do not wish to proceed further with the introduction of robotic on the assembly line on a simple cost- benefit basis. I do not believe General Motors has any plans to go beyond that. Nothing specific has been said to me on that score. Senator Foreman asked: If robots are introduced what arrangements will there be for the workers who will be displaced? I think the greatest danger to workers employed by General Motors-Holden's in respect of being displaced is the continued or apparent continued non-viability of the company in an economic sense. General Motors has lost $250m in Australia in the last 2 1/2 years. It is of the utmost concern to all who are desirous that that company remain operative in Australia that that trend be reversed. I believe the company has now taken steps to ensure that that happens. That is the great threat to employment by General Motors. I was asked whether these questions will be addressed by the Car Industry Council. They are being so addressed. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. It relates to those five pages or whatever of the transcript which were actually read by the Attorney-General. Did that transcript reveal that the conversation between the former Minister, Mr Jackson, and the intermediary, Mr Keith Harris, was about the prospective release of prisoners? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure that my recollection is sufficiently precise to be able to answer without equivocation. I certainly believe there was some discussion about prisoners which I believe in retrospect was probably about the Bathurst prisoners-having read the subsequent Press reports-although that assumed no particular significance in my reading of the transcript at the time. The question in issue was not whether the matter being discussed was prospective or retrospective. The matter in issue was whether the substance of the conversation was such as to take it out of the realm of an ordinary discussion by a Minister on a matter related to his portfolio and into the realm of something that had a suspicion of criminality or corruption about it. The language of that conversation-that on which I focused and what everybody was focusing on-was, in my view, quite ambiguous in that respect. It is that which led me to say to the Senate, with Commissioner Abbott, that the substance of the material was inconclusive but suggestive of further lines of inquiry. So that was what I was looking at on that occasion. I was not taking any particularly close notice of the immediate circumstances, the nature of the prisoners in question, the nature of the gaol they are in and the date of their release. What I was looking at and focusing on those few pages and what everyone else was and no doubt will continue to be looking at was whether or not the language in which that matter was discussed was itself suggestive of anything more than just a routine discussion about an ordinary portfolio matter. I hope I have made myself clear. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Attorney: In view of his new uncertainty in this matter, will he check the transcript and let us have a more definite reply? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Mr Sinclair endeavours to give a more definitive reply about his recollections of the past, I would be only too happy. Of course, I will only be too happy to assist the honourable senator to the extent that I can , but he will need to appreciate, as will other honourable senators, that there are matters of high confidentiality involved in the transcripts in question and it may not be appropriate to put on the public record matters of great detail in this respect. Senator COOK —Is the Attorney-General aware that the Tobacco Advertising Bill was defeated recently by the Opposition in the Legislative Council of the Western Australian Parliament? Is the Attorney also aware that 15 members of the Legislative Council who voted for the Government's legislation represent 396,812 electors or 53.1 per cent of the electorate and the 17 members of the Legislative Council who defeated the legislation represent 305,356 electors or 40.9 per cent of the electorate? Does he agree that where 40.9 per cent of the electorate prevails over 53.1 per cent of the electorate it cannot be said that democracy applies? If he agrees, is there anything the Commonwealth Government can do to ensure democracy in Western Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is manifest-- Senator Chaney —Remember that you are a federalist, Attorney. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is manifest that democracy in the upper House of the Western Australian Parliament leaves much to be desired, and that has long been the case. It has been one of the more notorious and conspicuous gerrymanders in the history of this country, rivalled only by that initiated by Premier Gair in Queensland and, of course, perpetuated by his successors for generations thereafter. Senator Chaney —What party did he belong to? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am well aware of the party to which he belonged. But some people are capable of redemption and reform, Senator Chaney, unlike the Bourbons who occupy the other side of the chamber. As to whether or not the Commonwealth may be able to do something in relation to conspicuous anti- democratic gerrymanders of the kind in question, Senator Chaney is right to remind me that there are fundamental issues of federalism here involved and, indeed, quite fundamental questions of constitutional law. It may be that Australia's participation in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which contains a guarantee, among other things, of equal voting rights, will be sufficient to found a provision in a Bill of Rights or elsewhere which would enable Commonwealth guarantees of equality to override the legislative inequality which exists in an entrenched fashion in Western Australia and, indeed, elsewhere. On the other hand, as I have said to this chamber on previous occasions, there are not only policy difficulties involved in seeking to act in an area as close to the administration of government as the parliamentary and government system itself of a State, but also there are constitutional questions as to whether or not there may not be some implied immunity from the operation of Commonwealth law in this respect. I suspect that this is a matter which will have to await testing in the courts before anyone can give a definitive answer of the kind sought by Senator Cook. Senator MACKLIN —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Finance seen an article in the Launceston Examiner of 27 October in which the Tasmanian Minister for National Parks and Recreational Lands is reported as saying that the Federal Government must accept the blame for any catastrophe in the South West this summer? What steps will the Commonwealth take to rectify the apparent breakdown in negotiations between itself and the Tasmanian Government to ensure that a fully comprehensive fire fighting service is provided to protect the natural environment and the thousands of people who will visit the wild river area during the fast approaching summer months? Senator WALSH —I am not aware of the specific report in the Launceston Examiner but I know something about the issue. I may be able to provide more definitive information later. In summary, the background story is that the Prime Minister wrote to the Tasmanian Premier, I think on 31 August, suggesting that rangers be provided on a joint funding basis for the park area for the coming summer and, presumably, beyond. The Tasmanian Premier did not reply until, I believe, 13 October. In that reply he added a number of additional functions to those which the Prime Minister had already suggested. He also suggested-demanded might be a more accurate term-that the Commonwealth alone fund this proposal. I understand that discussions have taken place between officials as to the scope of the rangers' activities and the funding arrangements and that the Prime Minister intends to take up this matter again very shortly with the Tasmanian Premier, or he may have already done so. I will approach the Prime Minister to see whether anything I have said needs to be clarified or added to. Senator JONES —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of a statement by the Premier of Queensland that the State Government will approve a lease to mine French controlled uranium deposits at Ben Lomond in North Queensland? Is he further aware that the company involved, Minatome Australia Pty Ltd, is 100 per cent owned by the French Government? Will the Federal Government refuse to grant an export licence for Ben Lomond uranium in view of France's continued testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific area despite the protests of Pacific nations? Senator WALSH —I have been told that the Queensland Premier has made a statement along the lines indicated by Senator Jones. I understand that, in fact, a mining lease has already been granted to Minatome by the Queensland Government and that , at one stage, there was an application for a further leased area on which it was proposed that, at some time, a plant may be located. I do not know whether that lease has been granted. The Commonwealth has not been consulted by the Queensland Government on this matter. Some people might find it ironic that a company like Minatome, which is 100 per cent foreign owned, substantially by the French Government, is to be encouraged by the free enterprise Government of Queensland to establish a uranium mine, particularly when that company has not yet complied with Commonwealth law, at least on environmental controls. Nor, indeed, has it complied with the foreign investment requirements of either the previous Government or the present Government, both of which are that uranium miners in Australia must have 75 per cent Australian equity. The company is at this stage, of course, a completely foreign owned company and evidently owned by a foreign government at that. The Commonwealth has not been approached on these matters. Certainly the company, irrespective of all other considerations, has not met the foreign investment requirements of the present Government or the stated foreign investment requirements of the previous Government. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Do tape recordings of telephone conversations monitored in the course of an Australian Federal Police drug investigation show that criminals involved in drug trafficking were tipped off that the investigation was in progress and that their telephones were bugged? What action has been taken to apprehend the person or persons who tipped off these criminals? Will the Attorney-General now ask the Special Minister for State to instruct Federal Police to concentrate on tracking the source of this serious leak? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge of the particular matter to which Senator Reid referred, about someone being tipped off about the course of those investigations, but I will make some further inquiries of the Special Minister of State and see what further information I can give her. As to the apparent leaking of at least some information about the content of those tapes-I am not talking about Mr Bottom because that matter does not seem to bear any resemblance to any known reality, at least of which I am aware, but rather about some of the material that found its way into the National Times-it is evident that there has been some leaking involved. I am told that in that respect the Australian Federal Police internal investigation division is conducting an investigation to see whether the source can be traced. Again, if and when any further information comes to hand that might assist the honourable senator, I will convey it to her. Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister for Social Security seen remarks by the Federal member for the electorate of Darling Downs urging that the unemployed be 'brought to heel' by being issued with identity cards and that they receive the unemployment benefit only if they work? Is the Minister in favour of issuing identity cards for this most unfortunate section of our society who cannot find work? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have seen the article in today's Daily Telegraph by Mr McVeigh, a former Minister in the previous Government, speaking at the National Party conference, in which he said, as Senator Colston states, that the unemployed should be brought to heel and should be issued with identity cards, and that the National Party should have a bit of guts and vote for a form of national service for the unemployed. I think it is worth while noting that there is, as in so many other areas, considerable confusion amongst the parties opposite as to just what should be done about identity cards and such things as social security cards. Some members , such as Mr McVeigh, of course advocate that the unemployed, pensioners and other disadvantaged people in the community be issued with identity cards because they are unemployed or are pensioners-in other words disadvantaged-and that they be particularly singled out in this regard whereas the rest of the community need not be bothered by such things. Of course at various times people such as the former discredited Prime Minister , the present shadow Minister for Health and others have said that the issuing of identity cards in, say, the Medicare system was in fact a reversion to some sort of nazi system and was bringing Australia to the system that operated in nazi Germany. I know that many times people in this community have advocated the issuing of identity cards or social security numbers, as the people have for instance in the United States of America, where everyone from the President down to the latest new-born child has a social security number. Senator Walters —Are the unemployed included? Senator GRIMES —They do not, Senator Walters-I had better not make the remark I was going to make-single out just the disadvantaged and the unemployed in this regard, nor do they, as Mr McVeigh would like, want to bring them to heel. Incidentally, the issuing of social security numbers to everyone in the United States does not cut down on the number of social security frauds in a way that some members of the National Party in this country seem to think it will. The sad thing about Mr McVeigh is that of course he was a supporter of the previous Government and indeed a Minister of the previous Government. There is no record of his advocating such an action when he was a member of the Government. Of course he would not do so because he would know that this community would not tolerate such discriminatory behaviour against people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. It is typical of the sorts of remarks of people such as Mr McVeigh that they will do this in opposition, that they will try to stir up in the community feelings against those who are disadvantaged. This Government has no intention of carrying out Mr McVeigh's suggestion any more than the previous Government did. I hope that Mr McVeigh can be more constructive in the future, although I remember that, as a Minister, he never set much of an example in being constructive. Senator MARTIN —Is the Attorney-General in a position to advise whether his much delayed, greatly watered down national crime authority is any closer to seeing the light of day? Does he believe that this new body can accurately be described , and I quote him, as 'an ongoing inquisitorial process, with wide-ranging investigative powers', qualities which he said in a Press statement of 27 October last year were necessary? Will the crimes authority be of service in investigating the allegations which are bedevilling the New South Wales justice system and which seem quite beyond the wit or will of the State Government to resolve? Senator GARETH EVANS —Discussion on the National Crimes Authority Bill is proceeding within the Labor Caucus. Debate on it, I advise the honourable senator, commenced this morning but we ran out of time. We will conclude that debate at the next meeting of the Parliamentary Labor Party and I imagine that, following that, it may be possible to make some announcement as to the future of that legislation and at that time to give the honourable senator the details she seeks. I do not think it is appropriate to go into any further detail at this stage, except to say that a concept of a crime authority necessarily involves a capacity to engage in some kinds of exploratory investigation that are not available to existing police forces. That, indeed, is the very rationale of such a body. It may only be by the exercise of functions in that way that particular kinds of crime can be caught up with. In an endeavour to answer the last part of the honourable senator's question, whether the body will be of any utility in dealing with matters of the kind that have come to public notice in recent weeks, let me state that that will be a matter essentially for that body and the participating governments to decide. It would certainly, as I envisage it, have a charter broad enough to encompass various kinds of organised crime and allegations, in appropriate circumstances, of official corruption but, as with any body of this kind, whether it engaged in such an investigation would be a matter for its particular terms of references and whether the governments participating in its establishment were in fact prepared to give it appropriate terms of references. In that respect, the situation is no different from that which prevails under existing royal commissions and other forms of investigation. But if the honourable senator curbs her impatience in this respect, all will be revealed shortly. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of a letter supporting the proposed pensioner assets test from Sir Gordon Freeth, a Former Government Minister, and a member of the Liberal Party, published in the West Australian newspaper on Monday, 31 October? Does this letter indicate that the Opposition is in a state of confusion and disorder in its attitude to the proposed assets test? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did read yesterday's West Australian and the very good letter by Sir Gordon Freeth, who, as Senator Sibraa says, supports the concept of an assets test, as one would expect from a person who was a distinguished Minister of the Crown in this country for 11 years, a former ambassador and high commissioner. The interesting thing, of course, is that Sir Gordon Freeth's letter was in reply to a letter by another former Minister of the Crown, one Willian Charles Wentworth, who during his time as Minister for Social Security administered a means test which included assets but who when he retired from Parliament suddenly became a convert to the complete abolition of the means test , which may have something to do with the amount he retired on. Sir Gordon Freeth's letter, amongst other things, said: I would have thought that taking money by taxes from those who earned it, to give to those who don't need it, was a direct contradiction of basic Liberal philosophy. I have news for Sir Gordon Freeth. In recent years it has been very basic Liberal philosophy that money should be taken from those who do need it and given to those who do not need it. But I find one of his final comments very interesting. He says: I am surprised that Mr Peacock has opted to remove the means test on assets which the Labor Party has restored. He is a bit mistaken; we will restore it- Having let Labor get him off the hook, he should be devising more sensible ways of either reducing taxation or spending taxpayers' funds. What Sir Gordon Freeth is saying is what many other people are saying. We have the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, and for that matter the Opposition spokesman on social security, Senator Messner, saying in both chambers of this Parliament: 'The Opposition has no comprehensive retirement policy. However, it will develop one over the next couple of years'. Senator Messner then moves to have a Senate committee set up to do that work for him. As Sir Gordon Freeth says, the Opposition really should be looking at the information available and at the rational changes that are being made now and considering how to improve them rather than acting in a nit-picking manner of a nark party saying that it will oppose everything that is introduced by the present Government. I welcome Sir Gordon Freeth's support and the support of many other sensible people in the community. Senator WALTERS —My question, which is in two parts, is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's great concern regarding the alleged double dipping by pensioners and the need to introduce an assets test to overcome this alleged position, can the Minister say , first, whether the parliamentary salary paid to the Prime Minister at the time when he was receiving payments for political speaking engagements was double dipping in a very organised way at the taxpayers' expense? Secondly, is the Prime Minister remaining consistent with his previous policy by accepting payment as a bit part actor in the recent Medicare advertisement? Senator BUTTON —I have not consulted with the Prime Minister about his performance in what Senator Walters deigned to describe as a bit part in a Medicare advertisement. I have no doubt that it will be successful. If the Prime Minister were paid on the basis of talent he would receive an enormous salary. But I am able to say that the Prime Minister has received-- Senator Peter Rae —Do you mean that the Prime Minister is a good actor? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I do. He is an excellent performer. Of course, the Prime Minister is an excellent performer in all these things because he is totally relaxed in his performance. He is not like the Leader of the Opposition, who is at all times concerned with the earnestness of being important in every television performance which he gives. The Prime Minister, on the contrary, is quite relaxed and able to participate in Medicare advertisements and a wide range of other performances on television, confident in the knowledge that he knows what he is doing and what he is about. Insofar as the first part of the question is concerned, I will address that to the Prime Minister. I would not have thought that even Senator Walters would have advocated that the receipt of income from more than one source would be described as double dipping in the context in which she asked the question. But that is something which perhaps Senator Walters ought to sort out, and in the meantime I will refer her question to the Prime Minister. Senator WALSH —I want to add to an answer I gave to a question asked by Senator Chipp. On 20 October Senator Chipp asked a number of questions without notice concerning discussions between Australian and Republic of Korea officials on exports of Australian uranium to Korea. Part of his question referred to a statement by the Chairman of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, Mr Morokoff which, according to Senator Chipp, indicated that the Government had shown support for the uranium industry through the current policy review. The inference in Senator Chipp's question was that the resumption of negotiations between Australia and Korea was part of that support. It is clear from Mr Morokoff's statement that he was, in fact, referring to safeguards and related negotiations, rather than to uranium shipment negotiations. I shall make a copy of Mr Morokoff's statement available to Senator Chipp, or to anyone else who wants it. Senator GIETZELT —On 18 October, Senator Watson asked me a question without notice concerning the Australian National Line and the proposal by the Tasmanian Government to import a passenger ferry for the forthcoming tourist season. The Minister for Transport has provided the following additional information, in response to Senator Watson's question: The statement by the Chairman of ANL was a personal one. I understand that it was intended to draw attention to the need to ensure that the safety and manning standards of the ships which operated in Australia met the requirements of the Navigation Act. I also understand that the Tasmanian Minister has indicated to Mr Morris that the second ferry proposal has been deferred until next year. Senator BUTTON —On 20 October, Senator Haines asked me a series of questions about advertisements which had appeared in the Australian Government Gazette and in the Adelaide Advertiser relating to a selection test for the Commonwealth Public Service in South Australia. I have obtained an answer for Senator Haines to the question which she asked. Because it is somewhat lengthy, I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- I am advised by the Public Service Board that the advertisement which appeared in the Australian Government Gazette on 15 September and subsequently in the Adelaide Advertiser on 1 October related only to the conduct of a selection test in the metropolitan area for the selection of Clerks Class 1. These arrangements are made by the Board's Regional Directors in each State and Territory to suit local circumstances and the advertisement in question was not related to an Australia-wide campaign. The Board further advises that a separate program of tests will be conducted in December to cater for rural areas in South Australia. These tests will be advertised in local papers. All applicants who contacted the office prior to the advertisement of 1 October were advised of the anticipated date of the advertisement for the metropolitan test, the requirement to collect a permit to sit the test and the scheduled program of country tests. Where an applicant is unable to collect a permit on the nominated day there is provision for another person to collect it on their behalf and in some circumstances permits are posted to applicants. Further, as a general policy, candidates with disabilities are tested in small groups during the year and applicants who have a medical problem at the time of the annual campaign are permitted to sit under special testing arrangements. Notwithstanding these points the Board has informed me that it has asked the Regional Director, Adelaide, to review the period nominated for collection of permits to avoid any possible future inconvenience to applicants. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) —I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to make a very brief statement about a matter arising from Question Time. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —Reference was made by Senator Grimes in his answer to a question late in Question Time to the attitudes of the Hon. Bill Wentworth, a previous Minister for Social Security. I wish to place on the record the fact that the attitude of Bill Wentworth to means testing was completely consistent over the whole period that I knew him, which was from the late 1960s through to his retirement and to the present day. Although there had been a mixture of views within the Liberal Party of Australia on that subject over those years, Bill Wentworth has always been stoutly opposed to any form of means testing and, I understand, has always made that position clear with the public. At times he has been a Minister in a government which has not taken that view but, in fairness to him, it should be said that he has been a very strong exponent of there being no means testing. Senator Grimes —Do we have to have personal explanations in the future about everyone who has retired from this Parliament? Senator CHANEY —Bill Wentworth has given distinguished service to Australia and it is fitting that his position be clear on the record. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Kilgariff proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need for an even-handed policy which permits mining and export of uranium from mines in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia in view of the likely approval of the mining and export of uranium from Roxby Downs. 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 KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.13) —The matter of public importance before the Senate states: The need for an even-handed policy which permits mining and export of uranium from mines in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia in view of the likely approval of the mining and export of uranium from Roxby Downs. One wonders on what basis this decision has been made. Is it a decision of logic , or has it been made for some other reason? When one sees the debate that is taking place around Australia, particularly in the media, I suggest that one would wonder where is the logic, where is the principle, where is the policy? Looking at the battle that has taken place within the Australian Labor Party-the Cabinet, the Caucus and the Left-one can only assume that this is a sell-out. It is not a question of policy or logic. It is question of horse-trading to appease the left wing of the Labor Party. One has only to refer to the very many media reports over the last few days. I will refer to only one, that in the Age of today, which states: Federal Cabinet yesterday decided to recommend that South Australia's huge Roxby uranium mine should go ahead-but a short moratorium should be imposed on most new contracts for two existing Northern Territory mines. Cabinet finalised proposals on uranium which will be debated at a special Caucus meeting next Monday. Further down it states that the other side, the left hand side of the Labor Party-surely a party within a party-is preparing a lobby for Caucus in the coming week-next Monday I think it is-and states that the selling point will be: No new negotiating licences or contracts for the sale of uranium be approved, including uranium mined at Nabarlek and Ranger. Contracts with France to be suspended . . . A public inquiry into the proposal to develop Roxby Downs. Where is the honesty of the Government and the Labor Party? They know that the industry and the mining companies involved have been given some sort of assurance-certainly they received a wholehearted assurance from the previous Government-from Ministers within the Government, and Mr Lionel Bowen is an example. Yet now the various companies involved and their shareholders-they are the community of Australia and many of them are small shareholders-must wonder what will happen with Yeelirrie in Western Australia, Jabiluka and Koongarra in the Northern Territory, Honeymoon and Beverley in South Australia and Ben Lomond in Queensland. The companies had prospects which they believed would be completely viable and yet through some peculiar quirk-I call it horse trading- they will be dumped on the garbage tip after having expended many tens of millions of dollars believing that they would contribute to fulfilling the demand for uranium energy, which demand comes from the Third World countries and many other countries that look for the support of Australia. But they will not get it. I suppose one could say that I should welcome the decision to support Roxby Downs. I support that because the project's owners have carried out a complete investigation and it is their judgment that Roxby Downs should go ahead. But other companies have done likewise. It has been said by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, in his answers to the very many questions that have been asked of him regarding the development of uranium-he has quoted from Labor Party policy-that uranium mines will go ahead if there are other minerals in a particular uranium mine. He claims that Roxby will go ahead because perhaps only half of the value of that mine will come from uranium and other minerals will make up the balance. I find this very odd when I look at the Northern Territory, at Jabiluka and the tremendous exploration that has taken place there over the years. I have looked at the work and the investigations that have been carried out and the proven resources that were indicated after many years of investigation. The investion shows that with regard to yellowcake-that is, U308-it can be expected that Jabiluka would produce 207 tonnes at $35 a pound. Therefore the value of uranium coming out of Jabiluka would be $16 billion. That is not all. Jabiluka in its own right can be viable for the mining of gold alone. Let us assume that the price of gold in these days is $400 an ounce. It is anticipated that it will be much higher than that. It has been estimated by one authority that there is $ 500m worth of gold in Jabiluka. The figure may not be $500m, but at least the amount is phenomenal. Yet it has been said that Jabiluka will not go ahead. This has very severe ramifications for the Northern Territory, for very many reasons. I will read from a statement made by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Paul Everingham. It was released in Canberra two days ago. He said: A resolution was passed at the National Party Federal Conference in Canberra over the weekend that should ensure the future of mines such as Jabiluka. I will comment on that in a little while. Mr Everingham want on: It has been a matter of considerable concern to the Northern Territory Government that Jabiluka and Koongarra, which would create hundreds of permanent jobs and thousands of counstruction phase jobs in the Northern Territory, would never get off the ground. The frightening thing is that the ALP can destroy all these jobs just by proclaiming the second stage of Kakadu without making provision for mining. He went on: The Federal Government, by immediately declaring the second stage of Kakadu National Park without excising Jabiluka, would kill the mines. The area involved is very small but the jobs and investment are very large. Proclaiming Kakadu Stage II would enable Roxby Downs in South Australia to go ahead and have the market virtually to itself. The Territory Government has asked the Federal Government to declare only 50 per cent of the second stage of Kakadu National park at once, and declare a Conservation Zone for 12 months over the highly mineralised remainder, as well as excising Jabiluka. Not only is there considerable evidence of further large deposits of high grade uranium ore, but other minerals such as gold and copper in large quantities as well. Jabiluka itself contains about $500 million worth of gold. Any prospect of establishing further mines would be swept away if the second stage of Kakadu is declared in totality. So as to get the message to the Federal Government that we mean business, a motion was proposed and passed at the Annual Conference of the National Party . . . I believe that Senator Collard who is speaking on this matter will refer to that . It is my understanding that when the coalition comes back into power all this will be reversed. It will not be very long before that happens. Considerable damage will have been done in the meantime. The Labor Government is currying favour with its left wing. Honourable senators might have noticed in the media some weeks ago that a Mr Duncan, a left wing member of the South Australian Labor Party in government there, was reported as throwing in his hat with the Government to swing the deal for Roxby Downs to go ahead. It is anticipated, and it has been reported-it will be very interesting to see what Senator Walsh has to say regarding the matter-that the Government will ignore the requests of the Northern Territory for Kakadu II to be made a conservation area, only for a period, so that Australia can have a stocktake of its resources for the future. I speak not only of uranium but also of all the other minerals that will be of benefit to Australia in the years to come. One can only wonder at the Government selling out Jabiluka by immediately declaring Kakadu II. This will ensure that a stocktake cannot be made and that Jabiluka cannot be developed in its own right. Some authorities say that Jabiluka is the world's richest uranium mine, others say that Roxby Downs is. It does not matter who is right as they are both immense mines. One can only surmise that the Government is locking up Kakadu II forever, without determining the quantity of metals in that area, for one purpose-to placate the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. The uranium of the Northern Territory will be locked in and never developed. One wonders just why it is that those members of the Australian Labor Party who call themselves moderate and right wing have to placate members of the left wing, who they are always telling us are in the minority. But are they in the minority? The Cabinet is now preparing the way for Caucus to sell out the Northern Territory and Australia in the next few days. This is despite the fact that polls taken around Australia have clearly indicated that 57 to 60 per cent of Labor Party members are for uranium development. In either Western Australia or Queensland, the figure has even gone as high as 75 per cent. This decision will allow Roxby Downs to go ahead as a compromise, and it will be the last mine allowed to export uranium while the Labor Party is in Government. What about the contracts that have been made between our overseas buyers and Jabiru, Queensland Mines Ltd and the like? The left wing of Caucus is going to endeavour to bring about the cessation of any further uranium development. No more contracts are to be signed and, by degrees, Australia's uranium industry, which is now in its infancy, will be strangled. All of the development taking place in the north will be strangled by the Labor Party. Senator Jessop —It is helping South Africa corner the market. Senator KILGARIFF —That is quite true. That is a very interesting remark. That seems rather strange when one sees the announcements that the Labor Party has made on other matters relating to South Africa in the last few days. Of course, Senator Jessop could have gone even further. He could have looked at the huge deposits of uranium in the Soviet Union. While Australia has 17 to 20 per cent of the world's uranium resources, the Soviet Union probably has up to 30 to 35 per cent. Will the action that the Labor Party is taking in Australia now affect any other producer of uranium? Certainly, it will have a vast effect on Australia, but will it have any effect on any other producer in the world, including the Soviet Union? Does the Government intend to say to the Soviet Union: 'Look what we are doing in Australia. I suppose you will now go along with us and reduce your production too'? I suspect the left wing of the ALP and its motives. I am sure that most Australians do. Yet we have a ridiculous situation in which a minority group in Australia can not only bring ruin to the uranium industry of Australia but also put the name of Australia, as far as our purchasers are concerned, in poor faith . Many countries in the world look to Australia for energy. They look to sharing in Australia's vast uranium reserves in the years to come-in the 1990s and in the year 2000. Surely Australia must be looked upon by all people, other than members of the Labor Party, as a warehouse for the world's future energy resources. Those countries which do not have energy should have the right to look forward to sharing in Australia's uranium in the future so that in the years to come those countries which wish to purchase Australian uranium know they have a solid foundation on which to build their future energy requirements. But that will not occur under the present circumstances. The Party which is presently in government in Australia has a Caucus which has been split apart by a Minister who does not want to participate in Cabinet solidarity. He conveniently dodges for the day the debate on uranium so that he can go into Caucus and say that he is not bound-- Senator Georges —Who are you talking about? Senator KILGARIFF —I am talking about the media report of Mr Tom Uren. Senator Georges —He is not a member of the Cabinet. Senator KILGARIFF —He is a Minister. He is dodging the issue. He will go into Caucus not representing the solidarity of Ministers. In conclusion, I state that a most incredible situation has been brought about. There is no principle and no rhyme or reason for what is happening now; it is straight out horse trading-the selling of Australia, including the Northern Territory, just to placate the left wing of the Labor Party. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.34) —At first glance one might have thought that the debate which has just been opened by Senator Kilgariff was a tedious repetition of the weekly debate, barring non- sitting weeks, that we have had on this subject for the last two months. This is the fifth or sixth debate which has been conducted on essentially the same subject. At second glance it became quite clear that the debate is a puerile stunt designed to attract some support for the discredited Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in the impending territorial election. Insofar as there is any coherent thread to the argument which Senator Kilgariff has presented, it appears to be that market forces alone ought to determine what uranium mines are developed in Australia and that there should be no government interference, direction or planning whatsoever. That is an extraordinary proposition. It is extraordinary, firstly, because it was the Fraser Government, the Liberal Government, which closed down sand mining on Fraser Island. Secondly, a Minister in the Fraser Government-indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister-last year rejected an application for a contract from Pancontinental Mining Ltd for Jabiluka, the very potential mine which Senator Kilgariff principally addressed his remarks to. Last December the then Deputy Prime Minister rejected that draft contract proposed for Jabiluka because the pricing arrangements were not satisfactory. So I find it extraordinary, even on those two grounds, that Senator Kilgariff should have the chutzpah to stand up and base a 20-minute rambling speech on the proposition that under no circumstances ought governments interfere in the commercial decisions of mining companies and that these should be determined by market forces alone. The position becomes even more remarkable when we extend that proposition. If Senator Kilgariff really believed that-I will be interested to hear Senator Collard's views on this when the time comes-he would, of course, abolish the cane assignment system in Queensland. Queensland law does not prevent somebody from growing cane on an assigned land; it just provides that any cane grown on an assigned land will be acquired by the Sugar Board at $1 a tonne. That is the subterfuge used to enforce the highly restrictive laws applying in Queensland regarding sugar growing, which exclude anybody who does not hold land to which an assignment has been more or less arbitrarily granted by government from growing sugar. Precisely the same principles apply to import quotas, television licences, milk quotas, hen licences and the two airlines policy for which Senator Kilgariff voted in this Parliament less than two years ago. So we can dismiss as pure humbug this philosophical or ethical proposition that governments ought not to interfere in the market place, that governments ought not to discriminate between particular competing producers and make decisions or lay down guidelines which may either enhance the capacity of one potential producer to become a producer or restrict the capacity of some other potential producer to become a producer. I was interested to hear Senator Kilgariff say that he supports Roxby Downs. I will give details of this in a moment. He also supports Ben Lomond, Honeymoon, Beverley Yeelirrie-I am not sure whether he included Lake Way-as well as Koongarra and Jabiluka. All those are potential uranium producers. Senator Kilgariff supports them all. Senator Kilgariff either does not know the facts or he believes in magic, because there is no possibility whatsoever of all of those mines finding markets for a product in the foreseeable future. Until the end of this century there is no prospect, on present indications, for more than one additional mine having its products absorbed by world markets. Senator Kilgariff —On whose authority? Senator WALSH —I will quote some people in a moment. I do not think that even the honourable senators would regard them as opponents of the uranium industry or of the nuclear fuel cycle. They support that assessment. As well, it is the considered judgment of this Government, based on relevant departmental advice and other sources. If Senator Kilgariff's proposition were to be supported-the proposition seems to be that new mines ought to be opened in the Northern Territory-of one thing we can be quite certain: Roxby Downs would be killed stone dead. There is no possibility of Roxby Downs being a viable proposition if its uranium content cannot be marketed. Whether it is viable proposition with its uranium component being marketed is a matter which is yet to be determined. If the schedule is adhered to, it will be determined or at least a decision will be made by the participating companies by the end of next year. But we can be quite certain that if the uranium component of the ore at Roxby Downs cannot be marketed the ore will never be mined because the mine would simply not be viable . Nor would it be viable with any conceivable change in prices for the other metals in that ore body. Senaator Kilgariff made the astounding assertion that the Jabiluka mine would be viable on gold alone. I believe he quoted a figure of $500m as the value of the gold in that ore body, a figure which, from memory, I believe is correct. The capital investment estimated required to bring the mine into production is in the vicinity of $350m in, I think, 1981 dollar terms which could probably be estimated at about $400m today. So among the other fairy stories and manifestations of the belief in magic which Senator Kilgariff has given us today is the belief that a mine which has a total value of product of $500m and a capital investment requirement in the vicinity of $400m is an economically viable proposition. It reminds me of the old days when Poseidon shares hit their peak, when it was calculated that the capitalised market value of the shares at the prices then ruling exceeded the refined value of the in situ nickel reserves in that ore body. Some people, of course, made quite a lot of money out of those shares. Some of them are probably sitting here but not, I believe, on this side of the Senate. But certainly there was no way that that ore body ever justified the price being paid for those shares, any more, of course, than the Jabiluka mine could be developed for its gold content alone. Senator Kilgariff referred to what he claimed was an inconsistency in Australian Labor Party policy vis-a-vis Jabiluka on the one hand and Roxby on the other on the grounds that they were both mixed ore bodies. It is, of course, commonplace-it is, indeed, the norm-for uranium to be found in association with other metals. But there is an enormous quantitative difference between the non- uranium component of the Roxby ore body and the Jabiluka ore body. At present market prices, the non-uranium component of the Jabiluka ore body comprises about 7 per cent of product value. At present prices and under the preliminary mining schedule set down by Roxby Management Services, that is, Western Mining Corporation Ltd and British Petroleum, 60 per cent of the value of product is non-uranium. So the difference between 60 per cent and 7 per cent would, I thought, have been so vast as to get even from Senator Kilgariff an acknowledgement that there was a very important quantitative difference. I said a moment ago that I would demonstrate that the proposition which Senator Kilgariff seems to be putting forward, to the extent that he put foward any coherent proposition at all-that is, that all the potential mines ought to go ahead-is untenable. The fact is that the existing contracts and delivery schedules for the chief producer-the Ranger mine-allow present levels of output to be maintained until about 1990. In other words, to maintain the present level of output, there is little, if any, need for additional contracts to be written for that mine. Ranger has a quite small stockpile. The situation in respect to Nabarlek is somewhat different in that it has a larger stockpile, particularly relative to its annual output, and its current levels of production are somewhat in excess of its contracted delivery schedule for the next five or six years. The best expectations of market demand for Australian uranium are that before the end of this decade-and these are the best expectations-it may be possible to market an additional 3,000 tonnes of uranium oxide or yellowcake. That quantity could be supplied by an expansion as was originally planned or provided for at the Ranger mine; there could be a doubling of the output from that mine. So on purely commercial grounds alone, for the rest of this decade and probably somewhat into the 1990s there is no need for any additional mine to begin producing in Australia. Senator Chaney —Why do all these people want to invest their money in new mines, then? Senator WALSH —Well, who does? Roxby Management Services has made a decision to spend quite a lot of money admittedly-in the vicintity of $1m a week I believe right now-in determining the economic viability of the Roxby Downs or the Olympic Dam deposits. But for the rest of this decade and probably somewhat into the next, a doubling of the capacity of the existing large producer would fulfil the likely commercial demand for Australian uranium. In the next decade, and particularly towards the end of the next decade, there could be room in the market-place for a further 3,000 tonnes or possibly a bit more. It just so happens that that neatly fits in with the potential production from the Roxby Downs mine should the joint venturers decide to go ahead. It has been suggested by some people, although Senator Kilgariff did not suggest it today, that instead of doubling the capacity of Ranger, an additional mine ought to be opened in the Northern Territory-that is, Jabiluka. The capital cost of producing the same quantity of yellowcake through investment in Jabiluka is in the vicinity of $350m or, updated into present dollar terms, probably $ 400m. The capital cost of doing the same thing at Ranger is less than $100m. So it ought to be noted and put on record that those who advance that proposition are actually advocating a misallocation of investment funds-that is, they are advocating an investment of $400m to do the same job that could be done for a $ 100m investment. It is that sort of thinking or practice which, of course, has led to the dismal economic performance of the Australian economy over very many years-indeed over several decades. But that is the argument which some people put forward. I do not know whether Senator Kilgariff indicated that he agreed with it or not. I would be grateful to know whether he agrees that $400m ought to be invested to produce the same output that $100m invested somewhere else would produce. Senator Kilgariff —Will they be allowed to do it? Senator WALSH —Would who be allowed to do it? Senator Kilgariff —Jabiru. Senator WALSH —What does the honourable senator mean by Jabiru? There is no mine called Jabiru. There is a township called Jabiru. I would have thought that any citizen of the Northern Territory, let alone somebody who purports to represent it in this Parliament, would have known that. But the real point-and I will be particularly interested to hear Senator Hill's views on this-since it is quite clear that Jabiluka and Roxby are competitors and, indeed, are probably mutually exclusive, is that if a decision is made to allow an alternative mine to fill that slot which is likely to appear in the market at some time in the future for uranium, there is absolutely no chance on purely commercial grounds of the Roxby Downs project going ahead. That is not just killing a uranium mine with the capacity under the preliminary production plan to produce 3,000 tonnes of yellowcake a year. That is killing a mine which is planned to produce more than 100,000 tonnes of copper and which, according to the extravagant assertions of assorted people in the Liberal Party both in South Australia and in this Parliament, would employ 30,000 people. That is an extravagent assumption-a figure about one-third of that is certainly much closer to the truth and is probably a reasonably accurate estimate. The Opposition has advanced the proposition that the Government ought not get involved in this matter or should perhaps even make a choice in favour of Jabiluka for the sake of maybe a permanent work force of 500 or 600 people as against a permanent work force in excess of 30,000 people. That might be the sort of conclusion which the Opposition regards as being defensible. It is not regarded as defensible by this Government. I promised Senator Kilgariff a moment ago that I would refer him to some sources on the likely commercial demand for uranium, which even he would acknowledge, I believe, could not be regarded as anti-uranium mining or anti-nuclear industry. The 2 September issue of the London mining Journal, an authoritative publication, refers to Mr Tony Grey, of Pancontinental Mining Ltd, no less, who chaired a uranium producers' symposium. The article states: Running through the two-day meeting were five broad themes, best summed up by symposium chairman Tony Grey, of Pancontinental Mining in his closing address. I will read two of those points. They state: 1. The symposium clearly re-affirmed the industry's belief in the merits of nuclear power. Growth potential relies largely on the increasing demand for electricity and this in turn is a factor linked to overall growth of the world economies. There were, however, other potential areas in which use of nuclear electricity could expand. 2. The meeting confirmed the adequacy of known uranium reserves to meet foreseeable future demand. Indeed, the position in the medium term was one of oversupply not shortage, although it was moving towards a balance. That, of course, has been the position with the uranium industry for a considerable time. Stockpiles have been accumulating, mostly because the expansion of the nuclear power industry which had been anticipated by some has not, in fact, taken place. Indeed, the latest revised estimates that I saw indicated a further downward revision in the likely expansion of the nuclear power industry and therefore in the demand for uranium. More importantly, Mr Townsend of the Central Electricity Generating Board of the United Kingdom, a major producer of nuclear power and, therefore, a major consumer of uranium, after outlining a number of scenarios, said: However, in the event of a more widespread redistribution of inventories, increased production from existing facilities and further cancellations and delays to nuclear generating capacity, then additional new production capacity might not be needed until 1995. Certainly, a decision to proceed or to make provision for new production capacity needs to be taken some time before 1995. But if that estimate is taken as being correct and if any mines in the Northern Territory, other than those which now exist, are allowed to be developed, Roxby Downs is finished. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.55) —I am pleased to support Senator Kilgariff' s matter of public importance which states: The need for an even-handed policy which permits mining and export of uranium from mines in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia in view of the likely approval of the mining and export of uranium from Roxby Downs. It is particularly difficult to identify the Labor Government's policy on uranium mining. Certainly, I do not believe it can claim that a policy upon which commercial interests can make decisions is the policy of the Australian Labor Party which one commentator in the Australian Financial Review described as a three and a half page contradictory mishmash of conflicting sentiments and proposals which allow more interpretations than the Bible. I want to concentrate on the Government's lack of a policy on uranium development and export. It is absolutely astonishing that, as uranium is Australia's tenth largest export earner, when the Government is asked what is its policy, it appears that it does not specifically have one. That is embarrassing. How untenable is that for a country that sees itself as a major resource supplier? What we have heard from the Government when mining companies have tried to determine expenditure programs for the future is: 'Wait, we are thinking about it'. That is what has become known as the expedience of deferral. The Government says it is trying to interpret the policy of the last conference, to which I just referred. It then says: 'Once we have interpreted that policy we will have to compromise because our survival depends upon keeping our various factions happy'. We do not know what will come out. But we understand from Minister Hurford last week that it is not a matter upon which the Government is prepared to be stampeded. It is a matter upon which it intends to take its time, no matter how long it takes or the consequences to the commercial interests involved. Now it appears that we are getting closer. We have now, we understand, a recommendation for Caucus. At least, this morning we read part of a recommendation, that is that Roxby Downs can go ahead. Whether the existing mines in the Northern Territory can sell stockpiled product appears to be still in the too-hard basket at the moment. Someone must be sacrificed in the compromise. I remind the Senate that only a few months ago, in May, those very mines were given a licence to continue negotiations and, in fact, to tender to United States power authorities. But as for the proven and not yet developed mines in the Northern Territory, upon which millions have already been spent as Senator Kilgariff mentioned, it appears that they can go the same way as Honeymoon and Beverley in South Australia. I suspect also that they will not be compensated as was the case with Honeymoon and Beverley. I recognise that the uranium fuel cycle raises difficult questions such as the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I dealt with that before when I quoted from the final communique of the first United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. That distinguished the peaceful use of nuclear energy and recognised its legitimacy as a subject separate and distinct from nuclear disarmament. I recognise that there are concerns to health-the health of miners, processors and those within plants. I recognise that it is the responsibility of governments to safeguard the health of those within the industry. I referred previously to that also and quoted from a World Health Organisation report which stated that nuclear power is a safe, viable and necessary alternative to conventional energy sources. I recognise our responsibility in relation to the safeguards regime. I hope that I will have an opportunity to make a constructive comment on that this coming Thursday. I recognise the responsibility to protect the environment and the responsibility to traditional owners of the land. I also recognise the responsibility, I believe, of this country to permit its natural advantages to be utilised on reasonable terms and conditions for the benefit of those less fortunate. I must confess to being very suspicious of pitting our sense of morality against someone else's-the argument that we know what is in your best interest better than you. I recognise also the economic benefit of the industry to Australia in the provision of jobs, the welfare service and the general improvement in the standard of living of Australians which, as we know, has been , at least relatively, declining. They are absolutely legitimate interests and essential subjects for a government to consider in addressing the uranium question. But that has not been happening with this Government. What we have seen, rather, is an attempt to overcome the Australian Labor Party's internal ideological differences. The question it has asked itself is: 'How do we pay off our internal pressure groups?' That is what I object to-the way in which the labor Government has approached this question of uranium mining and export. The miners and developers, our customers, which are friendly states, the would-be investors, the existing and potential work force, all those involved in anciliary and support works and industry have been unable to plan and get on with the job because the Government has been unable present a policy, not because of matters of consequence but because of its own internal wrangles. I remind the Senate that a decade ago the Labor Party favoured uranium development. That was the attitude of the Whitlam Labor Government and it was the attitude of the Labor Government in South Australia which, of course, was also seeking for South Australia a uranium enrichment plant at Port Pirie. Then the idealogues of the Left over a period gained control and forced through the strong anti-uranium policy at the 1977 convention held in Perth. It is now history of course that under the Liberal-National Party coalition the mining of Ranger and Nabarlek went ahead after the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and the implementation of the new and highly commended safeguards regime . It is history also that other deposits were being proved up, such as Yeelirrie in Western Australia and Jabiluka and Koongarra in the Northern Territory. It is history also that the recognition was dawning of the extent and potential of a massive mineralisation in South Australia at Olympic Dam, which is now commonly referred to as Roxby Downs. The pragmatists of the Labor Party could see that by the 1977 policy they were being locked into a politically untenable position. They were obviously concerned at public opinion in relation to such an absolute position. It was electorally undesirable. There was also some concern as to possible compensation for the closing of existing mines. In South Australia at that time the Liberal Government agreed with developers of Roxby Downs and presented an indenture Bill to the Parliament. That of course presented the Labor Opposition with a dilemma. Clearly public opinion wanted the project to go ahead, but the Left of the Labor Party said no. So a compromise- which has become a common word in this debate-was reached. Members of the Opposition said: 'We will not argue against uranium mining. We will argue against the terms of the indenture'. I remind the Senate that the principal argument that was promoted against the indenture was that the parties should wait until all the development was done and then the Government of the day should have an option as to whether the parties could proceed with the mine. I suggest to the Senate that that is an unreal position. It allowed for a delay of a decision in the same way as what has tended to happen to the Federal Government in more recent times. It delayed making difficult decisions. Of course one Labor man realised how farcical and unsatisfactory this was. After 40 years as a member of the Labor Party he crossed the floor, and the indenture Bill was passed. Mr Bannon knew he could not go into a State election with a party policy that opposed Roxby Downs, in the same way that Mr Hayden and Mr Keating knew that they could not go into a Federal election with such a rigid obligation; they must at least be able to confuse the issue. So in Canberra in 1982 the Labor Party agreed to a new policy which was contradictory and ambiguous and which, most importantly, was able to be interpreted by each person as he wished. Mr Bannon was able to go into the State election supporting Roxby Downs, and he did . Mr Hawke was able to give some hope to those in the industry, and he did. Both were successful at the polls. Then the Left again asserted its muscle. In South Australia we saw another compromise. The State Government said that Roxby Downs can go ahead but Honeymoon and Beverly, which represent only one per cent of the uranium of Roxby Downs, cannot go ahead. That is obviously a decision not based on any questions of health, proliferation of nuclear weapons or the like. We saw another compromise federally. The Federal Government said it would allow existing contracts but cancel licences for new contracts. The unreality of this situation soon became apparent. ERA Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd, having stockpiled product, and American electricity authorities being ready to negotiate new contracts, were able to put pressure on the Government and Minister Bowen said: 'Yes, go ahead. You can tender'. Not surprisingly this led to a storm from the Left. The answer from the Government was: 'Retreat'. It informed ERA and Queensland Mines that they could tender but that they might not be able to export the uranium if their tenders were successful. What an untenable position for a company to be in. The Government said: 'We will review our policy'. We heard first that this review would be completed in July, then in September or October. Now we are in November. Again, what is the purpose of the delay? Its purpose is to put the problem off. Internally, we then saw the Government attempt to pass the problem off to Caucus and its industry committee. I note that a couple of members who played a prominent role are present here today. That meeting sensibly refused the matter back to Cabinet. It is Cabinet's responsibility to take to the Caucus a decision. That is exactly what Cabinet did not want to do-to make a decision. In the meantime the question of the feasibility of Roxby Downs continued to grow. Evidence mounted as to its massive size. Estimates that it might support a mine for anything up to 200 years were made, and again this led to a storm from the Left. It asked: How can we say we are phasing down our uranium industry towards its discontinuance under one clause of the party policy if we are supporting what would potentially be the development of the world's largest uranium mine under another? It was made more difficult in that in the meantime Premier Bannon had approved the environmental impact study on Roxby. So panic again set in in the Hawke Government. The inner echelon found an answer. Notwithstanding the five inter-governmental reports that were before it, it said : 'We will recommend that we go back to Caucus and say we want a further inquiry into Roxby'. We understand that immediately the Left was elated, at least for a short time. We are told that the Right was shattered. We understand that Senator Richardson particularly was shattered by that decision. It seems clear that the decision was deliberately leaked. Even Labor cabinets do not leak to that extent. Therefore it was leaked either to test the water or in anticipation that there would be such a storm from the developers, the Bannon Government, et cetera that the Government could go back to the Left and say: ' Look, it is really not on'. That was what happened. It was even better than anticipated because Peter Duncan, the former South Australian Attorney-General and leader of the party's left wing, decided that it was lonely on the back benches and, to quote him, the process of democracy had been gone through; therefore the battle against Roxby Downs had been lost and it should go ahead. With the desertion of the parliamentary leader of the Left in South Australia the Federal Cabinet was now able to go back to Caucus and say: 'Yes, an inquiry is not really on'. It never was. The pragmatists in Cabinet know that Roxby is too far down the line. They know that the other mineralisation is too massive to remain in the ground and they know that they would lose all credibility in the international resources scene if they refused its development. They know that Mr Hawke would lose so much face after his announcement to the Business Council of Australia a week or two ago, and they know that that would be the end of the Bannon Government. So it was never really on. In conclusion, I wish to say that the performance of this Government with regard to its uranium policy has been pitiful. It has been a pitiful debacle. It has been an international embarrassment. It has proven that in difficult areas where the ideological Left has a vexed interest the Government is not its own master. All signs indicate that when it is forced to make a decision that decision will be based purely on the instinct of internal survival. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.10) —I rise to join the Government in rejecting the matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Kilgariff for discussion in the Senate this afternoon, namely: The need for an even-handed policy which permits mining and export of uranium from mines in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia in view of the likely approval of the mining and export of uranium from Roxby Downs. The essence of the matter of public importance is that the Australian Labor Party should adopt an even-handed policy in relation to the development-if there is to be development of the uranium industry-of that great natural resource which is found in various places, some more abundantly than others, throughout Australia. One needs to ask by contrast what sort of policy was indulged in or was advocated by the Liberal and National parties when they were in government. Of course, far from there being an even-handed policy, we had what one might call a washed hands policy. They washed their hands of the very real problems and difficulties which confront any reasonable person in assessing whether this particular type of industry ought to be encouraged. They washed their hands at the most senior and national levels of their parties which, of course, back the parliamentary members who sit on the benches opposite this afternoon. They probably sit opposite this afternoon because there was never any conviction that those parties had any sort of policy with which to confront the development of this industry. (Quorum formed) Senator Messner, by calling for a quorum on behalf of the permanent Opposition members on the other side of the chamber, has tried to prevent me from making what was perhaps my most telling point so far in my contribution this afternoon, namely, that in contrast to the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats who have tried to grapple with the sorts of considerations which should govern the development of the uranium resources in Australia, if they are to be developed, the Liberal Party, in its national platform, has not one word to say about the development of uranium resources in Australia. Not one word. It does not address itself to the sorts of problems with which we are trying to grapple and with which we are, I believe, grappling very effectively, as will be proved over the next couple of weeks. The Liberal Party, a great political organisation at one stage in its history, when it was carrying some of the attributes of liberalism, is now trying to gain the allegiance of the Australian people without a policy in this particular area. The only criterion offered under the heading of energy and natural resources in its national platform of May 1982 is that competitive market forces, the pricing mechanism, should govern the development of resources and their export from Australia. We on this side of the chamber say that that is quite insufficient and inadequate response to the sorts of matters which are naturally raised in any consideration of this matter. So, rather than berating us for not having an even-handed policy, those who sit on the Opposition benches should look to themselves, to their washed hands policy, and perhaps try to grapple with the problems with which we are grappling . In an even-handed policy one looks to strike a balance between competing considerations that are relevant. That would be one of the key meanings of even- handed. That is what the Labor Party is in the process of doing. We have identified those relevant considerations. The relevant considerations include, of course, the fact that there is a danger with nuclear proliferation that some of the products of the uranium industry, whether owned by private or public utilities, even though they are destined for peaceful purposes perhaps for the commercial production of electricity may not be so used. Even though that is the intended object, one has to be extremely careful in a world situation where the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is fragile and is not graining the adherence of many middle order nations that it ought to. One has to take into account the fact that one has to erect a very stringent set of safeguards to try to restrict the use of uranium exported from Australia simply to the production of electricity for peaceful purposes. That is an undertaking from which we will not be diverted by Opposition charges of prevarication and undue delay. The disposal of waste products is another matter with which we are grappling. We acknowledge the great work of Professor Ringwood of the Australian National University School of Earth Sciences, but we say that, whilst his proposal has some merit, of course, it has not been tested in the sense of the actual trapping of nuclear wastes in the synroc material which his laboratory has come up with. In other words, there are still matters which remain to be resolved and , because we are trying to resolve those matters in a responsible manner, we are berated by the Opposition. The actual text of the matter of public importance states: The need for an even-handed policy which permits mining and export of uranium from mines in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia in view of the likely approval of the mining and export of uranium from Roxby Downs. Of course, even supporters of the previous Government would have to acknowledge the conclusions reached by the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry after a most exhaustive inquiry into the development of this industry. Page 328 of the report sets out a convenient summary of its conclusions. In its chapter of the proposals for development of the uranium industry, it states: That construction of mines in the Region be commenced sequentially at appropriate intervals. In other words, even that inquiry, which was so influential in the debate in this country and which governed so much of the actions of the previous Government in many respects, identified the fact that not all mines should be developed just because some entrepreneurs thought that they could raise some sort of investment capital on the basis of a hope of generating revenue from the obtaining of contracts to export to some overseas utilities. The Fox report was very clear that the Government should intervene in a way which did not permit the unrestricted development of uranium mines throughout Australia and that in fact, as it says, if there were to be such an industry it should be commenced sequentially at appropriate intervals. So even that most authoritative report available to the Australian public recognised that there was a case for differentiating between the development of various projects and proposals in relation to the development of this natural resource. Taking that as our first step, if we are to have an even-handed approach, what does that mean? To any reasonable or normal person, an even-handed approach means that we treat like cases alike and different cases differently. For Senator Kilgariff to attempt to lump in the development of Roxby Downs with the existing Northern Territory mines and some new mines of the future, wherever they may occur in Australia, is, I believe, to confuse and to lump in quite unlike developments and projects and pretend they all have the same characteristics and therefore ought to be treated in the same way by any Federal government. The fact is that, as honourable senators will know, Roxby Downs is in Australia. Massive mineralisation occurs there such as does not occur anywhere else on the Australian continent. It is indeed one of the world's major undeveloped mineral resources, containing as it does many millions of tonnes of mineralised material, principally copper, uranium and gold. Of course, that deposit is such that to make viable the extraction and processing of ore for the production and sale of copper involves the venturers as a necessity in the production and sale of the uranium oxide and the associated rare earths and precious metals such as gold. In other words, we have a situation in which the mineralised deposit has characteristics absolutely different from the existing mines at Ranger and Nabarlek. The further difference in relation to Ranger and Nabarlek is that they are existing mines, both of which commenced operation in the 1980s, both of which have existing contracts and export licences granted to them by the previous Government and both of which involve considerable investment which, as I said, has been justified on the basis of export contracts up to 1996 which were approved by the previous Government. What I am saying is that there is an immediate difference in kind and in nature between those undertakings and the stage they have reached. Roxby Downs is quite distinct from the existing mines of the Northern Territory. For example, at Nabarlek workers and Aboriginal communities are dependent on royalties generated from those mines. Absolutely distinct from these mines, of course, are the new mines which Senator Kilgariff' s matter of public importance alludes to as mines 'elsewhere in Australia'. Of course, there is no question of absolutely new mines going ahead. The Australian Labor Party has made it absolutely clear that in relation to projected new uranium mines, no permission will be given to export their product. Therefore, they fall into a different category-a category where the entrepreneurs involved cannot complain of injustice because the stand of the Labor Party in relation to their operations has been well known for a considerable number of years, both from Labor's first policy on uranium mining and the modification of that policy adopted in mid-1982. We have three really quite distinct situations-Roxby Downs, the existing mines in the Northern Territory and the new mines in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia. In relation to each of them, the obligation of a national government-a Federal government-is to respond to the characteristics of each of those particular proposals, projects or developments. They are so different that different treatment is warranted. But the common factor and the even-handed factor in relation to any decision that might be forthcoming-I do not prejudge that matter at all; it is one for decision by the parliamentary Labor Party next Monday-to export uranium at any stage from Australia is the very firm criteria in regard to the safeguards, proliferation, disposal of wastes and the decision not to sell to countries which engage in practices which are so arrogantly harmful to our neighbourhood in the Pacific. For example, I refer to the dumping of nuclear waste by the French in the Pacific region in complete disregard of the wishes of the Pacific states and nations. That was reinforced by the statement of the South Pacific Forum Conference held in this very capital only a few weeks ago. Whilst the mines differ in their various characteristics and, therefore, warrant different treatment, I can assure the chamber that any export permission which is given will be given with due regard to the criteria which the Australian Labor Party has set forth and has identified. It is trying to grapple with the issue in absolute conradistinction those who sit opposite. They have washed their hands of this matter. They have nothing to offer except market forces and a competitive pricing mechanism to determine the future of this industry. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(4.24) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance brought forward by my colleague Senator Kilgariff and supported by Senator Hill. The matter of public importance states: The need for an even-handed policy which permits mining and export of uranium from mines in the Northern Territory and elsewhere in Australia in view of the likely approval of the mining and export of uranium from Roxby Downs. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) led for the Government in this debate. But it is interesting to note that since then we have had one speaker from the Government and we will hear a further Government speaker both from States that have no interest in uranium mining. Maybe those honourable senators who do come from States which have an interest in uranium mining are not prepared to stand up and be counted. It looks as though they are not prepared to speak in this debate and have left it to an honourable senator from Tasmania and an honourable senator from New South Wales. Energy usage in the world is, of course, growing for many obvious reasons. The population is growing. The standard of living is getting better. Naturally enough, all that results in increased use of energy. In this chamber on previous occasions I have discussed the problems of supplying that energy from one source . I have always advocated the balanced use of energy. Where applicable we could use solar and wind power. Sometimes only meagre energy sources are needed. I have also mentioned on previous occasions the problems associated with burning too much coal. These problems include the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and what has become known as the greenhouse effect although the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) confuses it with a glasshouse effect. It could possibly be the same. Almost all of the world looks at it as the greenhouse effect. I have referred on previous occasions to the problem of acid rain particularly in the northern hemisphere. As I have said, of course, we cannot stop burning coal overnight. Indeed, we will not stop burning coal for many years. I think we should be looking towards a balanced use of our energy resources. If coal is cheap and easy to burn obviously we should do that to provide an energy starved world. If natural gas is available then power stations can be sited in order to make use of that gas. If there are difficulties and if there is a massive environmental problem because of pollution why not use nuclear power stations which are being used in increasing numbers around the world? We must continually plan for the increasing use of nuclear power. That, of course, means the use of uranium. Every current indicator in the world points to the increased use of uranium as a fuel and the increased use of nuclear power generation as a safe, clean and relatively economic method of power generation. Of course, Australia is sitting on one of the greatest reserves of uranium in the world. Apparently, we are not going to supply that uranium to an energy starved world. It is very much like the Saudi Arabians saying: 'We will declare all the desert area a national park. You cannot drill for oil or take any more oil out of the area'. It is ludicrous. Those who want to see Australia's uranium reserves remain in the ground are, of course, applying that sort of logic. All honourable senators are mindful of the fact that there is a need for safeguards to be implemented. We have debated this subject in this chamber previously. Honourable senators are fully aware of the two reports of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and the safeguards that have since been implemented. Of course, because those safeguards are so rigidly applied, I think Australia has a great role to play in providing uranium to an energy starved world. Australia implements rigid safeguards. If Australia does not supply uranium, countries will buy uranium from other sources which do not have such rigid safeguards. As a matter of fact, earlier in the debate Senator Kilgariff mentioned that we are giving away the uranium market to countries such as South Africa, Canada and the United States of America. Senator Walsh mentioned a speech made at the conclusion of a conference in Great Britain earlier this year by Mr Tony Grey of Pancontinental Mining Ltd. He mentioned, quite rightly, that Mr Grey had said: The Conference underlined the adequacy of uranium resources to supply the electricity industry. Mr Grey went on to say: Indeed, the medium term risk is one of oversupply, not starvation. Everyone would agree that, immediately, there is an adequate supply of yellowcake moving around the world. But with an industry that has such long lead times in construction and in bringing mines on stream, the power generation industries of the world want to know that there are adequate reserves of yellowcake, not of uranium in situ; so they want mines developed and they want the yellowcake to be the reserve, not the uranium in the ground. It is interesting that Senator Walsh has quoted quite selectively. In the next paragraph Mr Tony Grey says: The world market is prefectly capable of meeting its needs for a very long time to come, without resort to the distortions of trade which government intervention always creates. It is quite interesting that Senator Walsh did not quote that sentence, because what we are debating this afternoon is the very fact that there is government intervention in the market supply of energy resources in the world. Mr Grey makes that point: The world market is perfectly capable of meeting its needs for a very long time to come, without resort to the distortions of trade which government intervention always creates. Earlier in his summing up speech, Mr Grey said: Many countries now rely on nuclear power for such a significant portion of their total electricity generation that life without nuclear would be unthinkable. Finland generates 40 per cent of its electricity from nuclear energy, Belgium 45 per cent and France 47 per cent. These proportions are expected to increase during the rest of this decade. Specifically, France will reach 74 per cent by 1990. So we are living in a world which is using nuclear power at an increasing rate, even allowing for the downturn in world power needs which we have just experienced. The supply is slowly but surely going ahead and the nuclear industry will be producing more and more nuclear power. It is a well known fact that even though there are contracts out, it is anticipated that there will be much greater power requirements before the end of this century than have already been indicated. People are already talking about 200,000 tonnes, at least, over and above what has already been allowed for. Senator Walsh mentioned the sugar industry and the restrictions or controls that apply in that industry. He is quite right, except for the fact that the sugar industry controls itself. What we are talking about here is government intervention in an industry. We are not allowing the uranium mining industry to control its own destiny. If people are prepared to invest millions of dollars in it, they are obviously not doing that without being mindful of the fact that they should have and, indeed, would have markets, and at a good price. All that this government intervention is doing is distorting the whole scenario. What is more, it is making Australia appear in a bad light in world markets. People will not buy from a country when they do not quite know whether they will be able to get their required amounts in the contracted time. Mention has also been made of the fact that the Rt Hon. Doug Anthony bought into the Jabiluka debate. Senator Walsh quite wrongly said that he brought that in because the price was too low. That is not right. The sale in question was not rejected on the basis of the price. It was rejected on the fact that there was not a clause in the contract to allow for a review of the price further down the track. The stand that the Australian Labor Party is taking here today is quite interesting when one realises the stand that it is taking in the Northern Territory. Bob Collins, the ALP leader in the Northern Territory, said today: It would be completely intolerable and without logic and sense if the Government gave the go-ahead to Roxby Downs without doing the same for the Northern Territory uranium projects. So even the ALP in the Northern Territory is mindful of the needs of the nuclear world and of what the mining of uranium will do for the uranium province in the Northern Territory. Pancontinental, which is the owner of Jabiluka, was getting very close to writing contracts with the Central Electricity Generating Board in the United Kingdom, but this interference by the Labor Government has put a stop to that. Here it was, a company with world wide contacts in the uranium mining industry and the nuclear power industry, and it just about had its market sewn up, but because of intervention by this Labor Government that has all had to go by the board. It is quite logical that Australia would supply world uranium needs. Not only have we some of the greatest reserves but our mines are open-cut, hard rock mines, which are probably some of the safest in the world and, because of that, some of the cheapest mines in the world to operate. So we are quite able to meet present markets and the markets for many years to come. As a matter of fact, at the end of 1982 there were 294 nuclear power plants operating in 25 nations and generating nearly 10 per cent of the world's electricity. But by 1985 it is predicted that 17 per cent of the world's electricity will be generated by nuclear power, and 23 per cent by the year 2000. So there is a continually increasing market for uranium. China is starting to build two 300 megawatt pressurised water reactors; Brazil has brought one on line; India and Japan have both commenced full commercial operation of spent fuel reprocessing plants; South Korea has become the eighth nation to have a fast breeder reactor; and South Korea and India both launched nuclear fusion research programs in 1982. So the world is continually going down the nuclear power generation track, whether we like it or not. It would be ludicrous and ridiculous, as I have said, if we, as a major reserve of the world's uranium, sat like a dog in the manger and said : 'You cannot have it'. I do not say that the Government should not have intervention when it comes to ensuring that the safeguards are met. Both sides of the chamber agree about that . We have been down that track before. I believe that the Government should keep its eye on the floor price; and it is doing that. I found it quite interesting that the Chairman of the now closed Mary Kathleen uranium mine, Mr J. Liebelt, told shareholders in April that 1982 sales were 535 tonnes of uranium oxide indicating an average price for the year of $37.82 per pound. On my understanding of the world market, that is a pretty good price. We have heard much talk from Senator Walsh about the spot price, but I do not think that any Australian uranium is sold on the spot market. Obviously, we have here the Federal Government and an ALP State government in all sorts of bother with unemployment in South Australia, not having a very good industry base and not being able to handle that problem, so the benevolent Labor Government in Canberra says: 'All right; as you are our partners down there, we shall let you build Roxby and provide all these jobs. It does not matter about the Northern Territory, because that is under a government of another colour'. Quite blatantly and plainly, that is politicking on the part of this Government to help out a beleaguered Labor Government in South Australia. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. At the beginning of his speech, Senator Collard implied that there were members on this side of the chamber who were strongly anti-uranium and who had-I think his words were-ducked for cover, whatever he may mean by that. He went on to say that we were not participating in this debate. He said that he found it interesting that the two back benchers who were participating-the one who had participated, Senator Tate and the one who is about to, Senator Richardson-come from States where there is no uranium mining. That is a gross misstatement by Senator Collard. Over the last four weeks of this parliamentary sitting we have debated-honourable senators can correct me if I am wrong-four or five matters of public importance, all relating to the very important subject of uranium. As Senator Collard would know, as Whip for the National Party of Australia, it is not possible, with a limited number of speakers, for everyone who wishes so to do to participate. But I remind him that on this side of the chamber people such as Senator Giles, Senator Zakharov, Senator Robertson, Senator Gietzelt, Senator Childs and I-one could just about go through the whole lot-have participated in at least one of those urgency motions or matters of public importance. It is quite wrong of Senator Collard to endeavour to score points when he is participating in a matter of public importance by implying that for some reason members on this side have not been prepared to participate. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.42) —I wish to speak on this matter of public importance which is standing in the name of Senator Kilgariff. As Senator Coleman just mentioned, it is about the fourth matter of public importance on the issue of uranium mining that the Opposition has brought up in the last few weeks. Having read the wording, I think it is the silliest of the four. Even on the face of its very words, I suggest that it is a nonsense. I will quote from the 'Australian Labor Party 1982 Platform, Constitution and Rules'. It should be noted, of course-I think it is often forgotten by those on the other side-that the coalition parties are on the other side. One of the reasons for that is the document from which I will quote and its sale to the Australian people by the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, by his Ministers who were then shadow Ministers and by the rest of the Party over not only the month before the election but also over the last few years. While those opposite claim that our policies are in some way confusing on this matter, a few very clear commitments are given in the uranium section of the Labor Party's policy, which give the lie to the words in Senator Kilgariff's matter of public importance. On page 135 of our policy document, under item 63 it states: We recognise on becoming government- . . . . d as an ALP government we give total commitment to preventing any new mines from being developed during our period of office. Under item 64 it states: Accordingly, a Labor government will- . . . . c consider applications for the export of uranium mined incidentally to the mining of other minerals on a case by case basis and on the criteria of whether in the opinion of a Labor government the mining of such minerals is in the national interest; and d allow no new uranium mine developments to commence or come on stream whilst the government of Australia. Accordingly, the Labor Party fought its election campaign of only seven or eight months ago with a policy of no new uranium mines. The investors and proprietors of Jabiluka, Koongarra, Yeelirrie, Ben Lomond, Honeymoon or wherever all knew that the Labor Government was being elected with a policy of no new mines. They could not reasonably have expected there to be a change in that policy. Of course, Labor governments are bound by the deliberations of their party conferences and on an issue such as this there was not much doubt that the Government would consider itself to be so bound. Given that Senator Hill gave us a fairly lengthy rundown-I might say a fairly uninformed one-of the history of the Australian Labor Party's attitude and involvement in this issue, I want to put the record straight on what the Labor Party has done on this issue over recent years so that not only senators opposite but also anyone interested will know how the Labor Party came to have that policy and why next Monday the Caucus, elected parliamentarians from the Labor Party, will make a final decision on its interpretation. In 1977 at our Perth conference a resolution was passed-I think it was moved by Don Dunstan and seconded by Tom Uren but I can be corrected-which gave the Labor Party a no uranium policy, that is, no uranium mining and no uranium export. Again, if my memory serves me correctly, I think that policy was carried unanimously. Honourable senators may recall that Don Dunstan had been overseas seeking out new information on this issue and he had commissioned public servants in his Government to look at it. I remember fairly lengthy advertisements of up to two minutes of Don Dunstan speaking and using the word chilling to describe the information he had received from those reports. Tom Uren, who has had a well known and long term commitment against uranium mining, was with Don Dunstan on that issue. As I have said, the motion was carried without amendment and without opposition in 1977. In 1979 at our national conference in Adelaide, once again there was no attempt to change the policy; it remained our policy. In 1981 at our next scheduled national conference we did not discuss uranium or any other policy issue. We were discussing weightier matters like affirmative action and the definition of socialism, so the real debate had to wait for one more year until 1982. Much has been said and written about our 1982 conference and its decision on uranium. It is fair to say at the outset that the ALP conference held in Canberra last July was conducted well and truly in the open. Unlike those parties opposite, I can say that the Labor Party, in conducting its national affairs at national conference level, invites the Press and the public to come and see it in action. Our Party is obviously covering a fairly broad spectrum of the Australian community, as well it should. In any system where a small number of parties tend to predominate, that will always be the case and should be the case. It means that there is always healthy debate and difference of opinion within our Party on matters of importance. If there was not, I am not sure that we would ever have been able to make some of the great and historic decisions that we have made over so many years. That is in contrast to the way that the Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia meets, when often affairs are conducted in secret and people tend to be a bit frightened of what they might find out. Also, it is worth noting that no one can claim that the Labor Party is unique in attempting to cover a broad spectrum of the community. Those who represent the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia have the same problems, with different groups pushing and pulling them in different directions. Anyone who was witness to the unseemly goings-on in the caucuses and corridors last year over the retrospective tax legislation would know that there were serious differences of opinion. As an example, the Liberal Party ran the gamut from the hard line new money Right of Western Australia to the prehistoric Right of Tasmania to the soft underbelly in South Australia and Victoria. It has all kinds, spread all over the place, with different points of view. Senator Collard —But what about Queensland? Senator RICHARDSON —In Queensland things are a bit different. It is hard to find the Liberal Party there. In Queensland one has to look at the National Party. I say that one has to look; I am not sure that we are all that rapt in it. Such is life in Queensland today. But when our Party assembled last year it had a very long and protracted debate on the issue of uranium. It took many hours and by a narrow majority the resolution which is encompassed in the 'Australian Labor Party 1982 Platform, Constitution and Rules', from which I quoted a few moments ago, was the end result. The Labor Party did not make that decision out of the blue in 1982. Over the years not only had a great deal of attention been paid within the Party to the Fox inquiry, but also the national Executive and the national Secretariat had at one stage even produced films and other visual aids to help party branches and electorate councils to discuss the issue. So there were, and indeed are, a great many people in the Labor Party who have a lot of factual knowledge about this issue. They have taken part in debates on it at all sorts of levels. The 1982 debate had, in fact, come about because of a notice that had been received from the South Australian branch of the Labor Party which had expressed concern about the Roxby Downs proposal and how it would be affected by no change in the Labor Party's then no uranium policy. At that time the debate was spearheaded by a sub-committee of the national Executive. Finally, Bob Hogg, who was then the Victorian Secretary and who is now an adviser to the Prime Minister , moved the motion. The resolution, while it may have covered many things, never countenanced new mines. While a lot of people in the Labor Party have very strong views on the issue and were opposed to the resolution that was in the end carried, I think the only real debate about interpretation of what was carried last time would be centring on whether there are new contracts for new mines. I think the Caucus will satisfactorily resolve that matter very shortly. With respect to the wording of the resolution on Roxby Downs that was, for better or worse, the wording that was worked out at the time as a way of ensuring that Roxby could go ahead. Roxby Downs itself is not any certainty to go ahead, irrespective of Labor Party policy. The problems that Senator Walsh mentioned earlier still loom large for Western Mining Corporation Ltd and its other partners. One such problem is the difficulty in securing pricing arrangements. I think Senator Collard had Senator Walsh's words wrong. Senator Walsh was referring to pricing arrangements. Doug Anthony had rejected those pricing arrangements in late 1982-I am not sure of the month-when it came to a contract from Jabiluka. If it is difficult to satisfy Doug Anthony on pricing arrangements, it will be equally difficult or more difficult to satisfy this Government. Senator Chaney —That was only on periods of review. You know that, don't you? Senator RICHARDSON —No, it was periods of review, the ability to review prices. I think this Government would see that as a minimum necessary feature in any contract. I think honourable senators will find that those uranium users around the world are less and less inclined in a buyers market to give those sorts of guarantees. Hence, it will be very difficult for any of those uranium proprietors and investors to find people who will do it. What is more, to get back to the issue I mentioned earlier of our policy and the changes it has had, those investors who have put some large sums into some of these mines have never really been under any misapprehension about Labor policy. If we take Yeelirrie as an example, we see that Western Mining has spent something in excess of $40m in developing the project. Western Mining was aware of Labor's 1977 and 1979 policies. The change in our policy did not occur until May 1982, but most of the money was spent prior to that time. It should be noted that in 1982 it was never suggested that mines like Yeelirrie could ever get the go-ahead. Very many investors put money in. They were taking a risk and they knew it. The risk that they were taking was that a Labor government with a no-uranium policy or a no-new mines policy at best for them would be elected. That government has been elected. That government will carry into effect the policy on which it fought the election. By the Government' s carrying out this policy, some of these people may lose some money. Perhaps they should have had a more careful look at the prospect of a Labor government or any government again reigning for a long period in Australia. If they had they may not have made the investment in the first place. I cannot be overly sympathetic to them in the sense that they knew what our policy was. They knew where we were heading. With respect to the Northern Territory which, from the wording of the matter of public importance, is the main subject of our debate today-although neither Senator Hill nor Senator Collard has mentioned very much about it-there are particular and special environmental considerations that have to be taken into account in any case when looking at the question of mining in the Northern Territory. Koongarra and Jabiluka are for the most part set in wetlands and there is very considerable environmental opposition to their going ahead. In the Labor Party it does not matter whether one is in favour of uranium mining or not . Unless reasonable environmental considerations can be satisfied, it is very difficult to convince anyone that mines ought to go ahead. While it is, I think, a matter of public record that I have supported a uranium mining position in my Party, I am a long way from convinced about anything in the Northern Territory. Therefore, I have never attempted to speak for or urge a change in the policy in that respect. I would hope that as the debate develops those opposite will realise one thing. All of those who have spent money in all of those mines which we never said would go ahead and which have not now been given permission to go ahead are at liberty to lobby our Party for it to change its point of view just as environmental groups and some people in the Party itself will lobby over the coming years for us to revert to a completely no-uranium policy. Our party at least is an open and democratic party. If a person can convince it of the wisdom of his point of view, our conferences will take cognisance of it. If that person cannot so convince the Party, he will not win out. I have had some experience of winning out and losing out at our conferences. It is not an easy business. One thing is for certain: It will not be won by glib and rather stupid statements such as that contained in Senator Kilgariff's matter of public importance. It can be won only on the basis of arguing the facts. They have not been presented today. In some respects, I wish they had. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators I table a joint letter from the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly of the New South Wales Parliament to the President of the Senate containing a resolution agreed to by both Houses relating to the rights and privileges of members. With the concurrence of honourable senators the text of the letter will be incorporated in Hansard. The letter read as follows- Parliament House Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 20 October 1983 Dear Mr President, You will recall a speech made in the South Australian Parliament in August this year dealing with matters raised in the Combe Royal Commission, which caused the Commonwealth Attorney-General to call for an advising on alleged conflict between Commonwealth legislation and parliamentary privilege in State Parliaments and as to whether the remarks made in the South Australian Parliament involved an offence against Federal law. Concern was expressed in New South Wales regarding the serious assault upon the very basis of free speech in this Parliament if a Royal Commission could call into question the proceedings of Parliament. This matter caused such disquiet in New South Wales that the following Resolution was agreed to by the Legislative Assembly on 14 September and by the Legislative Council on 21 September 1983- 'That the Legislative Assembly (Council) expresses profound concern at recent statements reflecting upon the Privileges of Members of Parliament and, as a constituent House of the legislature of the Sovereign State of New South Wales- (1) reaffirms its undoubted rights and privileges including the fundamental right of every member to freedom of speech in Parliament; and (2) asserts that, in the public interest, the media should be untrammelled in their reporting of the proceedings of Parliament.' In drawing to your attention the concern expressed by Members of the Parliament of New South Wales and to the resolutions agreed to by both Houses of this Parliament, might we also invite your attention and that of the Members of your House to the debate which took place upon both those resolutions. Your faithfully, L. B. KELLY Report Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —Pursuant to section 30B of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on certain air conditioning machines. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.56) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I present the 206th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —by leave-The 206th report contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 182nd report, which reviewed chemists' remuneration under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Department of Finance minute is the formal documentation of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations as contained in the 182nd report which was tabled in the Parliament on 16 September 1980. In this inquiry the Committee examined and reported on the circumstances and reasons for a significant excess payment by the Department of Health to chemists in respect of their remuneration under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme between 1973 and 1980. The Committee also examined the concurrent excess payments made by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to chemists under the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The combined total of overpayments was estimated at about $253m. Public hearings on this matter were held during June and July 1980. Witnesses who presented submissions included Commonwealth departments and organisations, the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements, pharmacy and pharmacists organisations, consumers, chemists and health economists. The Committee found no criminal, malicious or mischievous intent which would have led to the errors that occurred. The findings of the inquiry went beyond the immediate question of errors and excess payments. During the inquiry there emerged several fundamental problems which might directly contribute to the possibility of similar problems occurring in the near future. Besides affecting the pharmacy sector, a number of matters had broader implications for other sections of the health industry. The principal areas covered by the PAC inquiry were the provision of independent economic advice to the Commonwealth Government on health matters, procedures for determining health fees and remuneration and the structure of the retail pharmacy industry. The Public Accounts Committee's major recommendations covered the following areas: Errors leading to overpayments; the basis for remuneration of chemists; a bureau of health economics; and retail pharmacy in Australia. The PAC acknowledges the wide degree of acceptance of matters raised in the 182nd report. This response reflects the Committee's thorough investigation of the issues and the practical nature of its recommendations. The main policy revisions agreed to by Government, and stated in the Finance minute, are as follows: The Department of Health's standards of practice for ADP analysis, design, programming, testing, implementation and documentation have been revised and as a result improved ADP standards have been incorporated into the Department of Health's ADP project manual, which has now been reissued; The Department of Health's ADP manpower resources have been strengthened with the creation of 29 additional positions in the ADP branch; A separate internal audit branch has been established in the Department of Health; Legislation has been amended so as to establish the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal, consisting of three members including a Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-the Tribunal is currently conducting its fourth inquiry; A joint departmental liaison committee on repatriation pharmaceutical benefits has been established, with responsibility for providing formal communication and consultation between the Departments of Health and Veterans' Affairs. Although the delay in the finalisation of this response is regrettable, the Committee has been kept well informed of progress on the recommendations in the interim. Mr Deputy President, this 206th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts is but one of a continuing number of committee reports whose purpose within the public sector is to improve accountability, upgrade standards , promote efficiency, assess cost effectiveness and report on the committee's deliberations on each issue to both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Committee therefore has a continuing and significant role within the life of the Parliament. I commend this report to honourable senators. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works: Royal Australian Air Force Base Williamtown, New South Wales-FA18 Hornet facilities development; and construction of the Australia telescope, New South Wales Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate meet on Friday, 18 November 1983 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. (2) That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 4.15 p.m. on those days. (3) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, on that day, shall proceed with its ordinary business in the following routine: (a) Petitions; (b) Notices of Motion; (c) Formal Business-Discovery of Formal Business; (d) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business; (e) Motions and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper; (f) At 12 noon, Questions without Notice; (g) Any proposal pursuant to standing order 64; and (h) Further Motions and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. I ask that any consequential amendments be carried out by the good offices of the Clerks, because they would be only consequential. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I had intended to move an amendment which would delete paragraph (g), for reasons that would be well known to the Senate. Through nobody's fault we sat on the Friday of the last sitting week. We met at 9 a.m. and had an hour's Question Time, all of which was devoted to a certain political happening in Queensland. We then had a matter of public importance which again totally related to a particular happening in Queensland. The purpose for which we met-namely, to get rid of the backlog of Government business-took up a grand total of about an hour and a half of our time. I am not prepared to vote to give up Fridays to get on with Government business and co-operate with the Government if we are to deal with that business for only an hour and a half or two hours. I concede that the circumstances last Friday week were extraordinary and I concede the proper right and propriety of the Opposition in acting as it did. I would have done exactly the same had I been in its position. But it is not a good reason for us to vote to sit on Fridays. Because that Friday was extraordinary and because I concede the point that when this Parliament sits there ought to be an opportunity to implement standing order 64 for some extraordinary national or international happening, I will not move my amendment today and we will see how this arrangement operates in future. I would like to express my concern at the lack of legislation coming through. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, terrified the lot of us a few weeks ago when he submitted a list of the legislation that he wanted through by Christmas. He did that in good faith and I am sure he would like all that legislation through. If reason prevails, I understand that after today we will have about another 15 sitting days. Senator Chaney —Seventeen. Senator CHIPP —There will be 17 sitting days after today, and we will be dealing with some controversial Bills. The Liberals, when they were in power-it happened to me when I was a Minister-found that the Public Service does tend to get clogged up at the end of the year. It is a ploy of clever, brilliant, diabolical senior public servants who have some contentious legislation to leave it right until the end so that it is all steamrollered through. They plead the excuse that the parliamentary draftsman is overworked, or use some other such ploy. That is not new; it has been going on for the 23 years I have been in this Parliament and no doubt Senator Button is now experiencing the frustration that his Liberal colleagues did when they were in government. I do plead with the Leader of the Government in the Senate to put a bit of pressure on the parliamentary draftsman and other people who are holding back legislation. I state unashamedly that I do not want to be sitting here until Christmas Eve. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Taxation ( Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act 1982. Bill presented by Senator Jack Evans, and read a first time. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.11) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- For the past decade our country has suffered from a rapidly expanding cancer, and that cancer is called tax evasion. At one time, the man in the street may have sanctioned the fiddling of a few dollars off an annual tax return. This is no longer the case. The public is discovering theft on a scale that is unprecedented. Australians no longer want to stand by as the vampires of our society bleed it dry. It is not only the wage earners, but also the small business proprietors who are realising that their taxes will have to replace what the tax avoiders steal. In 1982, both major parties supported the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Bill. Both of the major parties realised that Australians had had enough and that Australia could not continue to allow itself to be 'ripped off'. The belated action of the Fraser Government was to introduce the TUCTA 1982 Bill . It was passed with support from both sides of the chamber, and was to be a landmark in the fight against tax-avoidance. Despite the years spent in considering the appropriate action, the result was a piece of legislation which, in an effort to recover lost revenue, has the subtlety of a shotgun blast. It hits out at vendor shareholders without regard to the possibility of injustices being perpetrated. Not every vendor shareholder of a bottom-of-the-harbour company is necessarily a party to, or a beneficiary of tax avoidance. The Act does not make provision for anomolous situations which may exist. It appears that some people may be unjustly penalized by this Act. I do not know if the people concerned have been unjustly caught in the net of the 1982 legislation, however, I am concerned that if they have been, then this Act allows them no recourse or remedy. I am in no position to properly assess the cases which have been brought to my attention, however, I am able to introduce this amendment Bill which will make provisions and remedies for those who have been unjustly dealt with. This amendment Bill will allow vendor shareholders who have been unjustly treated to appeal to a tribunal. The tribunal will be similar to the existing tax department board of review but will be a new body, independent of the Commissioner for Taxation. The tribunal will have the power to reduce assessments, to withdraw assessments, and to provide for time-to-pay. This Bill will provide a means of recourse for minority vendor shareholders who have no influence, or control, or even knowledge of the decisions and actions of the vendor board of directors. It will allow those shareholders who are unrelated to the decisionmakers and unaware of the actions of those involved in tax avoidance , to gain justice. It will also allow relief for those who have received assessments for amounts which exceed the benefits which they have received. This amendment Bill will introduce justice into the TUCTA Act, and will make that Act more reasonable in its application. It is crucial that tax avoidance be stopped but in stopping it we must ensure that not even one person is dealt with unfairly because of faulty legislation. In 1982, both the major parties supported the TUCTA Act and in the interests of justice I now call upon all senators to support this remedial Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Bolkus, Haines and Townley be granted leave of absence for one month on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business. Debate resumed from 13 October 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.13) —The Opposition does not oppose the Bills, which will be debated together. I point out that most of my remarks will be addressed to the first Bill, that is, the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1983, while other speakers from the Opposition will be addressing their remarks particularly to the Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1983. The first Bill authorises interest free capital grants amounting to $489m to the States as part of the 1983-84 Loan Council programs. These are to provide payment to the States and the Territories from the Loan Council programs for public housing, as nominated by the States, under concessional loan terms. I think the history of that arrangement is well understood, as it does go back to the early 1970s when the arrangement was first introduced by the then Liberal Prime Minister, John Gorton. The Bill represents, as it stands, another part of the Government's housing package. We should remind ourselves of that package and remember the mini-Budget which was introduced by the Government on 19 May this year which made significant changes to the system by which assistance would be delivered to individuals and to the States for housing. We will recall that the Government abolished the former Government's housing deposit assistance scheme which will result in a saving of some $50m in this current financial year. The housing interest tax rebate scheme was axed at a saving of $50m. The housing interest tax rebate scheme for low income earners, which was introduced in March 1982 by the former Government, represented a saving of some $30m. Altogether that amounts to a total saving of some $130m in this current Budget. The abolition of the tax rebate effectively stops assistance to those 40 per cent of Australian families who are paying off their homes and obtaining the tax rebate to assist them to meet high interest rates. This is exemplified by the case of a home buyer with a loan of $30,000 at an interest rate of, say, 13 1/2 per cent. That home buyer will find himself some $6 a week worse off as a result of the abolition of that rebate. The Government has introduced a first home ownership assistance scheme. The total cost of that scheme, in the current Budget, is stated to be some $80m. The net saving to revenue of $50m this year obviously will have an impact on the private sector of the housing industry. The Government's housing package, therefore, is something of a gimmick. It is said to be spreading funds with largesse when, in fact, it is saving money. The Government's May economic statement details these matters even more clearly as it demonstrates that in the next financial year the savings, as a result of those decisions, will amount to some $255m. Clearly, that will be very contradictory in respect of the housing industry in the next financial year. Similarly, in the 1985-86 financial year this amount will rise to $265m. It is true that the Government has not yet stated exactly what its expenditure will be in respect of public housing in the next financial year. This indicates that unless action is taken to boost the public sector housing industry there will be a significant contradiction of the housing and construction industry in the next two financial years. If, on the other hand, the Government does elect to put more money towards welfare housing, as it claims to be its endeavour-certainly, that is its idealogical pursuit-clearly there will be some changes in the overall pattern of those figures which I have just mentioned. One should remember that these changes will have a significant impact on ordinary Australians. I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to some of the illusory aspects of this. Perhaps this is best summed up by the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 May which points out: The element of illusion in the housing package is simply the extent to which it will assist first-home buyers. Despite Mr Keating's assurances to the contrary, the additional demand for housing must, to some extent, push up home prices. Part of the benefit will go to existing home-owners. It is, of course, also absurd to regard anyone who is within striking distance of acquiring a home as being in urgent need of the taxpayer's assistance. They must, at least, have a job and a fair amount of money in their savings account to be able to take on a housing loan, even a heavily subsidised housing loan. I believe that quote sums up very clearly the situation that is before the Government and the almost panic with which it has addressed the problems of the housing industry in recent times. One can note some of the contradictions in the Government's policy and its stated aims. Clearly, the first home buyers who will be most assisted by this package will be those who have money in the bank, who are some way down the track towards acquiring a home of their own. Why then has the Government abolished the housing interest tax rebate in favour of this kind of assistance to those who are likely to be on the verge of being able to buy their own home anyway? Secondly, as the editorial writer pointed out, there will be pressure on the housing price market as a result of this kind of suppport for first home buyers. Clearly, the scheme will not help the first home buyer because it will drive the cost of his home further out of his reach and at the same time assist those who do already have a home. That is clearly contradictory and I wonder whether the Government has taken it into account. Turning to the Budget which we have been examining in recent weeks, there has been an increase of $171m in total outlays on housing. This amount can be broken down easily into a $50m increase in public housing assistance to the States and to the Northern Territory, a $167m increase in grants for Aboriginal and other untied grant assistance to the States and the Northern Territory and a $23m boost for defence service homes loans. All of these increases have been offset by a $28m saving in respect of the various kinds of assistance I have outlined previously. But the point we have to make in this respect is that that total boost of $171m has been very largely financed, certainly to the extent of assistance for public housing, by the $100m allocated by the former Government as a result of its wage pause program. As we all know, that program was terminated by this Government in the last month by the passage of legislation through the Parliament. The point I make is that the Government cannot do a double counting exercise and claim that it is in fact boosting expenditure and therefore boosting the number of job opportunities and at the same time address that as some new initiative on its part when it is rightfully attributable to the actions of the former Government. It is true that the Government has been making great play of its housing program as a source of new job opportunities in Australia. We simply have to examine that a little closer. The Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Hurford, who has responsibility for both areas of construction-that is, cottage development on the one hand and project development on the other-has been claiming that the housing program will increase the number of jobs by some 25, 000. I think that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or perhaps the erstwhile Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been claiming even more wildly that the number of jobs to be created will be of the order of 30,000. However, we read in yesterday 's Australian newspaper that the Australian Federation of Construction contractors found that the Budget had not given any real assistance to the engineering construction industry. Let me quote what the chief executive, Mr Russell Richmond, is reported to have said: Too often we see politicians responding to our forecasts of a significant downturn in the construction industry by referring to capital works initiatives in the housing area. It is necessary to assist housing to get out of the doldrums, but it is equally necessary to help engineering construction. House building makes up only one third of the industry and the NSW Government is the only government in Australia which appears to have recognised this fact, through expansion of capital works programs involving engineering construction. I think that that quote demonstrates the point that in fact is not recognised by this Government. In fact, the Government has scrapped huge projects that were under way and put in place by the former Government. I instance the Darwin to Alice Springs railway and the water resources program which involved an expenditure of well over $1 billion. Clearly they were of longer run importance in terms of the creation of jobs in this country. Obviously they have been thrown out of court by this Government in favour of short term job creation opportunities in the housing area. I reiterate that even the job creation opportunities for which the Government claims credit of some 25,000 is illusory. Indeed, these opportunities were due in substantial part to the wage pause program that was put in place by the former Government. So action by the Government in this respect does not represent any additional boost to the industry. Mr Russell Richmond is also reported in yesterday's Australian to have said: In the meantime our studies show we can expect the loss of almost 35,000 jobs on construction sites around Australia over the next two years. If that is true, the industry itself is disappointed in this Government's Budget . It has claimed that there will be a drop of 35,000 jobs in the next two years while the present Government is trying to console us and lull us into a false sense of security by claiming that some 25,000 jobs will be created-10,000 less, I might say-by its boost in the housing area. Surely there should be some response from the Government, some explanation why it has chosen to take this deliberate line of cancelling major construction projects in Australia in favour of the kind of development which it claims will solve the unemployment problem and put money quickly into the hands of the construction industry. The remarks of the construction industry have been greatly supported by individual contractors in my own State of South Australia whose prospects have been sorely hit because of the cancellation of the railway project and, of course, the water conservation project. On top of that they are faced with difficulties that are arising from the indecision over the Roxby Downs project about which the Government has made no definite statements at this stage. Given those factors, all of which are directly attributable to government indecision and cancellation, I believe we can attach a great deal of credibility to the remarks of Mr Richmond and his industry. I believe that what he had to say needs to be answered by the Government because it demonstrates very clearly some inadequate thinking through by this Government of how best to address the problems of unemployment in this country. It is pretty clear that many of the problems in the construction industry generally arise as a result of interest rate policy. Consequently, one has to be somewhat pleased about the downward trend in respect of bond rates at present. We on this side of the chamber hope, but remain sceptical, as to the future direction of interest rates in the light of the Government's huge deficit which it will need to finance over the next 12 months or so. When one looks forward into the next financial year one has some cause for concern of an even greater dimension. I would like to raise one or two other matters at the Committee stage . However, I will conclude my remarks at this point. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(5.28) —I wish to direct a few remarks in this cognate debate to the Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1983. As we know, this legislation seeks to appropriate $16.9m as special assistance for the Northern Territory. This amount is based on the memorandum of understanding designed to facilitate the transfer of powers and provides the Northern Territory with the ability to be able to apply for special assistance. This arrangement will exist until the end of the 1984-85 financial year. The reason for the memorandum of understanding is that prior to 1978 there was some doubt among senior public servants about what it cost the government of the day to run the Northern Territory. In the years immediately prior to 1978 senior Commonwealth public servants found that they were unable to separate within individual departments the cost of running the Northern Territory. The cost of running the Department of the Northern Territory was straight forward. But it was very difficult to isolate the amounts involved in respect of the then Department of Health, the Department of Education and so on. The figures which were used in the memorandum of understanding were really little more than guesstimates. However, they proved to be fairly effective which shows that the people working in the Northern Territory at that time were pretty au fait with the problems and the particular needs of the Northern Territory. The amount of $16.9m is based on the fourth report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I am very pleased to see that that report highlighted the needs of the Northern Territory and called them unique, if not special, needs. I have outlined in this chamber many times what I saw to be the particular needs of the Northern Territory at that time. Perhaps I should remind honourable senators of the needs which were referred to in the fourth report. The report referred to the geographical differences between the Northern Territory and the States. It referred to the size, the climate, the natural resources and the sparsity of population in the Northern Territory. It highlighted the lack of productive capacity of the Northern Territory and indicated the levels of income and expenditure which were operating in the Northern Territory when the assessment was made. It also dealt with the limited range of secondary industries in the Northern Territory and highlighted the need for these to be developed. It went on to refer to the cost of providing services to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and suggested that this was one of the major problems facing the Government of the Northern Territory. The report referred to the provision of the normal services of health, welfare, education and so on, to the communities of the Northern Territory, not the major centres. It also dealt with the development of the homeland centres of the outstation movement. It has been a policy, of course, of both governments to try to establish the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory back in the centres from which they came. Honourable senators in this place know, of course, that many of the areas which were settled in the early stages of the Aboriginal people developed from the ration depot syndrome. Of course, many of these places had no potential for development. There was little opportunity for industry to develop in those centres. So the money had to be poured in or the people were encouraged to move. The people were reluctant to move from the communities into the towns. They moved to the homeland centres and I have referred to that previously. But it still meant that many of those who wanted to stay on the communities which had been established near the old ration depots had to receive the unemployment benefit because 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the people were unemployed. A number of initiatives by both governments tried to do something for the people who were unemployed in these communities. The report also pointed out what we might call the mendicant State. Grants to the Northern Territory from the Commonwealth since 1978 have been of the order of $3 billion. I think that figure refutes some of the comments made by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory when he accused the Commonwealth of its callous neglect of the Northern Territory. I do not think there is any doubt that both sides of the chamber agree that the Northern Territory is entitled to special assistance in the early years of self-government. We see no shame in this. Like the States, we look to assistance to overcome the small population which we have because, quite clearly, a small population cannot provide all the finance for the development of an area the size of the Northern Territory. There is no doubt that all departments in the Northern Territory, prior to 1978 and certainly since then when they have become autonomous have lacked the economies of scale which make it easier to operate in the States so that they do need additional assistance. This has been agreed to by both sides of the chamber. The point has to be made though that the Northern Territory, by getting this assistance, needs to spend the money wisely. I think we could point to a number of cases since 1978 where the Government of the Northern Territory has not been as careful as it might have been in the spending of money allocated to it. I give two examples. Six new seats have been created in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Many people down south find it hard to believe that a Northern Territory electorate now is composed of about 2,200 people. There was no real need to create those extra six seats; no justification for it at all. We could have had effective government with the 19 seats that existed. Perhaps it would have meant some slight changes to the way the Assembly was operating but that could have been done. That is a waste of perhaps three-quarters of a million dollars which, of course, will go on from year to year. Another matter that I wish to raise is the salaries paid to senior public servants. There is no need for the Northern Territory to be the pace-setter in Australia. I appreciate that many senior public servants in the Northern Territory have to prop up inefficient Ministers. But surely their salaries should be in line with those paid in the States and the Commonwealth. It seems strange that the senior officer in the Department of the Treasury of the Northern Territory is paid more than John Stone who has slightly more funds to look after than the head of the Treasury of the Northern Territory. I raise these matters because obviously they will become a problem after the end of the 1984-85 financial year. The burden will fall very heavily on Northern Territory taxpayers. The Grants Commission talked of the need for more income and for more money to be raised by the people of the Northern Territory. I suggest that the Northern Territory Government put its house in order well before the end of the 1984-85 year to develop efficient departments and to look to economies within its operations. Following the lead set by the former Government, the Labor Government has been just as generous. It has carried on the same level of funding as the previous Government suggested. I commend it for it. I caution the Northern Territory and remind it of a comment made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) when he introduced the Bills. In his second reading speech he said: It should be said, however, that as time passes the case for the present treatment is altering and there will be a need for the financial arrangements with the Territory to be put on a comparable basis to those with the States. So we must be aware of that. We must make sure that we look to some of those economies of which I spoke, to make our Government more efficient and to make sure that we do not make great demands on the rest of Australia, as the State will still be a mendicant State. We certainly do not want to make great demands on the people of the Northern Territory. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.36) —The Senate is debating the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1983 and the Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1983. The very nature of these Bills is indicative of the amounts of money that a government allocates in order to create not only public works and housing but also a condition of employment in the community. First, I want to examine the Bills from that aspect. This Government was elected on the basis that unemployment was too high and that it would reduce the rate of unemployment. At the National Economic Summit Conference we were told that the test of all policies was jobs, jobs, jobs. Since this Government came to office the unemployment figure in Australia has increased. In February of this year there were 669,500 people unemployed. The figures month by month since then are: 701,900, 714,900, 720,900, 722,100 718,600, 713,100 and 730,400. Those figures were supplied by the research section of the Parliamentary Library. The last figure was the unemployment rate for September 1983. It is significant when compared with the September 1982 figure of 514,800 when the Fraser Government was in office. That is an increase in one year of 215,600. That figure in itself would be horrifying enough but I hold in my hand a copy of Canberra Comments, the official journal of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. The opening sentence states: A Treasury forecast predicts that as many as 850,000 Australians could be out of work by February next year. That is 12 per cent of the work force. That document indicates that by February of next year, which is in some three months time, we will have 850,000 unemployed, or 12 per cent, compared with 669, 500 unemployed in February of the previous year, or 9.6 per cent. So comparing month with month the position for school leavers, what we are facing at this moment is a situation in which something of the order of 200,000 more persons will be unemployed in February of next year. If the trend of this year, after the advent of the Hawke Government, continues the number will increase over the year, as it has done in the figures that I have cited. That increase points to the fact that Treasury itself has indicated that the public sector program of the Hawke Government is one of disemployment and not re-employment. We do not need any further evidence than that. Treasury has apparently forecast this horrific figure of 850,000 unemployed or 12 per cent. We know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that he would reduce unemployment, that certainly it would not increase in his first year of office and that it would be reduced by 2 per cent over three years. Of course on these figures it will have increased by 2.6 per cent by February of next year. These are disastrous figures. The need for the introduction of any of these public works Bills means that the Government has failed the very first test; that its own Treasury is saying that public sector spending in all departments-public works and public housing-is such as to produce a net figure of disemployment or unemployment. Everybody knows that the test of recovery from recession is first measured in the building industry. It is the key to recovery or the test of recession throughout the world. The fact is that the predictions by government agencies and the trend, as shown by a table supplied by the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library are that we are moving in terms of unemployment into deeper recession. Let me go further than that. a mini-Budget was brought down in May of this year. I have shown the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) a tabulation which I have, and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- EFFECTS OF HAWKE MINI-BUDGET 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $m $m $m Reductions 1. Taxpayers (General)- Abolish Income Tax Rebate-Health Insurance (1 July 1983) 95.00 550.00 575.00 Reduce Current $1040 Threshold of Minors to $416 (1 July 1983) . . 70.00 70.00 Increase Bloc Concessional Rebate Level from $1590 to $2000 (1 July 1983) 11. 00 70.00 75.00 Abolish the $1000 Dividend Rebate 75.00 181.00 105.00 795.00 115.00 835.00 2. Retired People- Reinstitute Income Test, Age & Service Pensions, 70 years & over 167.00 188.00 167.00 Tax at standard rate lump sum payments 15.00 182.00 70.00 258.00 120. 00 287.00 3. Home Buyers- Terminate Home Deposit Assistance Scheme (1 October 1983) 50.00 90.00 90.00 Terminate Housing Interest Income Tax Rebate Scheme (1 July 1983) 50.00 175.00 175.00 Terminate Housing Interest Rebate (1 October 1983) 30.00 130.00 155.00 420.00 190.00 455.00 4. Public Works and Employment- Reduction in proposed expenditure-Brisbane Airport 20.00 1.00 . . Suspend and defer Elements of Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan 8.00 1.50 . . Alice Springs-Darwin Railway: Northern Territory 40 per cent share 20.00 29.80 45.50 Not proceed with Supplementary Water Resources Programme 70.00 70.00 70.00 Terminate Special Youth Employment Training Scheme 35.40 153.40 89.90 191.20 96 .20 211.70 5. Telephones and Postage- Telecom and Australia Post-increase interest rate on capital 101.00 101.00 101 .00 101.00 101.00 101.00 6. Rural Dwellers- Reduce freight equalisation-petroleum products 10.00 11.00 12.00 Alter primary producer averaging and IED interest rates 15.00 20.00 20.00 Extend depreciation of farm plant and equipment from 3 to 5 years 9.00 44.00 89.00 Wheat Board-remove subsidy re commercial borrowings 19.80 53.80 29.30 104.30 29 .30 150.30 7. Aviation fuel- Increase excise by 2 cents a litre on avgas and avtor 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 8. Industry- Reduce to no more than 5 cents difference in multi-brand pharmaceuticals 6.00 6.50 7.00 Terminate special depreciation allowance-petroleum storage (19 May 1983) . . 10.00 10.00 Terminate special tax concessions-conversion of oil- fired and LPG plant (19 May 1983) . . 15.00 . . Remove exemptions from interest withholding tax AIDC 12.00 18.00 26.00 57.50 33.00 50.00 9. Hospitals- Reduction in Commonwealth contribution to Reinsurance Trust Fund 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 10. Migrants- Income test living allowance Adult Migrants (Education) 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2. 97 2.97 11. Public Service- Reduce activities overseas posts-Department of Immigration 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 12. Repatriation- Pay certain pensions fortnightly in advance 43.00 43.00 +27.00 +27.00 +30.00 + 30.00 13. Aussat- Sell 49 per cent equity in AUSSAT 24.30 24.30 11.00 11.00 1.50 1.50 Reduction in expenditure 984.74 2,009.24 2,159.74 Additional Expenditure Home buyers and renters- Establish a First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme 80.00 165.00 190.00 Provide additional funds for Welfare Housing 127.00 207.00 (Budget) (Budget) Employment- Establish Community Employment Programme 300.00 447.00 453.00 Additional Manpower and Training Programmes 50.40 350.40 . . 447.00 . . 453.00 557.40 ? ? Summary of gains and losses- Taxpayers (general) -181.00 -795.00 -835.00 Retired people -182.00 -258. 00 -287.00 Home buyers - 50.00 -255.00 -265.00 Welfare housing +127.00 ( Budget) (Budget) Public works and employment +197.00 +255.80 +241.30 Telephone and postage -101.00 -101.00 -101.00 Rural dwellers - 53.80 - 104.30 -150.30 Aviation fuel - 15.00 - 15.00 - 15.00 Industry - 18.00 - 57.50 - 50.00 Hospitals - 80.00 - 80.00 - 80.00 Migrants - 2.97 - 2.97 - 2.97 Public Service - 0.27 - 0.27 - 0.27 Repatriation - 43.00 + 27. 00 + 30.00 AUSSAT - 24.30 - 11.00 - 1.50 minus 427.34 minus *1,397.24 minus *1,516.74 (*does not include any additional welfare housing) Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —As honourable senators will read in Hansard, that tabulation shows the impact of reduction in public works as a result of the Hawke Government's efforts. It is important to remember that when the Hawke Government came to office, on its own statement, the housing position was improving significantly. Indeed, Mr Keating's own economic statement of May 1983 said two important things. In the introduction he said: As I noted in my address to the Summit Conference, we expect some improvement in economic activity in the course of 1983-84 with the main impetus coming from . . . He then itemised six items. The first one was: The fiscal stimulus implicit in the Commonwealth Budget for 1982-83 and in prospect for 1983-84; . . . In other words the stimulus for this year was to come from the Fraser Government 's last Budget. He continued: the improvement in the international economy; a marked slowing in stock decumulation . . . the improved prospects for farm production and exports; the pick-up in dwelling construction already under way; and finally . . . the improved prospects for ongoing moderation of income claims . . . in the community. The interesting thing is that in every one of these situations Mr Keating has itemised either the good Lord, the weather, the international economy or the Fraser Government's previous Budget as having brought about the situation, including, of course, the wage pause. The Labor Government came into office on the basis that it had a fiscal stimulus in the Fraser Budget and that a pick-up in dwelling construction was under way. What have we got now? We have a situation in which Treasury is forecasting apparently a major increase in unemployment and therefore a major continuation of recession. Let us see what the mini-Budget did to home buyers. The Hawke Government has projected an image that because it has brought in a particular home ownership plan, it has done better than the past Government. What are the facts? The facts are-this tabulation is taken straight from the economic statement of Mr Keating- that the termination of the home deposit assistance scheme as at 1 October 1983 will save the Government $50m this year, $90m next year and $90m the following year. Terminating the housing interest income tax rebate scheme from 1 July this year will save $50m this year, $175m next year and $175m the following year. Terminating the housing interest rebate from 1 October 1983 will save $30m this year, $155m next year and $190m the following year. So the cut-back amounts to $ 130m in 1983-84, $420m in 1984-85 and $455m in 1985-86. Offsetting that was the introduction of the first home ownership assistance scheme, which, according to the mini-Budget, will cost $80m this year, $165 the following year and $190m for the year after; thereby being a cut-back of $50m this year, $255m the following year and $265m the year after. That in fact is the picture of the housing plan of the Hawke Government. The Government said that its aim was to go into the public sector to expand public works to create employment. Let us look at what the mini-Budget did. It reduced expenditure on the Brisbane Airport by $20m this year. It suspended and deferred elements of the aerodrome local ownership plan, a saving of $8m this year. It cut back the amount for the Alice Springs-Darwin railway to a 40 per cent share, saving $20m. Not proceeding with the supplementary water resources program saved $70m. Terminating the special youth employment training program saved $35m. I have just read out a little matter of $153m. That of course does not compare with the attacks in every direction on taxpayers, on retired people, on rural dwellers and on fuel or with the indexing of excise so it will go up and up all the time, robbing the people. That is the broad picture of what has happened. As I say, this Government was elected on a major statement, and that was that unemployment was intolerably high, at the time running at 669,500 or 9.6 per cent. The Government said that it would, particularly by increasing public sector spending, reduce unemployment -certainly not allow it to expand in its first year in office-and that it would lower the level by 2 per cent by its third year of office. What I have shown is that in fact utterly contrary to that, step by step each month of this year, unemployment has risen from 9.6 per cent to 10.4 per cent. We now have the Treasury statement of a forecast not of holding unemployment at 10.4 per cent but of its rising to some 12 per cent or more by February of next year. In other words it already has an achievement, compared with 12 months ago, as unemployment has increased by the order of 216,000. That is, using the figures provided by the Parliamentary Library, 514,800 were unemployed in September 1982 and 730,400 were unemployed in September 1983-an extra 215,600 people. It is forecast that next February the figure will be some 12 per cent or 850,000- almost 200,000 more than in the previous February, comparing like with like and comparing the school leaver situation in comparable times. That is a broad picture of what has happened. So there is absolutely no joy at all for the Government in the figures that it is now projecting and in the claims that it has been making. The fact is that the Government deliberately cut back. Senator Messner indicated the quite savage rejection by the Government of the bicentennial supplementary water scheme. That was a scheme which would have added $70m a year over five years for the provision of water supplies, both rural and urban throughout Australia. It was a scheme in which the works were to be nominated and chosen by consultation between State and Commonwealth governments so that they had a number of characteristics. First, they had to be of high priority, urgent; secondly, they must have been brought to such a stage of planning that they could be started almost immediately, certainly within six months; thirdly, they had to be labour intensive; and, fourthly, they had to be capable of being started and finished within the space of the five years. When completed, they would all have provided water supplies which would have created more employment. But the Hawke Government rejected the scheme out of hand and abolished it. Australia has one great deficiency in terms of resources, and that is water. The Hawke Government has managed to put a stop to expansion of our water supplies. Wherever we turn this picture is clear. Wherever we turn we see that the only real benefits have flowed from the Fraser Government policies that were in place , the Budget that was in place, the Fraser Government's housing policies that were in place, the good seasons that have emerged and the change on the international scene. But fundamentally what one must keep in mind is that, whilst the world outside is moving significantly and rapidly out of recession, Australia is moving perceptibly the other way. There can be no excuses or shifting of the blame by the Labor Party. After all, the Labor Party has rested on one thing since it came to office. Of all its failures in policies, which have been numerous and record in number, it has said: 'We could not do it because the deficit was too large'. That is an interesting situation when, in fact, its economic statement at the time of the election was an argument that a large deficit was not a bad thing at all. In fact, it went to the electors on one great argument and that was that we should have a much larger deficit and that it was wrong to believe that a much larger deficit would have any effect in increasing inflation or interest rates. It is a strange thing that the only argument, the only feather that it attempts to fly with now-and falls down badly -is that the deficit is larger than it was told. It was not in fact larger. It invented the figures itself. It invented its own aunt sally and then knocked it down. Nevertheless the thesis of the economic statement which it presented to the people in February of this year in asking to be put into government was that large deficits were good, that they would not create inflation, that they would not create higher interest rates, and that if we spent more we would get higher employment. The tragedy is that we have two Bills before us in an atmosphere which shows, on Treasury's own figures, that there is to be a massive failure in terms of employment in the public sector and the private sector, that there will be a major shedding of employment in the months ahead and that by February we will have reached approximately 12 per cent unemployment. In defiance of everything that Labor has said, Treasury has projected that by February unemployment will be something like 2.6 per cent higher than it was at the time that Labor came to office. Labor came to office saying that it would reduce unemployment, that it would certainly reduce it by 2 per cent in three years. It is a fact, and one to be kept in mind, that it had scarcely come to office when it held a National Economic Summit Conference and at its Summit Conference it chose, in conjunction with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, an option, option A, which, on its own Treasury papers circulated at that Summit, indicated that there would be higher unemployment at the end of the three years than at the beginning. There is nothing new in what I am presenting now. Mr Keating and Mr Hawke said at the Summit Conference that option A would in fact increase unemployment over the three years. What is happening now, after Labor's first Budget, is that if one puts aside the only good things that one could rely on-the benefits of the Fraser Government, good seasons and international trends-the public works program collapses. In fact, it is creating more unemployment and more recession in Australia and not the reverse. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.57) —We are debating the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill and the Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill. The shadow Minister, Senator Messner, has very adequately handled the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill. It is my intention to confine my remarks, perhaps at some length, to the Northern Territory Grant ( Special Assistance) Bill. In the few years since responsible self-government came to the Northern Territory we have seen quite remarkable growth. There has been team work between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government and through this combination many things have happened in the north. I believe that it was very wise, in the early days of responsible self- government, when both governments were looking at a means of financing the Territory and ensuring that it got a fair share of the finances available, that the factors of isolation, distance and so on were recognised. It was agreed that there should be special assistance for the Northern Territory. I believe that it was a wise decision that the independent body to consider that special assistance should be that body which annually reviewed the financial arrangements between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government. That is how the Commonwealth Grants Commission came to be given that responsibility. I remember at that time that there was a move within the Federal Government for the Department of the Treasury to become the relevant authority. Very wisely that did not come about. The fact that an independent organisation was given the job meant that over these last few years there has been considerable growth. It is most interesting to note that the figures published as a result of the last census show that the annual growth rate of the Territory is 5.56 per cent. The Australian average is 1.71 per cent and the Queensland average is 3.17 per cent. What is happening in the Northern Territory now is that there is an emphasis on development. The Territory's population is growing at more than three times the Australian average of 1.71 per cent. The Territory's annual growth rate is half as much again as Queensland's annual growth rate. The Bill now before the Senate appropriates a sum of $16.9m to enable a special grant to be paid to the Northern Territory in respect of 1981-82. Under the memorandum of understanding which governs the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the Territory which I have just described the grant is to be paid in substitution of an additional assistance grant of $10m that would otherwise have been payable. Contrary to the statements made by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) in his second reading speech in the other place when presenting this Bill, it clearly indicates that the Commonwealth Grants Commission does not believe that the Territory's funding arrangements are generous. Under the formula of tax sharing that has been developed, clearly the Grants Commission has shown in its recommendation that what it has recommended is not generous but is applicable. There has been increasing evidence lately of concerted moves by the Government to attack the Territory's funding arrangements. Apart from comments by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Housing and Construction, statements have been made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), who is supposed to represent the interests of his electorate in the Territory, to the effect that the Territory is over-funded and its accounting arrangements are deficient. This Bill lays to rest the first claim. In regard to the second claim, the honourable member for the Northern Territory said that the Territory' s accounting arrangements are such that funds from different sources, including special purpose payments from the Commonwealth, go into the one bucket and, as a consequence, there is doubt that the Territory is spending the specific purpose payments for the purpose for which they were provided by the Commonwealth. I think that is a rather far-fetched statement because that assertion is patently false. If it were true, it would be a sad reflection on financial controls exercised not only by the Northern Territory Government but also the Commonwealth Government for not ensuring that special purpose payments provided to the States were acquitted in a proper manner. In fact, of course, there are detailed and stringent acquittal procedures. I have a sample of the reports that are provided by the Northern Territory Government to the Commonwealth showing, in this particular case, how the special purpose payment for roads was spent. It is my intention to table this document later. It is certified by no fewer than three people-the officer responsible, the Under-Treasurer and the Auditor- General of the Northern Territory. The honourable member for the Northern Territory appears to be advocating a form of fund accounting by which funds from different sources are kept in different accounts. It is known, perhaps, as jam jar accounting and is a method of accounting that was used when Charles Dickens was a boy. But it bears no resemblance to the modern accounting systems used by the Territories, the States , the Commonwealth Government and indeed all modern commercial organisations. The Bill now before the House also underlines the fact that the Territory's tax sharing arrangements with the Commonwealth are not overly generous and there is no justification for the moves the Commonwealth seems to be making to terminate the present arrangements. These moves became apparent last June when the Treasurer announced at the Premiers Conference that there was to be a review of State tax sharing relativities and the Northern Territory was to be included for the first time in that review. Subsequently there have been two meetings of State and Territory Under Treasurers at which it has been made perfectly plain that the States do not wish to see the Territory included in the relativities review because of the methodological problems that would cause for everyone and because of the adverse effects that could be expected in the long run on States tax sharing entitlements. In spite of this unanimity in the views of State and Territory officials it seems that the Commonwealth may give the Grants Commission terms of reference which include the Territory in the review. Once this is done the way will be open for the Government to break yet another promise and renege on the agreement with the Northern Territory entered into by the previous Government. This is clearly an outcome which the honourable member for the Northern Territory obviously welcomes, if his statement to the Parliament of 12 October is any indication. He said then, with evident relish, that after 1984-85 the party would be over. It is a statement which I challenge him to repeat before those who elected him to office. It is a most unusual statement for a person with his responsibilities. However, the tax sharing arrangements which the previous Government entered into with the Northern Territory were intended to continue throughout the period of self-government. They were part of a carefully balanced package of political, administrative and financial arrangements in which gains in one area were offset by losses in other areas. They were never intended to be dismantled in the piecemeal fashion this Government appears to be contemplating embarking upon. To do so can only be detrimental to the Territory. Does the Government, in embarking on a review of the Territory's tax sharing arrangements, intend, at the same time, to review the arrangements under which the Territory is unable to levy royalties on uranium or to vary rates or other charges relating to uranium? Does this Government believe that the development of the north can be achieved at the same cost as the development of the southern States? The Treasurer evidently does because in his mini-Budget Speech he made a point of saying that the tax sharing entitlement of the Territory on a per capita basis was five times that of the average of the States. He made no mention, however, of the fact that distance, dispersion, remoteness and diseconomies of small scale inevitably mean that it costs five times as much to provide every day government services in the north. If this cost is regarded as too high, perhaps this Government would prefer to call a stop to northern development and resettle its population in Sydney and Melbourne. If this is to be the principle, it reminds me of the Brisbane line when the defence of Australia was such that the Top End of Australia was to be left for dead and the population in the southern part of Australia was to be protected. For the first time in its existence the Northern Territory is experiencing tangible and sustained development. It is beginning to attract business and commerce which, in time, will provide it with an expanded revenue base and lessen its dependence on federal funding. We all look forward to that day. It is making a real contribution in lessening the nation's unemployment level. However , all this will be put at risk by short-sightedness and premature action of the Federal Government to change the Territory's funding arrangements. The Grants Commission's recommendation, which is reflected in this Bill, in effect provides support for the present arrangements. I believe that the Government, with due consideration, will not pursue the course that it is perhaps considering now. I commend the Government for the funding which is taking place now because it is bringing about development in the Northern Territory and an increase in the Territory's population. It is bringing about considerable expenditure within the commercial life of the country and within its industries. But as I have said, the criticisms of the honourable member have been hurtful. I hope that he will reconsider the remarks he has made, because obviously they are open to challenge . I give a few examples of what the honourable member has said. He has said that the Northern Territory is misusing Federal grants for Aboriginal aid; that the Northern Territory Government simply added specific grants to its general fund; and that its accounting system was so inefficient that it was impossible to find out how the money was spent. At the beginning of my speech at the second reading stage I think that I indicated that that was not so. But let us look at Budget Paper No. 2 of 1983-84, entitled 'Statement of Revenue Sources 1983-84'. This clearly identifies all specific purpose payments made by the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory Government, giving details of the departments receiving such payments and the amounts involved. With respect to the Department of Community Development, there is only one Commonwealth specific purpose payment made which is solely for Aboriginal aid, and this is the Aboriginal public health improvement program. This program, which is for capital funding only, aims at improving the physical environment in Aboriginal communities and includes such things as the installation of water supplies and sewage disposal plants, and so on. It is interesting to note that this year the Commonwealth has allocated $1, 222,300, for 1983-84, to the Northern Territory Government under this program. That is commendable. Funds are advanced to the Northern Territory Government only on a quarterly basis following the submission of monthly and quarterly reports on each approved project. Funds are approved on an individal project basis by the Commonwealth and separate accounting for each project is a condition of the grant. One can well imagine that with Commonwealth audit. The statement that it is not possible to find out how the money is spent is thus clearly incorrect as the Commonwealth requires this. Further accountability is provided at the end of each financial year in the form of a certificate showing the moneys received and spent against each project, and this is forwarded to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Some of the other specific purpose payments made by the Commonwealth, which are administered by the Department of Community Development, are spent on Aboriginal communities and these funds are also approved by the Commonwealth on a project by project basis. As I have said before, I am taking some time to clear up this matter because it has been hurtful, and this attack has been quite unnecessary. The Treasurer of the Northern Territory, Mr Marshall Perron, having read the remarks of the honourable member, said in a Press statement: Labor Federal member John Reeves had presented conclusive evidence of his economic ignorance in the latest of his anti-Territory tirades. The Northern Territory Treasurer, speaking of the honourable member, said: He was demonstrably wrong in his allegations that Commonwealth funds were being misused in the area of Aboriginal aid. The Press statement continued: Mr Perron said Federal specific purpose payments provided for Aboriginal services were used entirely and solely for that purpose, and in fact were augmented by Territory funds. In this year's Territory Budget, no less than $20m has been provided for Aboriginal communities. The Treasurer said the Territory accounting system was far superior to those operating in Southern States and in fact were designed by the Commonwealth Department of Finance. If Mr Reeves claims he can't find out where money is being spent, he is plainly ignorant . . . What he is saying is that he hasn't a clue where to look. The Territory must and does know and record where such funds are spent, and it complies strictly with stringent Commonwealth reporting requirements. The statement continued: The Treasurer said the Federal Member's comments about the Grants Commission showed he did not understand the role of the Commission. Its references to below standard services in Aboriginal communities does not mean the Territory Government is not doing enough, but that the Commonwealth is not supplying enough funds . . . Mr Reeves attempts consistently to harm the Territory with his careless and unsubstantiated allegations. It is incredible that a man elected to serve the people of the Territory in Canberra will go out of his way to hurt them. He has become Territory Knocker No. 1.' I have an interesting report from the Territory, where, as one can well imagine, this matter has been well and truly thrashed out. It is a report from the media up there, which says: Asked to comment on the Northern Territory Member's claims, Opposition Leader, Mr Bob Collins, said, 'The member has not discussed the matter with me. I would be interested in getting the evidence he says he has. If he discusses the matter with me, I would be prepared to ask our Treasury spokesman, June D'Rozario, to raise the matter during the Budget session next week'. Mr Collins refuted Mr Reeves' statement about Aboriginal housing. I hope that that puts the matter to rest. As I say, it has been a most unfair and unwarranted attack. Frankly, one wonders just what on earth the honourable member was about. As we are discussing Aboriginal matters and housing in particular, perhaps I will take a couple of minutes to make some comments. As so little is being done in regard to housing, I contacted the Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission a week or so ago and received from Mr W. Koller, the Branch Manager, Housing, some information which I want to go through as quickly as possible. He spoke about the Commission's 1983 housing grants program in respect of the Northern Territory. The information was summarised as follows: housing grants program, Northern Territory, Northern-that is, north from Hooker Creek, Newcastle Waters and Borroloola-$5,894,000; Northern Territory, Central-that is, South of Hooker Creek, Newcastle Waters and Borroloola, including $362,000 for reserves in South Australia and $524,000 for reserves in Western Australia-$5, 446,000; and special program for housing at homeland centres, Northern Territory , Northern, $300,000; and Northern Territory, Central, $500,000. This makes a total of $12,140,000. Mr Koller's letter goes on to list total funds. It is my intention to table the documents for those who are interested in what is happening with regard to Aboriginals. In the Arnhem Land area, some nine organisations have received amounts for housing varying from the lowest of $173,000 up to $280,000. In the Darwin area there are 13, ranging from $11,000 up to $350,000. In the Katherine area there are nine organisations which have received considerable amounts, the highest being $274,880. The total in that particular area is $5,894,000. In the Alice Springs town camps area there are 14 town camps where housing is really taking strides. In the southern area there are 27 organisations. In the South Australian area there are six organisations and in the Western Australian area another six. The total of that funding to the Aboriginal Development Commission is $5,446,000. There is financial assistance for homeland centres as follows: In Northern Territory, Central, 18 participants-mainly on cattle stations-receive $500,000; in Northern Territory, Northern, a further 14 organisations receive $300,000; and in the Western Australian area 30 organisations receive $300,000. This amounts to a total of $1,100,000. This is continuing assistance to the Aboriginal areas. We must recognise that the previous Government funded and this Government is funding these various areas. Frankly, I would not be critical of the efforts to assist Aboriginal housing. I have with me, as an indication of how expenditure is accounted for in the Territory, as in the States and as instruced by the Commonwealth Government, a letter from the Auditor-General of the Northern Territory, addressed to the Under Treasurer, Department of the Treasury, headed 'Statements of expenditure: Road Grants Act 1980' relating to audited accounts. It is but one example of many. I refer also to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund, if anyone thinks money is being misspent. These days, with stringent regulations , I do not know how anyone can misspend money. Like the States, the Territory comes under very stringent accountability to the Commonwealth. I have a further statement which is signed by the Under Treasurer. There is also a further statement by the Treasurer, Mr Marshall Perron, of the Northern Territory regarding Northern Territory accountability to the Commonwealth Government. Overall, there are many things that may be of interest to people who may wish to know a little more of what goes on between governments. I take the opportunity of tabling not only those particular documents but also the documents that I have received from the Aboriginal Development Commission. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.23) —I wish to speak briefly to the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1983 and to make a few short comments about it and about the construction and building industry generally. This Bill is an annual Bill which has been running since 1970. It was originally set up and managed through the Premiers Conferences. It was designed to relieve the States of some of their debt charges. In this instance it provides an amount of $489,667,000 as part of the States Loan Council program. The amount was agreed to at the Loan Council meeting of the Premiers Conference in June-July of this year. Concessional funds are designed amongst other things to provide incentives to public housing. The concessions are quite substantial. Money for housing is provided at 4 1/2 per cent over 53-year terms. But it still concerns me fairly greatly to see this money being spent in the way that it is and in the sort of volume that it is being spent. Over a period of years my views on housing have been well known and my support for the housing industry generally has been stated here previously. But it makes me wonder when I see that we are injecting enormous amounts of money into housing, with a view to the creation of, say, 25, 000 extra jobs possibly, at a time when we will also lose 35,000 jobs amongst the heavy construction sector. It is probably a matter that the Government considered and got swept into very largely without considering the repercussions that go with doing things that look to be popular on the outside but which are fairly transitory when analysed thoroughly. Accordingly, I ask the Government to look very thoroughly at the whole of the building and construction industry and its effects on the economy generally. One need not be too smart to find the difficulties of development in Australia. I start off by saying: 'Who in his right mind at the moment would undertake a major project development in Australia?' The situation is anything but easy. For instance, at the moment, what persons involved in a million dollar enterprise would come in and say that they understood the taxation policy, with both the prospective and retrospective systems that may be involved? Who would want to get involved in running the gamut of the Builders Labourers Federation of Australia with its attitudes around the country? Who would and who could under these circumstances contemplate any major development? In my State at the moment the Goliath Portland Cement Co. Ltd has been closed by a strike. It has put the whole of the building industry, contractors and subcontractors, generally out of work. We have only to look at the situation at the Loy Yang power station to see what can happen. If that had been a private enterprise operation, who could have stood that sort of situation? I am sure Senator Peter Rae would look back at the Sydney Qantas building and remember what that was like. Senator Peter Rae —It is about eight years behind as a result of the industrial warfare that was engaged in. Senator ARCHER —We have only to look at the situation of Alcoa of Australia Ltd at Portland where, by dint of having made arrangements which were subsequently, shall we say, revised, we have part of an aluminium plant at Portland. Who else, having faced these sorts of deals, would wish to go into any long term enterprise? This afternoon we have discussed the issue of uranium. Who in his right mind would go into any type of mining operation in Australia when the sorts of matters that were discussed by Government members this afternoon may transpire. I refer also to the wages schedule and the over-award payments and fringe benefits that have now crept into awards. Who can stand these and for how long? Who would undertake a major enterprise and believe that he could finish up in a viable situation? How can we support these types of enterprises and still try to retain our international viability? In this regard I was very pleased to see that Senator Button came out loudly and clearly a few days ago and indicated that he fully understands all this. He drew attention to it very well. I want to know what the Government is now going to do about it. It knows about it. We get the picture that it is well and truly in its hands and in its mind but will it be able to provide people with what is loosely referred to as a fair go, that is , to see that the maximum number of people have jobs on a reasonable basis and at a fair wage? I want to see people get houses. But even more than that I want to see them get jobs and houses. The country needs big jobs. It needs big energy developments, big industrial projects and big commercial enterprises. We need to develop storage of water, to develop minerals and forestry resources, to provide the work and a future for the greatest resource of all that we have, the rising generation of people who are currently unemployed or about to come on the work market. It all hinges on the Government attitude to what is reasonable for the people already involved and who have jobs. To get private funds into action is of far greater consequence than just continuing to pad up with more and more government involvement. I am sure every Australian looks forward to just that. Ukraine Famine 1930s-Vietnamese Political Prisoners-Australian Prawn Fishing Industry The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.30) —I wish to speak tonight on a subject which has had very little discussion in this Parliament in previous times. It happens to be the fiftieth anniversary of a terrible famine which the people of the Ukraine experienced in the 1930s. People from the Ukraine who are settled in many parts of the world, and particularly those who are in Australia, are commemorating now the actions which caused the deaths of millions of Ukrainian people in the 1930s , the facts of which have been very much hidden from the world since that time. As one who has joined a committee to participate in the commemoration of the Ukrainian Famine Holocaust, which arose very much from the plan and the aims of Joseph Stalin and those who controlled the Kremlin at that time. I think it is high time that some of those facts were put on the record. This man-induced famine, which led to millions of deaths in the Ukraine in 1932 -33, has not received the attention of the world to the extent that the German atrocities at that time and later did. Of course, all facts about the famine were suppressed by the Soviet Government at that time. I will say more about the actions of others in the West who failed in the 1930s to bring it to the knowledge of the world. There are uncertainties as to whether 5 million, 7 million or 14 million people died as a result of the famine that was induced by the policies of the Soviet regime. The matter has been brought to our attention very strongly at this time by the visit to Australia of one distinguished Ukrainian dissident, Dr Nina Strokata Karavanska. She has been here recently and has met a number of members of the Parliamentary Amnesty group. She gave Press conferences here and in Melbourne in the last few days. I believe that it is high time that we in the West placed on record these facts and gained some knowledge and experience from what then happened. Regrettably at that time the world did not have much knowledge of the monstrous famine. It is an important part of the Stalin legacy between 1929 and 1938 as he had achieved power Stalin managed to abolish all independence in the smaller republics that had been joined to the Soviet State. The Ukraine is a large republic. It has the misfortune to be right next to 'Greater Russia', and it has something like a fifth of the population of the Soviet Union. Even in this time- I will be talking about this time as well-it is significant that over half the prisoners in the Soviet Union are Ukrainian. The Ukraine has had a long history of partial independence and of a striving for its own cultural and separate existence. It goes back to the ninth and tenth centuries. Of course, it was at one stage the most developed of the countries in that part of the world. It suffered, of course, under the Czars and there were many occasions when there were pogroms and suppressions of the language of the Ukrainian people but they continued to persist with their intense desire for cultural independence. When the Russian Revolution broke out in 1917 there was a strong fight by Ukrainians for independence. Between 1918 and 1920 some independence was achieved and a separate republic proclaimed. The fight was ultimately put down by the superior military power of the Soviet state. Yet during the 1920s such were the obvious claims among the people for the development of the Ukrainian culture and language that, under Lenin, attempts were made to promote what is called Ukrainianisation. In fact, cultural institutes and languages were developed. Professors of history wrote about the history of the Ukraine and there was, indeed, some flourishing of cultural development. Among the communist leaders in the Ukraine, men like Shumsky and Mykola Skrypnyk, were people who deliberately promoted this policy and saw it as not inconsistent with a communist existence. That policy continued with some problems until 1930, at which stage the might of the Soviet state started to bear down upon the Ukrainians. Skrypnyk, who seemed to be a man of considerable skill and a leader, found that his supporters were replaced. Finally, he suicided in 1933. From that time the Stalinist dictatorship was successful. I give this history as background because Stalin had in mind two objectives. First, he was determined to destroy any signs of national feeling among other communities and to effect the Russification of the country. He was also determined to enforce collectivisation which was completely contrary to the long traditions and wishes of the Ukrainian peasants. He wanted to destroy the kulaks and to force them into collective farms. He proceeded to do this with ruthless determination, using as his chief ally and potentate in the Ukraine Pavel Postyshev who for some years proceeded to carry out his policies. As has been pointed out, the way in which he succeeded in doing this was by deliberate acts to induce famine in the Ukraine, coming to a head in 1932-33. Examples of this can be seen in many documents which are available. In an article which appeared in the Weekend Australian of 8 October of this year the noted British Soviet scholar Mr Robert Conquest, who was then in Washington as part of the 50th anniversary commemorating this famine, drew a direct comparison between the famine and the nazi persecution. He is quoted as saying: In the year 1932-33, the Ukraine was one vast Belsen. And, as at Belsen, there were also enclaves where the guards lived comfortably, watching the dying. But this was merely the worst year in Stalin's consistently applied policy in Ukraine. It can now be shown from modern Soviet statistical work that the excess unnatural deaths in the period 1926 to 1937, which saw the collectivisation terror, was not less than 14 million. Whether that is the correct figure is not the primary question. The fact was that there was a deliberate policy of starvation of these people. If one reads, as I have, the various histories of this period, one finds that millions of children were begging in the streets and millions of people who were trying to get out of the Ukraine were unable to do so. Laws were introduced imposing the death penalty on people who stole food. What was done was to increase the amount of grain-the Ukraine was the granary of the Soviet Union-required from the Ukraine beyond its possible ability to cope. In a bad season, 1933, the Soviet Union also took away all the seed grain that had been supplied so that there was literally nothing for people to eat unless they went into a collective farm. People sought to go to other cities to beg and to achieve some means of living. One of the interesting examples of this comes from the words of Nikita Khrushchev who, in 1937, was sent to the Ukraine to take over and to carry out the Stalinist policies. In his unofficial memoirs, which have been published in the West from tape recordings smuggled out of the USSR after his death, is the following statement: Mikoyan told me that Comrade Demchenko, who was then First Secretary of the Kiev Regional Committee, once came to see him in Moscow. Here's what Demchenko said: 'Anastas Ivanovich, does Comrade Stalin-for that matter, does anyone in the Politbureau-know what's happening in the Ukraine? Well, if not, I'll give you some idea. A train recently pulled into Kiev loaded with corpses of people who had starved to death. It had picked up corpses all the way from Poltava to Kiev . . .' I have seen photographs taken at the time of examples of this starvation. There is no doubt about the extent of it. It is also significant that, in an introduction to a book called The Ninth Circle by Olexa Woropay, James E. Mace, a well-known American, in dealing with the crop failure and the way in which the population figures declined, has this to say: For one thing, we have census figures published by the Soviet government, and we have various other official Soviet population studies, which allow us to put the census figures in perspective. According to Soviet Ukrainian figures from the late twenties and early thirties, the number of Ukrainians in the USSR was increasing at well over one percent a year. Yet, the 1939 census-itself somewhat suspect-shows that the number of Ukrainians declined by almost 10 per cent, over three million people, from what it had been in 1926 when the last published census was taken. A Polish Communist historian calculated from these figures that there were 9.3 million fewer Ukrainians in 1939 than would have been expected from the population trends of the 1920s. Some of this was due to a lowered birth rate during the famine and some to assimilation at a time when Soviet government was actually attempting to destroy Ukrainian culture, but this still leaves several millions who could only have perished from starvation and famine-related diseases. The figures themselves are most significant and indicate the extent to which the famine was so deadly effective. It has also been pointed out that the famine was self-induced by government decision. Of course, 1933 was a bad year. The following year, after the people had died, was another bad year for crops, but this time the Soviet sent in grain to the Ukraine and people were able to get food. The food was always available but ruthlessly withheld. What was the cause of the famine? Dr Lev Havryliv, in an interesting article entitled 'What Caused the 1932-34 Famine in Soviet Ukraine', presents evidence in a very well argued manner that in fact the famine was an important part of Stalin's final solution to an emerging Ukrainan problem. At that time he was proceeding to destroy the culture and those who were trying to develop some respect for language and culture in that country. The article states: In the period 1932-34 there were acute food shortages throughout the USSR but mass starvation occurred mainly in Ukraine, the North Cancasus and along the lower Volga area. While pointing out that there were famines of an ordinary sort in imperial Russia, he said: . . . the 1932-34 famine is notable for several reasons. Firstly, even after fifty years the Soviet leadership has never officially admitted that the famine occurred. Secondly, with a death toll in Ukraine alone of between five and seven million people, it was the most devastating of all famines. Thirdly, the evidence indicates that ''the famine was-to an extent perhaps unparalleled in history-a man-made one''. The aspect of the tragedy least understood according to Robert Conquest is that it was a conscious and genocidal decision by Stalin and the Communist leadership against the Ukrainian people'. That is an indictment of which the world ought to know but unfortunately, as we know, it has not been made clear. Something like 10 per cent of the population was lost in that period. What was going on in that country under Postyshev acting on Stalin's orders, was the destruction not only of the culture but also of the Orthodox Church, which was separately controlled, and the destruction of the Catholic Church, which since that time has been banned. By 1937 we had seen the obscenity of the production of a constitution which set down all kinds of human and civil rights but which in no way was going to be implemented. During those years the Communist-controlled Government proceeded to find a number of conspiracies in the Ukraine. There were some 14 altogether. In only one case was there a trial. People were just executed because they were supposed to have belonged to one group or another. A book written by Hryhory Kostiuk called Stalinist Rule in the Ukraine has this to say about that: Our conclusion, therefore, must be that in the form in which they were ' uncovered' the 'nationalist underground organizations' in the Ukraine were purely mythical, invented by the Soviet authorities for reasons we have discussed earlier. Does this conclusion mean that there was no resistance to the Soviet regime in the Ukraine? Certainly not. The resistance was widespread and fierce, sometimes flaring up in peasant rebellions, but it was not carried on through underground organizations only. It was a spontaneous resistance by the people against their opporessors and it was not controlled from abroad. No emigre group claimed responsibility for the direction of this resistance. No recent refugees (since 1943) from the Soviet Ukraine have declared that in the thirties they received orders from abroad. Such was the situation when Krushchev succeeded to take over control in 1937. Of course, any spirit of independence was almost destroyed, but in fact that spirit had not gone. In the same work is a very interesting report by the now late Eugene Lyons of the penetrating observation of a German officer in conversation with an American journalist just after the war: 'Do you know where we lost the war in Russia?' the German asked. 'In Stalingrad,' the journalist answered promptly. 'No, we lost it long before that-in Kiev, when we hoisted the swastika instead of the Ukrainian flag!' The occupying German forces made a colossal tactical error and ultimately drove the Ukranians to support the Soviet State. So there was undoubtedly a great deal of resistance, and there is today. One must refer to the extraordinary cover-up in the West about the facts of this famine. A famine of such size had to be seen, had to be observed, by people from the United States and elsewhere visiting the USSR, and many ought to have consciences for their failure to reveal it. There was in the 1930s a feeling that the Soviet Union must have a good system, that that kindly looking man, Stalin, must essentially be a decent man. An article in the Ukranian Weekly of 20 March 1983 called 'America's ''Red Decade'' and the Great Famine cover-up' refers to such American writers as the Quaker Henry Hodgkin, who went to the Soviet Union and had this to say: As we look at Russia's great experiment in brotherhood it may seem to us that some dim perception of Jesus' way, all unbeknown, is inspiring it . . . Among the other who, in the 1930s, did not expose this evil was the American Ambassador, Joseph E. Davies, who argued that Stalin was a stubborn democrat who insisted on a constitution which protected basic human rights even though it hazarded his power and party control. Davies could never accept that Stalin's purge trials were staged, and he defended them. A man who did see the light was Eugene Lyons, who in 1928 became a United Press correspondent in the Soviet Union. He became disillusioned as he became aware of Soviet reality. When he returned home in 1934 he wrote his book Assignment in Utopia, and in the chapter headed 'The Press Corps Conceals a Famine' he described how he and other American correspondents conspired with Soviet authorities to deny the existence of the world's only human-engineered famine. The most diligent of all the supporters and collaborators at that time were Walter Duranty, the head of the New York Times Moscow bureau, and Louis Fischer, the correspondent for the Nation. Duranty, after denying the facts of the famine, finally admitted food shortages but insisted that any report of famine was an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. When he admitted subsequently that some three million people may have died in what amounted to a man-made famine, he exposed that he had been hiding these facts. Another man, the Pulitzer Prize novelist, Upton Sinclair, went to the Soviet Union. He said: . . . maybe it cost 5 million-but you cannot think intelligently about it unless you ask yourself how many millions it might have cost if the changes had not been made . . . Some people will say that this looks like condoning wholesale murder. That is not true; it is merely trying to evaluate a revolution. There has never been a great social change in history without killing . . . I am appalled at the morality of the persons who then reported on and have hidden these facts for so long. I believe there are many reasons for saying that this is not just a matter of history. Today the Ukraine is still burdened under this situation. The presence here last week of Dr Strokata was a helpful example . The Helsinki Watch Group in the Ukraine has been operating in recent years. It did not get as much publicity as some other groups because the Ukraine is away from the attention of western reporters located in Moscow. Senator Harradine, in a motion which was carried recently by the Senate, pointed out the extreme injustice done to that group. It has been going on fighting since that time. One of the great purposes of Dr Strokata's visit was to urge us in Australia to try to get the release of people such as Yurij Shukhevych. This man has spent some 28 years in corrective camps and prisons in the USSR. What was his crime? The crime for which he was imprisoned was that he is the son of Roman Shukhevych, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army which fought against the Germans and Soviets during World War II in defence of Ukrainian villages in Western Ukraine. He was a nationalist and a Ukrainian. He died in the course of battle. His son has been victimised and constantly urged to repudiate his father but will not do so. He was denied tertiary education because he would not renounce his father. Shukhevych, who has relations in this country, and on whose behalf some of us have made application to try to obtain his release so that he may be allowed to come to Australia, has been in and out of prison. Dr Strokata met him. She was living in the same area. Of course, Dr Strokata also went to prison for four years because of her assistance to him and because of the documents which she held in her possession. Yurij Shukhevych, who is a member of the Ukrainian-Helsinki Watch Group, has now gone blind in prison. He is one of many of the Ukrainians who constitute this huge number of prisoners in the Soviet Union who are confined in places well away from their place of living. Now he has commenced his period of internal exile. They are subjected to shocking conditions. In a number of cases they are put into psychiatric hospitals. We know that pretty well only the Soviet Union uses those hospitals in the way it does. I have a publication here from the World Federation of Ukrainian Women's Organisations relating to one gallant woman, Hanna Mykhailenko, who is from Odessa. She was trying valiantly to develop the speaking of the Ukrainian language. She went from suffering petty tyranny in the first place, to prison and now she is undergoing psychiatric tests at the Serbsky Institute in Moscow. That is a notorious place where the misuse of psychiatry is rampant and has caused the Soviet Union and its psychiatrists to move out of the world psychiatric organisation to avoid expulsion. I will not go into the details and accounts of her suffering, of which we know, or those in the concentration camps which are spread across the Soviet Union and in which Ukrainians are now living in anguish. It is important that we commemorate this anniversary and bring it to the notice of the world as best we can. As democrats, we have a duty to do that, not just because history in itself should teach us, that facts such as these should be made known and the truth of the Soviet tyranny should be known, but because at present there is a continuing suffering of the Ukrainian people. If we do not take up these causes and bring these matters to the knowledge of the world I am afraid we are not doing our job. A committee has been formed to commemorate this anniversary. I regret that no members of the Australian Labor Party are yet on it. A number of members of my party and many distinguished citizens have joined the committee. I trust that the committee will have cross-party recognition. If the problem in the Ukraine and many other parts of the world which suffer under Soviet tyranny is not resolved, the deaths of these people may be forgotten by most of the world and suppressed by the Soviets. But we should do what we can to keep alive the memory so that we learn for the future. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.55) —In the context of the matters to which Senator Missen has just referred in detail, and certainly with my support for the concerns which he expressed, I wish to add my concern for the situation which exists in Vietnam. Relatively recently a Scandinavian team estimated that as many as 200,000 political prisoners are being held more than eight years after the war there finished without trial and without any justification on any basis that one can imagine. I take this opportunity to refer again, as I have done previously in this chamber, to the appalling fact that that is taking place apparently with very little objection from the rest of the world, particularly from the people who took such a close interest in Vietnam in the years leading up to the period when these people, estimated at between 15,000 and up to 200, 000, were taken prisoner and have been kept prisoner ever since. I hope that by continually referring to this matter more international pressure can be brought to achieve the release or trial of those people. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.57) —I wish to speak very briefly about the prawn fishing industry in the Gulf of Carpentaria in the Northern Territory. It concerns me very greatly that the industry up there, which has been trying to settle down and become established over the last several years, has finally reached the stage where, by the end of last year, it was able to get enough co- operation from the various governments and all sections of the industry to be able to produce a plan which looked as if it may rationalise the industry and get it back on to a reasonable keel. What has happened since then is that the industry has decided that the best way it could achieve this aim was by engaging itself in a buy back system, where the industry would virtually buy back its own viability. Fishermen were prepared to put into a scheme an amount the equivalent of, more or less, $1m a year of their own money to see that this was brought about. However, as a result of the changes regarding safe anchorage and the fuel freight subsidy questions, the industry is now faced with an extra $5m a year payout. Frankly, the industry just cannot stand it. It is not just a question of the direct costs involved. It concerns the 1,200 people who comprise the fishing fleet and the shore-based enterprises that depend on the industry-the processors , the fuellers, the provedores, the equipment suppliers, the repairers, the engineers and the commercial and retail sector of the Northern Territory. In an industry that has a turnover of $360m, $5m may not sound very much to people who have no idea of what it is all about. The industry is hard on the breadline. It is competing on a world market where our costs are going up and world prices are coming down. Information that I have been able to secure indicates that prawn fishermen have a whole range of additional costs. They have been hit already, as they say, by high fuel prices as a result of the Government's world parity pricing policy, the removal of export incentives, the fluctuation of foreign currency rates, increased inspection charges and inflation. They have tried to become as modern as they can. They have well over $100m worth of trawlers, nearly all of which are subject to enormous debt structures and high interest rates. To hit them now with an extra $5m in costs is just more than they can stand. I was impressed greatly earlier this afternoon to hear Senator Robertson say that it was necessary to provide assistance to help the Northern Territory get through this transitory period. Why do we on the one hand want to provide assistance and on the other hand give people a swift kick in the stomach? Why do we not look at one of the few things that the Territory has at its disposal- prawn fishing? The people in this industry most likely will not be able to do many other things if they are put out of work. This safe anchorage question involves an amount of $5m. The current arrangement is to be abolished because someone may have been fiddling the system. Certainly, this might be the case, but what system is not fiddled? I believe it is possible to improve the present system. However, at the moment the fuel cost is equal to more than $2 per kilogram of all prawns caught in the Gulf. This is just more than the system will stand. When I heard that the prawn fishermen were having enormous difficulties in trying even to meet with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Government I thought the least I could do was to make some appeal to try at least to get a discussion going. I have recently received a telex from the Minister which in part says: Following representations from the industry about the Budget decision which among other things excluded safe anchorage locations from the freight subsidy schedule, I have taken the matter up with my colleagues in the strongest possible terms in view of the financial difficulties confronting prawn fishermen . Following a comprehensive review of the impact of the decision on safe anchorage locations the Government has decided that it must maintain the Budget decision. That really is about the stopper. Unless the Government is able and willing to get advice from people who know something about this matter so that it is aware of the effect this decision will have, the industry and the Territory are certain to go through a most disastrous period. If the Government does not change its mind we will have to come back here and consider what form of assistance we will provide, what we are going to do with all the surplus boats, the bankrupt businesses, the processing factories and goodness knows what. All I ask is that we have a proper look at this matter and that we make a sane decision on how we are going to ensure that prawn fishermen are kept viable. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.03) —I will respond very briefly. In regard to the first two speakers, atrocities and denials of civil liberties are, of course, to be deplored no matter where or at what time they happen. In regard to the matters raised by Senator Archer, the figure of $5m does not accord with my recollection. However, I will have that checked out. The only other comments I have to make relate to his reference to export incentives. I know that this goes back some years, but I think this was a classic example of taxpayers' money being wasted insofar as the rationale for export incentives was to increase the volume of exports. With limited entry industries such as the prawn fishing industry in the Gulf of Carpentaria and, indeed, I think everywhere else around Australia, it is highly unlikely, to say the least, that an export incentive would make any difference to the volume of output. The production of the industries was limited by biological rather than economic factors. Senator Archer also identified, I think, what is the major problem-some of these other things are only peripheral to that-and that is that there is surplus capacity and surplus effort being devoted to one fishery and, indeed, to many others. Regardless of what other conditions may apply, from my own knowledge of it, and I will seek further comment from the Minister if he cares to make any-I do not think that Senator Archer would dispute this or has disputed it; indeed he has probably done the opposite-there are surplus boats in that area and a rationalisation scheme to remove that surplus capacity is the best course to follow. The precise way in which that should be done is perhaps more open to opinion and differing interpretations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.05 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act- Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 227 and 228. Dairy Produce Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 226. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations- Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 224 and 225. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 219. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1983- No. 39-Real Property (Amendment). No. 41-Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Amendment). No. 53-Casino Control. Regulations 1983- No. 21-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). The following answers to questions were circulated: Senator Gareth Evans —On 23 August 1983 (Hansard, page 21), Senator Robertson asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, without notice: Is it a fact that the Australian Electoral Office in the Northern Territory is conducting a postal campaign directed towards those who did not vote in the last Federal election? Is he aware that this postal method of counducting the inquiry has no regard for the lifestyle of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory? Many Aboriginal people will be denied a vote in the next Territory election as their place of residence is constantly changing. Will the Minister undertake to investigate the situation and perhaps look at alternative methods of carrying out the investigation to ensure that Aboriginal people are not disadvantaged? The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The position in relation to matters raised by the honourable senator is as follows: As required by the compulsory voting provisions of section 128A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the returning officer for the Northern Territory prepared a list of all electors who did not vote at the 5 March 1983 elections. He sent by post to all those electors-and these would have included Aboriginal electors-a notice in the prescribed form informing them that they appeared to have failed to vote and calling upon them as the law requires to give a valid, truthful and sufficient reason for not so doing. The notices were forwarded to the electors at the addresses for which they are enrolled. Where non-voter notices were undelivered and returned to the returning officer he then also began roll correcting procedures by issuing objections to the continued enrolment of the electors concerned on the grounds that they are no longer resident at the address for which they are enrolled. However, notices of objection on the grounds of non-residence were not issued after failure to vote notices forwarded to non-urban Aboriginals were returned unclaimed. As the honourable senator is aware this may not necessarily indicate that Aboriginal electors have left the district for which they are enrolled. This, of course, does not mean that Aboriginal electors are retained on the electoral rolls for incorrect addresses. The accuracy of rolls is still maintained through periodic reviews. Additionally, while the return of unclaimed non-voter notices of itself does not result in roll correction, if the returning officer receives affirmative advice of address changes from, for example, community leaders, postmasters and teachers he will take objection action to have such electors' names removed from the roll. Senator Walsh —On 2 June 1983 (Hansard, page 1162), Senator Robert Ray asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the entry of foreign banks to the Australian market. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The Treasurer announced on 29 May 1983 that the Government has commissioned a group, under the chairmanship of Mr V. E. Martin, to review various aspects of the financial system. The terms of reference include consideration of participation in banking by domestic and foreign interests. The Treasurer expects to receive the report of the group shortly. In the meantime the Government is not proceeding with the implementation of the previous Government' s policy on foreign bank entry. Senator Gareth Evans —On 6 September 1983 (Hansard, page 331), Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence the following question without notice in relation to the new taxation arrangements for lump sum superannuation payments: Is it a fact that less than one percent of those who join the Defence Force and are thereby compulsorily enrolled in a superannuation scheme can expect to reach the age of 55 years without being earlier compulsorily retired from the Defence Force? Is it a fact that superannuees who retire before the age of 55 years are heavily penalised by taxation if they take a lump sum benefit-twice as heavily as those who retire after 55 years of age? Was the Defence Force superannuation scheme designed in part to provide a lump sum benefit to enable members of the Defence Force to set up in new careers to compensate them for compulsory retirement from the Defence Force at an early age? Why are members of the Defence Force now being penalised in this way, particularly as they do not receive, like airline pilots, excessive pay during their Defence Force careers? Is the Government doing anything about this problem? Lastly, and most importantly, who represented the interests of the Defence Force when the deal on superannuation was agreed between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions? The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Officers in the Defence Force have retiring ages ranging from 45 to 63 depending on their rank and Branch/Corps they are serving in. Other rank members are engaged for specific periods ranging from 3 to 9 years, with a statutory retiring age of 55. The majority of Defence Force personnel retire at ages which require them to start second careers and as the honourable senator implies in his question, the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme was introduced in 1973 by the then Labor Government, specifically to recognise this and other disabilities of Defence Force employment. As I announced recently, the Government has acted to protect the interests of Service personnel by minimising the effect of the new taxing provisions on the lump sum benefits available under the DFRDB scheme. On retirement, Service personnel are to be allowed to receive a lump sum greater than the four years of DFRDB pension available at present. The new entitlement is to be effective from 1 July 1983. It will accrue at a rate of five per cent of a year's entitlement for each year of service after 1 July, to keep in step with the graduated increase in tax. With a few exceptions, the amount of after-tax lump sum received will remain within two percent above or below the present rates. There will be a small reduction in fortnightly pension. The income tax provisions affecting lump sum severance payments are to apply uniformly to all forms of superannuation, including the Defence Force and other Government schemes. The changes to the DFRDB scheme demonstrate the Government's recognition of the special circumstances of Service life. The needs of the Defence Force have been before the Government since an early stage of development of the new taxing provisions. I wrote to the Prime Minister , and subsequently discussions were held between officers of my Department and the Treasury. I also discussed the matter personally with the Treasurer. The Defence Force case was represented fully and in a timely manner, as demonstrated by the outcome that I have explained. Senator Grimes —On 6 October 1983 (Hansard, page 1234), Senator Zakharov asked me, in my then capacity as Acting Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the limitations on benefits for psychiatric treatment imposed by private health insurance funds, and the position of patients undergoing such treatment under Medicare. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: No restrictions or limitations are permitted in relation to basic medical benefits tables and the same principle will apply to Medicare benefits. In relation to ancillary tables under the current arrangements registered health insurance funds may impose certain restrictions and annual limitations on the payment of 'gap' medical benefits, that is, the difference between basic medical benefits (85 per cent of doctors Schedule fees) and the Schedule fee. Most health funds impose such limitations on 'gap' benefits as a means of keeping contributions within reach of the general body of contributors. Under the Medicare arrangements to be introduced on 1 February 1984, private insurers, whether registered under the National Health Act or not, will not be permitted to offer certain medical insurance, including 'gap' medical insurance. Under Medicare, Medicare medical benefits will represent 85 per cent of the Schedule fee or the Schedule fee less $10, whichever is the greater amount. However, eligible persons who make, during any one financial year, a cumulative patient contribution of $150 in meeting the difference between Medicare benefits and the Schedule fee will be entitled, thereafter in that year, to Medicare benefits equal to 100 per cent of the Schedule fee. For the relevant five months of 1983-84, the threshold is $62.50. The Government believes that the threshold for 'gap' payments will provide significant protection against substantial medical costs and, in particular, for those with chronic illnesses requiring regular medical treatment. Nevertheless, the Government still considers that, in those circumstances, it would be more appropriate for doctors to direct bill Medicare. Senator Button —On 14 September 1983 (Hansard, page 662), Senator Harradine asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question, without notice, concerning reported remarks by Mr Justice Murphy on federal industrial law. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: My attention has been drawn to the reported comments made by Mr Justice Murphy at the recent Australian National University seminar on 'Changing Industrial Law '. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is presently examining the decisions of the High Court in the Tasmanian dam case and in the social welfare union case to ascertain their implications for the Commonwealth's powers in the industrial relations area. These two cases will also be of direct interest to the Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems that has been established by the Government. In accordance with the approach of this Government, there will be wide ranging consultations with interested parties before any changes are made to the Commonwealth's industrial relations legislation as a result of this examination. Until these processes have been completed it would be premature to speculate on what changes, if any, the Government would wish to make to existing legislation. Senator Gareth Evans —On 13 October 1983 (Hansard, page 1576), Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, whether the satellite communications facility at Watsonia could or would be a prime nuclear target of the Soviets in the case of a pre-emptive attack. The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: If global nuclear war were to occur, we cannot exclude the possibility that Australia would come under nuclear attack since we cannot know the strategic targets of Soviet planners. There would, however, clearly be many targets of higher military priority. It is the Government's view that there would be no reason for Watsonia to be selected as a nuclear target. Senator Grimes —On 7 September 1983 (Hansard, page 403) Senator Mason asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning a letter forwarded to pensioners by Medibank Private concerning hospital insurance. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The matter was taken up with the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission who acknowledges that the words used in the letter to pensioners are unfortunate and misleading, and are not an accurate statement of policy followed by Medibank Private. Because of their entitlements to Commonwealth medical benefits, eligible pensioners need only take out hospital insurance if they wish to have a choice of doctor in a public hospital or treatment in a private hospital. It is the policy of Medibank Private in relation to pensioners seeking hospital insurance, to request them to confirm their requirement for such insurance before the application is accepted. I understand that the reason for this approach is that some pensioners are unaware of the entitlements conferred on them by virtue of the pensioner health benefits entitlement card and, when made aware of their entitlements, withdraw the application for membership. I have been aware for some time of claims that some unethical persons have attempted to manipulate pensioners to take out health insurance, to be covered for private hospital treatment and doctor of choice, without properly informing pensioners of their entitlements. In these circumstances, it is particularly important that health insurance funds should avoid registering pensioners without carefully explaining their existing entitlements to them. The General Manager of the Commission has given an undertaking to have this form of letter more carefully worded to clarify the options open to pensioners. In reply to Senator Mason's statement that Medibank Private may have been attempting to divert pensioner clients to other funds because they may have a higher illness rate, the General Manager has given a categorical assurance that no person has been refused membership of Medibank Private on health grounds. Question No. 134 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: (1) Does the Government remain committed to the building of the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway (see Hansard, 22 April 1983, page 56). (2) Is the Government conscious of the railway's importance to the development of the Northern Territory. (3) Will the Government remain committed to the completion date of 1988, announced by the former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, on 14 February 1983. (4) When will the enabling legislation for this project be introduced into Parliament. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government has clearly indicated its preparedness to proceed with construction of the railway provided the Northern Territory accepts the proposal that the Territory contribute 40 per cent of its cost. The Government announced on 15 September 1983 an independent inquiry into transport services to the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory and South Australian Governments have agreed to co-operate in the inquiry. Mr David Hill, Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority of New South Wales, has been appointed to carry out the inquiry and work is already underway. In the meantime, work will continue on route identification and preliminary planning and design for the railway. $5m will be provided for this purpose during 1983-84. (2) The Government is very conscious of the significance of the project to the Northern Territory. Indeed, it is in recognition of this significance that the Government has offered to fund 60 per cent of the cost, despite the stringent financial circumstances. (3) The target completion date of 1988 for the railway was extremely ambitious, particularly in the light of current economic conditions and the budgetary constraints within which the two Governments are operating. The Commonwealth's proposal anticipated a more realistic completion date of 1992 with a corresponding lower level of annual expenditure. (4) Enabling legislation would be introduced into the Parliament when a formal agreement has been concluded with the Northern Territory Government in relation to the railway. Question No. 216 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 31 May 1983: (1) How advanced is the planning for the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, with particular reference to the following aspects of the rail link: (a) the protection and acquisition of land for the corridor; (b) the detailed planning of the track; (c) the bridge construction; and (d) the clearing of the track for the proposed line. (2) What are the details of: (a) the agreement between the construction authority of the Australian National Railways and the Aboriginal lands councils, with specific reference to Aboriginal traditional access; and (b) the siting of gravel sites and the provision of water points. (3) Is the planning of the railway completed, if not, when is it proposed to be completed. (4) When will the Government introduce enabling legislation. (5) What are the number of personnel who have been employed on the project to date. (6) What is the estimated cost of the overall planning and preparation and what is the estimated cost as of now to complete the planning. (7) What are the details of any agreements between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth relating to the railway. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Survey and engineering investigations are approximately 50 per cent complete. Detailed drawings are completed for the first 200-kilometre section northwards from Alice Springs. Design of bridges in this section is also complete. As the survey proceeds, the precise railway alignment and land requirements are progressively being passed to the Northern Territory Department of Lands for necessary planning action. An access track has been cleared for the full length of the railway alignment except for short sections north of Katherine where the alignment is very close to the Stuart Highway or otherwise follows the old narrow gauge railway. (2) The Australian National Railways Commission has consulted closely with the Aboriginal Land Councils and communities on the conditions to apply to construction and operation of the railway. These conditions will need to be formalised in agreements before construction proceeds. Ballast quarries are currently being proven by diamond drilling at 70 kilometres and 280 kilometres north of Alice Springs. Proven water bores are located at 15, 70, 90, 110, 126, 146, 164, 183 and 197 kilometres. Investigation of further quarries and water bores is continuing. (3) No. Planning is approaching 50 per cent completion. The railway alignment is expected to be precisely defined throughout during the 1984 dry season. (4) Enabling legislation would be introduced into the Parliament when a formal agreement has been concluded with the Northern Territory Government in relation to the railway. (5) Currently 100 persons are working full time directly on the project. These comprise surveyors, geologists, engineers, consultants in many fields, and supporting staff for these professional groups. (6) Approximately $5.3m has already been spent on route identification, preliminary planning and detailed design. It is estimated that the $5m to be provided during 1983-84 will permit completion of route identification and programmed preliminary planning works. (7) There is at this time no formal agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments relating specifically to the railway. Question No. 250 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 June 1983: (1) Did the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport give undertakings early this year that if elected a Labor Government would go ahead with the construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin Railway, which would have been built by 1988 under a coalition government. (2) Has the Government now imposed conditions and repudiated part of the responsibility for financing that railway. (3) Would construction of the railway have provided work for 2,000 people, in industries ranging from raw steel to construction, to rolling stock manufacture, and their associated service industries. (4) What will be the cost to the community in providing unemployment relief to these people. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) On gaining office the Government found that the actual size of the 1982-83 deficit it inherited was more than 50 per cent higher than the level publicly admitted by the previous Government. In this difficult financial situation, the Government undertook a detailed review of all revenue and expenditure commitments. The Government concluded that it would be irresponsible for the Government to go further than its offer to meet 60 per cent of the cost without much stronger evidence of the economic benefits from the point of view of Australia as a whole, including the Northern Territory. (2) The Government's basic commitment is to ensure that high standard all weather transport access to the Territory is provided in an economic and efficient manner. To this end an independent inquiry is being undertaken, in co-operation with the Northern Territory and South Australian Governments, into the cost effectiveness of alternative means of providing such access. The Northern Territory and South Australian Governments have agreed to co-operate with the inquiry. Mr David Hill, Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority of New South Wales, has been appointed to carry out the inquiry which will examine both construction of the railway and accelerated upgrading of the Stuart Highway. This inquiry will report on the economic, environmental, social and resource aspects and on the financial implications. (3) Direct employment on the project has been estimated at 380 workers-280 people on railway construction and 100 people for two years only on the Darwin installations. There would, of course, be indirect employment impacts. The nature and extent of these impacts are dependent upon a number of factors, including the existence of any excess capacity in supply industries. (4) The overall cost to the community of providing unemployment benefits is dependent upon the aggregate level of activity and would not be changed significantly by substitution of the railway for other major projects. Question No. 253 Senator Missen asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Does material in the magazine Soldier of Fortune principally relate to and specifically glorify the activities of mercenaries and professional killers. (2) Do advertisements and articles in the publication seek the recruitment of mercenaries. (3) Is the publication and persons associated with it in Australia in breach of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 or any other Australian law. (4) What is the circulation of the magazine in Australia and elsewhere. (5) Who is the publisher of this magazine and if it is a corporation, what are the names and address of the publisher and the beneficial owners. (6) Who is the principal distributor of the magazine in Australia and if it is a corporation what are the names and addresses of the beneficial owners. (7) Is it possible to estimate or identify the number of individual regular retail outlets for this magazine in Australia. (8) What do the latest official companies office records show about the financial performance and annual financial results of the distributor. (9) Is it possible to identify what portion of the distributor's profit or loss is attributable to activities related to the sale of the magazine. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The magazine Soldier of Fortune concerns itself with military matters including reviews on various weapons and reports on armed conflicts in various parts of the world. (2 and 3) An offence would only be committed against the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 if- (a) an advertisement was published- (i) for the purpose of recruiting persons to serve in an armed force in a foreign country; or (ii) containing specified information relating to service with such armed force ; or (b) if a person did any other act to facilitate or promote such recruitment. A perusal of a recent edition of the magazine did not reveal any evidence of an offence against that Act or any other law of the Commonwealth. (4) The Australian distributor (see answer to question 6 below) has informed my Department that the Australian circulation is 2,600 copies per issue. Overseas circulation is unknown. (5) The publisher and editor is Robert K. Brown of the Omega Group Limited, P.O . Box 693, Boulder, Colorado 80306 USA. (6) The sole distributor in Australia for this magazine is Gordon and Gotch Limited, 114 William Street, Melbourne Vic. 3000. This is a public company, the Principal Share Registry being Registry Managers (Australia) Pty Limited, 351 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic. 3000. (7) The Australian distributor has advised my Department that there are 1,350 estimated outlets for the magazine. (8) The consolidated profit for the year ended 31 March 1983 as disclosed in the published annual report of the distributor was $5,313,000. (9) The Australian distributor has advised my Department that it is not possible to identify the portion of profit attributable to the sale of Soldier of Fortune; however the distributor has indicated that it distributes an estimated 3,000 titles. Question No. 265 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations received information of irregularities with regard to the election of office bearers of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, Queensland Branch during 1980; if so, has he advised the Crown Law Office to consider these irregularities. (2) Has any member of parliament made representations to the Minister to intervene in this matter with a view of delaying or preventing legal action by the Commonwealth with regard to the alleged irregularities. Senator Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There were election irregularities alleged to have occurred in the Queensland Branch of the Transport Workers Union considered by the Federal Court in 1980. The Court found that they did not affect the result of the election. In the meantime, certain other allegations have been made. I understand they are being considered by the law officers. (2) No. Question No. 295 Senator Childs asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Does the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas Heights, New South Wales, record the amount of noble gases discharged into the atmosphere from its Lucas Heights Research Establishment; if so, can the Minister for Resources and Energy supply the details of these emissions, on a monthly basis, since the establishment commenced operations. (2) If these emissions are not monitored and recorded can the Minister explain why this is so. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Radioactive noble gases arise from two sources at the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories. Firstly, a small quantity of argon-41 is produced during the operation of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's research reactor HIFAR by neutron activation of natural argon in the air used to operate a number of pneumatic isotope production rigs in the reactor. Air samples taken regularly for the past nine years from the HIFAR ventilation system have confirmed that, during the operation of the reactor, there is an average discharge of about 6.5 terabecquerels-TBg-of argon-41 emitted per four-week period. Secondly, fission product noble gases, xenons and kryptons, have been discharged intermittently through a stack at Lucas Heights when irradiated uranium targets are being processed in a hot cell to extract molybdenum-99 for the production of certain radiopharmaceuticals. Between 1967 (when production of molybdenum-99 from irradiated uranium commenced at Lucas Heights) and June 1980, emissions of fission product noble gases were controlled primarily by limiting the number of uranium targets processed and varying the cooling period for targets prior to processing. Over this period, the emissions were not regularly monitored but were calculated as being in proportion to the amount of molybdenum -99 produced, which rose steadily from 1967. By 1979, as a consequence of the growth in requirements for radiopharmaceuticals, emissions of fission product noble gases, had reached a calculated level such that the working limit for the stack concerned could have been marginally exceeded over the first nine months of the year. These estimated emissions were based on very conservative assumptions and represented maximum possible releases. The estimated dose to the nearest members of the public accrued as a result of these maximum possible discharges would have been less than 1 per cent of the lowest limit recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the provisions of the New South Wales Radioactive Substances Act. From September 1979 to June 1980, HIFAR was shut down and there was no production of molybdenum-99 and therefore no discharge of radioactive noble gases. In June 1980, the AAEC installed charcoal traps for reducing emissions of fission product noble gases and special monitoring equipment for measuring the released gases. Discharges of fission product noble gases have been routinely monitored since that time and the measured discharges for each four week period between 30 June 1980 an 22 August 1983 are provided in the following table. The discharges of argon-41 from HIFAR and the tabulated measured discharges of fission product noble gases are below the maximum discharge limits authorised by the New South Wales Radiological Advisory Council on the basis of internationally accepted standards for the operation of the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories. (2) Not applicable. RELEASE OF FISSION PRODUCT NOBLE GASES FROM THE LUCAS HEIGHTS RESEARCH LABORATORIES FOR EACH FOUR WEEK PERIOD BETWEEN 30 JUNE 1980 AND 22 AUGUST 1983 Period TBg 1 13.7 2 15.3 3 19.2 4 12.2 5 9.0 6 5.0 7 21.9 8 12.7 9 25.5 10 19.9 11 21.1 12 16.3 13 12.7 14 7.8 15 5.5 16 5.5 17 3.6 18 3.1 19 4 .7 20 4.9 21 6.5 22 6.6 23 4.3 24 4.4 25 4.7 26 7.5 27 9.4 28 19.1 29 7.9 30 6.1 31 5.8 32 6.1 33 6.3 34 10.7 35 13.8 36 7.6 37 15.0 38 7.0 39 12.6 40 12.2 41 14.6 Question No. 296 Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Which countries regularly monitor the human rights performance of other individual nations and regularly publish 'country' reports resulting from that monitoring which are prepared and issued separately by embassies. (2) In what form, when and in respect of which individual countries have the Dutch and Belgian embassies published such reports since 1975. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is not possible to say conclusively which countries regularly monitor the human rights performance of other individual nations. However, many countries, including Australia, devote considerable time and resources to keeping themselves informed about human rights developments. Australia works closely with like-minded countries in sharing information and assessments in the human rights field. To our knowledge the only foreign government which regularly publishes human rights reports on individual countries is the United States. The Department of State submits an annual report to Congress entitled 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices' which covers all nations and is designed to facilitate consideration by Congress of the Administration's proposals under the Foreign Assistance Act. At the multilateral level, the European Parliament has recently published a country by country report on human rights in various regions. The idea of a global human rights report has also been canvassed within the United Nations, most recently at the 36th Session of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. A number of influential international non government organisations, including Amnesty International, also produce useful human rights compendiums on individual countries. (2) The Belgian and Dutch governments do not publish human rights reports on individual countries, although human rights issues have been raised in reports to the Belgian and Dutch parliaments on wider international political issues, such as South Africa or Latin America. Some of this material would of course be circulated on an ad hoc basis to overseas missions of Belgium and the Netherlands. Question No. 297 Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs update the figures given to former Senator Neal in answer to Question No. 598 (Hansard, 2 June 1981, page 2492) concerning Australia's foreign aid and will he identify similar details of the cost and recipient of all military aid given by Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: With regard to the first part of the question- (1) In 1982-83 Australia's foreign aid expenditure represented 2.1 per cent of budget outlays and was the equivalent of $A744.6m. (2) Table A lists all countries that received Australian bilateral aid and the amounts provided during the financial years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Figures are shown on a financial rather than calendar year basis as they are a more accurate reflection of aid flows. (3) Table B shows the percentage figure of Australian aid that Pacific island nations and territories have received from 1975-76 to 1982-83 inclusive. With regard to the second part of the question information on military aid should be sought from the Minister for Defence. Table A AUSTRALIA'S OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BILATERAL AID BY COUNTRYYear ended 30 June $ 000 Recipient area/country 1981 1982 1983 ASIA Middle East- Iran 2 * x . . Jordan 384 314 557 Lebanon 251 352 4,126 Oman . . 8 . . Syria 10 5 61 Yeman, Arab Rep. . . . . 72 Yeman, Democratic . . . . 11 * Unspecified 1 * 158 66 Total 648 837 4,893 South- Afghanistan 16 * 3 * . . Bangladesh 24,504 26,055 21,501 Bhutan 292 406 559 Burma 9,845 9,007 12,633 India 3,102 1,799 2,079 Maldivea, Rep. of 675 534 458 Nepal 1,505 1,354 1,509 Pakistan 7,470 12,001 7,569 Sri Lanka 5,127 11,787 8,882 Unallocated . . 250 . . Total 52,536 63,196 55,190 East- China, Peoples Rep. 291 4,887 4,494 Hong Kong 49 72 106 Indonesia 39,837 43,810 42,918 Kampuchea 5,100 (a) 3,719 (a) 2,099 Korea, Rep. of 191 168 199 Laos 795 984 1,845 Malaysia 7,567 7,545 8,553 Philippines 11,479 13,319 16 ,707 Singapore 1,311 1,867 2,029 Thailand 7,805 9,224 15,676 Vietnam 15 * 4 * 1 Unallocated 1,283 1,291 3,386 Total 75,723 86,890 98,013 Unallocated Asia 5,126 5,017 6,115 TOTAL ASIA 134,033 155,940 164,211 AUSTRALIA'S OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BILATERAL AID BY COUNTRYYear ended 30 June $'000 Recipient area/country 1981 1982 1983 EUROPE Cyprus 21 12 36 * Greece . . 23 2 Malta 287 269 81 Turkey 1 1 1 Unallocated 14 * 1 * 5 TOTAL EUROPE 323 306 125 AFRICA North of Sahara- Algeria 105 7 * 59 * Egypt 6,120 6,545 7,228 Tunisia . . . . 41 * Total 6,225 6,552 7,328 South of Sahara- Botswana 78 288 585 Comoros . . . . 1,095 Djibouti 15 . . . . Ethopia 3, 845 6,033 4,331 Gambia 21 * 58 60 * Ghana 518 482 2,029 Kenya 5,465 5,465 6,811 Lesotho 110 * 239 488 Madagascar . . 17 * 1,158 Malawi 27 * 110 * 205 * Mauritius 2,173 2,086 2,760 Mozambique . . 718 2,114 Nigeria 244 186 458 Rwanda . . . . 45 Senegal . . . . 53 * Seychelles 636 637 387 Sierra Leone 20 * 625 71 * Somalia 1,638 5,546 2,306 Sudan 4,601 4,938 3,496 Swaziland 64 * 94 117 Tanzania 6,792 9,482 9,045 Uganda 2,944 4,368 4,738 Zaire . . 2,964 . . Zambia 1,082 3,297 2,738 Zimbabwe 4,063 1,164 2,115 East African Co mmunity 5 * . . 2 * Unallocated 34 * 402 31 * Total 34,375 49,199 47,238 Unallocated Africa 1,138 2,024 1,676 TOTAL AFRICA 41,738 57,775 56,242 AMERICA North & Central- Bahamas . . 57 * 59 * Barbados 20 * 2 * . . Belize . . 10 * . . Costa Rica . . 10 * . . Dominican Republic 2 * 3 * 2 * Jamaica 126 198 308 Mexico 8 40 64 Nicaragua . . 2 * . . Trinidad & Tobago 2 * . . . . West Indies- Antigua . . . . 35 * Dominica 5 43 35 Grenada 6 * 39 * 39 * St. Lucia 3 * 26 41 * St. Vincent . . 23 56 * Unallocated 62 . . 6 * Total 234 435 645 South- Argentina 6 26 4 Bolivia 3 * 4 * . . Brazil 7 8 8 Chile 6 14 10 Ecuador . . . . 20 Guyana 18 * 15 * 1l * Peru 22 23 18 Total 62 90 71 Unallocated America 259 342 349 TOTAL AMERICA 555 885 1,065 AUSTRALIA'S OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BILATERAL AID BY COUNTRYYear ended 30 June $'000 Recipient area/country 1981 1982 1983 OCEANIA Cook Islands 217 859 688 Fiji 9 657 11,590 12,474 Kiribati 2,482 2,502 2, 289 Nauru x 1 6 New Caledonia 2 2 3 Niue Island 243 252 251 Papua New Guinea 245,113 252,897 274,947 Pacific Is. (U.S.) 27 * 19 * 15 Polynesia, French . . 1 103 Solomon Islands 5,530 5,937 8,830 Tokelau Islands 1 . . 1 Tonga 4,591 5,896 4,146 Tuvalu 644 690 1,148 Vanuatu 3,547 3,409 5,881 Western Samoa 2,816 4,005 7,207 Unallocated 3,995 3,585 5,685 TOTAL OCEANIA 278,865 291,645 323,674 Unspecified World 1,848 2,554 7,123 WORLD TOTAL 457,362 509,105 552,440 (a) Includes humanitarian relief for Kampucheans in refugee camps in Thailand. * Countries receiving training aid only. Table B The following table lists the percentage figure of Australian aid to South Pacific countries for the period specified. AID TO PACIFIC COUNTRIES(Including PNG) Aid to Pacific as *Aid to Aid to proportion South Pacific as Year of total Pacific proportion (ending Bilateral bilateral organisa- total aid 30 June) aid program tions program 1975-76 219.7 72.4 1.4 61.9 1976-77 238.9 75.0 1.2 61.9 1977-78 237.6 70.0 2. 1 55.7 1978-79 264.6 67.6 2.8 56.5 1979-80 267.1 65.0 3.9 52.5 1980-81 278.9 61.0 3.7 49.1 1981-82 291.6 57.3 5.9 44.3 1982-83 323.7 58.6 6.5 43.5 * Contributions to organisations working solely in Pacific Islands. In addition , a proportion of Australia's contributions to other multilateral organisations, the United Nations Development Program, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, the Asian Development Bank, et cetera, would be channelled to the South Pacific. (2) Data relating to military aid is not available in the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Question No. 302 Senator Jack Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) When was the Decca navigation system installed at Port Hedland. (2) What was the capital cost of providing this system. (3) What are the annual operating costs of the system. (4) Does the Department of Transport provide any buoys at Port Hedland; if so, (a) what was the capital cost of providing these buoys, and (b) what is their annual operating cost. (5) Why are the buoys retained in view of the apparent reliability of the Decca system as well as the preference of ships for electronic aids. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Decca Navigator System was installed at Port Hedland during the 1969-70 financial year and was officially commissioned on 11 May 1970. (2) 1969-70 records of the former Department of Shipping and Transport showed that the total installed cost-including spares provision-was $1.58m. (3) The annual direct operating cost of the system was about $380,000 in 1981- 82. (4) The Department of Transport provides five buoys at Port Hedland to mark the outer entrance of the port approach channel. (a) Financial information was not kept in a form which enables the cost of providing these buoys in 1969 to be readily identified. However, the Department has estimated that the cost would probably have been of the order of $65,000 in 1969 prices. (b) The annual direct operating costs of the five buoys is about $95,000. (5) Not all vessels using Port Hedland are equipped with Decca navigation receivers. Additionally, the industry considers that the buoys provide a navigational service which is complementary to that provided by the Decca navigator system and have sought their retention. Question No. 310 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Transport or his Department received specific requests to de-man lights; if so, (a) who have these requests come from; (b) what lights do they cover and (c) when were they received. (2) Does the commercial shipping industry regularly complain over the level of light dues they are required to pay. (3) What is the level of dues presently charged. (4) How has this rate changed over the last 10 years. (5) How does the Australian rate compare with that charged in: (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan, (d) New Zealand, and (e) France. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The commercial shipping industry, through its representatives on the Maritime Services Advisory Committee (Navigational Safety), has made it clear that the Commonwealth marine navigational aids system should be operated efficiently, and that lightstations should be unmanned where achievable. Proposals for the unmanning of lightstations were developed under the direction of the former Government. No further unmanning is to proceed pending the outcome of the inquiry into lightstations being carried out by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. (2) No. (3) The light dues rate is presently 53 cents per net registered ton per quarter. (4) The movement in the light dues rate (in cents per net registered tone per quarter) since 1 October 1973 has been as follows: cents 1 October 1973 to 30 September 1976 31 1 October 1976 to 30 September 1977 35 1 October 1977 to 30 September 1982 41 1 October 1982 to 30 September 1983 49 (5) There is no levy charged to shipping in the USA, Japan or France for the purposes of meeting the costs associated with marine navigational aids. I am informed that the rates applying in the United Kingdom and New Zealand are as follows: United Kingdom- Light dues are levied on the net registered tonnage of vessels as per the following scales: (i) Home trade sailing ships: 72 pence per 10 tons per voyage. (ii) Foreign-going sailing ships: 1 Pound 44 pence per 10 tons per voyage. (iii) Home trade steamers: Full rate-1 Pound 44 pence per 10 tons per voyage; reduced rate (applies to visiting cruise ships)-72 pence per 10 tons per voyage. (iv) Foreign-going steamers: Full rate-2 Pounds 88 pence per 10 tons per voyage ; reduced rate (applies to visiting cruise ships)-1 Pound 44 pence per 10 tons per voyage. Should a home trade ship make more than 14 voyages in any year, or a foreign trade ship more than 7 voyages in any year, no further light dues are payable for subsequent voyages in that year. New Zealand- Light dues are levied on the gross tonnage of vessels and operators may elect to pay on the basis of one or other of the following: (i) an annual levy of $2 per gross tonne; (ii) a per voyage levy of 8 cents per gross tonne on first entry to a New Zealand port and 2 cents per gross tonne on entry to each subsequent New Zealand port during that same voyage. Question No. 317 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 August 1983: (1) Is the building of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway a Commonwealth function. (2) Is the only money that the Commonwealth Government gives to the Northern Territory for agreed State functions: if so, why is the Commonwealth Government asking the Northern Territory Government to pay for a Commonwealth function. (3) Why does the Government persist in demanding a Northern Territory contribution since all other standard gauge rail links have been paid for by the Commonwealth. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Under the Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910 responsibility for all Northern Territory functions, including railways, was passed from South Australia to the Commonwealth. Under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 direct responsibility for State functions was passed to the Northern Territory Legislative Council. Whilst formal responsibility for the railway was not passed to the Northern Territory, there is no legal impediment to the Northern Territory Government contributing to the costs of the railway if it assesses it to be of sufficient priority to justify use of Northern Territory funds. (3) The Commonwealth provides funds to the Northern Territory to assist it to carry out State and other functions which are accorded priority by the Northern Territory Government. These funds are in addition to the Territory's funds raised from its own revenue sources. The Commonwealth has not paid for all other standard gauge rail links. Whilst arrangements have varied between standardisation projects as a general principle the projects were funded 70 per cent of the costs by non repayable grants and 30 per cent of the costs by interest bearing repayable loans. Where substantial upgrading of the rail system was involved the responsible State was required to meet these costs. Question No. 368 Senator Colston asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: What are the procedures adopted for payment or repayment to the Department of Social Security of an age pension when a pensioner dies on a day other than the date on which the pension is due. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Pensions are payable neither in arrears nor in advance. Rather each instalment is due and payable on each and every payday during which the pensioner remains eligible. When notification of death is received and one or more instalments have been made after date of death, a request for the return of all such instalments is made since there is no entitlement to such instalments. However, where there is a surviving spouse, the equivalent of the two pensions is normally payable to the survivor for up to twelve weeks. Question No. 373 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: Will either Mr Ken Wiltshire or Mr Max Bourke of the Australian Heritage Commission be resigning their positions with the Commission in the near future; if so (a) when will the positions be advertised and in which journals; (b) who will be in charge of selecting replacements; and (c) what guidelines will be used to choose the successors of these officers who have so ably championed the cause of the preservation of our natural heritage. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1. Mr Max Bourke, formerly Director of the Australian Heritage Commission, was transferred at his request to the newly established position of Assistant Secretary, Policy Co-ordination Branch, Cultural and Heritage division, in the Department of Home Affairs and Environment on 26 September 1983. In his new position Mr Bourke will continue to be closely involved with the Commission and with heritage matters in general. Dr Kenneth Wiltshire was appointed on 28 January 1982 for a three-year term as Chairman of the AHC. Dr Wiltshire has advised me that he has no intention of resigning and has made no statements that might have given the impression that he intended to resign. (a) The position of Director of the Commission is at Level 1, Second Division, and is on the establishment of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. It will be filled by transfer of a Level 1 officer from within the Department. This is necessary because the Department has at present an equal number of Level 1 officers attached to it as it has Level 1 positions available. The position will therefore not be advertised outside the Department. (b) The Chairman of the Commission and a senior officer of the Department of Home Affairs will interview officers of the Department expressing interest in transferring to the vacant position. The final decision will be made by the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs and environment, Dr D.F. McMichael. (c) The selection will be made having due regard to the diverse qualities and skills required of the Director of the Commission. Selection criteria will be drawn up in consultation with the Chairman and other members of the Commission. Question No. 377 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) How many interstate and overseas vessels use Montague Island lighthouse each year. (2) What is the size range of these vessels. (3) Are any oil tankers included in these vessels. (4) How close do these vessels come to Montague Island. (5) Is the body of water between Montague Island and the coast a recognised track; if so, what size vessels can use this track, and is it a preferred route. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No traffic count is maintained but it is estimated that about 12 overseas and interstate ships pass Montague Island daily. About half would pass at night and use the lighthouse. (2) Sizes range up to about 170,000 dead weight tonnage, occasionally larger. (3) Oil tankers are included amongst these vessels. (4) The distance ships pass off the island is at their master's discretion. (5) The body of water between Montague Island and the coast is a recognised track and available for use by ships of all sizes. Most vessel's masters prefer the route to the seaward of Montague Island. Question No. 378 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: Is the Bringagee railway siding, between Narrandera and Hay, being considered as the site of a new toxic waste incinerator; if so, is the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware that this site is on the floodplain of the Murrumbidgee River and that contaminated water from this floodplain would flow into the Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers, eventually making its way into the water supply of Adelaide. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am advised as follows- It is understood that the Bringagee railway siding was under consideration by the New South Wales Government as the possible site for a new toxic waste incinerator, but that this proposal has how been abandoned. Question No. 391 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, on notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of a campaign being conducted by the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia (CEMAA) against the proponents of free-range eggs. (2) Is it true that the CEMAA receives its money from a levy imposed on all producers; if so, does the Minister believe it is unfair for the CEMAA to actively work against one segment of its own industry, using that segment's money against itself. (3) Will the Minister make an undertaking to investigate this matter and ensure that the CEMAA does not favour one section of the industry at the expense of another. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to my reply to a similar question without notice from Senator Jack Evans which appeared in Hansard on 23 August 1983 on page 122. I have nothing further to add to that reply. Question No. 403 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: (1) Is it a fact that the United Kingdom Government is about to embark on a plan for the sea dumping of atomic waste. (2) Has the United Kingdom Government three options before it for the depositing of nuclear waste. (3) Are these options the depositing of waste in deep stable rock formations on land, on the deep ocean bed, and in sediments under the ocean bed. (4) Is the United Kingdom Government's plan contrary to international conventions. (5) Has the United Kingdom Government made any approaches to the Australian Government in an endeavour to allow high level nuclear waste dumping on the sea- bed or below it. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The United Kingdom Government has for a number of years been dumping packaged low and intermediate level nuclear wastes in the Atlantic Ocean in accordance with the International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter-the London Convention-to which the United Kingdom is a party. Sea dumping of high level radioactive waste is prohibited under this Convention and is not being carried out. (2) and (3) A number of options for the final disposal of high level radioactive waste are under consideration by nuclear countries. By far the most advanced concept is the disposal of high level waste into deep geological formations on land and test facilities are under development in a number of countries. Other options include deposition of solidified waste on the deep ocean bed and in sediments under the ocean bed. The United Kingdom Government has been undertaking research into these options for a number of years with a view to assessing the feasibility of the various land and ocean-based options. (4) International conventions do not prohibit research into the concept of ocean-based disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The United Kingdom Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Environment, Mr Waldegrave, stated on 14 September 1983 that any eventual plan for deep ocean burial of high level waste may well need new international agreements before going ahead. He emphasised that it has never been, and is not now, the intention of his Government to break international law. (5) No. Question No. 406 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: (1) How many recipients of unemployment benefits in 1982-83 were aged between 16 and 18 years. (2) What was the aggregate cost of unemployment benefits paid in 1982-83 to these recipients. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The estimated average number of unemployment beneficiaries aged 16 to under 18 years on benefit at the end of each week in 1982-83 is 51,300. (2) The cost of unemployment benefits paid to recipients 16 to under 18 years of age is not separately available from the total cost for unemployment benefits . However, it is estimated the cost for 16 to under 18 year olds was in the vicinity of $100m in 1982-83. Question No. 435 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 October 1983: (1) Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7 October 1983, by Paul Kelly on the pecuniary interests declaration in which he states that 'this appears to be comprehensive. But the reality of such forms is that any Minister who wants to conceal his assets or investments can conceal virtually the lot. For instance, the Prime Minister's office yesterday confirmed questions from the Herald that Ministers are not required to declare property held by any company in which they hold shares, or investments made by any such company.'; and if so, (2) Does the Prime Minister agree that, given the lack of information tabled by Ministers recently in regard to this matter of pecuniary interests, it is but a sham and a ploy to mislead the Australian community. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Yes. (2) No. The Government took the initiative in this important area of public accountability by tabling statements of the private interests of Ministers and those of their families of which they were aware and is pleased to see that each House of the Parliament has agreed to request its Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on what changes to standing orders might be needed to require all senators and members to provide similar statements of private interests. The references to the Standing Orders Committees will also allow reports on the desirability of adopting other provisions relating to members of parliament contained in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest. Question No. 451 Senator Hearn asked the Minister for Social Security, on notice, on 19 October 1983: (1) What are the number of workers compensation determinations made in respect of the Australian Public Service (APS) in 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. (2) What were the causes of these workers compensation determinations. (3) How many of these claims, in each year, were related to tenosynovitis. (4) What is the statistical breakdown, by sex, of these workers compensation determinations in relation to tenosynovitis determination. (5) Has the APS staff been increased in these years according to increases in workloads for each department. (6) How long did it take to complete investigations relating to workers compensation determinations for each year 1980 to 1982. (7) If increases in (1) above are significant, has the number of staff investigating workers compensation determinations been increased to either maintain or reduce the time to make determinations. (8) What is the number of persons determined for workers compensation for tenosynovitis who have exceeded 26 weeks leave due to the condition for each year 1980 to 1982. (9) What is the situation regarding workers compensation payments for persons in (8) above, in respected periods exceeding 26 weeks. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Statistics are not available in the form requested. Several determinations are made for most claims. Statistics on claims are maintained on a financial year basis for Commonwealth departments and authorities. Following are details of claims on which an initial determination was made in the financial years shown, by employees in Commonwealth departments and authorities covered by the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act: 1979-80 Liability admitted Disallowed Total Commonwealth de- partments 11,715 813 12,528 Commonwealth authorities 19,206 339 19,545 30,921 1,152 32,073 1980-81 Liability admitted Disallowed Total Commonwealth de- partments 12,491 968 13,459 Commonwealth authorities 19,814 438 20,252 32,305 1,406 33,711 1981-82 Liability admitted Disallowed Total Commonwealth de- partments 13,234 1,149 14,383 Commonwealth authorities 21,313 626 21,939 34,547 1,775 36,322 1982-83 Liability admitted Disallowed Total Commonwealth de- partments 13,789 1,018 14,807 Commonwealth authorities 21,761 467 22,228 35,550 1,485 37,035 (2) Statistics have not been maintained regarding the nature of diseases or injuries for which claims have been made. (3), (4), (8) and (9) Details have been sought from each department and authority concerned. These will be provided to the honourable senator as soon as they are available. (5) It is suggested that this question be directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. (6) Statistics have not been maintained on the time taken to determine claims. A sample survey of claims on which an initial determination was made between 1 July 1982 and 31 March 1983 in Commonwealth departments and authorities showed that two-thirds of claims were processed within 12 weeks from the date of lodgement. (7) The present administrative arrangements provide for the bulk of claims to be handled by delegates of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation located in over 100 departments and authorities. Details are not available as to the number of staff dealing with compensation claims in the various departments and authorities. I am concerned at the delays involved in determining claims. Investigations are proceeding as to ways in which delays can be reduced including bringing the work directly under the control of the Commissioner's staff.