Thursday, 3 November 1983 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator D. J. Hamer) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) left Australia today to attend a meeting of the Food and Agricultural Organisation in Rome and to hold ministerial discussions in the Middle East on Australia's meat trade. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) is Acting Minister for Primary Industry until Mr Kerin returns. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General Revenue Grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 11 citizens), Boswell (from 29 citizens), Collard (from 30 citizens) and Jessop (from 37 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 Chaney (from 90 citizens), Childs (from 36 citizens), Chipp (from 41 citizens), Jack Evans (from 100 citizens), Mason (from 156 citizens) and Richardson (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 1,076 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 utilising 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Childs (from 50 citizens), Mason (from 32 citizens) and Zakharov ( from 79 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 Gareth Evans (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Church of Mary Queen of Peace Klaipeda, Lithuania was the only church permitted (by the Soviet authorities) to be built in post-war Lithuania. That the church was built by the Catholic parishoners from their own resources and with support from overseas Christians. That upon completion of the church building in 1960, the church was not allowed to be consecrated and, in 1961 was resumed by the State for purposes other than religious. That this resumption of the church and the subsequent persecution and arrests of the local clergy and other christians is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenent on Human Rights. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled request the Australian Government to communicate most strongly to the Government of the USSR the sympathy of the petitioners for the plight of the Lithuanian Christians and ask that the Church of Mary Queen of Peace be restored to the Catholics of Klaipeda for the practice of their religion without interference. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 53 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 1988 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 37 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present the 208th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —by leave-The 208th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's earlier report-No. 194-on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1980-81). The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used by the Government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's 194th report which examined departments expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1980-81) was tabled in Parliament on 20 April 1982. In accordance with normal practice, the Committee obtained from departments 129 explanations relating to items from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in 1980-81. Four departments, the departments of Defence, Finance, Industry and Commerce and the Australian Federal Police were selected for public examination and additional written information was requested from a further 12 departments. The only amounts which should remain a charge to the Appropriations for the Advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are urgent and unforeseen expenditures which arise between time of preparation of the additional Appropriation Bills Nos. 3 and 4 and the close of the financial year. In its examination, the Committee seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the Advance has been confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or additional estimates. The Committee concluded that in most cases, expenditure was used according to the accepted guidelines. Notwithstanding this, the Committee resolved to act in closer consultation in the future with the Department of Finance in examining departmental requests for funds from the Advance and their final explanations of expenditure. The Committee is satisfied with the Department of Finance response to report 194 and notes that as a result of the Committee's inquiry, policy revisions were effected to establish new procedures to apply to departments submitting applications for funds which will remain a final charge to the Advance in a certain year. The Minister for Finance has agreed that copies of all departmental applications for funds from the AMF which will remain a final charge to the AMF at 30 June be sent to the Public Accounts Committee as soon as possible after approval is granted. Unsuccessful applications for AMF funds classified as 'non-approved' by the Minister for Finance will not be sent to the Committee. This arrangement supersedes the current after the end of the financial year procedure which requires departments to submit to the Committee explanations in respect of each amount that remains a final charge to the AMF. To assist the Committee in its assessment of the need for recourse to the AMF, it will be necessary for departments to ensure that applications submitted to the Department of Finance for funds from AMF which will remain a final charge to the AMF at 30 June contain or are supported by detail which will enable the Committee to assess the requirement. Estimates explanations relating to the appropriation item concerned that were submitted to the Parliament in the Budget and Additional Estimates contexts or, where a new item is concerned, similar background information, are suggested as possible supporting documents. The applications submitted are to continue to justify the urgent and unforeseen criteria. Applications which do not address the criteria will not be approved. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs-eighty-first series, dated November 1983, together with extracts from the minutes. I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement and to make a short statement on one aspect of it. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Report I have just tabled on the 81st Series of Variations to the City Plan covers 19 variations and recommends the approval of work valued at $7m. The Committee in considering these proposed variations took evidence from several organisations including a community group, as well as a member of the ACT House of Assembly. The Committee approves the variations contained in the 81st Series of Variations except Variation 19. Variation 19 concerns the village of Tharwa and the Committee has agreed to defer examination of this variation so that further studies can be undertaken. The Committee has approved a variation which will allow the completion of the duplication of the Federal Highway between Wells Station Road and the ACT/NSW border. This duplication is to be completed in time for the Bicentenary celebrations in 1988. The New Parliament House will be opened early in that year and a large influx of visitors is expected for the opening and for a considerable period after the opening. However, during the Inquiry, the Committee was informed that on present indications the duplication of the NSW section of the Federal Highway will not be completed before 1988. While the Committee understands that New South Wales has other priorities in highway construction, the Committee is disappointed that the duplication of the Federal Highway will not be completed by 1988. The Committee therefore recommends that the Minister for Transport confer with the New South Wales Government to endeavour to have the duplication of this major access road to Canberra completed for the Bicentenary. Senator REID —I refer to the upgrading of the Federal Highway which, certainly, it had been hoped would be completed by 1988. The part in the Australian Capital Territory is proceeding as a result of this decision and will be completed. In the course of our inquiry we were informed that the other part of the Federal Highway in New South Wales would not be completed by 1988. It seems it has slipped somewhat in the New South Wales Government's order of priorities. In view of the state of that road, the amount of use it receives and the danger to traffic at the present time we were somewhat dismayed at that decision. We have recommended that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) confer with the New South Wales Government with a view to having that road upgraded at least by 1988. I hope the matter will be taken seriously and pursued. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee B and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.12) —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- The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956 in order to permit the Commission to operate more as a commercial business undertaking. The opportunity is also being taken to repeal certain sections of the Act which are not appropriate to legislation concerning the establishment and operation of the Commission. The Bill is of importance to future development of the Australian Shipping Commission which trades as the Australian National Line. We recognise the importance of reliable economic and stable shipping to Australian domestic and international trade. We recognise the role ANL has played in the development of modern Australian shipping. Equally we recognise the challenge to ANL of current conditions prevailing world-wide in the shipping industry and the need for it to be put on a proper commercial footing. ANL must be freed of unnecessary bureaucratic restraints if it is to survive and develop. It needs commercial flexibility to respond to market opportunities and to deal with competitive pressures as they arise. This Bill contains several of the provisions of an earlier Bill introduced with bipartisan support by the former Minister for Transport and Construction, the Hon. Ralph Hunt. We commend him for this action. But this tentative step in the direction of deregulating ANL was not enough. It did not overcome the years of neglect by the former Government which resulted from lack of leadership and clear policy guidelines. This Government recognised that if the process of decline in ANL and disharmony throughout the maritime industry was to be reversed several steps had to be taken. The key ingredients to arrest ANL's decline were five-fold: Firstly, ANL needed to be put on a proper financial footing. It needed an injection of equity capital to put it on a proper commercial basis with an equity/loan gearing ratio more closely related to that of its competitors. An undue interest burden simply added alarmingly to ANL's costs. Any prudent financial manager knows the importance of a company's gearing ratio. When this Government came to office ANL was in a parlous financial situation. It had a gearing ratio of 15:1 as at 30 June 1982. This worsened with the unprecedented losses being incurred during 1982/83. The cupboard was bare. The Government responded by converting $60 million in loan funds to equity and injecting a further $30 million into the enterprise to put it on a proper commercial basis. It did so on a conditional basis. It called for a determined commitment by management and unions to greater productivity and joint action to improve ANL's performance. Secondly, management needed to be streamlined and modernised. This is an ongoing process, but several useful steps have been made. Head office staff have been trimmed by 20 per cent. This Bill also provides for a strengthening of the management team and clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Chairman and the Chief Executive officer. It provides for a part-time Chairman of the Commission and a full-time Managing Director who will be the Chief Executive and a member of the Commission. Thirdly, the climate of industrial relations had to be improved and the working relationship between management and employees given a positive and constructive direction. A better industrial climate was long overdue. The Minister for Transport took the initiative by chairing meetings between ANL management and the unions. We are delighted that both parties have responded positively and have established a better climate for dealing with the serious problems facing ANL. The unions now have a greater involvement and have a greater opportunity to contribute to the improvement in ANL through the regular consultative meetings that have now been established. In particular an ANL Shipboard Practices Committee has been established under the Chairmanship of Mr Charles Fitzgibbon who is a Commissioner. This committee is working assiduously to deal with a range of manning and shipboard practices to improve productivity and reduce costs. They have already made some valuable progress. ANL faces difficult times with world shipping currently depressed and experiencing tough competition. To meet them successfully both the workforce and management must jointly contribute to a more competitive ANL. The unions are responsibly facing up to implications of the financial stresses confronting ANL. Their officials are making some difficult decisions. While there may be fewer jobs available in the short term, we stress that this process is essential to ANL's survival, to its growth and to it providing more jobs in the future. Fourthly, ANL needed to become more commercial, more market oriented, to be freed from bureaucratic restraints and ecouraged to develop. Several of the provisions in this Bill are specifically directed at providing that encouragement and that freedom. Fifthly, the climate within which the industry operates needs to be conducive to stability and future growth. This requires the Government to set the scene by having policies in place that offer reasonable oportunities for efficient Australian Companies to participate in a reasonably equitable way in the shipping activity generated by the trade and commerce of the nation. In this area the Government is establishing the climate with responsible policies. We will be introducing legislation these Sittings to give effect to the recommendations for accelerated depreciation allowances contained in the Crawford Report on Revitalisation of the Australian Shipping Industry. That report was adopted by the previous Government and received bipartisan support from this Government when in Opposition. Again we congratulate the former Minister for Transport and Construction the Honourable Ralph Hunt for his initiative. We believe that an equitable share of Australia's trade should be carried in Australian ships. Again we would wish to see this done in a responsible commercial way, as envisaged in the recommendations of the Crawford Report rather than by flag reservation. We acknowledge the need to look realistically at the marketing and other problems in the way this should be achieved. It is, however, our intention that there be a gradual expansion of shipping opportunities consistent with economic recovery and expanded trade opportunities overseas. This then is the five-point plan. It is not foolproof. We do not promise that it will overcome all the problems of the industry. We do not promise that shipping problems will not occur in the future. It is, however, a comprehensive program designed to place the industry on a more efficient and competitive basis and so provide the opportunity for growth and security. It will be up to ANL and its employees to grasp the chance for success and work hard to achieve it. The Government can set the climate-but management and unions together must accept the challenge. Turning to the specific provisions of the legislation. The Bill quite clearly distinguishes the powers and responsibilities of the Commission and those of the Government. It spells out the need for the Commission to operate commercially and places the onus for commercial initiatives with the Commission. The improvement in the management of the Commission will be achieved by provisions for the appointment of the Chairman on a part time basis, and of a Managing Director who shall be the Chief Executive of the Commission and a Commissioner. This will provide a more appropriate division of control over the affairs of the Commission and be more in line with top management structures adopted in commercial enterprises. The Government's direct involvement in the Commission's affairs is reduced particularly in relation to day-to-day autonomy such as the setting of freight rates, contractual arrangements and staffing. Freight rates and fares will be set by the Commission in accordance with general principles which will have to be approved by the Minister and which will meet other obligations under the Act. Where Government requires the Commission to undertake a particular course of action for policy reasons, the Minister will be required to issue a Direction to the Commission. Any costs incurred because of such directions are recoverable. A number of other minor amendments to conditions relating to the appointment of the Commissioners and the functions of the Commission itself are included. There are also a number of other machinery amendments proposed to the Principal Act such as the adoption of finance provisions of the Audit Act and changes to By-Laws and Regulations. The requirements that ANL's officers must be British subjects is also being deleted. Three redundant sections of the Principal Act are being repealed. These are concerned with the application of the British Merchant Shipping Act to Australian shipping, the purchase and disposal of ships by the Commonwealth and the requirement to obtain Ministerial approval for the normal commercial activity of selling and mortgaging of ships overseas. Finally the legislation we are proposing will make no call on the revenues of the Commonwealth. However, improvements in the performance of the Commission from this legislation and the other initiatives of the Government, will be of benefit to all users of the Commission's services. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Rae) adjourned. Debate resumed from 25 August 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.13) —The River Murray Waters Bill 1983 is designed to give effect to an agreement between the Commonwealth and three States, those States being New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The River Murray Waters Agreement relates to the management of the River Murray in terms of both quantity and quality of water. The Agreement itself is appended to the Bill. This Bill is the culmination of some seven years work in discussions with the States, the end points of which were these: In 1981 agreements by the States verbally with the form of words in the agreement; the signing by the States of an agreement last year; and, in that signing, an indication by the States that they would agree to the implementation of the Agreement even though it had not been incorporated in law. So in fact the terms of this Bill and the terms of the Agreement have been running as though they were enshrined in law for the past 12 months or more. The States have had to pass complementary legislation and they have directed their attentions to that. This is the Commonwealth's form of complementary legislation to enshrine the Agreement. It is, in fact, an agreement brought about by the Fraser Government. I was privileged to be the Minister responsible in the final years in which it came to pass. Let me put the situation in perspective. The original River Murray Waters Agreement came into being in 1914. Legislation was passed in 1915 and the Commission was established in 1917. In the intervening period of almost 70 years relatively little change has taken place in the powers of the Commission. The Commission, in the early years, lacked a considerable number of powers. For example, it lacked the power to monitor water quality, to co-ordinate studies concerning water quality or to recommend water quality standards. The fundamental nature of this Bill is that it extends to the River Murray Commission very considerable new powers and responsibilities. This is an agreement within a federation. It represents the coming together of three States and the Commonwealth to decide on what they will concede to each other in a plan of management. Inevitably, therefore, it is a compromise; inevitably, there will be those who would say that in a centralist system things could be done in a different way. I have to say that within the Federation of Australia, with all the understanding of the nature of the Commonwealth and the States, with all the understanding of the River Murray system, this Bill and this agreement constitute very significant gains in water management in Australia. It has to be kept in mind that Australia has virtually no major river systems that compare with other river systems of the world. This is the most arid continent on earth. Its average rainfall annually is some 16 inches compared with the world average of 26 inches. If all of the runoff from all the rivers in Australia were tipped into a river, we would not get a river half the size of some of the great rivers of the world. It is significant, therefore, that we are dealing with a river system which is, in that perspective, the major system in Australia. If one takes it in the broader perspective of the Murray-Darling basin, we have a river system which provides 40 per cent of Australia's agricultural production. That is a magnitude to be considered. If we simply take the Murray system for which the Commission is responsible, almost 50 per cent of South Australia's water derives from the Murray. So we are dealing with Australia's greatest water resource and, if I may say so , Australia's greatest resource. We are blessed with a wide range of mineral resources but water in Australia is precious. The reports of water studies that have been made at various times, including 'A Perspective on Australia's Water Resources to the Year 2000', all indicate that, whilst we are limited in our water supplies, the proper management and husbanding of those supplies can give us an immensely greater use of water. Indeed, the bulk of our water is used for agriculture and not for domestic or industrial purposes. Against that background, the Murray River, by its very nature, is a slow flowing river. Its shape is such that if it is subject to floods it overflows its banks. It cannot take very large amounts of water coursing down it. The important thing to understand about the River Murray is that in the earlier part of its journey along the New South Wales-Victorian border, particularly along the Victorian side of the border, it follows the course of an old inland sea that extended east as far as Swan Hill. The concentrated salt, the saline content, of that inland sea, some two million years old, is high and is not far from the surface. We are dealing with a river which has a number of very severe management problems. It has a tendency to draw salt from the surrounding country and from its own river bed. It has a tendency, because it is slow flowing, to develop other problems also. The salinity is one of its main headaches but as far as South Australia is concerned another headache is turbidity, that is, the suspension of organic matter in the water which makes the water turgid. Turbidity is an objectionable characteristic and requires massive filtration. The viability of the water to support plant and organic life depends upon its oxygen content. The nature of the water depends also on the nutrients and any toxic chemicals that may be in the river. The River Murray is a major resource. We are dealing today with the management of that resource. As I have said, the big problem in the past was that whilst there was general agreement regarding quantity, the question of quality was not involved and, of course, the water quality deteriorated. A vast change occurred in the last 70 years in human life along the river banks. Industries tipped toxic chemicals into the river. There was run-off of petrochemicals into the streams. There has been a demand for agriculture and the techniques of irrigation involved in agriculture have affected the river. Bit by bit, a major change occurred. It became imperative that the River Murray Commission be given the responsibility for water quality. One of the exciting achievements of this agreement was a consensus by the States and Commonwealth that the River Murray Commission should have the responsibility to monitor water quality. Indeed, the River Murray Commission during my time as Minister commenced to set up-it is now building it-a computer model of the whole River Murray. I understand that the model should be completed in a matter of months. When it is completed it will be possible to make a laboratory study of every aspect of the River Murray, including its quality. The main need to achieve such an agreement was to get the States to agree to provide advanced information to the members of the River Murray Commission of any significant change that would take place in either the quantity or quality of water in the tributaries feeding into the Murray. That in itself was perhaps the greatest achievement of this agreement. The States said that this will not be some minor agreement in terms of riparian rights. It will be a collective agreement dealing with a change in the volume of water or a change in the quantity of water running off the tributaries into the Murray itself. That is the fundamental situation entrenched in the agreement. As I say, we need to look at the provisions of the past. In the early agreement problems arose from tributary rivers, from adjacent land use, from flood mitigation and protection, from erosion and catchment and so on, and of course, from the need to protect flora and fauna. In the River Murray it is of enormous importance to keep in mind the fact that there is an environmental responsibility of great magnitude. Those who know the unique red gum growths in the Barmah Forest will know that they depend on a stable ecology, on the river flooding in winter and spring, for their life cycle, and they can be threatened by bad management. So we have an enormous responsibility along the whole of the Murray. Against that background the new Agreement has changed, in quite a number of ways, the old responsibilities. It has given power to the River Murray Commission to consider any or all relevant water management objectives, including water quality, in the investigation, planning and operation of works. That is of great significance. The Commission has been given power to monitor water quality. I stress that. It has been given power to co-ordinate studies concerning water quality in the Murray and to recommend water quality standards for adoption by the States, and to make recommendations to any government agency or tribunal on any matter which may affect the quantity or quality of River Murray waters. The Commission has been given power to make representations to any government agency concerning any proposal which may significantly affect the flow, use, control or quality of River Murray waters. It has been given power to recommend future changes to the agreement and to make recommendations for new water accounting provisions. So the Commission has come a very considerable journey indeed. This in itself is by way of being a good start. But I have dwelt upon the nature of the Murray and the hazards involved. I have to say, to give some understanding of this, that the River Murray manages, in an average year, to tip about 1.1 million tonnes of salt into South Australia, with devastating consequences, and in a bad year, in a drought year, 1.4 million tonnes. I see Senator Jessop nodding his head. He has had an immensely active interest in the whole matter of the Murray. When one considers that South Australia manages inadvertently to add another half a million tonnes of salt, one realises that the gift to South Australia by the old inland sea and its consequences can be up to two million tonnes of salt a year. Furthermore, one has the problem, as I say, of the turbidity of the water on which so much of South Australia's domestic and industrial supplies depend, both in Adelaide itself and now out into the Iron Triangle through the pipeline. To understand this, it would be quite wrong simply to say: 'This is great; we have put into place an agreement of historic consequence and therefore things will be right'. I think that 'historic' is not too exaggerated a description. It is true that in the course of the record series of droughts over the last few years, we have been able, by proper management and proper understanding on the part of the States, to so control the water flow in volume through the Murray that the quality of water going into South Australia was less in danger than we had ever thought. Fundamentally, that was primarily due to the fact that the Dartmouth Dam had been built. The wisdom of building it is now proven. In a series of seasons, it managed to fill to 70 per cent capacity. By filling to 70 per cent it was possible to tip water-I think it is down the River Mitta Mitta- to flow through the Hume. The Hume Dam dried up to a point where the water level was 10 to 15 per cent; it was in fact a mud crab area, virtually waterless. But the flow of the water from the Dartmouth down to the Hume and into the Murray managed to keep the salination down to a tolerable level. Now, of course, the important thing is for the Dartmouth and the Hume to refill and one hopes that that will happen. But what is urgently needed is a large upper Murray storage so that more water can be held in reserve there, filling up in the lush times-in those rare years of lush times-to be used in the years of drought, so that not only the Dartmouth, but also an upper Murray storage, can add to the water supply. I regret very much indeed that a decision of the Fraser Government to undertake as a matter of urgency a feasibility study of such an upper Murray storage, to have been carried out by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, has been set aside and rejected by the Hawke Government. What is more, it set it aside with ridicule. It claimed that the items in the bicentennial water resources program were irrelevant; that there were matters of higher priority; that they had no basis of efficiency or reason. Senator Gietzelt —You have talked about the Murray scheme for the last 30 years. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I do not wonder that Government senators cry out in pain at the moment because, if ever there was a destructive action, it was the rejection of the feasibility study of the upper Murray. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has the ability and the knowledge to do such a study. It could have been done within a period of six months to a year. The River Murray and its future have been set back years by that decision. It is fundamental that that should have been done. But the people of South Australia will not willingly forgive the Hawke Government for its remarks relating to the undertakings in the bicentennial water resources program, such as its statement that the filtration of Adelaide's water supply and the Iron Triangle were irrelevant; that they were frivolous things dreamed up by the Fraser Government and not important in any way. Those were the words tripped out by the Hawke Government when it rejected the program. This Bill has been introduced but there is no plan to study or to build an upper Murray storage. The pumping situation into South Australia has been discarded and along the way other measures relating to the Menindee Lakes and the study by Maunsell and Partners Pty Ltd were rejected as having no priority or low priority. I remind the Senate of the words of the Hawke Government that the bicentennial water resources program of $350m consisted of a series of public works that were not of high priority, that were not advanced in any way in planning and which ought to be rejected. Of course, they included such things as the Split Rock Dam and the Glenbawn Dam. Let the Hawke Government tell that to the Wran Government because the Wran Government is now starting on such projects. The rejection of the program included the upper Murray storage and all the projects that are now very apparent as having some urgency. But the Hawke Government hid behind another alibi. It said a study was going on of the perspective of water needs to the year 2000. That study was set up by me as a Minister in the Fraser Government. The Hawke Government said that it would wait for the report and take its advice. I have read the study. It has not been formally tabled or spoken to. The Hawke Government said it would wait for release of the report. It has now had it for months. Everything that the Opposition had said, in terms of principle, is borne out by that study. Indeed, the actual projects that were put into the bicentennial program were shown to the chairman of that study beforehand, as they had been to the States. One by one, everything that the Labor Government said it would do about water, water resources and water storage storage has gone. Let me take it further. The Hawke Government has said that it will at this stage indicate only that it will complete the fifth year of the five-year program of national water resources. It has said that it will not do as the Fraser Government did, that is, give a guarantee that-- Senator Gietzelt —You are talking a lot of humbug, and you know it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My goodness, there is no reason in the world why Senator Gietzelt should cry out in pain today. One by one, everything the Government has said on this has failed. The Government said: 'We have looked at what the Fraser Government said on the national water resources program, namely, that it agreed to finish the fifth year and to extend it for four more years at a cost of $210m. We will give no undertaking on those extra four years'! In fact , the three States concerned have no guarantees at all that the water programs, including those that Maunsell and Partners had advised, will go ahead. What a proud record the Hawke Government has. It has rejected everything that is worth while with respect to water storage. Let me go one step further and mention another fundamental matter. If we are to stop or reduce salinity in the River Murray it is fundamental that we get better farming practices along the banks, particularly-if I am not too insular in this- in Victoria where the inland sea makes its greatest impact. The greatest necessity is for action which will mitigate a rising of the water table. If the water table rises it will bring up salt and damage and destroy the roots of vegetation. Then the water table will move sideways into the River Murray. There will be two kinds of destruction: The destruction of the vegetation and salination of the River Murray. The Commonwealth Government, in my time as Minister, set up in conjunction with the States a working party to look at what practices ought to be encouraged and what incentives ought to be given to get better practices. The working party was to look at how to encourage drip irrigation, micro-jet irrigation, and laser beam levelling of land; and at how to discourage as far as possible flood irrigation. Flood irrigation is harmful in two ways: First, it is immensely wasteful of water; secondly, as it pours over the land, it lifts the water table and creates salination. The working party has made its report. I am not aware that any initiatives- certainly there are none in the Budget-have been taken on this. Yet, if there is a lesson that the drought of recent years should have taught the Hawke Government it is that the Government ought to be now putting in place every kind of practice that would mitigate salination of the river itself, any practice, for example, that would ensure that evaporative salt pans are placed well below the level of the river itself so that in nature's flood times there is no comeback of salt. The management of this river is of such vital importance that the River Murray Commission needs the support of the Federal Government. I call upon the Federal Government to get the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation- SMEC-to do a crash course and recommend which of the upper Murray storages is the most likely prospect. Feasibility studies of down river flood mitigation and desalination activities and particularly of the Maunsell recommendations should be undertaken now. The Government should change its mind and provide money for South Australia to overcome its turbidity problems. Yesterday the Government announced that it would have money left over from what it expected it would have to pay in unemployment benefit. A few million dollars injected into programs for the Murray would change the whole situation. What we have now is an agreement which is historic, which is a good example of federalism. There is every indication that the States want to co-operate. They have volunteered information on the significant effect of changes- Senator Gietzelt —That is the first time you have used the word 'federalism' since your seven years. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I can understand Senator Gietzelt's desire to interject on this matter because everything that the Federal Labor Government is doing today is aimed at centralising power and destroying the States. His previous Prime Minister said the States were irrelevant, and so did Mr Hawke, the present Prime Minister. Mr Hawke opposes the States, just as Mr Whitlam did. All this seeking of treaty powers is aimed at destroying the States. But that is a diversion which Senator Gietzelt, of course, knows is true and to which he is attracted. The fact is that we have a first class agreement; now what we need is support for that agreement. We need this upper Murray storage; we need the filtration in South Australia; we need the extra work down river in flood mitigation and desalination; and we need incentives for farmers to make sure that we do not raise the water table. If we do that, we will have undertaken for the first time a comprehensive plan in the management of what is Australia's greatest water resource and probably its greatest resource. I commend the legislation. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.42) — I welcome the opportunity of speaking on the River Murray Waters Bill 1983 because it gives me an opportunity not only to demonstrate my continued interest in this very important river system but also to focus attention on the national significance of water to Australia. I suggest, Mr Deputy President, that if you asked people throughout this country what they regarded as our most important resource they would undoubtedly say oil , then coal, uranium, bauxite and iron ore. I think the last thing they would mention with respect to our resource development is water. Without that commodity nothing in Australia would be able to develop for much longer. I give water a top priority and this Government ought to regard it as such if it is interested in continued economic prosperity and the creation of job opportunities. The 103 years history of the dealings by colonial, State and Commonwealth governments over the River Murray has been characterised by parochialism, procrastination and bitterness. It is a history in which the States have been the almost exclusive authorities dealing with the Murray and a history in which the Commonwealth, by design and desire, has been prevented from taking an authoritative role. One of the things that I suggest we ought to be looking at in future with respect to this important resource is the Constitution. We mess around with Bills to alter the Constitution to provide, for example, for simultaneous elections for both Houses of this Parliament, something, which I think would create a serious danger for the Senate, and yet we ignore things such as water resources. I suggest that if we want to be constructive we ought to give the Commonwealth a major role in water resources because water knows no State boundaries and no State can develop without it. So the government that has the financial power, the ability to co-ordinate the States in this area, ought to adopt that role, and I will continue to advocate that course of action. As a result of the prevailing atmosphere of self-interest which clouds State dealings on the Murray, attempts to solve the various problems associated with the issue have been either thwarted or rendered ineffectual. It is quite clear that the history of the River Murray has been devoid of a desire for national development, national well-being or national benefit. That is evidenced by the Bill we are looking at today. The question of the River Murray system has been dealt with ever since 1914. The measure which we are considering today, that is, giving the River Murray Commission some sort of say in water quality, was decided in principle in 1975 by the River Murray working party, yet eight years later we are taking action. I believe this is due to the problems of the plethora of State authorities that are dealing with this important resource. It is demonstrable that something much better has to happen if we are to survive in the future. Senator Gietzelt —Yours is much more constructive. Senator JESSOP —There is no excuse for Senator Gietzelt to interject. I am saying that in the past governments have neglected to take quick action in these matters. There is no excuse for Senator Gietzelt to disgregard the recommondations of the Fraser Government and brush them aside with the excuse that the Opposition has been in government more than the Australian Labor Party has. Thank heavens we have. That is no excuse for him to avoid and evade the responsibility about which I am talking. I ask him not to interject on what I am saying. I agree that we have to act more quickly. Senator Gietzelt —I said you were making a constructive contribution. Senator JESSOP —I thank the honourable senator. I would appreciate it, however, if he would let me tell him a little more about this important subject. To use a hackneyed phrase, Austraila is the driest continent in the world. Our total stream flow is less than that of any of the major rivers in the world, such as the Amazon, the Mississippi or the St Lawrence. Senator Sir John Carrick made reference to that. He pointed out also that our average rainfall is about 14 or 16 inches a year compared with the world average of 26 inches. He is quite right . Of the water that falls on this continent each year, nearly 90 per cent is lost through evaporation or because it flows into the sea. In fact, 50 per cent of our average runoff flows into the Tasman Sea, the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Timor Sea drainage divisions. It is estimated that only 8 per cent of Australia' s total water supply is used. One per cent is used for domestic, industrial and municipal consumption. Seven per cent of that 8 per cent is used for the irrigation of one million hectares of land and for stock watering. To demonstrate the importance of this natural resource, one needs only to look towards the long awaited and eagerly heralded resource boom that started, lapsed and will start again, I hope, once the Labor Party makes some decisions about uranium. We have to recognise that we cannot develop those resources without water. As an example I refer to a proposal to build a number of liquefaction plants. I think they are still currently being thought about in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria. Water consumption estimates range from seven to 30 gigalitres a year for a 100,000 barrel a day coal to oil plant. In the same area water will continue to be needed for Victoria's power stations. I think that about three years ago two researchers concluded, after a study into these proposed developments, that the entire average rainfall flow of the upper Latrobe River system would be committed by the year 2010 and after that date the water supply would need to be augmented by a diversion of water from other East Gippsland rivers such as the Thomson and the Macalister. If this development continues a total water supply of 1,000 gigalitres per year will be required by the year 2020, thus halving the annual flow into Lake Wellington. This would cause profound disturbances to the surrounding wetlands and could result in the destruction of water fowl breeding areas and other areas of interest such as natural flora and fauna. By the year 2039 it is suggested that the total flow of all these East Gippsland rivers would be required. So it is quite clear that the availability of water in the La Trobe Valley is of utmost significance to any future development. However, we should not assume that that is an isolated instance because the Hunter Valley of New South Wales, the south-east of Western Australia, the Rundle project in Queensland, of course South Australia's Olympic Dam development at Roxby Downs, and the steady expansion of the northern Spencer Gulf area are, of course, examples that we should look at. It is important to recognise that it will not be a shortfall of capital, skilled labour, coal or minerals but a lack of water which will be a major constraint to the development of our resources. When we talk about water, naturally we in South Australia are worried about salinity. Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned that in dry years 1.4 million tonnes of salt flows over the border into South Australia, added to by about 600 ,000 tonnes in our State. Therefore, we in South Australia believe that a lot more needs to be done to deal with the complex nature of the River Murray which stems from a number of factors. The first is the fact that the Murray and many of its tributaries are naturally saline for the historic fact that several million years ago the course of the river was an inland sea. That was pointed to by Senator Sir John Carrick. Therefore, the salinity in the river will never be completely overcome as it is part of its natural environment. Secondly, the existing salinity has been exacerbated over the years by inefficient irrigation practices and procedures. Structures, such as locks and weirs which raise water levels by up to three metres, tend to increase inflows of ground water to the river downstream. The clearing of land for agricultural purposes and the irresponsible wasteful irrigation techniques, particularly flood irrigation that Senator Sir John Carrick referred to, have increased salinity immensely. Thirdly , the fact that three States and the Commonwealth have attempted to exert influence over the Murray has added to the complex nature of its management. This has brought to the fore State rivalries and the ever present State fears of centralism. Clearly, such fears and rivalries are overshadowed, or should be overshadowed, by throughts of the national interest. Certainly, our current and past attitudes do not have regard to the long term development of the States. Finally, the Murray situation has been clouded by the differing importance attached to it by the three concerned States. New South Wales and Victoria have irrigation lands totalling over 500,000 hectares which compares with South Australia's irrigation area of 40,000 hectares. Yet, in South Australia, Adelaide and the northern Spencer Gulf area-the Iron Triangle, as it is now referred to-depend upon the Murray for water for industrial and domestic uses, and this dependency has no counterpart in other States. I was able to get Mr Alan Wood the member for Swan Hill and the former Minister of Public Works, Property and Services in the Victorian Government, to come to South Australia at a time when the mouth of the River Murray was closed. The Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, of which I am a member, visited the area and subsequently presented a report. He, being a rural representative and a Minister in the Victorian Cabinet, recognised, as did the South Australian Tonkin Government, that a national approach ought to be the way to go with respect to this resource. He agreed with the South Australian Government and was going to exert his influence to try to get the Victorian Government to agree that the Commonwealth should take a much more significant role with respect to water resources in Australia. The complexities I have referred to have confounded successive governments in their attempts to find solutions to the salinity problems of the River Murray system. In addition to these examples of waterway salinity in our system, areas of north east Victoria are severely affected by dry land salinity which has been caused by injudicious use of ground water. I think that anyone who considered all the points that I have mentioned would come to the conclusion that Australia 's water resources are in a parlous state. Given the fact that Australia is a dry continent with most of its water lost through either runoff or evaporation, having few inland waterways and with those in existence suffering pollution problems, one would reasonably assume that governments would attach much more importance to the preservation of our water resources. Regrettably, this has not been the case. I believe that it is a sorry state of affairs for us to continue to disregard the importance of this national asset to Australia. I regard it to be an indictment of goverments. Australia's history of management of our precious resource has been characterised, I believe, by ad hockery and political expediency. The Commonwealth and the States in the past have failed to accept that water is a resource not only vital to the development of this country but also it is beyond the individual capacities of the States to manage. The high cost associated with this management and conservation has resulted in a piecemeal approach to water resources which is evident today. This position has been aggravated because of an understandable overriding inherent suspicion on the part of the States that the other States could get more than their fair share. I think that the Commonwealth should have an overriding influence in this area. The River Murray Commission comprises representatives of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and makes recommendations to the respective governments on matters relating to the river. I compliment it on the work it does. I know officers of the Commission. I know Mr Johnson, the chief engineer, very well. The officers of the Commission do their best under the present system to achieve the results they would like to achieve. However, I think they are still inhibited because any one of the States can veto any recommendations that they make. As I understand it, the same will apply with respect to their new found power of being able to make recommendations with respect to water quality. The Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, of which I was Chairman, supported the idea. The Committee, on page 32 of a report I presented in June 1979, stated: The plethora of authorities involved is a source of great frustration to the persons with whom the Committee spoke along the river. Without exception, everyone urged the need for a single co-ordinating authority. One of the witnesses, Professor Sandford D. Clark, the Harrison Moore Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne, stated in a submission to the River Murray working party that the River Murray Waters Agreement is not consistent with modern water management principles, and fails to acknowledge the hydrological interdependence of all parts of the Murray-Darling-Murrumbidgee system. He urged that more needs to be done with respect to co-ordinating activities in this area. When one thinks about it, when one realises that it is estimated that 22 per cent of the water that flows into the River Murray system come from Queensland, one can appreciate the seriousness and the importance of having a single co-ordinating authority to deal with the whole water resources of Australia. In another report which I presented in September 1980, the Committee said that there was an urgent need to come to grips with the problem. The report stated: The Committee shares the views of the Consultants- the Maunsell consultants- regarding the need for the co-ordinated management of immediate salinity and drainage problems, but the Committee also regards a co-ordinated approach as vital to such matters as: water quality irrigation procedures flood mitigation flood plain management environmental and conservation matters re-afforestation recreation Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned reafforestation. The red gum plantations have died in many areas but are being replanted in very few other areas. I think that ought to be a major project. A salt resistant red gum clone has been developed through the co-operation of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and, I think, Melbourne University. When fully grown, these trees can transpire through their leaves 200 to 250 gallons of water a day. Honourable senators can imagine what millions of trees planted along the river banks to replace those that have been degraded and destroyed could do to lower the water table considerably in the long term. In the view of my Committee that was a necessity. I believe that the Commission's effectiveness is further reduced by the Commonwealth's policy of providing finance directly to the States for works associated with River Murray problems. It appears that an even greater deal of co-operation and co-ordination in River Murray matters would have resulted if finance for all those works was channelled through the River Murray Commission. I think the River Murray Commission's role ought to be expanded and developed, perhaps along the lines of the Delaware River commission in the United States of America. I visited that commission last year and learned that it has extraordinary powers with respect to how much water is used, environmental controls and industrial pollution. I found those powers quite incredible. That commission is in a similar situation to that of the River Murray Commission. It deals with four States in the United States of America. Perhaps some of its significant powers have been weakened in recent years but that is no excuse that we should not be looking towards the development of a River Murray Commission along those lines. I go further and suggest that we ought to upgrade the Commission's role in Australia. We should reconstitute the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority as an engineering and practical arm of the River Murray Commission. The Commission ought to be able to make recommendations with respect to water quality and quantity and the Snowy Mountains Authority ought to be the engineering instrument whereby these engineering feasibilities are carried out. Senator Sir John Carrick said the Fraser Government had approved a feasibility study to be conducted on a water storage on the upper Murray. That is essential. Senator Jones said the Bradfield scheme was pie in the sky. He may be right but I think schemes of that character have got to be looked at. We have to divert the waters that are currently running to waste into the oceans surrounding Australia. We have to look at the proposition put forward some time ago by Mr Jack Beale of New South Wales. He suggested that a good bicentennial scheme would be a $4 billion project entitled 'Green Australia'. He suggested that six New South Wales rivers, the Clarence, Macleay, Manning, Shoalhaven, Tuross and Snowy be diverted to join up with the upper reaches of the existing westward flowing rivers. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard part of a paper dealing with water diversion schemes that was prepared by the Parliamentary Library research service. I would also like to incorporate the results of investigations of Bradfield's water irrigation plan by Mr W. H. R. Nimmo in the publication Commonwealth Engineer, dated 1947. I seek leave for those two documents to be incorporated. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Water Diversion Schemes Since the beginning of this century, Australians have spoken glibly of '' watering the dead heart'' of Australia and ''making the desert bloom''. Such schemes involve diverting Queensland coastal rivers through the Great Divide into rivers which feed Cooper's Creek and ultimately Lake Eyre. Various schemes have been proposed since the first such plan by E. A. Leonard in 1887,5 but the proposals of Dr J. J. C. Bradfield5-9 have captured most attention. Despite the engineering and climatological impracticabilities,2, 10-13 the Bradfield scheme still has supporters.14, 15 Nimmo's assessment11 of the Bradfield plan concluded that: parts of the scheme were impossible; those parts which were feasible would be enormously expensive and could deliver only a fraction of the water originally proposed; and the coastal waters (Tully, Herbert and Burdekin Rivers) could be more effectively and economically used for irrigation and hydro- electric power generation along the coast. The full Bradfield plan involved construction of large reservoirs in the interior of the continent to catch occasional floods on the inland rivers, in addition to the diversion of coastal rivers. It was suggested that such reservoirs would allow irrigation of large areas of suitable land, and that evaporation from reservoirs and irrigated land would affect a climatic change by increasing rainfall in the arid interior. The hoped for climatic improvement is a key part of the popular appeal of the scheme. The reality is that such a climatic change would not occur. Air humidity is only one factor involved in rainfall, and there is clear evidence in many parts of the world where desert areas border large natural sheets of water (for example, the Red Sea) that an abundant supply of atmospheric moisture is not in itself sufficient to cause rainfall. Another related factor overlooked by Bradfield is the volume of water which would be evaporated from the proposed arid region storages.13 The annual replenishment would require a volume of water equal to about 40 per cent of the total runoff of the whole of Australia. Further, Bradfield's proposal for inland irrigation using coastal water involved using 600mm (2 feet) of water per year,7 an amount which seems totally inadequate for an area with annual evaporation losses of 2500mm. The only large scale water diversion scheme constructed in Australia is the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme, which is a dual-purpose hydro-electric and irrigation complex which impounds south-flowing waters of the Snowy River and diverts them inland to the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers through two tunnel systems. This water, together with the headwaters of the inland rivers, is harnessed and regulated for hydro-electric generation and irrigation purposes. On average, about 1130GL of water per year is diverted from the Snowy River to the inland rivers. The scheme was constructed between 1950 and 1974 at a cost of $1000 million (including interest charges), and repayments of Commonwealth loans and operating costs are funded by sales of electricity to NSW, Victoria, and the ACT. No charge is made for irrigation water diverted inland. If all the annual costs of the scheme (1981-82, $86 million) were recovered from charges on irrigation water (and the electricity free), the water would cost $76/ML. This cost may be compared with irrigation water costs of $0.50, $2.60, $4.50, and $37 in NSW, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, respectively.13 The NSW Water Resources Commission (and its predecessor) has in the past considered preliminary proposals for diversion of water from coastal to inland rivers. In 1981, the Commission engaged consultants to carry out a preliminary review and update of previously identified inland diversion schemes.17 Of the 22 coastal river basins, 9 were suitable for inland diversions, though 4 of these ( Hunter, Hawkesbury, Shoalhaven and Bega) did not have water available for diversion due to present and future needs in the coastal regions. The most favourable scheme involves diversion of over 750 GL from the Clarence Basin to the Border Rivers system (and thence to the Darling River), but at an annual cost of $140/ML. Another proposal involves diversion of water from the Barnard River (in the Manning River Basin) to the Hunter River Basin for power station cooling water.18 No details of this scheme are available. However, it seems likely that future water demands in the Hunter Basin will exceed available resources, especially if coal liquefaction plants are constructed, and the above diversion may ultimately be an economic proposition. Results of Investigation of Bradfield's Water-Irrigation Plan Study of Scheme for Irrigation in Western Queensland . . . . Several Steps in Plan not Practicable . . . Huge Expenditure Abstract of Report by W. H. R. Nimmo, M.E., M.I.E.Aust. Chief Engineer, Stanley River Works Board, Queensland THE BRADFIELD SCHEME, which was put forward in 1938, proposed to divert the waters of the Tully and Herbert rivers, combine them with the waters of the Upper Burdekin, and pass the whole across the Great Dividing Range with the object of utilising them in a vast irrigation project in Western Queensland. The scheme (see map) provided for:- (1) Construction of a dam on the Tully river and the diversion of this water through a short open cut to the headwaters of Blunder creek, a tributary of the Herbert. (2) Construction of a dam on the Herbert river and the diversion of the combined Tully and Herbert waters, by means of a tunnel 13 miles long, to the Upper Burdekin river. (3) Construction of a gigantic dam on the Burdekin river at Hell's Gates with the object of backing the combined waters (of the three rivers) up the Clarke river to a point where it could be taken off in a tunnel through the Great Divide and discharged into the Upper Flinders river. (It should be noted that although this reservoir would actually contain an enormous quantity of water it would not be available for use inasmuch as only the topmost few feet would be drawn off through the tunnel.) (4) Water received into the Flinders would be stored in a number of smaller reservoirs and be taken thence through an open cut to Skeleton creek, and thence to the Thompson river. (5) From the Thompson the waters would be used in irrigation and diverted to other western streams. Since this scheme was put forward, important information bearing on the proposals has become available in the form of military contour maps, produced from aerial surveys, further ground surveys, and extended records of rainfall and stream flow. It is now known that some portions of the scheme, as proposed in the Bradfield report, are physically impossible, but further surveys will be necessary to determine the physical possibility or otherwise of other portions of the scheme. Utilising the additional information now available, a re-examination of the scheme has been made and is described in some detail herein. In the following summary the principal findings of the investigation are, for purposes of ready comparison, set out opposite the relevant proposals of Dr Bradfield. Comparison of the Bradfield Proposals with the Results of Investigation by Queensland Engineers Dr Bradfield's Proposals Results of Investigation 1. A dam 120 ft high to be constructed on the Tully river above Tully Falls. Estimated average annual flow of Tully river at 562 cusec of which 500 would be diverted. Building a large dam on the Tully river above Tully Falls will make a continuous flow of some 300 cusec available for diversion to Blunder creek, a tributary of the Herbert. 2. Water to be conveyed from the Tully to Blunder creek by open cut half a mile long. It is probable, though not certain, that water can be diverted from the Tully to Blunder creek by a tunnel about eight miles long. It cannot be conveyed by open channel. 3. A dam 100 ft high and 1,000 ft long to be constructed on the Herbert river about a quarter of a mile above the Herbert Falls. Estimated average annual flow from Herbert catchment 2,677 cusec of which 2,300 cusec would be diverted in addition to the flow from the Tully. There is no suitable site for a storage reservoir on the Herbert river near Herbert Falls. A very large reservoir can be created by a dam on the Herbert at a point two miles above Cameron creek. The continuous flow made available by this reservoir may be 700 cusec, exclusive of the water from the Tully. 4. A tunnel about 13 miles long to convey combined Tully and Herbert waters to the Burdekin river at Wairuna. It is probable, though not certain, that water can be diverted from above the Herbert Falls to Wairuna on the Burdekin river. 5. A dam 400 ft high and 2,000 ft long to be constructed on the Burdekin river, at Hell's Gates, to back water up the Clarke river a distance of about 60 (?) miles, whence it would be diverted by tunnel 70 miles long, to the Flinders river. A dam at Hell's Gates on the Burdekin cannot be built to the height of 400 ft provided for in the Bradfield scheme, the practicable limit of height being 300 ft. Even if the dam could be built to a height of 400 ft, the surface of the reservoir would be too low to permit of diverting the water to the Flinders river. 6. Estimated average annual flow from Burdekin catchment 3,678 cusec of which 3 ,200 cusec would be diverted in addition to the flow from the Tully and the Herbert. Even if it were possible to divert water from Hell's Gates to the Flinders, the small storage capacity in the upper few feet of the reservoir and the great evaporation from the huge reservoir surface would limit the continuous flow available from the Burdekin catchment to a few hundred cubic feet per second, exclusive of water from the Tully and Herbert. 7. Possible modification not considered in Bradfield's scheme. It may be physically possible-though this is not certain-to divert the water of a smaller part of the catchment of the Burdekin from a dam near Lake Lucy to a reservoir formed by a moderately high dam at ''The Rockies'' on the Flinders. The conduit, which would be about 200 miles long, about half of it being in tunnel, would be on a very small gradient and would have to be lined with concrete throughout. 8. A number of dams on the upper Flinders would create a series of reservoirs, or ''coolamons'', which would store the waters from the Tully, Herbert, Burdekin and Flinders rivers. The gorge of the upper Flinders is steep and narrow and does not lend itself to the creation of reservoirs or ''collamons'' of large capacity. 9. Dr Bradfield claimed that after releasing sufficient water to satisfy riparian needs on the Tully, Herbert and Burdekin below the proposed dams, a continuous flow of 6,000 cusec could be delivered into the Flinders and that, allowing for losses in distribution, 4,000 cusec could be used in actually watering land under irrigation. Quantity of water that can be diverted into the Flinders by the modified scheme will not exceed 1,250 cusec of which not more than 700 cusec can be actually used in watering land. 10. Estimated cost of the scheme is not stated in the report under review but has been given elsewhere as #40,000,000. The cost of the modified scheme to the point of delivery of water into the Flinders, is estimated to be about #100,000,000. For a 50-year loan period the annual charges would be about #6,000,000. If 500,000 ac.ft per annum, equivalent to a continuous flow of 700 cusec, could be actually applied to irrigated land, the cost of water delivered at ''The Rockies'' would be #12 per acre foot to which must be added the annual charge on a costly distributing system. (It may be noted that in Victoria and N.S.W. irrigation water for fodder production is delivered for 6/- to 10/- per acre foot.) 11. The Bradfield scheme envisages the diversion of the whole of the available waters of the Tully and Herbert and the northern part of the Burdekin watershed. This would prevent generation of hydro-electricity and irrigation of the coastal lands. There are important uses for much of the water east of the Divide. About half the available flow of the Tully will be required for the generation of electric power within 15 years. All the flow that can be regulated will ultimately be used for power. Waters of the Burdekin can be impounded in a large reservoir near the Burdekin Falls and be utilised for the irrigation of a large tract of country. 12. An alternative scheme proposed by Bradfield is to convey water from Hell's Gates reservoir in two 26 ft diameter pipes 175 miles long, southward into Lake Webb, and thence westward into Torrens creek (at Aberfoyle) down which it would flow to the Thomson river. This scheme appears to be physically possible. Since the full height of the Hell's Gates dam would be required to send water through the pipes, there would be no useful storage and the continuous flow in the pipes would be little more than 1,000 cusec. By lowering the draw off level at Hell's Gates dam by 200 ft and passing under the Divide in a long tunnel, it would be possible to utilise 200 ft depth of storage. If the reservoir site be a distinctly favourable one, the continuous flow to Torrens creek might thus be increased to about 1,800 cusec. The cost would be very great. The acompanying map shows the places referred to in this memorandum and illustrates the schemes as proposed by Bradfield and the possible modification referred to above. No reference is made in Dr Bradfield's report to the costs involved in diverting waters from western rivers through a network of distribution channels to irrigated fields. Nor is any reference made to the costs of accurate grading of such fields. These matters have consequently received no attention in the examination of the report, but it must be borne in mind that these additional costs would run into many millions of pounds. The Feasibility of Building the Proposed Dams and Conduits and the Quantity of Water Which Can be Obtained In this section some of the proposed major works are dealt with in more detail. The Tully Dam A dam can be built a short distance upstream of Tully Falls to a height of 120 ft. The best site for a dam and the storage capacity which it will create can be determined with more certainty when surveys, now being carried out by the Cairns Regional Electricity Board in connection with the proposed Tully Falls hydro- electric power scheme, have been completed. The examination by the investigating committee, based upon military contour maps, indicates that a dam 120 ft high may impound 200,000 ac.ft of water and produce a steady regulated flow throughout the year of 300 cusec. If the conduit leading from this reservoir be very large with a capacity of about 1,000 cusec, then the average rate of diversion may perhaps be increased to 350 cusec, but the flow would vary from less than 20 cusec to 1,000 cusec. Diversion Conduit to Blunder Creek The watershed between the Tully and Blunder creek rises to 260 ft above the Tully at the proposed dam site where the elevation is about R.L. 2,210. It is therefore impossible to divert water to Blunder creek in an open cut as proposed by Dr Bradfield. A tunnel to carry the 300 cusec regulated flow to be made available by the Tully dam would have to be lined with concrete and extend to a point where the bed of Blunder creek is not higher than R.L. 2,200. Accurate levels have not been taken but military contour maps indicate that the tunnel will have a length of eight miles. The construction of a very large tunnel having a capacity of about 1,000 cusec might increase the average quantity of water diverted by about 50 cusec but the quantity in excess of the 300 cusec of steady flow would vary rapidly from 1,000 cusec during the passage of a flood down to zero and this intermittent flow would have to be regulated by the provision of additional storage capacity on the Herbert or elsewhere in the system. Such additional storage would increase the loss by evaporation so the net increase in the quantity of water available for diversion to West Queensland would be very small and not commensurate with the great increase in cost of the large works. The Herbert River Dam The Bradfield report provides for construction of a dam 100 ft high immediately upstream of the Herbert Falls. As no information is given regarding the volume of water to be impounded, earlier investigations were based on the assumption that the reservoir would be of average capacity for a dam 100 ft high and would hold 50,000 ac.ft. This volume is far too small to regulate adequately the run- off of the Herbert catchment, so a very large tunnel would be necessary to deliver an appreciable proportion of the Herbert run-off to the Burdekin. The proposed dam site was later inspected by engineers of the Main Roads Commission who reported that there is no practicable storage site between Cashmere and the Herbert Falls, this being subsequently confirmed by military contour maps. Military maps, however, have revealed the possibility of creating a very large reservoir by building a dam on the Herbert river, at a point about two miles upstream from the confluence with Cameron creek. This reservoir would control a catchment area of only 1,720 sq.mile as compared with 2,038 sq.mile at Herbert Falls, and water released from it would run down the Herbert to a diversion weir above the Herbert Falls. When the investigation now being carried out by the Herbert River Investigation Committee has been completed, there will be available a more accurate estimate of the quantity of water, which can be diverted continuously to the Burdekin but it is unlikely that it will exceed 700 cusec which, added to the 300 cusec from the Tully, would make a total of 1,000 cusec. Herbert Burdekin Tunnel The difference of level of 46 ft between the Herbert at the Falls and the Burdekin at Wairuna, given in the Bradfield report, apparently depends upon some isolated barometric observations which are liable to error and conequently require confirmation by survey before it can be definitely determined that the proposed diversion is possible. The tunnel will be 13 miles long. The Hell's Gates Dam The elevation of R.L. 1,000 given for the Burdekin river at Hell's Gates is approximately confirmed by a reconnaissance survey by the Main Roads Commission. Bradfield's scheme includes raising the water level of the Budekin to R.L. 1,400 by a dam 400 ft high, thereby backing water up the Clarke river as far as its confluence with the Broken river. Since the principal function of the dam is to raise the water level to permit of conveying water to West Queensland only a few feet of depth at the upper level of the reservoir could be used as a regulating storage and consequently the continuous flow that could be drawn from the reservoir would be only a small proportion of the average run-off of 1,320 cusec. The extensive surface of the reservoir, which is to be maintained continually close to its full level, will involve a very large evaporation loss and during severe droughts this loss may exceed the contribution from the catchment of the Burdekin. Since it is shown later that the proposed diversion from the reservoir is not possible and the storage capacity is unknown, a detailed analysis to determine the continuous yield is not warranted but it is unlikely that it could exceed a few hundred cubic feet per second. The continuous combined flow from the Tully, Herbert and Burdekin rivers at Hell's Gates would therefore not greatly exceed 1,000 cubic feet per second. The Tunnel Under the Main Divide This tunnel from the confluence of the Clarke and Broken rivers to the Flinders river above ''The Rockies'' will be 70 miles long. The elevation of the Divide, under which the tunnel would pass, approaches 3,000 ft. Barometric levelling, during a reconnaissance of the upper Flinders river by the Queensland Bureau of Investigation of Land and Water Resources, shows that the water level at ''The Rockies'' is about R.L. 1,400. The reconnaissance survey by the Main Roads Commission shows that the maximum height to which a dam can be built at Hell's Gate is only about 300 ft, raising the water level to R.L . 1,300. It is therefore impossible to divert water to the Flinders, as proposed, from a reservoir at Hell's Gate. Bradfield's Alternative Scheme An alternative scheme, proposed by Dr. Bradfield, is described in a statement by Mr. H. P. Moss in the Eighth Report of the Rural Reconstruction Commission and is indicated on the accompanying map (page 447). It is proposed to convey water from a dam at Hell's Gates in two 26 ft dia. pipelines south to Lake Webb. From Lake Webb the water is to be conveyed in a westerly direction to Torrens creek down which it will flow to the Thompson river. The distance in a straight line from Hell's Gates to Lake Webb is about 165 miles but a pipe could not be constructed on that line without much tunnelling. Levels on roads and railways indicate that by adopting a more easterly location , it may be possible to convey water from Hell's Gates to Lake Webb almost entirely in pipes in a distance of about 175 miles. Bradfield's proposal to deliver 6,000 cusec through two 26 ft dia. pipes represents a velocity of 5-2/3 feet per second and for this a total head of 200 ft would be required. The elevation of Lake Webb is shown on the map by Mr. Moss as R. L. 1,100 but this appears to have been interpolated from other information and needs confirmation. The draw-off level at Hell's Gates reservoir must therefore be R. L. 1,300 which, as stated previously, is the maximum level to which a dam can be built. Consequently there would be practically no storage and the continuous output from the reservoir would not be much greater than the 1, 000 cubic feet per second to be diverted from the Tully and Herbert rivers. Levels taken in connection with the survey of the artesian basin show that Torrens creek falls rapidly and is below R.L. 900 near Aberfoyle. Levels on roads and railways indicate that it may be possible to draw off water from the proposed Hell's Gates reservoir and convey it in a conduit passing under the Great Northern Railway in a long tunnel in the vicinity of Balfe creek, then crossing the Campaspe and the Cape rivers and their tributaries and finally tunnelling under the Divide to Torrens creek near Aberfoyle. Such a conduit would probably have a total length of about 200 miles, much of which would be in long tunnels and the remainder partly in open channels and partly in pipe. This would make it possible to utilise the storage in Hell's Gates reservoir in the 200 ft of depth between R.L. 1,300 and R. L. 1,100. What this storage capacity would be is not known, but, taking an optimistic view, and assuming that the reservoir site is a favourable one, it might be about 1,000, 000 ac.ft. Such a reservoir might permit the continuous diversion of 800 cubic feet per second out of the total estimated average run-off at Hell's Gates of 1, 320 cusec. The total quantity of water delivered to Torrens creek by this scheme would not exceed 1,800 cusec. Unless the Hell's Gates reservoir site proves to be a good one, this scheme will be no better than the modified scheme described earlier. In any case the quantity of water delivered will be only a fraction of the 6,000 cusec claimed by Bradfield and the cost will be enormous. Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate. The Bradfield scheme probably is a bit ambitious. Engineers would probably say that a lot of evaporation would occur as a result of the original scheme which Bradfield contemplated. Senator Walsh —It is cargo cultism, and you know it. Senator JESSOP —The Minister comes in here and talks in a very nasty way. I have a lot of regard for his ability. If he could restrain himself from making inane comments like that he might get a little bit of encouragement from this side of the chamber so that he would not have to resort to personal attacks. I regard Senator Walsh as one Minister of the Government who, despite his unpleasant behaviour in this place, has something going for him. He knows in his heart of hearts-I think he has one-that we should be developing uranium and water resources. I believe that Senator Walsh is an able and competent fellow. I think he will vote for such development. I endorse it. I know he supports Mr Hawke. I certainly do. I ask the Minister to listen to what I say and recognise that I am, in effect, supporting the philosophy of the Australian Labor Party with respect to national water resource development. I was accused at one time of not supporting Mr Ralph Jacobi and his proposed institute of freshwater studies. I think it is a magnificent idea. I have spoken on the same platform as Mr Jacobi on this resource development. I have demonstrated a non-partisan approach to it. My approach to national water resources is possibly a little centralistic because I believe that is the way Australia must go. I am not suggesting that we disregard the States, not at all. But the financial capacity which the Commonwealth has at its disposal can be used to influence the States on these matters having regard to the importance to State development of the water resource and the fact that the artesian waters and our rivers know no State boundaries. I have adopted that attitude and I will continue to adopt it. I suggest to Senator Walsh that, rather than interject on me-I am trying desperately to be helpful to him-he pick up some of the suggestions I have made. The Fraser Government at last recognised that the diversion of some of these rivers ought to be looked at. In the last election campaign, I think a few years too late, we were to authorise the expenditure of about $500,000 to examine the economic and engineering feasibility of turning back some of those eastern rivers. I think it is feasible. Do not talk to me about the cost. Even if it runs into $4 billion or $5 billion it is going to be well worth it, because if we do not spend that sort of money right now, by the year 2050 our water resources will be fully committed. Now is the time to encourage communities to introduce water harvesting projects throughout Australia so that in the winter time, when the rains fall, those waters can be diverted into holding dams to be used for watering parks and gardens and places such as those. We ought to be looking at all sorts of things, including the future possibility of requiring nuclear power stations in Australia for desalination purposes. Senator Elstob —Icebergs. Senator JESSOP —Okay, icebergs. That suggestion is all right. It is not silly either, because when we are desperately looking for water the question of towing icebergs from the Antarctic is not an unrealistic possibility. The Minister will say that there are problems associated with it. Sure, we will lose about 40 per cent of the iceberg in the towing process. What do we do with it when we get it here? It becomes a navigational hazard. The point is that there is a technique available by which it can be melted quickly and piped to holding tanks ashore. I hope Senator Elstob was serious because it is not beyond the realms of possibility that we will have to look to that sort of technology as well. Professor Schwerdtfeger of Flinders University believes that it is a possibility . In fact he went to the Middle East not long ago with a lot of other scientists to attend a symposium in, I think, Saudi Arabia with the object of studying very seriously the feasibility of that technique. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(11.12) — I also support the River Murray Waters Bill 1983. As has already been stated, water is Australia's most valuable asset; there is no doubt about that. Australia is the driest continent on earth, and South Australia is the driest State in the driest continent on earth. Senator Sir John Carrick said that 50 per cent of South Australia's water supply was dependent on water from the Murray. I dispute that. The Murray River is South Australia's lifeline and it provides 80 per cent of South Australia's surface water which is delivered to over one million people, which is 90 per cent of the State's population. It is also distributed over two-thirds of the State's settled area. Up to 80 per cent of Adelaide's water supply and up to 90 per cent of the water supply for the Iron Triangle is derived from the Murray. By contrast, the Murray provides water for only 350,000 people in both New South Wales and Victoria. It provides the bulk of South Australia's water supply for irrigation, stock and domestic and industrial purposes and it helps to provide an environment for conservation and recreation. It is unequalled in South Australia. Therefore the Murray is of vital concern to the State, and South Australians are not only unhappy about the poor quality of water that is delivered by it but also about the quantity of water. The quality and quantity of water are of great concern to them. Much has been said about the Murray River, but it is Australia's greatest river . It flows through a great area of Australia, and it provides so much. If we look at the geography of the river we see that the catchment area of the Murray- Darling system is 1.06 million kilometres-that is, one-seventh of the Australian continent. The Darling section covers 650,000 kilometres. The length of the Murray is 2,530 kilometres, of which 637 kilometres is in South Australia. In the early days naturally all the European settlement in the inland of this country was along the edge of the Murray, and that was because of the inefficient pumps that were used in those days. If there had been efficient pumps in those early times it would have been far more preferable not to have settled along the edge of the Murray. All settlement or irrigation systems would have been far better out of the Murray Valley itself. Over 80 per cent of the land in this country has a salt content. When we replace deep rooted vegetation with shallow-rooted vegetation a capillary action occurs which brings the salt to the surface of the land. That is why we have a great salinity problem in this country. It is simply taking out what nature has provided over many years. Senator Jessop —It contributes to turbidity, too. Senator ELSTOB —I will come to turbidity at a later stage. It is also important. Salinity is a very serious problem and it should be seriously considered. It is important to replace the red river gums and other deep-rooted vegetation along the Murray. This will not be easy because much of the land is now saline and will have to be drained at great expense to get anything to grow. Once that land has been destroyed many millions of dollars will have to be spent on deep drainage to get rid of the salt from that affected land. Much has been said about the irrigation systems, and I agree with a lot of it. Flood irrigation was the worst thing that ever happened, especially along the Murray River. Ten times the quantity of water is put on the headlands to get water down to the lowlands. Consequently there is a build-up of the water table. That also has an effect on salinity in this country. It is the worst irrigation system. Drip irrigation in theory is a great idea, but in practice it is very costly to work. The impure water that we get, especially in South Australia, has a tendency to clog up the microfine drip system. Growers are very worried about using it. If the drip system fails, because of the evaporation that occurs in a very hot climate, such as in South Australia, the fruit trees or vines or whatever is being irrigated will be lost in a very short time. They cannot survive, especially as the drip system supplies a very minute quantity of water. To operate that system successfully the water has to be purified and cleansed. The majority of growers prefer low level sprinkler irrigation systems. The reason of course is that in times of high salinity the salt does not get on the leaves and destroy the plants which are being irrigated. That is probably the best system. Unless we can come up with a cheap method of cleansing the water to make a drip system operate efficiently I do not think it will be possible to convince growers to turn to that system. Senator Jessop —What about small filtration systems? Senator ELSTOB —Filtration is a very costly system for agricultural purposes. I think the cost of cleansing the water for the purpose of producing agricultural products woud be too high for the growers. I think one would have to be very careful in working out the economies of such an operation. Water is the life-blood of this nation. If the Murray River became badly affected by salt, pollution or a lack of water, it would be very doubtful whether South Australia could carry a population of more than half a million people. That would be totally disastrous. It has been assessed by experts that by 2000 probably 80 to 90 per cent of the world's population will suffer from a shortage of water. That proportion will increase. Much of the world's surface is being carelessly polluted. This Bill goes some way towards improving that situation but it must be understood that it is not the final answer. I agree with Senator Jessop that there should be more input by the Federal Government. The Federal Government should use its financial powers in this area. I believe that the States and everyone else have rights, but when it comes to the point, if we are destroying our water I believe that this Government has a responsibility that it cannot walk away from. The Federal Government must have the power to intervene to stop States from irrigating in areas where they should not be irrigating. In Victoria, as we know, there are areas where irrigation is pushing large amounts of salt back into the river. That should be stopped. I believe that the exercise of power by a Federal Government authority is the only possible way to do that. The history of the States and how they have managed their affairs over the years shows that management has not always been in the best interests of the nation. Senator Jessop —They build sewerage schemes on the flood plains. Senator ELSTOB —That is absolutely correct. There is no overall plan. As with transportation in this country, it has been messed up. Water is a very vital aspect of this nation. In the near future, water will limit the population of this country, not only in South Australia but in all States. Not only will we have to protect our valuable water supply and keep it clean and palatable but we will also have to look to other methods of supplying water. It is probably not unrealistic at the moment to bring icebergs here. I interjected when Senator Jessop was speaking and said that many people consider that that is unrealistic. Eventually we will have to find the technology to do things such as this or find a cheap way of desalinating water. I agree that we should be spending more on research in this area. It will not be possible to develop this country, and I believe that we should be doing this, unless we improve and increase our water supplies. Senator Teague —Will you use uranium to desalinate sea water? It might be the cheapest method. Senator ELSTOB —I believe that many methods can be used. I am not satisfied at the moment that that is a possibility. I think we should be putting more funds into research and scientific know-how to overcome our pollution of rivers, the air and everything else. That may entail uranium. I want to see a safe world for my children and my grandchildren and their children. The decisions we make here today will affect future generations. I think we should face that responsibility . In a place like the Senate I think there should be an interchange of views and co-operation between political parties. I have always believed that resources such as water should be utilised in the best interests of the nation as a whole, not in the best interests of a State or an individual. We have to have a look at the overall plan. That is something that many politicians are failing to do in this country-to look at a national project to see whether it is workable and feasible. I am pleased to say that that sort of sense is creeping into the atmosphere of politics, especially in this Senate. That shows some promise for the future but we have a long way to go. We are here to improve this country. South Australia is allocated 1.85 million megalitres of water a year from the Murray. We often get that allocation, in the dry period, and we can only plan on the dry years. Last year we were running very short. If we had another drought year, South Australia would be in desperate trouble. That situation has to be taken into account. I have here a list setting out the details of the annual flow, evaporation rates, irrigation areas and salinity loads in all States on the Murray. I seek leave to have that list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- FACTS ON THE RIVER MURRAY SYSTEM Geography Catchment area of Murray-Darling system 1.06 mill. Km2 (i.e. 1/7th of Australian continent) of Darling 650,000 Km2 Length of Murray-2,530 Km Length of Murray (in South Australia)-637 Km. Average annual flow Murray-Darling-800,000 Ml/year; Murrumbidgee 700,000 Ml/year (flow in 1968 into South Australia 1.58 mill. Ml (i.e. 1/6th average flow). Allocation to South Australia 1.85 million Ml. Evaporation Along Murray (dry year) up to 3 million Ml. Menindee Lakes 570,000 Ml/year. History Commercial exploitation began 115 years ago management by R.M.C. Irrigation Total area-730,000 ha; area in South Australia- 43,000 ha; area in New South Wales (present)-255,448 ha; extra area in New South Wales (proposed)-189,559 ha; on Darling (in New South Wales)-50,000 ha; extra proposed area on Darling-100, 000 ha; proposed above Menindee Lakes-17,000 ha; Value of present product- $350 mill. Salinity Total average annual salt load-1,570,000 tonnes; average entering South Australia-1.1 mill. tonnes. Components of average annual salt load- Natural seepage-370,000 tonnes From farms-450,000 tonnes Tributaries-750,000 tonnes Largest single input-190,000 tonnes in Soddon R (Barr Creek) Proposed salt disposal schemes Victoria: salt extractions-88,500 tonnes/year; (but proposed additions to save Shepparton area-142,000 tonnes/year); R.M.C. (Lake Victoria) extractions- 27,000 tonnes/year); N.S.W. (Wakool) extractions- 44,000 tonnes/year; Total for Vic., N .S.W. & R.M.C.- 159,000 tonnes/year. South Australia (Noora Scheme) extraction- 157,000 tonnes/year; effect of all these schemes-reduce salinity Morgan by 90 E. C. Water quality in South Australia Salinity at Morgan (take-off to Iron Triangle) now greater than 800 E.C. (W.H.O . recommended max.) for 25 per cent of time; salinity at Lake Alexandria 1300 E. C. units. Weirs 14 below Lake Hume (6 in South Australia) Dams Total capacity (on filling Dartmouth) 8 mill. Ml. Senator ELSTOB —I think it is important that people other than politicians should have this information. I take it that some people read Hansard, boring as it may be, and it is important that people have an overall perspective of what is going on. Senator Jessop —What do you think about the idea of additional water for South Australia to be flushed through the system to keep the Murray mouth open? Senator ELSTOB —That has got to happen. It is happening now. At present the water has a very low salt content. As we all know, all the people along the Murray are very happy this year. But they are also aware that the Murray actually floats on a layer of salt which in some places is less than a metre and in other place two metres below the fresh water. That is how delicate the balance is. It is frightening. Most South Australians really understand the situation. When we get a good flow of water it is essential, as Senator Jessop said, to flush the Murray out. A good flow of water keeps the salt from flowing back into the river. Millions of tonnes of salt are waiting to be flushed back into the sea. But man brought about this salt problem. I have spoken to experts about this matter. They say that it will take thousands of years to flush out the salt. It cannot be done in a short period. It is an impossible project but we can live with what we have if only sensible exploitation takes place along the Murray, if we permit people to irrigate only in places that do not have a high salt content. A great deal of money has to be spent in other places to re-establish deep-rooted vegetation along the Murray. That is important. Not only are trees nice to look at but, if we are to keep the salt out of the Murray, deep-rooted trees and other plants have to be re- established. Senator Jessop —The Fraser Government was going to spend $100m on that. It is a good idea. Senator ELSTOB —Promises were made that money would be spent on many things. I ask honourable senators to look at the deficit with which we were faced when coming into government. To be realistic, I do not think the Fraser Government could have gone ahead with many of these projects. Governments of all political persuasions should be planning on a long term basis. Problems of this magnitude, whether they concern water or anything else, cannot be solved in one year, five years or 10 years. The expenditure of large guaranteed sums of money should be planned on a continuing basis. Without such planning, we cannot overcome the very severe problems that we all recognise exist. This cannot be done overnight. I think the idea of the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) to establish an institute of freshwater studies was a great one. I still believe that it is a good idea. Many people in my Party understand that. One does not only have to look at the River Murray situation to realise that. We are polluting-- Senator Jessop —It should be incorporated as a national authority. Senator ELSTOB —It has to be a national authority. It is wrong to pollute water in any part of the world and it is certainly wrong to pollute water in any part of our country. The underground water in the south-east of South Australia is starting to become polluted. That has always been a very good supply of fresh water, particularly around the Mount Gambier area. Ineffective programs and the use of certain fertilisers on the land are contributing to the pollution of that water. We have to be careful about it. Water is a vital commodity. We cannot waste these assets; we do not have enough of them. Senator Hill —Senator, will your State Government agree to a transfer of power as did the last Liberal Government in your State? Senator ELSTOB —I believe that all State governments of every political persuasion are very parochial. The responsibility rests with the politicians in the Federal Parliament. I believe that we have a duty to convince not only governments but also the people that we should have a transfer of power to overcome many of these problems. It would be quite easy to show the people of all the States that water management by the States has been very inefficient. I think that is what it comes down to. I think we have to be tough in our use of power and in our determination. If any Federal government allocates money, the States have to toe the line, whether it be South Australia, New South Wales or any other State. I note that New South Wales intends to increase substantially its use of land for irrigation. I think it already has in production 255,448 hectares and it proposes to use another 189,559 hectares. That area is along the Murray, the Murrumbidgee and the Darling rivers. I think with that sort of attitude it may be possible to make progress but I do not know. Experts need to be able to inform us whether irrigation areas are in the right position. I believe it is vital for the States to have that information. Nobody owns a river . Senator Hill —You really need a national authority, don't you? Senator ELSTOB —Yes, we need a strong authority. I agree that all those things are necessary if we are to proceed to reach some arrangement with the States. Nobody owns a river. The River Murray is not owned by New South Wales, Victoria or South Australia for that matter. It belongs to the people of this country. If the River Murray dried up and half the population of South Australia dispersed into New South Wales or Victoria the situation would be chaotic. That is the reality of the situation. Without water many people would not be able to live in South Australia. If the Murray was suddenly cut off from South Australia because it became so badly polluted half the population would have to leave that State. The people would have to go somewhere else. What would happen to the other State governments then? They would suddenly be faced with a huge influx of people. Would the States say: 'You cannot come here'? Of course they could not. The States would have to face those problems. The Federal Government has a real responsibility in this field. Senator Hill —We need a strong national authority. Senator ELSTOB —I agree with all of that to some extent. This Bill, as I said, goes some way towards improving-- Senator Walsh —We are all centralists now, are we? Senator ELSTOB —It surprises me that honourable senators opposite are now all centralists. Senator Hill —The last State Liberal Government in South Australia supported it. Senator ELSTOB —It looks as though only the South Australian honourable senators opposite believe in centralism. But they do understand the problem. I think they understand how dangerous the situation could be. I think that is probably why they would now support a centralist policy on water. All South Australians understand the problem better than people in other States. As water becomes more scarce in the other States the people in those States will have the same outlook as South Australia. In the next 20 years or so, as I said, water will become scarce in the majority of countries. It will become more scarce in places like New South Wales, Victoria and even Queensland to some extent. People will be made aware of the problem if the rivers and dams start drying up. We cannot allow that unfortunate situation to happen. I believe that with good planning we can prevent such an occurence. It will be interesting to see how this River Murray Waters Agreement works. If it does not work I think this Government has a duty to come back to this Parliament and introduce better legislation. I think we may even have to hold a referendum on this issue. If the Commonwealth does not have the necessary power it needs then I think it is vital to hold a referendum. I do not believe this matter can be left to the States any longer. If we can reach agreement that is well and good, but if we cannot reach agreement, if this agreement does not work or if the River Murray or any other river starts to deteriorate we have to be very vigilant and, as I said, perhaps even take it to a referendum. I would hope that all political parties would support such a move. I think that may come about one day. Nevertheless, this agreement is to be implemented. As I said, I hope that it works. I have some doubts about it but nevertheless we will all watch it closely. I think I have covered the main points I wanted to raise. I think a lot more research has to be carried out. Unless we know the facts we cannot legislate. I think we have to seek professional help in this field. We have to spend a lot more money on scientific research. Politicians have to be better informed. When we have all available knowledge then I think we can prepare decent legislation to cover that situation. I think all honourable senators support what has been said in this chamber in one way or another. Certainly honourable senators on this side of the chamber support the Bill and hope that it works. I say to the Government that we should be vigilant. If the agreement does not work the Government should not dilly-dally too long because every month and every year things will get desperately worse. I think we have to take drastic actions in respect of the build up of salt that is present. I urge all politicians, especially those in this place, to think about that. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.40) —I also wish to contribute to the debate on the River Murray Waters Bill. I appreciate that most of the points that can be made have already been made this morning, and I do not want simply to be repetitious. Therefore, I trust that I can be a little briefer than previous speakers. The first point I wish to make is that this Bill and the agreement upon which it is based must be seen as a credit to the former Government, particularly to the former Minister, Senator Sir John Carrick, who was the first speaker in the debate this morning, although the Bill has been introduced by the present Government. I believe that the previous Government's contribution contrasts dramatically with the contribution of this Government to date. That contribution could be summarised by, first, the decision to scrap the four-year extension to the national water resources program, which was to provide a $40m contribution in each year. I remind the Senate that that program has included in excess of $8m that has been spent to date on Murray Valley salinity and drainage works in South Australia. Secondly, this Government's contribution might be summarised in its decision to scrap the bicentennial water resources program, which was aimed at accelerating new water resource and development projects towards our bicentennial year, a program that was to make a contribution averaging in excess of $70m a year. Instead, we have been told by this Government that it is preparing its own program. I appreciate the arguments that we hear that the Government has had only seven months in office and is entitled to look to its own program. But one must state a concern that this will not be simply another example of the expedient of deferral which we seem to have seen in relation to uranium and to a crimes commission, and so on. So it is all right for the Government to say that it is looking to its own program, but we on the Opposition side of the Senate are most anxiously looking towards that program to ensure that it will come to reality. South Australians are regarded as somewhat neurotic in relation to the River Murray. It is not a coincidence that three of the four speakers in this debate have been South Australians, and that senators from South Australia, such as Senator Teague, have sat patiently through the debate. We welcome the presence of Mr Jacobi in the gallery. We usually see him present for water resource debates in the Senate. But it is necessary for the Senate and for those who might read Hansard to appreciate the significance and importance of the River Murray to South Australia. The phrase has been used-it is true and it is worth repeating-that it really is our lifeline. It provides the water necessary to irrigate over 40,000 hectares a year. It provides 50 per cent of South Australia 's domestic, industrial and stock requirements. In dry years that figure is in the vicinity of 62 per cent. In 1977-78, for instance, 83 per cent of Adelaide's water requirements were met by the River Murray. I think that that indicates just how critical it is to the future survival and development of our State. We have had in the past in South Australia a problem with quantity of water. Whilst we shall never have enough water in South Australia and, as Senator Jessop has said, we are wrestling with the problems of the larger quantities of water that will be necessary for the development of such natural resource projects as Roxby Downs, we now recognise that we have reasonable security as to quantity. For that security we are particularly thankful for the contribution made by the River Murray Commission and by the Act that it has to administer. In passing, I might say that an example of the gains that we have made as a result of the existence of the Act and the Commission has been an extra 23 per cent, which we now have as a result of the completion of the Dartmouth Dam. But our complaint in more recent times has related to quality and, as has been said this morning, particularly to salinity. In drought years-I refer particularly to 1967-68, when salinity levels caused permanent damage to orchards-the cost of salinity to domestic users and secondary industry in South Australia has been estimated at about $10m. That is $10m in one year. In terms that are easily understood, the Maunsell report showed that from 1966-67 to 1977 -78 the annual salt loads entering South Australia from upstream varied from 610 ,000 tonnes to 4,370,000 tonnes-massive figures for salt entering South Australia from further upstream. The former South Australian Government, the Liberal Government, produced a graph which indicated that between 1962 and 1964 there was only a 40 per cent probability that water would be safe for all irrigated crops, and there was a 15 per cent probability that the salinity level would exceed the World Health Organisation criterion for the highest desirable salinity for potable water. To the extent that the salinity level in South Australia arises from natural or artificial practices within our State, we must, of course, accept our responsibility. To the extent that it arises from the upper States, we require the good will of those States. The River Murray Waters Agreement incorporated within this Bill is, therefore, an historic agreement, as Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned. It is historic not only because it is the first major review of the legislation since 1914; it is historic because finally the Commission has a responsibility for water quality as well as water quantity. The history of the development of the Bill and of the Act to date, which I shall briefly outline, indicates its historical significance. It was in the 1960s that salinity problems were becoming evident in the middle and lower reaches of the Murray, and this was recognised by the Commission. Although the Commission appreciated that it did not have a responsibility for combating salinity, it is to its credit that it nevertheless engaged the consultants Messrs Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey, in conjunction with Hunting Technical Services, of London, which produced the report 'River Murray Salinity Investigation 1970'. That report identified sources of salinity and proposed engineering and agricultural solutions. It showed also, most importantly, that data available was limited. Because of its limited charter, the Commission reported the need for remedial action, the execution of which was seen as the responsibility of the States and the Commonwealth. The subject was again considered by the River Murray Commission in 1971. At that time the Commission accepted a responsibility for monitoring and reporting salinity in the Murray and streams entering the Murray, which was a considerable advance, and a responsibility for investigation and implementation of remedial measures where an increase in salinity arose from Commission works. Then in 1973 , on the initiative of South Australia-so many of the initiatives on this subject have come from South Australia-the Prime Minister convened a meeting of heads of the government party to the River Murray Waters Agreement to discuss the future of the river, particularly in relation to salinity control. This led to a working party being established to examine and recommend the types of measures needed to be taken to improve water quality in respect of long term salinity control and other forms of pollution, and to recommend changes to the agreement to enable the Commission to undertake such measures. That was back in 1973. Although the working party's recommendations were accepted, with the governments agreeing that they should form the basis of the preparation of a new agreement, there was still some opposition nevertheless expressed that the Commission should not deal with pollution other than salinity. The Commission forwarded its recommendations for a new agreement to the governments in July 1978, and since then the governments concerned have considered the proposals and ministerial meetings have been held, finally culminating, after a further three years of debate, in the agreement that was reached on 16 October 1981. So it has taken a further two years from the reaching of that agreement to this Bill being debated in the Senate. It is comforting to note, as Senator Carrick mentioned in his contribution this morning, that in the meantime, nevertheless, the governments concerned and the Commission have been acting within the spirit of the agreement. It has, therefore, been a long and tortuous task. But, also, it is a milestone in the history of River Murray management. What does it mean, particularly for South Australia? It means that the River Murray Commission can now formulate river quality objectives or standards as appropriate for various locations on the river. South Australia has long sought that. In particular, we have sought an accepted quality objective for water crossing the South Australian border. Once standards of water quality are stated , the next step is to determine what steps are necessary to achieve those objectives. To assist the River Murray Commission a computer model of the river has, I understand, now been constructed. All the studies are complete and I understand that a meeting will be held this week to determine when that computer model will come into operation. It will be able to calculate on an ongoing basis what is necessary to achieve the agreed quality objectives. It will have to take into account what has been and what is being achieved in salinity control even without the agreement now reached. What has been achieved includes the full operational impact of the Dartmouth Dam and the specific salinity control and drainage works recommended by the report of Maunsell and Partners Pty Ltd on which in excess of $36m has already been spent. The Commission may find that it can substantially reduce salinity by manipulating the storages it has. This will be the great value of the computer model because it will be able to predict the effect at any one place on the river of what is happening elsewhere, whether that be natural or artificial. Further major works be shown to be necessary. Two of such works identified by the Maunsell report and pressed by the former South Australian Government include the Lake Tyrrell scheme and the Kerang region dewatering scheme. The removal of poor irrigation practices may substantially improve the water quality . That view has been confidently put to the Senate today. South Australia has believed for some time that poor irrigation practices in the Murray-Darling area have substantially contributed to the level of salinity crossing the South Australian border. Improved irrigation systems and practices will, it is claimed, improve water use and efficiency and reduce excessive saline ground water backflows to the River Murray and its tributaries. That has been dealt with in some detail by both Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Elstob. In that regard South Australia can claim to have led the way but it recognises that some extra incentive may be necessary when the benefits will be gained in South Australia, particularly in Victoria. I remind the Senate that in the United States of America, in a similar program with the Colorado River, the federal government meets 75 per cent of the cost of on-farm improvements. We should recognise the taxation incentives that were offered, I think in 1980, by the previous Federal Government for improvement of irrigation practices. We should also recognise that, subsequent to this agreement being reached, it was announced that a Commonwealth-State working group would review the extent to which irrigators are adopting improved irrigation practices and to assess the possible need for additional incentives. That report was brought down in June of 1982. Its conclusions and recommendations are particularly important. They are brief but a little longer than I would want to read into the transcript today and I therefore seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the summary and conclusions and the recommendations of that working party. Leave granted. The document read as follows- REPORT OF THE COMMONWEALTH, NEW SOUTH WALES, VICTORIA AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA WORKING GROUP ON INCENTIVES FOR FARM BASED MEASURES IN SALINITY AND DRAINAGE CONTROL IN THE MURRAY VALLEY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Murray Valley continues to have salinity and drainage problems affecting both the water and land resources and the industries, towns and cities that depend on the river system. The problem in the lower river Sunraysia and Riverland areas is primarily one of, at times, high river salinities which can result in reduced crop yields, while, in the mid-Murray areas, the problem is basically one of high and often saline water tables which may inhibit plant growth by salting of the soil. In total, these form an increasingly significant national problem. Agricultural practices in the Valley since white settlement have exacerbated the natural salinity of the river and have resulted in a substantial rise in groundwater levels. Major studies of salinity problems in the Valley have all identified improved irrigation and drainage practices at the farm level as necessary for the long-term solution to the problem and to enable irrigators along the lower river, who will inevitably be exposed to periods of high salinity irrigation water, to mitigate the impacts. Current land use has developed over a long period of time and, while in general, it is appropriate to the soil types and climate of the area, the continuing existence of some enterprises may be questioned. In addition, there are particular areas that may be considered unsuitable for irrigation. The Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey report of 1970, the River Murray Working Party report of 1975 and the Maunsel and Partners report of 1979 all recommended a range of necessary works and measures to combat salinity and drainage problems , including action at the farm level. The three States, with Commonwealth financial assistance, have commenced engineering works to lower watertables and prevent saline effluent from entering the river system. As an integral part of the plan of action recommended by Maunsel and Partners, measures at the farm level were seen as complementary to publicly-funded engineering works and, in some cases, perhaps a substitute for public works. The consultants were concerned that on-farm measures should not lag behind, particularly as benefits can be achieved in a relatively short time, and that it is generally more cost effective to achieve an equivalent degree of control on farms than to rely solely on publicly-funded large engineering works. Adoption of improved irrigation and drainage practices in the upper river areas would lead to increased efficiency of water use with a consequent reduction in accessions to the watertable and thus lead to reduction of saline inputs to the Murray River. In the lower river areas, an additional reason for their adoption is to reduce the adverse effects of high irrigation water salinity. While the States involved have proceeded to offer assistance in the form of enhanced research and extension facilities, together with direct financial incentives such as grants and concessional loans, they have been severely constrained by limited finance. To date the Commonwealth has not become directly involved in assistance to farmers for improving their irrigation and drainage practices, apart from limited funding of farm improvement loans under the Rural Adjustment Scheme and through offering concessions to primary producers under the Income Tax Assessment Act. In view of the national importance of the Murray Valley it is necessary that the Commonwealth Government continues to act in concert with the States in dealing with the problem. Precise data on the rate of adoption of improved irrigation and drainage practices on farms are not available. However, there is evidence that, particularly in the last three to four years, there has been a large increase in interest in and adoption of improved practices. In most cases, the technology of improved irrigation and drainage methods is available-such as drip, micro-jet and other forms of sprinkler irrigation, tile drainage techniques, laser grading for improved layout for flood irrigation, re-use systems for farms to utilise drainage flows, and other methods. The limits are the communication of technology and the funds to adopt it. Also, there is evidence that producers currently adopting improved irrigation and drainage practices are typical of the early-adopter class of farmers and it cannot be assumed that the current rates of adoption of improvements in practices will continue. There are producers who appreciate the need to improve their irrigation and drainage practices, for which they require sound technical advice. Their adoption of improved irrigation and drainage practices would be speeded by financial incentives. Regrettably, there are also those who do not have the resources or the incentive to change, and who are the main contributors to salinity problems. In the interests of the resource, these landholders should be offered strong incentives to change their practices or be encouraged to leave irrigated agriculture. Options examined to encourage greater adoption of improved practices ranged from indirect measures, such as taxation concessions and water pricing policies, and direct assistance like the Rural Assistance Scheme and a range of special measures to stimulate improvements. These include grants and loan concessions, such as subsidised interest rates, long-term loans, repayment holidays and concessions on loan security. In the case of taxation concessions, many farmers undertook investments in the belief, or on the advice of their accountants, that they would be eligible for the new concessions announced in 1980. However, the impact of the concessions on investment in new technology will be limited, given recent determinations of the Commissioner of Taxation. The Working Group concluded that taxation concessions are appropriate for some farmers but require a broader interpretation to be effective. Many farmers are not in a position to be able to take advantage of taxation concessions. The Working Group concluded that a broader approach to direct funding for improved irrigation and drainage practices was necessary. Such an approach should include the current provisions under the farm improvement section of the Rural Adjustment Scheme; an interest rate subsidy scheme, subject to eligibility and operating through the commercial banking system; concessional loans from government sources for those farmers who do not meet criteria for commerical loans; and a grant component in financial packages, where necessary, to provide an incentive for group schemes. Significant factors in any loan scheme were seen to be loan periods that are consistent with the type of investment undertaken, repayment holidays to overcome early cash flow constraints and concessional iterest rates, subject to ability to repay loans. On the best available information, such a scheme would require an injection of some $3.269m per annum as follows: New South South Wales Victoria Australia Total ($) Interest Subsidies 183,000 101,000 150,000 434,000 Concessional Loans 1,136,000 875,000 800,000 2,811,000 Grants 24,000 24,000 Total ($) 1,319,000 1,000,000 950,000 3,269,000 To be eligible for inclusion in the scheme, a whole farm plan approach should be a pre-requisite and the loans should be tailored to suit individual cash flow situations. The Working Group also concluded that additional advisory effort is required to ensure that farmers will receive adequate information on the latest technology and to ensure the most effective use of funds. This would require some $300,000 per annum. Additional resources would also be required in each State for administrative and design support for the scheme. Furthermore, funds, under other programs, will be required for research, to overcome problems which develop as currently available technological information reaches its limits. RECOMMENDATIONS The Working Group recommends that: 1. Governments consider the following options for providing financial assistance to landholders: 1.1. A broader interpretation of the Income Tax Assessment Act be employed to clarify the situation relating to Section 75B and 75D by increasing the scope for concessions on expenditure in water conservation technology, salinity and drainage problems and to prevent exacerbation of the problems in the future. 1.2. Current financial assistance schemes involving unrealistically low interest rates should be amended. 1.3. A broader approach be made to direct funding for the adoption of improved practices to include: a scheme to subsidise interest on commercial loans be introduced; the interest subsidy should be on a sliding scale according to ability to repay so that the net amount will be not less than 9 per cent or more than 4 per cent below commercial rates of interest; for those unable to attract direct commercial funding, the current provisions under the Farm Improvements Section of the Rural Adjustment Scheme should be maintained and augmented by direct government loans to farmers on concessional terms tailored to suit individual requirements; and grants should be considered as an incentive, where necessary, to implement group schemes which, in some cases could replace the need for publicly-funded works. Assistance is recommended for an initial period of five years, subject to review at the end of this period. 2. Advisory services be upgraded in each of the States to assist in assuring an increased rate of adoption of improved irrigation and drainage practices. (The provision of such services for the three States would require an additional $300 ,000 per annum for the next five years, together with additional resources for design work and administration.) 3. Provisions of the Rural Adjustment Scheme be examined to facilitate effective rehabilitation or relocation of those farmers who are unable to, or do not wish to avail themselves of assistance measures and wish to leave irrigation farming. 4. Studies be continued in each State to ascertain optimum land and water use policies, updating of land capability investigations, implications for agricultural industries, marketing policies and government irrigation and drainage infrastructure. 5. Data be collected on the cost to revenue of taxation concessions to enable assessment of their effectiveness. 6. Any planned extension or intensification of irrigation should be subject to careful and detailed examination and future industry adjustment schemes seriously consider retirement of, or alternative landuse for, badly drained areas, consistent with long-term land capability. 7. Appropriate water pricing and allocation policies be pursued, as an incentive to farmers to optimise water use. Senator HILL —As a matter of interest, I understand that so far only the former South Australian Liberal Government has responded to that report, which is disappointing. I understand that the Commonwealth Government is still waiting for the responses of Victoria and New South Wales and feels that it cannot respond until it has those responses. That report recognised that the Commonwealth has not been directly involved in assistance to farmers for improving their irrigation and drainage practices, apart from limited funding for on-farm improvement loans under the rural adjustment scheme and the offering of the taxation incentives that I have just mentioned. It said that in view of the national importance of the Murray Valley, it is necessary that the Commonwealth Government continue to act in concert with the States in dealing with the problems. It made a series of recommendations dealing with such matters as a suggested interest rate subsidy scheme, concessional loans from government sources and incentives for group schemes. It is something which I believe is worthy of considerable study and I trust that it will not be long before the Labor governments in Victoria and New South Wales and the Commonwealth Government can give us a response to that report. There are limitations and reservations to the agreement reached that is incorporated in this Bill and I think they should be mentioned. The principal reservation is that the River Murray Commission cannot regulate; it can only recommend. It does not have a power to impose sanctions. That is true of the States, of course, but the States to date have not been prepared to yield their sovereign powers. They have not been prepared to agree to the setting up of a full national waters authority. It appears that they will not do so, although, as I mentioned to Senator Elstob in interjection, the previous South Australian Liberal Government, representing the State that is most affected and, therefore, not surprisingly the leading agitator in the field, indicated that it would be prepared to yield such powers to a national water authority provided there was reciprocal agreement by the other States and, of course, such agreement was not forthcoming. However, that does not mean that this agreement will not work. We have noted that it has worked in relation to quantity and there is no reason why it cannot work in relation to quality. All the States have now agreed to the principle of quality control. It is hoped that no one State will now frustrate the implementation of that principal. The experience of the last two years has been favourable and therefore can give us some hope. To achieve such objectives the River Murray Commission would, with its powers of persuasion, be assisted by the fact that now water quantity to a State will take into account its performance in areas of water quality, that is, in relation to tributary flows. I think that is a major advance which should be recognised. Two further limitations to the new Bill deserve mention. It does not include the participation of Queensland, which is a weakness in view of the importance of the upper Darling River basin to the quality and quantity of the River Murray waters. Also, the River Murray Commission's functions are limited to the main trunk of the river and tributaries above the Hume. Both of those limitations cry out for attention in the future. It is clear that in the last year or so nature has given us a short respite from the perilous situation that we appeared to be getting into in South Australia, particularly in relation to water quality. The water is now flowing fast and much of the build-up of salinity has been flushed out. With that, there comes a natural tendency to relax. I suggest that we must particularly guard against that. If there is drought for the next few years, which is quite possible, in South Australia we could face a calamitous situation. It was the earnest desire of the previous Liberal Government in South Australia that a permanent solution to the problem of water quality of the Rivery Murray be achieved by Australia's bicentennial year, 1988. South Australia saw the first step as being the amendments to the River Murray Waters Agreement which we are now getting and which, in practice, had been in effect for two years. The second step we saw was to determine quality standards. Now that the computer model has been completed, we trust that that step will be rapidly advanced in the near future. The third step will be to carry out the works which will be necessary to meet those quality objectives. I trust that this new Commonwealth Government will show greater spirit in this area than it has shown to date to ensure that such works are carried out. I doubt that a totally permanent solution will be found without a national water authority and a transfer of powers. Senator Elstob mentioned the massive increase in irrigation that is being sought in New South Wales. It is a fact of political life that great pressure can be brought to bear on State governments, particularly in difficult political circumstances. Without a national authority to overcome such parochial pressures I doubt that a truly permanent solution will ever be found. Such a solution would have to include Queensland and the power to impose sanctions. Nevertheless, on the basis of the agreement that has now been reached, I believe that with diligence and goodwill there is no reason why by 1988 South Australia cannot be as secure in quality as it is in quantity in relation to water from the Murray. That, for South Australia, would be a tremendous advance. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.02) — Failed politicians have a well-earned reputation for self-indulgence and self- justification. We had another demonstration of that phenomenon when Senator Sir John Carrick attempted to justify the bicentennial water resources program which the previous Government produced in its terminal months. It was, in fact, a cynical election stunt, one which, moreover, failed. As the present Deputy Leader and clearly leader-aspirant of the Liberal Party of Australia has had the decency to acknowledge, it would have been repudiated had the Fraser Government been returned. Mr Howard has publicly acknowledged, for example, that the funding of the Burdekin scheme along with all other items of government expenditure would have been up for review had the Liberal Party been returned to Government. Senator Sir John Carrick is already known as the politician chiefly responsible for talking up the Rundle twins, the market capitalisation, to a value of about $1,200m. The last time I bothered to look at the market capitalisation, it was something like $300m, and it has fallen a good deal since. Now, apparently, by his stubborn defence of the cynical election stunt which was dubbed the bicentennial water resources program after it had been produced, he has shown that his current ambition is apparently to join that list of cranks associated with the Premier of Queensland, including such notables as Stephen Horvath and Milan Brych. By Senator Sir John Carrick's endorsement of the ridiculous Bradfield scheme, he puts himself in the same category as disciples of the Premier of Queensland, in such company as Stephen Horvath and Milan Brych. I will not bother to say any more about Senator Sir John Carrick because I really do not think his importance justifies any more comment. Senator Hill —Except the credit you could give him for the Bill and for the agreement. Senator WALSH —I was about to do that. I was about to acknowledge that the Bill itself is a bipartisan measure. As Senator Hill and probably Senator Sir John Carrick pointed out, it was in fact prepared by the previous Government. The principles embodied in it had the support of the Labor Party in opposition, just as Labor in government has the support now of the present Opposition. I do not think its importance should be overstated. It extends the ambit of the River Murray Commission to monitoring water quality and to the tributaries of the river. Even that relatively modest advance took 10 years to negotiate, which is testimony, as Senator Elstob and Senator Jessop have both noted, to the impediments to rational policy-making and administration which are imposed by our Federal system of government. The point has been made that Australia is the driest continent in the world, excluding Antarctica, which has the lowest mean precipitation. It is not entirely correct to extrapolate from that fact that Australia has a crucial shortage of water. Water needs are subsequently a function of population. On that basis, as Davidson pointed out almost 20 years ago, only Brazil is better endowed with water than Australia. There are two major problems in the availability of Australian water supplies. Most of the stream flow is in the relatively unpopulated northern half of the country. Seventy-five per cent of that which is currently stored and available is used for irrigation, invariably at prices below the cost of supply. Often the end product can be marketed only with difficulty, if at all. In some cases the end product then significantly contributes to salinity and other environmental problems. Of the potential water supplies which have already been harnessed, the most important are connected with the Murray-Darling system, which is the subject of this Bill. Much of that water is misallocated by price discrimination in favour of irrigators and against urban industrial consumers and, in particular, against the residents of country towns. The Government notes with considerable satisfaction that most States-now there are Labor governments in all but one of the States concerned with the Murray-Darling system-are moving to rectify that inequitable and inefficient system. Senator Sir John Carrick —Will you urge them to put up the price of water? Senator WALSH —Yes. I am about to do so. In fact, two State governments had the common sense to do what no Liberal government or National Party government has ever had the courage or decency to do. Senator Jessop —Would it not be better to ask them to pay for what they use? Is that a common pricing policy? Senator Sir John Carrick —No, he is going to put up the price. Senator WALSH —A correct pricing policy even in isolation would provide sufficient additional water through the more efficient use of water by means of the termination or partial termination of present waste to ensure that at all times the Murray River had fresh water-as far as salinity is concerned-available for South Australia. There is little doubt that a saving of 10 per cent on present consumptions would provide at all times sufficient water in reserve to ensure that the Murray was flushed out as far as salinity was concerned. There is no reasonable doubt that-- Senator Sir John Carrick —In hard droughts? Senator WALSH —In past droughts, yes. Senator Sir John Carrick —In hard, continuous droughts, in a drought lasting three, four or five years? Senator WALSH —A 10 per cent saving on present consumptions over the long term would ensure that at all times the Murray River had sufficient water for South Australia which was not unduly contaminated by salinity. It would not guarantee that it was not muddy. I point out to Senator Sir John Carrick that a correct pricing policy means higher charges for irrigators. At least two States have publicly announced their intention to move in that direction. That is something that this Government notes with considerable satisfaction, since the States have control of these matters. They have done that because they have responsible and rational Labor governments, as distinct from the government which they unfortunately have habitually had. If the higher income produced by those charges were used to fund or subsidise superior irrigation technology such as laser land levelling, trickle irrigation and superior drainage, that, in itself, would make a significant contribution to overcoming the salinity problem. The turbidity problem, raised by several other speakers, is not so easily overcome. As Senator Jessop noted, a proper attack on the turbidity problem would necessarily involve the State of Queensland, which is at least at some times the major source of turbidity in the lower reaches of the Murray, below the Darling confluence. By any rational assessment, what is needed is not, as the cargo cultists such as Senator Sir John Carrick assert, more storages, but a more efficient use of what water is already available in the Murray-Darling system. The rationality of this argument is not compatible with that assertion. The points made by Dr Geoff Miller, when he was Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics some years ago-he is currently the Director of the Economic Planning Advisory Council-are important and valid. He said that existing capital expenditure in irrigation schemes is sunk and therefore what would be a rational pricing policy for a proposed irrigation scheme would not necessarily be a rational pricing policy for a scheme already built and operating and into which capital had been sunk. He nevertheless made the point that more efficient pricing policies, and, yes, for Senator Sir John Carrick's benefit, that does mean higher water charges to irrigators; apparently he thinks there is some great advantage in getting me on the record saying what two State goverments have already announced as a policy objective- Senator Jessop —Which States were those? Did you mention the States? Senator WALSH —Both New South Wales and Victoria have announced intentions to move in that direction. South Australia may have as well but I am not aware of it having done so. Of course, Senator Sir John Carrick is yesterday's man and continues to follow yesterday's policy-that water should be deliberately underpriced in a way which both leads to misallocation of water and induces serious environmental problems and external economic costs, the principal one of which is salinity. As Miller pointed out, the criteria which a rational economist would apply to a proposed scheme and an existing scheme are not the same. Nevertheless, he pointed out, more efficient pricing policies ought to be used, to ensure a net economic gain from a State, regional or national perspective. A rational economic assessment of projected projects would insist not only that full operating costs be recovered in water charges but also that at least some return on invested taxpayers' funds be provided. The usual answer, the sort of attitude displayed by yesterday's man the former Minister, in the Senate again today, is that rational water pricing policies, or full cost recovery pricing policies, will stop development. In some circumstances that may be so. If a return on capital of, say, 5 per cent in real terms were required, water charges would have to be pitched at a level sufficient to provide that return on public funds. That is the publicly announced objective of the Government of Victoria. The Australian Treasury believes that a 10 per cent real rate of return is more appropriate but I will not pass judgment on which of those figures is the more appropriate. If we take the lower one, a 5 per cent real rate of return, even that may mean that some projects are sub-economic. If for some other reason a government intends to proceed with them, that is the business of that government. It would entail value judgments as well as economic judgments. However, one thing of which we can be quite certain, which cannot be rationally disputed-that does not exclude the possibility of Senator Sir John Carrick disputing it-is that water charges can be increased, and I put this in the context of new projects, to the point where the capital appreciation in land prices normally associated with water rights in an irrigation scheme is entirely eliminated. Such a policy would have no effect on regional development. Of course, such a policy is stoutly resisted by those who stand to gain from the traditional practice of supplying water not only at below cost but also at a price so low that windfall capital gains accrue to those who are arbitrarily allocated the rights to that water. I note that, with the Burdekin scheme, the Queensland Government continues to attempt both to pay excessive compensation for land which must be resumed and to provide windfall capital gains to selected favoured clients of the National Party Government of that State. Senator Sir John Carrick —You could have put that in the agreement, if you wanted to. You could have put a caveat against that in the agreement if you wanted to, but you did not do it. Senator WALSH —Senator Sir John Carrick is now singing a different tune. He was telling us a few weeks ago that the previous Government had taken on a binding commitment to fund the Burdekin scheme. Now he tells us that the present Government was the one which had control. He cannot have it both ways. Senator Sir John Carrick —You did the written agreement-the written agreement as it stands now. Senator WALSH —The only one that was binding! What the honourable senator had for the Burdekin was what he announced at the end of January, in that mirage designed to shimmer on the horizon between then and 5 March. That is what his bicentennial water resources program was. He made a promise which his deputy leader has since acknowledged that he would have broken had they won the election. That is what he had for the Burdekin scheme, and that is what he had for everything else. The honourable senator is yesterday's man; I will make no more comment on his puerile contribution to this debate. This Bill is a step in the right direction. As I noted earlier, it has bipartisan support now, as it had bipartisan support when it was prepared by the previous Government in 1982. I do not intend to delay its passage any longer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 2 November 1983. GROUP B Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $653,298,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.21) —I asked a number of questions at the hearing of Estimates Committee B to which I believe I have not received satisfactory answers. I asked what the total cost would be for the assets test. I do not know how to identify the answer but it states: Information Sought . . . Senators Messner and Walters asked a series of questions about the estimates of costs for the administration of asset testing of social security pensions . . . The answer went on to deal mainly with the $20m from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. I want to know the total cost. According to the Department of Social Security, it is possible to compile only broad estimates of the likely cost of the administration until the Government makes up its mind what it is doing about the assets test. I do not think the answer is quite satisfactory. A breakdown of the $20m is given, but many things which normally would be attributed to the cost of the assets test have been left out. I want more detail . I think the Minister would acknowledge that there is not enough information. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.23) —First, I repeat briefly what I said last night. We are in the process of framing the details of the assets test. Legislation will be coming forward in a couple of weeks. The departmental estimate of $20m is listed in the answer which I have here. It includes everything from salaries to that famous entry 'miscellaneous' which appears in all such estimates. Senator Walters said that certain items which she felt should be included were not included. I am afraid I do not know what they are. Senator Walters —Perhaps I could tell the Minister. Senator Grimes —The honourable senator had better give me some idea. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.24) — Can the Minister inform me what amount is involved for posting? I cannot see that item in the list. There must be some costing for the postage involved in sending out to the various pensioner groups information forms, et cetera. I would like also a breakup of the estimate of $1m under the miscellaneous item. I think that even Senator Grimes would acknowledge that that item is a bit broad. An estimate of $0.25m is given for the item, forms. Does that involve the printing of the forms? I do not know what it is. Does it involve printing or postage, or a combination of those two? The way in which the breakdown is set out is not satisfactory. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.25) —While I can understand Senator Walters's curiosity, I cannot quite understand what she seeks in respect of posting. Postage and telephones are generally included in the same vote. Senator Walters referred to the posting of forms. There is no actual breakdown of the amount of money which will be required to post the forms. The Department has not at any stage pretended that this is an exact and final costing for a program which has not yet been introduced and which will be introduced gradually over the next year provided the legislation is in place. I do not think the Department or anyone else could be expected to be held to whether the estimated expenditure of $20m will end up being an actual expenditure of $22m, $23m, $17m or $18m. I will seek from the Department its estimate for the postage involved in sending out those forms. As I understand it, the amount includes printing and design of the forms and does not include postage. That is my information. I suspect that the postage may be included along with telephones. But I have no confirmation of that. However, I have asked the officers to seek that information for the honourable senator. We do not have a breakdown of the miscellaneous item. I will seek the information for the honourable senator. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.26) —I just raised the item of postage off the top of my head. I am quite sure the Department will come up with a few other items which have been left out. The Minister said that postage may be included under the telephone item. That may be the case. This information has been poorly put together by the Department. I thank the Minister for seeking to obtain the information for me in a clearer fashion. Secondly, the next page of the answer states: The salaries estimate provides for staffing in excess of 2,000 officers . . . That is a terribly broad statement. What does 'in excess of 2,000 officers' mean ? It could be 500,000 or 2,100. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.27) —I believe in the Estimates Committee report it was estimated that the maximum number of people who would be employed would be up to 2,400, although all of them would not be employed at the same time or for the full year. I think the figure averaged out at 1,240-odd, but that was for the first year only. The first thing that has to be done in any of these measures, as the honourable senator knows, is to establish all the entitlements and put the assets test in place throughout the year. The Department's estimate was finalised in conjunction with the Public Service Board, which has the experts, after discussion. The best estimate, as I say, is in excess of 2,000. It could be as high as 2,400. It may be a very little over 2,000. I believe I need not make any apology for the Department for not being able to pin that down to the number of people. It is a new program. Senator Primmer —It is an estimate. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Primmer says, it is an estimate. It is a new program which was announced and is being developed in consultation with the various pensioner groups. We are talking about an estimate in the order of $20m and about 2,000 officers or, if one likes, 2,400. I do not think anyone can expect in a new program such as this any department to pin down the number of staff involved, especially in the light of the fact that there are some two million pensioners and that we have not collected information on assets from pensioners since 1976. I remind the honourable senator that there are 16,000 employees in the Department. We are talking about a big department and a big project which involves the whole country. I cannot give any more accurate estimates than that. I think honourable senators will find estimates of this order in every department when any new program comes in. What the Budget is about is giving an estimate of how much money will be spent and on what it will be spent, but it is always an estimate. In this case no one is pretending it is anything else. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.30) —If it is difficult to estimate how many people will be needed to administer the assets test, will the Minister for Social Security please tell me how a decision was made on what the savings could be and how much the Government will make out of changes in the pensioner area? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.31) —That equally is an estimate. But what we have done has been to look at certain facts and certain things and extrapolate from them. For instance, in 1976 the previous Government decided to remove the assets component from the means test. It told this Parliament and the people of this country that that was a no cost option. In fact it cost the revenue something like $70m. We know that since then there has been a great burgeoning of the contrivance schemes about which I talked last night. We know that all of the advertisements which the good senator, like everyone else, reads in the Australian Financial Review, the National Times, the Pensioners Weekly, the Australian Pensioner and Prime Time cost money and we know that the promoters of these schemes are not putting the advertisements in these publications without getting some return from them. We know there is a considerable amount of money there. We know from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which has collected some assets information since 1976, that there are a certain number of people who have large assets holdings and still get the full pensions and full fringe benefits. We made a decision to introduce the assets test in the light of the fact that we realise, like anyone else in this community who thinks about it realises, that we have an aging population and that we have an increasing number of people , including people in receipt of the age pension and other pensions, who are dependent on pensions and benefits and a decreasing number of people who are paying taxes and have the capacity to support that area. So we realised, again like anyone else who thinks about it, that we had to take certain steps to ensure that we had an income support system based more on need, and one of the ways in which we could do that was by the reintroduction of an assets test. But that is not the only thing we will do. One of the things we realised in doing that was that we could make savings in the order of a couple of hundred million dollars in both the veterans' affairs area and social security area. We know that that is a rough estimate. No one pretends it is not. The Department of Social Security then sat down and worked out what capacity it would need, first of all, to train people, what capacity it would need during the year to set the assets test in place and what number of support staff would be needed in that area. The Department, with the assistance of the Public Service Board and so on, has come up with an estimate of just in excess of 2,000 people. That is the way things are always done. That would be done in any large organisation, be it public or private. But no one is pretending that the figure will be exact, that one can be pinned down exactly to that figure. Senator Walters may wish somehow to pin the Department down this year so that next year when we are considering next year's estimates she can say that the estimate was 20 or 100 above or 100 below. But I put it to the Committee that that is not a reasonable approach. I think that the Department has put its cards on the table. In some ways it has put its reputation on the line in respect of these estimates. We will just have to see, in carrying out government policy, how accurate those estimates are. However, in view of the record of the Department of Social Security, all I can say is that those estimates are likely to be very accurate within the limitations and the difficulties which the Department faces. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.35) — Could the Minister for Social Security then tell me, perhaps to simplify the staffing situation, how many extra permanent, temporary or part time staff will be required-in other words, staff in every area and every facet? Can he tell me what is the estimate in those three categories? The Minister might remember that I also asked for the total number of staff in the whole of the Department. If the Minister looks at the Hansard record he will find that I made that request. I was given information for the period June 1983 to June 1984 in regard to Division 560. I want the numbers for the whole of the Department. Is the Minister able to provide me with information on both of those requests? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.36) —I think the answer set out on the second page of the document containing written replies to questions asked during the sittings of Estimates Committee B is that the peak staffing level is expected to be 16,971 at 30 June. Although normally the peak staffing level is at the end of February as a result of an increase in the number of unemployment benefit applications, there is expected to be an increase in the number of staff later in the year because of an increase in the training program for automatic data processing upgrading. The assets testing is not included in that estimate, as I understand. However, I am informed by my officers that the figure of 16,971 is in fact for the whole Department. Of course, the permanent head is only one of those included in the areas that are chargeable to the appropriations, other than the appropriations that the honourable senator mentioned. The rehabilitation component is charged to the National Welfare Fund. The staffing level is 1,803 and is not expected to increase this year. The Socal Welfare Policy Secretariat, which is contained in division 561, had a staff of 18 in 1983. It is expected to have a staff of 21 in 1984. Therefore, in fact these are the only areas that I understand are not in the appropriations about which the honourable senator was talking. No increase in the staff is estimated for the rehabilitation area this year. There is to be an increase of only three staff in the Social Welfare Secretariat. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.38) — Can the Minister for Social Security give me the total cost for all areas of public information? For instance, is there anything in the Special Minister of State area that would apply to the social welfare area? I think that there are already two areas of expenditure in regard to public information. Can the Minister let me have the total costs? Can he tell me whether the Department of the Special Minister of State is involved? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.39) —As to the latter part of the honourable senator's request, I believe that she will have to ask the Department of the Special Minister of State. That Department certainly co- operates with the Department of Social Security and other departments in regard to public information services. However, my officers and I do not have any information about the breakdown of that Department's budget. I think that the honourable senator had better ask for that information when the estimates for SMOS are dealt with. I am not saying that the information should not be available; it is just not available from our estimates. As to total expenditure, I will get the departmental people to add the various areas together. I do not know whether this can be done very easily but I daresay we can do that for the honourable senator. However, our information will not include any expenditure from the Special Minister of State. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.40) — Will there be a financial impact statement? Senator Grimes —A financial impact statement on what? Senator WALTERS —On all the various programs that we have been promised. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.41) —There will be a financial impact statement on any legislation that I bring into this place. That is what we have promised. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.41) — Will there be a financial impact statement on the assets test and everything else that flows from today? Senator Grimes —Yes. Senator WALTERS —Why was there no financial impact statement on legislation that has already been introduced? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.42) —The financial implications of all the social security listed were clearly in the Budget. I think the honourable senator is asking a bit much if she wants an extra financial impact statement on budgetary legislation. The estimated costs for the social security amendment legislation which was brought into this place have been stated quite clearly in the Budget. The costs are supplied not only for this year, but also for next year. I think ongoing costs for two years are usually included in the Budget Papers. If the honourable senator wants us to reproduce budgetary figures in Budget legislation and call those figures a financial impact statement, fair enough. But certainly we have said that any legislation that is introduced outside that area will have a financial impact statement. I certainly intend, in bringing in the assets test, to make clear to the Senate what we believe can be gained and cannot be gained. I certainly will not pretend now, nor will I then, that I can be as accurate as, perhaps, Senator Walters would like or as I would like. She knows that one of the things that bedevils us in this country is a lack of information on people's asset holdings and also on their capacity. We have enough trouble knowing what the income and assets are of those who earn incomes let alone those who have assets. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.43) —I asked whether we could have a financial impact statement. The Minister for Social Security told me that we could not have one on Budget matters as that had already been done. In answer to my question during the Estimates Committee hearing as to how much the assets test would cost altogether, I was told that it is possible to compile only broad estimates of the likely costs of administration for assets testing until decisions are taken by the Government about the detailed form of the assets test and the related legislation is considered in Parliament. If the financial impact statement on the assets test is part of the Budget Papers and we will not have a further financial impact statement because I am so dumb that I do not understand the Budget Papers, I do not know what we are talking about. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.44) —Let me spell it out in words of one syllable. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) on Budget night announced the intention of introducing an assets test. The second thing he announced was that we would be, in the first two or three months after the Budget, consulting with various pensioner groups and community groups as to the detail of the assets test. He gave an outline of the assets test. The assets test will not be in place or have effect until the end of next year. The aspects of the assets test which affect this year's Budget are the estimates for the number of staff that will be needed to establish it. Those figures are clearly in the Budget Papers. Senator Walters may not like the figures; she may think that we should be more accurate, but they are there. Legislation will be introduced into this place shortly which will contain our final proposals for the assets test. That legislation will be introduced for consideration in this place as it will be introduced into the other Chamber. Quite clearly we will have then, as best we can, the estimates of the impact of the assets test on the budgetary situation. I remind Senator Walters that the final figures for the assets test will appear in next year's Budget, not this year's Budget. The assets test will not start until the end of next year. I will not come in here and say that we are introducing an assets test and try not to tell honourable senators what effect it may have at the end of next year but of course, it will be affected by what we do with pensions next year and by all sorts of other budgetary decisions which will be taken next year. We really will not have any final or accurate figure until next year's Budget. We have never pretended otherwise. Certainly, when the assets test is introduced I will be making some attempt to inform honourable senators what its budgetary impact will be. Senator Walters suggested that a financial impact statement should be provided when we bring in a social security amendment Bill to put into place the decisions which we made in the Budget when those figures have been listed in the Budget. I believe the figures were provided in the second reading speech or at least, were available. We said in the Budget that we would index the unemployment benefit for single unemployed people and increase that benefit by $ 2 in November and $2 in May. There was a specific figure in the Budget Papers. There was a specific figure in the Budget Papers for everything we did. If that is not a financial impact statement I do not know what is. Sure, if we lifted all the figures out and listed them carefully the honourable senator could say: 'Well, you have saved me a lot of trouble, Senator Grimes. I do not have to go back to the Budget Papers and look up the figures'. But to suggest that there is no financial impact statement in Budget legislation I think is a nonsense. Progress reported. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 10, Radiocommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 and related Bills. Debate resumed from 20 October 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.47) —It is the understanding of the Senate that honourable senators can speak on various matters of concern to them on the first readings of Bills. Briefly today in speaking to the first reading of the Radiocommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments ) Bill 1983, I wish to speak to a report. It is not a Senate report or a Federal Government report which has been introduced into the Senate and on which time is allowed for debate. I take the somewhat unusual step today of bringing forward a report which relates to the Northern Territory. It is my intention later to table the report. I believe that honourable senators will find the report quite interesting as well people who are concerned with the trachoma eradication and eye health work being carried out at present. Senator Jessop —Which report is it? Senator KILGARIFF —It is the Northern Territory Trachoma Eradication and Eye Health Committee Report 1982-83. It is that Committee's first report. It is a remarkable report. So much has been achieved in the space of one year that I take this opportunity to discuss it briefly in the Senate. Honourable senators will be aware that trachoma has been quite widespread in Australia's outback particularly among Aboriginal communities although I can remember that years ago the disease was very prevalent in small towns in the outback where sanitation and health were not as good as they are today. For quite a while the responsibility for the eradication of trachoma came under the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists, but because of distance, communication and financial problems there was some lack of activity and loss of time. I was critical in the Senate a year or two ago of the lack of activity and the lack of results due to that lack of activity. Previous trachoma surveys were costly and, as I said, ineffective. In fact they drew considerable criticism not only herein the Senate but also in the Northern Territory, Queensland and other places. I believe that towards the end of the campaign the medical team was withdrawn. There has been a re-enactment of the trachoma eradication campaign. I want to refer now to the report of the Northern Territory Trachoma Eradication and Eye Health Committee. It now comprises seven Aboriginals and three non-Aboriginals. The three non-Aboriginals are doctors-Dr Dayalan Devanesen, affectionately known as DD through the southern part of the Territory and amongst Aboriginal people; Dr Mahmood, an ophthalmologist who has just resigned; and Dr Ella Stack, who belongs to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Health Division. The Chairman is Mr Mace, the Principal of the Katherine Institute for Aboriginal Health. He is an Aboriginal person. The other Aboriginal members are: George Kruger, senior Aboriginal health worker; John Briscoe, President of the Apatula Council; Mrs Abbott, an Aboriginal health worker; Willie Clayton, of the National Aboriginal Conference; Mr Jambadjimba of the National Aboriginal Conference; and Mr McGuiness of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress. The report states: The original program as determined by the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists was abandoned by the committee. In its place, a new program was adopted, involving first the training and then work of Aboriginal Health Workers in trachoma control, with headquarters at Katherine Institute for Aboriginal Health. All health workers now receive training in trachoma control in their basic skills course. Some selected as Aboriginal Health Worker supervisors- Trachoma, are further trained. They then travel, teach, screen, and promote both personal and community hygiene throughout Northern Territory Aboriginal communities . . . Funds from the National Trachoma Committee have now been released to the Northern Territory. As a result, the trust fund AOTA number 6291-41 has been closed. The Northern Territory Department of Health, which has been funding this program for some months, has been reimbursed and a new trust account has been opened at . . . Darwin. Members of the Committee who have been authorised to countersign cheques and a Member of the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists (Father F. Flynn)- a most famous ophthalmologist. Senator Jessop —Frank Flynn. Senator KILGARIFF —Frank Flynn, yes, and he is associated with this Committee. The report continues: GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY TRACHOMA ERADICATION AND EYE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 1. Raise awareness of trachoma in all members of Aboriginal communities by: visits by Aboriginal health workers . . . 2. Stress the importance of personal and community hygiene in transmission of diseases by: checking on provision of ablution facilities . . . Two four-wheel drive vehicles have been purchased. One is used exclusively by Mr G. Kruger in the northern region of the Northern Territory and the other is based at Alice Springs and is used by Johnny Briscoe (Senior Aboriginal Health Worker, and President of Apatula Council, Finke) . . . It is interesting to note that Dr Mahmood made several visits to outlying areas of the Territory, screening and teaching Aboriginal health workers and trachoma supervisors. At present a computer program is being developed to enter 11,000 consultations with Aboriginal trachoma patients in Central Australia. It is also interesting to note that Dr J. Rogers, specialist ophthalmologist, visited the Northern Territory twice during the year, spending a month each time instructing health workers and medical personnel. He has been a member of the Royal College for some years and I am sure that the people in the outback of the Northern Territory and particularly the Aboriginal people owe this specialist a considerable amount. The report continues: Mention must be made here of the NT Department of Health Schools Trachoma program, which is carried out in conjunction with the NT Trachoma Eradication and Eye Health Committee's program . . . The schools program has been adopted and recommends mass treatment with topical antibiotics and such. There is considerable activity throughout the outback. Most of the visits are now undertaken by the health worker trachoma supervisors. These are Aboriginal people, and this is where I believe that the trachoma survey and treatment are getting such a boost now. With the large number of Aboriginal health workers who are involved, considerable success has been achieved in just one year. It is interesting to note with all the various settlements that have been visited, whether they are in the north or south, whether they are in the centre or on the coast, the incidence of trachoma is quite high. In some places it is perhaps not particularly high-- Senator Jessop —Does the report give any percentages? Senator KILGARIFF —Yes. They are 43, 45, 52, 27, 36 and 38 per cent. Indeed it goes up, senator, to as much as 80 per cent to 100 per cent. The interesting thing is that in some areas, particularly on the coast-I look at Angurugu on Groote Eylandt-the survey showed a most interesting picture because the prevalence there is only approximately 4 per cent. The Committee believes that this is due to the presence of running streams and the fact that the children play most of the day in clear freshwater streams. Senator Jessop —Perhaps there is not so much dust there. Senator KILGARIFF —The lack of dust perhaps too brings about this lack of incidence of trachoma. This very comprehensive report is signed by Michael Mace, who is the Chairman of the Committee and, as I said, an Aboriginal person. He incidentally is in charge of all Aboriginal health workers in the Northern Territory, which now number some hundreds. It is also signed by Ella Stack, the doctor who has done much work in the Northern Territory not only for Europeans but particularly for the Aboriginal people. The report states: Recorded in this report are 2,965 examinations in 1982-83. Several populations were re-screened, but results of only one screening are included here. Each and every examination was part of the training of Aboriginal health workers and other medical staff. So each case was examined by the trainer and several others. In spite of delays in funding and unnecessary argument-I have referred to that- that has dogged the efforts of the NT Committee, the members are proud to present this report. I think they can be justly proud. As well as that report, a little book has been developed by the Aboriginal health workers in the field of trachoma control entitled Trachoma Control for Health Workers. It is a simple book which has been distributed throughout the Northern Territory and which displays very clearly information on the disease and treatment. This little manual is bringing tremendous relief to the very many Aboriginal people who suffer from trachoma in the outback. It is of interest to note that Dr Rogers, in summarising his trip, said: I feel the trip has been worthwhile. We have done about 25 teaching sessions and taught about 150 people . . . He went on: It will be a long time before much effect will take place-but it is a start in the right direction to get grass roots checking underway. I would also like to refer to a letter which is of interest and which is annexed to the report. It is signed by George Kruger, senior Aboriginal health worker, Institute for Aboriginal Health, Katherine. He said in part: I have been with Dr Jim Rogers visiting Aboriginal communities and rural centres teaching Health personnel about trachoma. Dr Rogers and I have given talks and demonstrations to 125 Health workers, 25 Sisters and Doctors, dissecting eyes to teach anatomy and examining people to show and detect Trachoma. They have visited 30 places. He said: Also, I think the only way that we are going to stop Trachoma is by having a person like Dr Jim Rogers who is devoted to his job, and who is the only Doctor who really showed and taught people what Trachoma is all about. He got on very well with the people and they got on with him, understood what he was talking about and all said he was a very good teacher. That is very high praise indeed from the Aboriginal people. This is just a brief skim though this most interesting report. I point out to honourable senators that in one year a considerable milestone has been reached in the treatment of Trachoma. I think this will be of interest to those who have visited the outback and seen the large number of children, in particular, who suffer from this dreadful disease. One can see now that relief is in sight. Relief is coming from the European professional staff but the main inroads in the fight against this disease are being made by the Aboriginal people themselves. I think that is a pointer for the future. People must have faith in the Aboriginal people finding their own way in the rather difficult and stressful life that we lead these days . They have the ability for self-management. They have the ability, as instanced by this committee, to look after their well-being, to run their settlements and gradually, by degree, to bring better health to their own people throughout the outback and the Northern Territory. I commend this report to honourable senators . I seek leave to table the report. Leave granted. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(1.02) —Today I want to discuss the question of some of the orphans who are presently in refugee camps in Thailand and the policy of the Australian Government on bringing them to Australia. The policy is perhaps a matter to be dealt with separately, but the particular plight relates to those orphans who have been expecting to come to Australia. I understand that there are about 100 refugees in Thai camps who, for about the last year, have been identified as orphans who may come to Australia under a policy of the former Liberal Government which was carried on, initially at least , by this Government. One of the problems that arises for these young people is that, having been identified as orphans perhaps coming to Australia, they were not then eligible for consideration by other countries. They are young people who, in a sense, have already lost many years of their lives because of the circumstances under which they have lived and the time that they have spent in the camps in Thailand. Many of them, as a result of the change of policy, may now finish up going absolutely nowhere if they are not eligible to come to Australia. If there is to be a change of policy, perhaps that is something that needs to be put into effect after this particular group has been dealt with. Whether we should restrict the number of orphans to 30 is, as I said, perhaps the subject for a separate debate. It is the plight of those who have already been identified to which we need to pay attention. There is a report on this matter. I would like to ask whether it is a secret document or a public document. I refer to the Lloyd report, which is in the hands of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In some newspaper references, it is suggested that the report is secret. In one other newspaper article, the reporter said that he asked for a copy and got it. I think it is a report that ought to be made fairly widely available so that those who are interested can have the opportunity of perusing it and commenting on it. I think it is clear that the settlement of orphans in the Australian Capital Territory area has been successful because of the extent to which community support has been given to settling young people in this area. One newspaper report indicates that in Melbourne perhaps the settlement has not been as successful. But it would be helpful, I think, if this report were made more widely available so that people could take an interest in it and present their views. I would ask the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs what discussions have taken place with the Vietnamese, Khmer and Lao communities in Australia about the recommendations set out in a report in the Canberra Times of 30 October. The report claims: Some minors have not settled well into Australian life. Some had serious employment problems. Many might be permanent social-welfare cases. As a group they had a higher incidence of crime. Repatriation should have been more of a consideration before they had been sent to a third country such as Australia. It may well be that all of those recommendations are right. It may well be that they apply to only certain areas, but the matter needs to be discussed. As far as the 100 orphans are concerned, as I said, I think the matter is urgent. To be left in a refugee camp not knowing what one's future is is something that few of us could actually contemplate. If they are being brought to Australia, the arrangements for them to be properly looked after need to be thought through. The group of seven that arrived in Australian not long ago, was apparently taken to the Burnisde Homes for Children at Parramatta. The allegations in the Sydney Morning Herald were that the Burnside hostel had only a few days notice from the Department that these young people would be arriving. Very short term arrangements had to be made for house parents to be installed. It is not a particularly good or inviting welcome to Australia for this to occur . Something needs to be sorted out to make sure that the young people we bring here are properly looked after and are given every opportunity to settle in this country and not finish up in the categories to which the Lloyd report apparently refers to. I would think the Canberra experience shows that that is not necessary if the job is done properly. Other questions that I should like to put are: How many dossiers on Khmer orphans are presently being processed by the Australian Embassy in Bangkok? Do we interview and select young adults from among the Khmer orphans who have turned 18 years and have no relatives in Australia? If the change is to be that young people over the age of 15 cannot come here, I think we need to be quite sure that we are not being very unfair indeed, at least to those who have been expecting to come this country. Once they are here, of course, we need to see that they are given every opportunity to settle. I know that Senator Grimes, who is present in the chamber at the moment, is aware of the difficulties of getting a proper education program for young people here without their families. They are given the special benefit for a period of six weeks. They then go on to unemployment benefits, under which they are supposed to be studying for only a period of 8 hours a week . Of course, the one thing that they desperately need is education and an opportunity to learn. At the moment, many of them are on unemployment benefits and are studying full time, so the unfortunate fact is that, although they are perhaps getting the education, they are also being taught to manipulate the system from the time that they arrive. As I said, I know that Senator Grimes is aware of the situation and is looking at the prospects of working out some means whereby this can be avoided. If there is an older child who can then for the younger one get the double orphan's benefit, this assists, but of course the older child is then at a disadvantage. A number of issues concerning young refugees need to be addressed. Those who have expected to come here should be brought here. For the future we need resettlement programs which make it possible for young refugees to fit into this country so that they do finish up like those described in the Lloyd report. I ask that the Lloyd report be made available so that it can be given full consideration. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(1.10) —I will refer the matters that Senator Reid has raised to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). As she knows, I have an interest in the education and welfare of young refugees when they come to this country. I will try to keep her informed of what is going on. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 1.10 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question which is addressed to the Attorney-General relates to the transcripts which have been the subject of some questions earlier this weeks. Did any part of the six to 10 pages of transcript closely studied by him record conversations between any of the following persons: Mr Keith Harris, Mr Howard Hilton and Mr Frank Hakim? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to answer any questions of that kind. As the honourable senator would be well aware, it is utterly inappropriate to canvass anything that could conceivably reveal details of a Commonwealth narcotics investigation. Senator TATE —My question, which is also directed to the Attorney-General, is about something that will be of interest to the Opposition. Has the Attorney- General seen the report in today's Sydney Morning Herald in which Sir Garfield Barwick is reported as saying that the dismissal by Sir John Kerr of the elected Prime Minister on 11 November 1975 was non-justiciable? Is it the case that Sir Garfield's defence of his action in advising Sir John Kerr rests wholly on this proposition of non-justiciability, that is, that the dismissal of the Government could not have been the subject of court proceedings? Have there been any developments since 1975 supporting this view, having regard to the fact that in his 1975 opinion all Sir Garfield was prepared to say was that it was unlikely that the issue would come before the High Court of Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the extract in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald from the forthcoming book Sir John Did His Duty, which must rank as one of the most tendentious titles in Australian publishing history. I have seen the passage in the course of that extract in which Sir Garfield says that the question as to whether the Governor-General could lawfully withdraw a Prime Minister's commission 'was not a question which a court could decide as it did not involve a justiciable matter'. I note that that extract is in marked contradistinction to the language he employed in his letter, also quoted in the extract, of November 1975 in which the most that was said by the former Chief Justice at that stage was that it was 'unlikely' that the matter would come before the Court. I further accept the honourable senator's reading of the extract that it is perfectly clear, at least on the basis of the material published so far, that Sir Garfield rests his defence for his own unprecedented action in purporting to advise the Governor-General of the day about these matters wholly on the basis of the claim that the matter in respect of which he was advising him was non- justiciable, that is to say, it would be a matter which would be not only unlikely to come before the courts and would not come before the courts but in fact could not come before the courts. It is against that background that it is fascinating to contemplate the validity of the proposition that Sir Garfield is now asserting. The answer to the honourable senator's question is simply this: Not only are there no developments since 1975 supporting Sir Garfield's view that the matter was non-justiciable but in fact such developments as have occurred since 1975 all point in the contrary direction. Indeed, it was clear enough in 1975 itself, prior to 11 November, that that was Sir Garfield's own view of the matter to the extent that his judgment in the Petroleum and Minerals Authority case in June 1975 made it perfectly clear that he regarded the question as to the exercise of the Governor-General's power under section 57, the double dissolution provision of the Constitution, to be a matter that was in fact justiciable. But demonstrating that flexibility which made him so notorious a judge in his judicial life and which now is so evident in his post-judicial career, we see the situation of his now claiming a position which is quite at odds with that which he adopted in 1975. Moreover, since 1975 there have been major developments in the law, which I will not stop to retail in detail-the Toohey case in 1981 and the FAI case in 1982-which suggest that matters of Executive Council decision making may well be subject to the closest scrutiny by the courts. Moreover, there is the interesting consideration that in 1977 Standing Committee D of the Constitutional Convention, of which Mr Ellicott was a member at the time, acknowledged that an adjudication by the High Court would be possible if similar events should occur in the future. The truth of the matter is that there is no foundation and never has been any foundation whatsoever for the claim being so brazenly asserted by Sir Garfield Barwick now, eight years after the event, in a futile attempt to justify what is now, and always was, a massively indefensible involvement in the process of the dismissal of the Government. I make the further point quickly that the matter in issue as to justiciability is, of course, whether the Governor-General's power under section 64 of the Constitution to appoint and dismiss Ministers means what it says. It may be that had the matter been taken to the Court on 11 November a rather short answer would have been given. It is less clear that a short answer would be given now in the light of further legal developments. What is clear now was clear in 1975 and always has been clear, and it makes utter nonsense of what Sir Garfield Barwick is saying, that section 64 and actions taken under it by the Governor- General can indeed be the subject of scrutiny by the Court. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney introduce as a matter of urgency an amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to make it clear that transcripts relating to the early release of prisoners can be made available to the special commission of inquiry being established by the New South Wales Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have not yet reviewed closely the terms of that Act to satisfy myself that such an amendment is in fact necessary in order to ensure that such material as may be relevant and in the Commonwealth's possession can be given to the New South Wales Commission of inquiry. To the extent that it becomes apparent that an amendment to the Act is necessary in order to ensure that such material can be readily and quickly made available, I will certainly do my best to ensure that such an amendment is introduced and carried through the Parliament with the greatest possible dispatch. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. A number of stories have featured in Australian newspapers over the last few weeks or so featuring problems of families who need progestimil and now face large bills of $50 to $100 a week to afford this necessary food supplement for their child or children. The article seemed to suggest that this is due to a Government decision to remove progestimil and nutramigen from the pharmaceutical benefits schedule. In fact, this decision was necessitated by Bristol-Meyers Co. Pty Ltd increasing the price of these goods by 50 per cent or more and demanding that the Government follow its increase. Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to cope with this attempt to blackmail the Government? What efforts are being made to provide for those families who need these supplies? When will the new arrangements be in place? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Crowley has said, progestimil and nutramigen are Bristol-Meyers products. They are baby food substitutes. They were in fact removed from the list because of the unilateral action of Bristol-Meyers in increasing the price of these substances by something like 60 per cent. The Minister for Health and the Government believe that if any Government were to allow a firm like Bristol-Meyers to get away with this sort of behaviour it would have been quickly followed by other drug companies and by Bristol-Meyers itself by unilaterally increasing the price of drugs by very large amounts and, therefore, creating an impossible situation. It was interesting to note that Bristol-Meyers and another drug company in fact increased the price in two cases . In the first case, it increased the price of a substance necessary for some children. In the second case it increased the price of an anti-cancer drug by this large amount obviously hoping that the Government would in fact back down because of the nature of the substances and because of the outcry that was likely to occur. However, the Government persisted in insisting that drug companies such as Bristol-Meyers negotiate properly with the Government. These substances were delisted. Arrangements were being made to provide that these substances should be made available at a reasonable cost. But since then the development has been that Bristol-Meyers has now cut the increase in price by about half. The Minister for Health announced a couple of days ago that these substances would now be listed. I believe that that is to be in a couple of weeks' time, but I am not sure of the date. I would hope that in future Bristol-Meyers and other drug companies would act in a responsible way and not make unilateral decisions of this type, which affect not only the people who need the substances but the Government and the taxpayer generally. Now that the companies are aware that the Government is determined to act firmly in these areas, I believe that we will have a more sensible approach in the future. Senator PETER RAE —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. In the light of his refusal to now answer Senator Chaney's question in relation to the six to 10 pages of tape transcript, about which he has been answering questions for several weeks, and in view of the fact that the National Times of 28 October claims that Australian Federal Police transcripts actually record details of conversations between Mr Keith Harris, Mr Howard Hilton and Mr Frank Hakim, will he re-examine the material in a more thorough fashion before the Senate resumes next week and will he reconsider, first, whether he stands by the answers that he has given as to the nature of the matters in that material and, secondly, whether he will answer the question asked by Senator Chaney today? Senator GARETH EVANS —There are no grounds whatsoever for me either to re-examine the material in question or to reconsider any of the answers I have given. If the honourable senator regards that answer as constituting a forensic triumph on his part, let me assure him that it would be of a kind greeted with profound indifference in a magistrate's court in Woop Woop, let alone in the Parliament of this nation. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It relates to the very high incidence of burn victims amongst the casualties of modern-day wars, such as those in Vietnam, the Middle East and the Falklands, as well as casualties from such causes as bushfires and industrial accidents. Does the Minister regard the burn treatment facilities available through the repatriation system as adequate and, if not, what steps will he take to upgrade those facilities? Senator GIETZELT —I have been concerned and alarmed for some time at the inadequate specialist facilities in Australia, both within the repatriation system and in the community generally, for the simultaneous treatment of large numbers of burn victims. At lunch time I attended a meeting of the parliamentary group on peace and disarmament. One of my colleagues in the Senate raised the very question of what would happen in the event of a nuclear blast in this country. It must be said that in the face of that possibility we, as a community , are very ill-equipped for the provision of such medical facilities as would assist us in helping victims of such a blast. Not only from a military point of view but also from a civilian point of view, recent incidents have shown and highlighted the need for the urgent improvement of such facilities. I refer in particular to the terrible Ash Wednesday bushfires that occurred earlier this year and to the many burn victims of the sinking of warships in the Falklands war. I remind the Senate that during the Vietnam war Australian casualties affected by burns could not be accommodated in Vietnam or in Australia; in fact, they were flown to Texas for treatment. Clearly, therefore, there is a need for some specialised national burns centre to be established in Australia to meet any of these eventualities. Almost every year in our capital cities situations develop in which many fire fighters and civilians suffer burns during the bushfire period. As a result of this, there is an increasing recognition in the community of the problem. This is reflected in the recommendation from the Standing Committee of the State Health Ministers Conference to establish such a national burns centre. The New South Wales Government is early off the mark and is establishing a burns unit at Westmead in Sydney. Within the repatriation system there is a small three-patient burns unit at Concord Repatriation General Hospital, the only one that is effective within the repatriation system, but it lacks the size, the aseptic environment and the specialised monitoring and treatment equipment to cope with any such major emergency. So, in recognition of this shortcoming, I have asked the Department to approach the New South Wales Health Department in order to establish the feasibility of developing a major burns unit at the Concord Repatriation General Hospital. I would envisage that that unit would be of at least 10-bed capacity, with the capacity to expand rapidly in the event of any emergency. I have done that in respect of New South Wales not because I believe that New South Wales should have any particular priority but as part of a pilot scheme that would eventually be established in the other States as well. Similarly, in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia we have had very extreme problems of burns as the result of bushfires in recent times. We need a national burns centre because burn care typically involves long patient stays. Such a unit would require above average staffing, including a full-time medical director and additional nursing staff. Of course, the facility would need to be community oriented and would complement the units that need to be established by the State governments. Such a burns unit in New South Wales, at Concord, would complement the unit which is to be established at Westmead. So , in answer to the honourable senator's question, this is a matter which requires an initiative by the Commonwealth Government. Senator CHIPP —I direct my question to Senator Walsh, in two capacities, first, as Minister for Resources and Energy and, secondly, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is Cabinet locked in and must approve of the two new Energy Resources of Australia contracts to sell uranium to the United States, as claimed in today's Australian Financial Review? If it is locked in, can the Minister explain why he told Senator Macklin in the Senate on 3 June that the reason for the authorisation to ERA to continue negotiations was simply 'to maintain a market presence' and that 'the authorisations do not imply approval of any uranium sales contracts that might eventuate'? Can he now confirm to Parliament that no assurances were given to ERA on the contracts being approved prior to the conclusion of the Government's policy review on uranium? Why have the contracts negotiated been given privileged status by Cabinet? Senator WALSH —First, the report upon which Senator Chipp based the first part of his question is by definition speculative. Even if it were not speculative, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to answer that question as to whether Cabinet is locked into any decision. I shall refer that matter to the Prime Minister and see whether he wants to comment on it. In respect to my statement on 3 June- Senator Chipp —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I take this point of order at this stage of the Minister's answer to ask you, Mr Deputy President, what privileges a senator has in this Parliament? I have asked Senator Walsh a perfectly straightforward question about a decision by Cabinet. The Minister tells me that the report is speculative and that he will not answer the question . Can you, Mr Deputy President, advise me whether I have any rights in this matter in anticipating an answer from the Minister on this most vital question? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —A senator has the right to ask questions. He has no right to demand an answer. The Minister may answer as he thinks fit. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I think it would be appropriate if I made some comment on Senator Chipp's point of order. The question of whether Cabinet or Ministers were collectively locked into a decision would, by definition, be a decision of Cabinet. There is a long-standing precedent here that Ministers are not necessarily obliged to reveal to the Senate decisions of the Cabinet on any matter. That is why I said that I would refer the question to the Prime Minister. I think he is in a special position. If he chooses to reveal a decision of Cabinet, I think he has a right to do so. But the general principle which has been followed by various governments is that not all Ministers ought to do so. Senator Chipp —We are entitled to be kept in the dark-is that what you are saying? It is not a very important matter; it is only selling uranium. Senator Tate —What did you do when you were in Cabinet, you hypocrite? Senator WALSH —I am saying that I will not take it upon myself to disclose decisions which may or may not have been made in Cabinet without the authorisation of Cabinet to do so. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President. An interjection from Senator Tate was that Senator Chipp was a hypocrite. I suggest that he withdraw the interjection. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Tate should withdraw that remark. Senator Tate —I withdraw, Mr Deputy President. Senator WALSH —At the end of his question, Senator Chipp asked me why Cabinet made a particular decision. I do not think that I should reveal who said what in Cabinet about that or any other issue. In respect of my statement on 3 June, essentially I think Senator Chipp quoted me as saying that the fact that the Minister for Trade had issued negotiating determinations to Queensland Mines Ltd and ERA-Senator Chipp's question was asked sometime ago now; I cannot remember exactly what it was, thanks to all the interruptions we have had-it did not necessarily imply that the Government would approve any contracts which may be negotiated as a result. That still stands. The issuing of the negotiating determinations does not necessarily imply that the Government will approve any draft contract which may be put before it; the Government will make decisions on a case by case basis. To my knowledge no assurances have ever been given by the Minister for Trade to ERA or Queensland Mines at that time or at any other time that the Government would approve particular contracts. But to be certain, I would need to check with the Minister for Trade, which I will do. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President. Am I to understand from the Minister's answer that this Government believes it is quite regular for authorisation to be given to companies to negotiate overseas to sell Australian products, but that after the contract has been negotiated the Cabinet reserves the right to renege on that contract if it so chooses? Senator WALSH —I am not saying that at all. Governments in a wide variety of areas for many years have refused particular producers the right to supply. The Fraser Government established a precedent with respect to Fraser Island, for example. The company there had not only negotiated contracts to sell the product , but also for some considerable time had been actively engaged in mining it. That contract was cancelled. The Minister for Trade in the previous Government, Mr Anthony, likewise refused to approve a contract which had been negotiated between Pancontinental Mining Ltd and the Central Electricity Generating Board of the United Kingdom on the ground that the pricing arrangements were not satisfactory. I do not think there is anything particularly radical or startling in the proposition that for a variety of reasons governments have declined and are likely to continue to decline to approve contracts which may have been negotiated by companies for sales of a number of commodities. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask: Does the proposal by the Attorney-General to revise the Letters Patent for the Governor-General, as reported in the Australian on 1 November, represent, as the honourable member for Denison has claimed, 'one of a series of sinister moves to convert Australia into a Republic and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians'? In the report, the honourable member for Denison also said, among other things: Last week it was God and the Queen, this week it's the Governor-General. I guess next week it will be the flag . . . Is there any justification for these claims by the honourable member for Denison , or are they merely the comments of a man seeking publicity at any cost? Senator GARETH EVANS —With friends like the honourable member for Denison, the Queen of Australia and her Australian representative have little need to fear the Irish Republican Army. There is no justification at all for the comments of Mr Hodgman. They represent what has become all too familiar, just the florid and slightly unhinged frothings and ravings of a man who is totally irresponsible in his contributions to public debate. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Evans, those remarks were unparliamentary. You should withdraw them. Senator GARETH EVANS —Which remarks? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Your remarks about frothings and ravings were quite inappropriate. Senator GARETH EVANS —Would it be acceptable to withdraw the words 'slightly unhinged', Mr Deputy President? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, withdraw all the relevant remarks and continue your answer. Senator GARETH EVANS —I withdraw. The situation is this: The powers and status of the Governor-General are set forth in the Constitution and cannot be affected by anything in the letters patent or anything that may be done with respect to the letters patent. The proposed revision and updating of the letters patent does not and cannot involve any alteration of the powers or status of the Governor-General. Under section 2 of the Constitution, the Governor-General is the Queen's representative in Australia. He does not become so by virtue of anything in the letters patent. The proposed revision is designed to reflect the proper constitutional position and to remove the archaic way in which the old letters patent refer to and express the Governor-General's powers. The proposed revision will deal only with matters appropriate for inclusion in a formal document of this kind, namely, the appointment of Governor-General, the issue of dormant commissions to administrators, the clarification of the circumstances in which an administrator may undertake the administration of the government and the appointment of deputies by the Governor-General or an administrator. The revised letters patent in the present proposal will also clearly affirm the Queen's position as Queen of Australia. I repeat that there is simply no need for anyone to fear that the occasion will be used for any purported reduction of either the actual or conventional powers of the Governor-General; nor is there any justification for those at the other end of the political spectrum to hope that such may result from this exercise. It is a merely technical exercise, as I have said elsewhere, to remove some of the archaic mumbo-jumbo that surrounds the expression of these things. Because of the need for consultation with the Palace in this respect, it is not possible to give a precise timetable as to when this will occur, but we are aiming to have new letters patent issued as soon as possible. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I refer the Attorney-General to his answer yesterday when he said that Federal Police telephone conversation transcripts had 'an element of ambiguity about them' in relation to whether payment of money was discussed. I ask: Can the Attorney say whether the reference or references giving rise to the alleged ambiguity occurred only in the course of a conversation or conversations with the former Minister, or were other conversations relevant? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to add anything further to what I said yesterday in answer to that question. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to a report in today's Australian in which it is claimed that an airline pilot, who did not wish to be named, said that he paid more than $40,000 a year in tax and that he stood to lose nearly $100,000 as a result of the Government's plan to increase tax on superannuation lump sum payments? Is it possible that these claims are accurate? Senator WALSH —It is possible that such claims are accurate. One circumstance under which such a claim could be accurate has already been nominated by my colleague Senator Grimes. It is, however, so unlikely that it could not be accepted as being true by any reasonable person, particularly the second part of the assertion. On the first point-that a pilot is allegedly paying more than $40,000 a year in income tax-that would be correct if the pilot, or anyone else, had a taxable income somewhere in excess of $80,000 or $82,000. It is certainly possible that a pilot would have a taxable income in excess of that amount; that is well within the bounds of possibility. Senator Grimes —Not bad for 37 hours a month. Senator WALSH —If all the income were derived from flying aeroplanes-which I do not think it could be, but someone in that position could well have income from other sources-as Senator Grimes points out, the rate of pay for the number of hours worked is extremely high. In respect of the second figure, the liability to pay almost $100,000 in tax on a superannuation lump sum payment is not credible. It is well beyond the bounds of possibility. For that to be correct the pilot in question would have had to accrue since 1 July this year a superannuation lump sum entitlement of the order of $360,000. I understand that the superannuation schemes for domestic airline pilots are fairly generous, but I do not think they are so generous that they allow someone in a period of five months to accrue an entitlement of $360,000 or thereabouts. However, if the pilot in question, or other pilots, are so dissatisfied-I do understand that there are surplus pilots in both the major domestic airlines- they always have open to them the option to resign their positions with either of those airlines if they believe that the conditions under which they are now employed are unacceptably harsh. In regard to pilot's political activities in the Moreton by-election, their campaign may succeed in securing an anti-Government vote from all pilots who have incomes of $82,000 or thereabouts a year, and it may do something to secure the votes even of other people with incomes of $82,000 a year. If the claim made by one of those anonymous pilot spokesmen is correct, I should say the Opposition would be certain to get the votes of all those who accrue in a period of five months a lump sum superannuation entitlement in the vicinity of $350,000 , which would have to apply if the statement of that unnamed pilot were true. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the National Conference of State Legislatures of the United States, led by Representative William Passannante, President of the National Conference of State Legislatures. The delegation includes senators or representatives of the States of New York, Colorado, South Dakota, Illinois, Mississippi and Tennessee. On behalf of honourable senators I extend to all members of the delegation a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra and the Senate chamber. I trust their visit to Australia is an enjoyable and interesting one. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator LEWIS —I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the following statement by Premier Wran in an interview with Channel 10, Sydney, reported in today's Australian and replayed on this morning's AM program: I had what you might call a briefing, just like Senator Chipp. I further ask the Attorney: Who has been briefed on the contents of these highly sensitive Australian Federal Police transcripts? Senator GARETH EVANS —To my knowledge the only politicians who have been briefed as to the contents of the transcripts in issue are Mr Beazley, the Special Minister of State, and me. Senator Lewis —State and Federal? Senator GARETH EVANS —At the Federal level. Senator Sir John Carrick —Not the Prime Minister? Senator GARETH EVANS —Not the Prime Minister, to my knowledge, no. It may be that he has been; I said to my knowledge. I do not believe so. That is the situation. I have no knowledge whatsoever of who has been briefed about what at the State level and suggest that that is a matter that might be more appropriately directed through anyone whom the honourable senator can find in the New South Wales Parliament who is prepared to canvass this matter there. Senator ELSTOB —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employ- ment and Industrial Relations. It refers to those community youth support scheme projects which have a large number of young unemployed Aboriginals participating in them. Can the Minister say whether more resources will be made available to CYSS officers experiencing complex problems in assisting Aboriginal youth? Has consideration been given to assessing the training needs of those officers so that they can provide more practical and effective guidance to youth with special needs? Senator BUTTON —I have been advised by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations that it has commissioned a detailed national study into ways in which CYSS projects might more effectively meet the special needs of young unemployed Aboriginals. This independent study is being undertaken by the CYSS Koorie research committee based in Sydney, which is representative of a wide range of Aboriginal organisations. The results of the study are expected later this year and are expected to include recommendations on appropriate training to assist CYSS project officers working with young Aboriginal people. The Government has already made available $350,000 this financial year for the training of CYSS personnel. These funds should enable any such recommendations to be put into effect. I should also point out that a number of CYSS projects operating in areas with high Aboriginal unemployment already employ Aboriginal project officers. Substantial subsidies are also available under the national employment strategy for Aboriginals to enable CYSS projects to employ additional Aboriginal staff as trainees. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I note his earlier refusal to answer a question I asked, I think on the ground that it might touch on the question of the drug inquiry. I note his preparedness to answer, until today, questions arising from the transcripts relating to the release of prisoners. Did any part of the six to 10 pages of the transcript closely studied by him record conversations, relevant to the release of prisoners, between any of the following persons: Mr Keith Harris, Mr Howard Hilton and Mr Frank Hakim? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chaney can fish as much as he likes, as can his colleagues, but the position will remain that I will not add any further detail to that which I have already put on the public record as to the detailed content of the transcripts in question and as to the personnel involved. Of course it was a matter of public notoriety that at least one of those conversations did involve a Minister of the Crown, who was subsequently revealed to be Mr Rex Jackson. It was in that context that I answered questions previously with the degree of detail that I did. To go any further than that, to accept the invitation of the Opposition, would be to expose me, quite properly, to a charge of total irresponsibility in putting on the public record matters which must remain in the private domain unless and until they are the subject of a proper judicial inquiry. Senator COOK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. It is one in the Christo Moll series. Has the Minister seen a letter to the Editor of the West Australian of 22 October signed by Mr John Gillett, the senior partner of a Perth based law firm Northmore Hale Davy and Leake? Is the Minister aware that in that letter Mr Gillett claims that the statement made to the Senate by the Minister, namely, that Northmore Hale Davy and Leake had set up the first tax evasion scheme for Christo Moll, was 'untruthful'? Is Mr Gillett's assertion accurate? Does the Minister have any more evidence of misrepresentation of a possible tax liability of shareholders and former shareholders in Westwools Holdings Ltd? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have seen that letter from Mr Gillett and the allegation that what I had said in the Senate was untrue. I have a number of comments to make. Firstly, Senator Chaney has placed on record officially in the Senate that Christo Moll was a client of that firm. Secondly, some laywers make a living through casuistry. Mr Gillett has used the term 'tax evasion'. Many lawyers would quibble about what is evasion and what is avoidance. That is another possibility. I recall receiving some two years ago a similar complaint from a solicitor in Melbourne called Ian Collie, who challenged the veracity of some comments I had made regarding the two State and one Territory share shuffle arranged for a number of companies formerly owned by Mr Vic Garland, now Sir Victor Garland. Mr Collie claimed that I had misrepresented the facts in the Senate. I replied to Mr Collie saying that it was not my wish to misrepresent the facts about anything and that I would be quite happy to receive from him the full and accurate version of the facts and any relevant documents. I received no response to that request. I publicly make a similar offer now to Northmore Hale Davy and Leake. If that firm would like to supply me with the documents-Mr Moll has already publicly requested it to release the documents pertaining to his affairs which are held in its files-I would quite happily retract any unjustifiable aspersions which I may have cast upon that firm, but I do not believe I have cast any. I make two further comments: Firstly, Mr Collie, to whom I referred earlier, is now facing criminal charges in relation to tax evasion; secondly, it would be very interesting to know on how many Christo Moll documents the signature of Mr Gillett may or may nor appear. In regard to the second part of Senator Cook's question regarding the misrepresentation of facts to shareholders in Westwools Holdings Ltd, I have received some additional information from a Mr David Parker, who wrote on behalf of himself and his brother, Mr J. R. Parker. I have a letter which I will seek leave shortly to incorporate in Hansard with, I stress, the prior approval of Mr Parker. Mr Parker informed me that he and his brother were named as members of the representative classes of shareholders of Westwools Holdings Ltd. Other persons named were Denis Horgan, Mr Blakiston and Mr Hughes. With the two partners, they made the representative class of five. Mr Parker told me in this letter that he was not a party to the circular letter sent out by Messrs Lavan and Solomon on 4 October 1983 to all shareholders in Westwools. The subject of that letter was itself highly misleading. I have no doubt that it was deliberately designed to mislead those shareholders. Mr Parker informed me that in the letter Lavan and Solomon purported to be acting for the majority of members of the representative classes, representing all shareholders of Westwools Holdings Ltd. While, strictly speaking, it could be correct, as Lavan and Solomon assert, that they were acting for the majority of members of the 'representative classes', I suggest it is highly misleading to couch a letter in those terms when, in fact, they were acting at the most for three out of five members of the 'representative classes', particularly when two members of the 'representative classes', that is the Parker brothers, had on 1 October 1983 written to Mr Hughes saying that they did not favour the circulation of a letter written on Lavan and Solomon's letterhead and that, more importantly, if such circular was to be mailed it was to be made quite clear that Mr Parker had no connection with the letter and was unaware of its contents. In the letter Mr Parker states: Unfortunately, my wishes in this regard were ignored. I seek leave to incorporate the letter. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- David L. Parker B Ec AASA Rona 6 Ginahgulla Road Bellevue Hill N.S.W. 2023 Australia (02) 327 4055 31st October, 1983 Senator P. A. Walsh, Minister for Resources and Energy, Parliament House, Canberra 2600 Dear Senator Walsh, WESTWOOLS HOLDINGS LIMITED TAXATION (UNPAID COMPANY TAX) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL, 1983 In closing the debate on the second reading of the above legislation in the Senate on Wednesday, 19th October, 1983, you are reported in Hansard (p. 1790- 1791) as saying: ''In closing, there is one important point which should also be stressed. There has been a great deal of Press publicity recently regarding the Westwools company and a scare campaign stirred up by the representative clients of Westwools. I think they are five in number. They were approached by the Australian Taxation Office. They then, appearently, circulated everybody who held shares in Westwools at the time in a way which substantially misrepresented the facts concerning this legislation. I have in front of me a letter from a person. I will not name the person concerned but- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle: Why not? Senator WALSH: All right, I will. His name is Edward Henry McHugh of 54 William Road, Nedlands. He informed me that he is an age pensioner. He gave his social security number as well. He said that he is faced, so he has been informed, by Westwools with having to pay $87.63 under this legislation if it is passed. That is indicative of the degree to which the representative clients of that company have misled the shareholders of the company because, of course, if there is a liability of less than $100, irrespective of all other circumstances, nobody has to pay. Nobody has to pay a liability of less than $100. Finally, no assessments have been issued to companies which have had a lot of publicity. No assessments have been issued as yet to the shareholders in either Westwools or Metro Industries Ltd. The facts have been, at least in the case of Westwools-I do not know about Metro Industries-quite clearly substantially misrepresented to small shareholders in that company by people who are major shareholders, directors or controllers of that company for reasons which are not too difficult to identify. '' I am one of the five 'representative class' shareholders of Westwools Holdings Limited. I was appointed to that position by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation , Perth, without my foreknowledge or consent. I have never been a director of the company, either in fact or in law. You should know that I was not a party to the circular letter dated 4th October , 1983, mailed to the former shareholders of Westwools Holdings Limited by Messrs. Lavan & Solomon, Solicitors, of Perth. In their letter Lavan & Solomon purported to be acting for ''the majority of members of the Representatives Classes'' representing ''all shareholders of Westwools Holdings Limited''. On 1st October, 1983, I wrote to Mr W. J. Hughes, leader of the representatives class, that I did not favour any circular written on Lavan & Solomon's letterhead; and that more importantly, if such a circular was to be mailed out that it was made quite clear that I ''have no connection with the letter, and that I am unaware of its contents.'' Unfortunately, my wishes in this regard were ignored. In view of these matters (which you could hardly be expected to have been aware of) I would ask you to seek an opportunity of making my position quite clear to the Senate. Mr J. R. Parker, who is in the same position as myself, would be equally appreciative of clarification as well. Yours faithfully, DAVID L. PARKER Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the fact that the Attorney-General has not read 690 of the 700 pages of the transcript material which might be relevant to the resignation of Mr Jackson. I refer to his refusal today to answer questions on the material whereas he answered questions yesterday. I refer to the fact that he has refused to read the material in the transcripts to which the Opposition has referred him. I ask: Is it not a fact that the Attorney-General cannot, of his own knowledge, give the Senate any assurance about what the tapes reveal? Why does he intend to remain in ignorance? Does this not effectively amount to a cover-up by the Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS —I both can give an assurance and have given an assurance to the Senate based on the parts of the transcripts which dealt explicitly with conversations between the relevant New South Wales Minister and other persons dealing with matters that have come into public contention. I have indicated as candidly, forthrightly and repetitively as I am able to do the circumstances of those conversations, the suspicions to which they gave rise and the course of action that the Government thought it accordingly appropriate to follow. There is literally nothing else that can or in any reasonable universe should be said in this place on this issue. Mr Deputy President, might I suggest that although there is no provision in the Standing Orders guaranteeing against boring honourable senators with tedious repetition of questions, you might care to draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition and those of his colleagues who are still minded to pursue this non-existent hare that there is literally nothing more that can be achieved by the tendentious and tedious course of action which they are now pursuing in this place. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I should make it clear that the Chair has no control over questions, provided they are in order. Senator FOREMAN —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen the latest figures on industrial disputes released recently by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which show that the number of working days lost through industrial disputes in July was 27 per cent lower than the number for July 1982? Whereas a total of 105,200 workers were involved in industrial disputes in July 1982, only 58,200 were involved in disputes in July this year. Can the Minister confirm that one of the major reasons for the sharp decline in industrial disputation is the Hawke Government's concensus approach to national economic management and its abandonment of the boots and all approach of the former discredited Fraser Government? Senator BUTTON —I have seen the figures to which Senator Foreman referred. In some respects they are encouraging. The Government does not wish to crow unduly about the industrial dispute situation in Australia, but it does seem clear that there has been some diminution in the level and extent of disputes in recent months. One has to be careful about these matters because often a reduction in the level of industrial disputation has been thought to have some correlation with the level of unemployment. I would simply make the point that what is encouraging about the figures to which Senator Foreman refers is the fact that in the past three months there has been a very encouraging slackening in the rate of increase in unemployment. Senator Macklin —Slackening? Senator BUTTON —I apologise to Senator Macklin if he has to apply his pedagogic skills to my prose. But the fact of the matter is that the Government did earlier set about a prime task of reducing the rate of increase in unemployment in this community. That has happened and the fact that there has been a substantial-- Senator Teague —You promised jobs, jobs, jobs. You have not delivered. Senator BUTTON —Senator Teague says that we promised jobs, jobs, jobs. I think he is confusing, as he often does, State and federal politics. It is true that Mr Wran at the National Economic Summit Meeting said that one of the prime purposes of the Summit was jobs, jobs, jobs. The honourable senator says we promised jobs, jobs, jobs. We did not promise jobs, jobs, jobs, in the words of Senator Teague's interjection. But if that is a matter of concern to him, I might say that the increase in employment that has taken place in the last two months is consistent with the Government's estimates and undertakings. We are very gratified about that. Senator Foreman's question, of course, was related to the question of industrial disputes. The point I am making is that it is encouraging to see the substantial fall in the level and extent of industrial disputation in this country at the same time as the employment situation is improving. I seek to take it no further than that. However, I think this is important and significant . I agree, and the Government agrees, with the implication of Senator Foreman's question which is simply that the approach adopted by the Government at the National Economic Summit and in relation to general questions of economic management is far more likely to ensure that industrial disputation is kept at a lower level than the former confrontationist approach adopted by the last Government. This Government, for the first time and in spite of difficulties, has in place a coherent wages policy-something which the Opposition sadly still totally lacks-and is proceeding with a number of other consultative mechanisms, the establishment of which is designed to ensure that there is as much agreement as possible between the work force and industry in relation to changes which are taking place in this society. I think they are very important measures which are directed towards, and will have benefits in terms of, lessening industrial disputation in this country. I simply make the point that not only are they necessary as policy mechanisms to achieve that result but also they are necessary in an environment in which industry is restructuring, where massive technological changes are taking place in industry and so on. For the first time in this country a government has set in place mechanisms which will ensure that these changes take place in a consultative environment rather than by chaos, as they have taken place in the past. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the suddenly coy Attorney-General. I remind him of the quite short statement which he made at the end of Question Time yesterday in these terms: Yesterday Senator Chaney asked me whether the communication between New South Wales Minister Mr Jackson and Mr Harris, which has achieved subsequent notoriety , was about the prospective release of prisoners. I have asked for the transcript to be checked on this particular point and I can confirm that, as I indicated yesterday was probably the case, the answer is yes. I also mention for the record that the prisoners in question were from Broken Hill, not from Bathurst as I inadvertently said in my answer. I ask the Attorney: Why is it that he was yesterday prepared to check the transcript and provide answers on these matters whereas today he is only prepared to cover up? Senator GARETH EVANS —Simply because yesterday's question addressed matters which we had been discussing, with varying degrees of politeness in this place, for the previous two weeks, whereas the matters in respect of which the honourable senator has wanted to question me today raise new matters, new personnel, new names and new circumstances. I have indicated with absolute clarity, and I will do so again, that I do not propose to put on the public record any information of any kind whatsoever as to the content of those transcripts other than what has already been put on the public record in order to explain the propriety of the Government's actions in relation to the particular matters which have become the subject of public controversy and public notoriety. If Senator Chaney is unable to appreciate that distinction, perhaps he had better hang up his whip, too. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen Press reports that foreign powers and foreign organisations have tried to influence the outcome of the elections in Vanuatu? Can the Minister confirm or deny these allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware that allegations have been made in the course of the Vanuatu election campaign that foreign organisations sought to interfere in the elections which were held on 2 November, just yesterday. I am advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he has noted these allegations but he has no particular comment to make other than that the Australian Government would, of course, deplore any such interference in the affairs of Vanuatu should those allegations prove to be correct. We have no further knowledge which would enable us to substantiate the allegations in question. However, the Government notes that there has been no suggestion of involvement by any Australian organisation. Senator JESSOP —Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to a statement made on Tuesday on the program AM by the South Australian Deputy Premier, Mr Jack Wright, in which he suggested that the Minister should keep his mouth shut about penalty rates, holiday pay loadings, et cetera, and do more research and become more learned on the subject? Does the Minister intend to take the advice of his distinguished State colleague? Senator BUTTON —My attention was drawn to the comments made by the learned Deputy Premier of South Australia in relation to this matter. As a man of natural curiosity, I took advantage of obtaining a copy of his speech and reading it in some detail. I must say that, consequent upon reading my South Australian colleaugue's speech, I sent him a telegram in which I indicated to him that as he called in the speech for informed discussion about this matter I would be grateful if he would inform himself as to exactly what I said in the future before making public comment about it. I do not think I need take the matter any further than that. However, I have had an exchange of views, if I can put it in those terms, with the Deputy Premier of South Australia and the essence of those views is as I have just indicated. I might say that in all the discussion which has taken place recently about penalty rates, I was not a contributor until Senator Peter Rae started to ask me some questions about this matter in the Senate last night. Throughout the discussion, which I suppose I initiated, I have been concerned about the generality of on-wage costs in industry in Australia. I initially made the statement that Australian on-wage costs were very little different from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, but nonetheless they were issues which had to be addressed in determining the competitiveness of Australian industry. I have conveyed that view to a number of people, including the Deputy Premier of South Australia. I think it is a view which continually has to be discussed. The appropriate place to discuss it is between governments, State and Federal, and between unions and employers in an effort to reach the most beneficial relationship for all concerned in considering these matters. So I think it is important for Senator Jessop not to rely entirely on reports on the AM program but to look at the matter, as I advised the Deputy Premier of South Australia to do, on an informed basis. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In light of the fact that speeches and questions concerning allegations of corruption in the Department of Foreign Affairs were carried in the departmental magazine Background under the previous Government, will the Minister give an explanation for the omission of my speech of 13 October? Will the Minister give an assurance that, in future, Background will give coverage of all parliamentary references to this issue? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will draw the honourable senator's question to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but I do not like his chances. Senator JACK EVANS —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of the surreptitious transfer of import quotas for shoes from independent shoe wholesalers to the major retail chains and that the effect of this is to reduce the range of shoes available to local shoe retailers, particularly in country areas, as the number of wholesalers diminishes? Will the Minister review the quota system to prevent the sale of imported shoe quotas so that quotas not used are issued by the Department to genuine independent wholesalers or alternatively allowed to lapse thus giving a boost to the manufacture of Australian shoes? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of any surreptitious transfers as the honourable senator described them. I remind Senator Evans that the quota transfer provision is an integral and important element of the seven-year textile, clothing and footwear assistance plan which is designed to provide flexibility within the quota system. I am also aware that concern has been expressed regarding quota speculation. That matter has certainly been drawn to my attention. The Department has recently taken steps to try to minimise this practice. I understand that the steps taken by the Department have been, by and large, successful. I announced on 2 June this year that there would be no changes in the basic elements of the textile, clothing and footwear sectoral plan. Because it provides for a high level of assistance to these labour intensive industries and also regular reductions in the rate of tariff protection accorded, the Government has left that plan basically in place. Unless there are significant changed circumstances we will continue to do so. I point out also that various elements of the aspects of the assistance plan are regularly examined by a committee each year. The Textiles', Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr David Elix, has just completed a round of discussions and consultations with the industry and will report to the Government in the near future. My understanding is that, in the course of those consultations, the committee received representations from footwear importers and retailers on certain features of the quota arrangements. The Chairman of the Committee will be including comments on that in his report when it is forwarded to me very shortly. That report will, as usual, be a matter for discussion by the membership of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Council at which representatives of importers, retailers, manufacturers and so on are present. It provides a useful forum for discussion of that kind. Senator GRIMES —Yesterday, during Question Time, Senator Reynolds asked me a question about the Mount Isa mobile support team. I have sought the information that she required. This project was initiated during the International Year of the Child as a proposal from the isolated parents' association. It was originally a pilot project for two years under the sponsorship of the Queensland Country Women's Association. The work done by the workers in the project was so highly regarded by the community and the previous Government that the project was put on to permanent funding last September through the Office of Child Care. The situation referred to by Senator Reynolds yesterday was the unexpected dismissal of the project workers, Terri Ormiston and Pat Teasdale, by the State President of the CWA, Mrs Fitzherbert. Their terms expire on 28 November next. At this stage I do not know why they have been given notice. But I have asked my Department to make full inquiries and I understand there will be a meeting next week. I have had the opportunity of meeting this team in Cloncurry. I know how highly regarded their professional work was by the community. The work of organisations like this is very important in outback and isolated areas. The Mount Isa support team seemed, to most people, to be an excellent model. It worked well with the National Mission of the Uniting Church. I personally will have some regrets as will the local committees if the problems suddenly perceived by the CWA are not ironed out. I hope to be able to get further information on this incident next week. Certainly, one would not like to see a support team like this abandoned for other than very good reasons. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-Last night, in my absence on the resumption of consideration in Committee of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84, Senator Messner accused me of failing to demonstrate the courage of my convictions. He was referring to assets test discussions which took place during that debate. He referred in particular to statements that I had made before various Returned Services League conferences and elsewhere in which I spoke of wealthy service pensioners who had contrived their financial affairs in order to meet the income test on service pensions. It is true that I raised the misuse of welfare funds by some beneficiaries at RSL conferences and elsewhere and invited the reaction of such organisations. Senator Messner alleged that I said I would name those people who were involved and that I had subsequently reneged on this undertaking. He claimed that this proved that the assets test issue was based on misinformation on the extent of abuse of the current income test. I point out to the Senate that the honourable senator was wrong on both points. I did not undertake to name the abusers; I merely stated that this was an option which was being considered in order to highlight the extent and ramifications of the abuse. I assure the Senate that the abuse is very real, widespread and a great financial burden on the community, costing my Department scores of millions of dollars per annum. I decided against naming these wealthy rip-off merchants simply because no useful purpose would be served by so doing. When the assets test is introduced they will immediately cease to receive the service pensions to which they have no moral entitlement and my naming of them would not speed this process up by a single day. However, I still keep that open as an option. However, as the honourable senator doubts that such persons even exist, I am quite happy to provide him with the details of their financial affairs while preserving their formal anonymity. For example, there is the case of one of Australia's best known tax avoiders. His name, I assure the Senate, would be known to millions of Australians. This man was granted a service pension at the then maximum single rate of $102.90 per fortnight on 30 April 1976. I remind the Senate of the significance of 1976. His wife subsequently claimed and was granted a service pension as his spouse on 21 December 1982. Each is paid at the maximum married rate which also entitles them to full fringe benefits. The only income for which they are assessed is $3.09 per fortnight from three small savings accounts. The veteran and his wife have a 60 per cent share in an import business with gross sales for the year ending 30 June 1982 of $1,000,473.31 and a total trading profit of $426,654.22. After expenses a net profit of $159 was declared, the 60 per cent share of which was paid into a family trust. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Gietzelt, I think you are getting away from your personal explanation. You are going into a great deal of detail which is all a matter for debate. Can you confine yourself explicity to where you were misrepresented? That was the purpose for which you got leave. Senator GIETZELT —Mr Deputy President, I remind you that the honourable senator said I was not prepared to come into the Parliament and name them. He claimed: ' . . . he had all the courage of his convictions, but he failed to name them'. I am not naming them, but I am giving the details upon which I made my assertions at conferences of the Returned Service League. Among the expenses incurred by the company were $44,429.51 in travelling expenses, and about $10,000 in car leases and related costs. The veteran and his wife have arranged that they receive no salary or director's fees from the company. I ask Senator Messner simply whether he approves of the payment of a service pension to these people and other similarly financially placed persons or whether it is the policy of his party that their entitlement should not be challenged by the Government. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government) —by leave-I move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the hours of meeting of the Senate on Tuesday, 8 November 1983, be 2 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. (2) That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m. on that day. I think there is a uniformity of view about this motion, if not enthusiasm. I simply make the point that it has been agreed between the parties that the Senate sitting on Tuesday night will be occupied with debate in such a way that there will be no divisions or quorums. I hope that is helpful to the Senate in terms of other honourable senators seeking to fulfill functions associated with this chamber but not necessarily in it. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —Mr Deputy President, the Opposition will not oppose this motion but I should just clarify our position. The Opposition has not had an opportunity, as a group, to consider the specific proposal but on behalf of the Opposition, as I said, I will not be opposing it. I should make it clear that there has been no undertaking on behalf of the Opposition with respect to quorums or divisions. It would, however, be my anticipation that the Government would list for consideration a lengthy second reading debate. I understand it has in mind listing the Sex Discrimination Bill, which certainly should give no cause for divisions on Tuesday evening, given the number of interested speakers. It would not be my intention to call quorums but I have no undertaking or commitment from the other members of the Opposition because it is not a matter that has been considered by them. However, again I think that many would be very interested in any event in listening to the debate on the sex discrimination legislation, and no doubt we will have a very full House for that interesting debate. I also indicate on behalf of the Opposition that our non-opposition to the proposal is also in part based on the fact that the Government chose, because of its program, not to sit on Friday and therefore we think it is appropriate to make up some additional time for debate which might otherwise have been held on that day. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.14) — Mr Deputy President, I rise to comment about the motion before the Chair. I am moved to do so by the comments just made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in which he informed the Senate that the Government, because of its program, had decided not to sit tomorrow. We , after all, had been expecting to sit tomorrow. It was indicated to us that we would be required to sit on the Fridays of the first and third weeks of each sitting period. Quite frankly, we had expected that the debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill would proceed tomorrow. Now we are told that the second reading debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill will probably proceed on Tuesday night. If it is the Government's program to have a second reading debate on the Sex Discrimination Bill on Tuesday, when it was scheduled to be on Friday, why did it suggest the abandonment of the expected meeting tomorrow? The Government is proposing to have a special sitting time on Tuesday night to debate the very matter we were supposed to debate tomorrow. It just does not make sense except, of course, if we think about the Moreton by-election. That would not have crossed the minds of the members of the Government, I am sure, having regard particularly to what Mr Keith Wright said about the adverse affect on the Labor vote of some of its social policies, including its attitude on the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Sex Discrimination Bill. Senator Button —Come on, Senator. Senator HARRADINE —Did he not say that? Well, I must have read it wrong then. Honourable senators will recall that the Senate sat on one Friday and dealt with the family law legislation and on another Friday, the day before the Queensland election, it dealt with the Sex Discrimination Bill. The attitude to both of those Government measures amongst ordinary people is most adverse. I ask the Senate to consider whether it is appropriate during the special meeting on Tuesday night to consider the program which the Government had scheduled for consideration tomorrow and which it, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, had abandoned. I think the Government ought to come clean and tell us why it is doing these things to us. Question resolved in the affirmative. Fourth Report 1983 Debate resumed from 20 October 1983, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.18) —I wish to comment very briefly on the tabling of the fourth report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission for 1983 on special assistance for the Northern Territory. I am sure honourable senators are aware that the Grants Commission is the independent arbitrator for assessing the financial requirements of the States and the Northern Territory. In this case the Grants Commission has concluded that the Northern Territory requires some $16.9m in addition to the tax sharing entitlement to provide government services at the same standard as the States without having to make an unreasonable revenue raising effort. It is well known that the Northern Territory is different from the States in many important respects. As a result it faces various cost disabilities which cause the costs of government to be quite a lot higher than those of the States. These include the small scale of operations, the dispersion and other features of the population such as age, sex , structure and social composition, the relative isolation from the rest of Australia and, finally, the physical and economic environment within which services are provided. I find it most pleasing to see that these special circumstances have been recognised by the Grants Commission in deciding the need to top up the Territory 's tax-sharing entitlement. Given that the independent arbitrator has now reported I trust this will remove any lingering doubts that honourable senators may have about the adequacy of the Territory's funding. On Tuesday 1 November I had some comments to make when the authorising Bill for this payment was passed through the Senate. On that day I made reference to the concern that was being expressed by people of the Territory and by those in government in the Territory that the Government had seen fit to review the financial arrangements that had been made between the Fraser Federal Government and the Everingham Northern Territory Government. In the second reading debate I voiced my complaint and concern. I also answered various criticisms of the accounting procedures of the Northern Territory Government in regard to the expenditure of Federal Government funds through the Commonwealth Grants Commission. As I had completed my speech on Tuesday, I have nothing further to add to this report. I am pleased that the Grants Commission has seen fit to prop up the Territory's tax sharing entitlements along the lines of the financial formula. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Debate resumed from 2 November 1983, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.21) —I wish to make a couple of comments about this most interesting document. The matters to which I wish to refer relate to content of programs, complaints about programs and advertising, references to which are contained on pages 61, 62 and 63 of the report. The report states: As part of its responsibilities in regard to the determination of standards and to overseeing stations' compliance with these, the Tribunal receives comments and complaints from the public. All such representations are considered, investigated where necessary, and provided with a written response. In all cases in which a station's compliance with the Standards may be an issue , the substance of the complaint is referred to the station for comment . . . The report indicates an increase in the number of complaints concerning program standards and details the categories of these complaints. That is quite revealing, but I believe that one of the big problems about this matter is that there appears to be no overall surveillance of program standards by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, some time ago the broadcasting information office was starved of funds. Most people now think that there is some body somewhere, some authority, which is taking some note of programs on television and radio. That appears not to be the case. The responsibility now rests on the shoulders of the ordinary citizen to complain to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It appears that the Tribunal does very little monitoring of program standards of its own volition. Under section 99 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has certain responsibilities as regards programs. I believe that it is incumbent upon the Tribunal and indeed incumbent upon the Government to provide sufficient funds for this sort of monitoring to occur, rather than to allow the important aspect of monitoring of television and radio programs to be left to the haphazard complaints that may come from the people. As all honourable senators know, on many occasions people think: 'What is the use of picking up the phone and complaining? What is going to be done about it?' I have heard many people express an attitude of futility in regard to this. They should not, of course. The more complaints or even positive suggestions that are made by viewers and listeners, the better. They should be encouraged to make these complaints or suggestions. It is my view, having examined the Tribunal report, that the Tribunal does not see as one of its main objectives the regular monitoring of program standards on television and radio. I believe that this is a problem that the Tribunal should look at. It should not be prepared just to take whatever complaints come to it from the public; rather it should honour, as it were, its obligations under section 99 and take some positive steps in regard to the regular monitoring of program standards. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Consideration resumed from 2 November 1983, on motion by Senator Martin: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report by the Administrative Review Council Consideration resumed from 2 November 1983, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 2 November 1983, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.28) —I should like to speak for 4 or 5 minutes on this matter, which has to do with the putting down of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) on the migration program undertaken by this Government. This Government has undertaken what I believe is a very fine program of a non-discriminatory nature. It has maintained that tradition which Australia has so proudly earned, of giving weight to family reunion and to humanitarian motives in the composition of migration to Australia. It has made smaller the category of those who can come to Australia to be part of the work force. In other words, it has set its face against what was, unfortunately a trend-namely, the use of the migration program-instead of proper work force planning and the provision of training and apprenticeships for young Australians . Too often in the past Australian employers have turned for their skilled labour to overseas countries, rather than encourage the acquisition of skills by young Australians. That being the case, I think the humanitarian aspects are further to be commended in that greater reliance has been put on refugees coming to Australia from Central and South America, the Middle East, East Timor, Indo- China and East Europe. They are people who suffer from human rights difficulties under their respective regimes. To that extent, I think the Government is to be commended. The real reason I wish to speak today is to answer some of the hysterical nonsense which has been peddled around the community concerning the proposal by the Government in response to certain consultations with ethnic communities initiated by the previous Government which led to the floating of the idea-it is not a matter to which the Government is committed but it was thought it should be put on the table-that the term 'relating to the Almighty' ought to be deleted from the oath of allegiance. Indeed, it has also been suggested that swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia should not be required of those who are being encouraged to take up citizenship in this country but that they should declare their allegiance to the democratic society of Australia. After all, Australia has a political system which guarantees the freedoms of speech, association and political activities which are so dear to us. Our political system, our mixed economy and all the things that make up Australia are what we wish migrants to give their allegiance to by taking out citizenship. The reference to God or the Queen might cause difficulty for some people and it is proposed to give consideration to the deletion of those terms. I was shocked to see in the Tasmanian Press an attack by Bishop Newell, an Anglican bishop, on this particular proposal. He claimed that only those who tend towards atheism would not wish to take the oath with the term 'God' within it. Even less defensible, he claimed, was the deletion of reference to the Queen , which of course is an Establishment view which confuses loyalty to Australia with loyalty to the monarchy. I think that is an unfortunate comment to come from the lips of a bishop. But even more than being politically misguided, of course, his statement is theologically unsound. This is why I, as a Christian and as a senator, refused to take the oath in this chamber and took the affirmation. It is quite clear from Matthew 5:36 and 37, as Senator Macklin will know, that according to the prescription set down there one ought not to take an oath invoking some divine intervention in order to back up one's integrity, validity or strength of one's promises or undertakings. Indeed, I believe that if the bishop wishes to peddle a watered down version of the Sermon on the Mount he should say so. I for one will not allow claims that I would be an atheist cow me into taking an oath which I believe ought not to be taken. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 12 October 1983, on motion by Senator Chipp: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.33) —The effect of the Customs (Nuclear Materials and Hardware) Prohibition Bill 1983 would be, from the date of proclamation, to terminate the export of all uranium oxide and other nuclear products and, from the same day, to end the importation of a number of other pieces of equipment associated with the nuclear industry. At the beginning of my speech I point out that all responsible people, by definition, must be concerned about the long term dangers of nuclear waste storage and, of course, the dangers of nuclear war. Some people are very emotionally committed to what they see as particular moral views to this question. There are in my view completely legitimate differences of opinion as to whether the proper response to that concern about the dangers of nuclear waste and of war ought to be the complete withdrawal of Australia from the nuclear industry. To the best of my knowledge, even the most committed opponents of participation in the nuclear industry would not ban the use of uranium for the production of isotopes within reactors for medical purposes. Even the very strong opponents have not drawn an absolute position that uranium must not be used under any circumstances for any purpose or, indeed, that reactors should not be built and operated for that limited purpose. It then comes down to a question of judgment of degree as to the purposes for which the nuclear industry could morally be used and those for which it could not. I venture to suggest that a very large majority of Australians-an overwhelming majority of Australians-would regard it as immoral to be in the nuclear industry solely for the production of bombs or for their production as a by-product of other nuclear activities. For that reason, the analogy which Senator Chipp drew in his second reading speech-the analogy of nerve gas and biological weapons-was not appropriate. He said that, of course, we would not contemplate the supply of those products. I believe he is correct in saying that . I certainly hope he is correct in saying that. I do not believe his analogy is appropriate because nuclear reactors are used for purposes which I at least, and I believe most people, would regard as being legitimate-the admittedly very limited use of them for the production of radio pharmaceuticals and, on a very much bigger scale, of course, the use of them for the production of electricity. I do not think that anyone has suggested, certainly no significant number of people has suggested, that it is immoral in any way to generate electricity. Some people believe that nuclear power should not be used to generate electricity. While recognising the views that are held very strongly and very genuinely by many people on this issue, I think it is also necessary to address ourselves to the question of what would be the effects on the dangers of waste and war of Australia's immediate withdrawal, which this Bill seeks, from the supply of uranium. I think there would be three principal effects. First, the world price would marginally increase because a very significant source of supply would be removed from the market-place. I do not believe a price increase of the magnitude likely would in any way deter somebody who really wanted to make an atomic bomb from doing so. The second effect would be to increase the probability of those people who do want uranium-whether for what I regard as legitimate purposes such as the production of power, for immoral purposes such as the production of bombs or for whatever purpose- seeking alternative suppliers who would impose few, if any, conditions on the subsequent use to which the uranium supplied may be put. Reasonably strict conditions apply now to the supply of Australian uranium and the uses to which it may be put. The Government is currently reviewing those conditions with a view to making them more effective than they are at the moment. Senator Chipp —Those strict conditions have not prevented the construction of 50 ,000 nuclear warheads. Senator WALSH —Yes, but none of them has been produced with Australian uranium, other than that supplied in the early 1950s. Senator Chipp —How do you know that? Senator Macklin —Well, they have. They have in the United States. Senator WALSH —No, what was supplied in the early 1950s might well have been used for the production of nuclear weapons. Whilst it would be risky to assert absolutely that there is no chance that any Australian uranium could be used as the raw material for an atomic weapon, the existing safeguards and controls, which the Government intends to make more effective and believes can be made more effective, make it highly improbable that Australian uranium would ultimately be used to make an atomic weapon. It can be argued that the effect of Australia's withdrawal would be a marginal increase in price, which would have little relevance to anything. But more importantly, it could be an increased probability of customers seeking supplies from countries which impose few, if any, restrictions. If that is accepted, it follows inescapably that the consequence would be to increase marginally the risk of nuclear war and the dangers of long term waste storage. That is a judgment which some people will endorse and others will reject. I concede that, in my judgment at least, there is still a residual moral argument, and that is the personal resonsibility for one's actions either as an individual or as a member of a society. Such personal moral decisions have been made. For example, some people's conscientious beliefs prevented them, they said , from taking part in the war against Hitler, and that was accepted in Australian courts, although there could be no question but that those people's judgment of Hitler would have been in accord with the judgment of virtually all of civilised humanity. But in spite of that they made a conscientious personal decision that they should not participate, and that individual right was recognised by law in this country and in a number of others. Another case involving personal responsibility in which I believe the individual has every right to insist on not being actively involved is that in which medical staff are associated with the termination of a pregnancy. Some people believe that termination should not be allowed in any circumstances whatsoever. A very much larger group, I suspect, has a conscientious objection to actually taking part in a termination. That sort of conscientious objection is one which ought to be recognised as completely legitimate. But it is a significant extension of that sort of personal moral decision which people are entitled to make, to say that a whole society must not take a particular action because of the moral objections of some members of that society. Senator Chipp made the point, quite correctly, that the case for the nuclear industry has sometimes been put dishonestly. Nuclear power has been presented from time to time-although less so these days-as the alternative to oil, the known supplies of which are limited. I was about to say 'severely limited', but the known supplies of oil are almost certain to be exhausted within 100 years at present rates of consumption. Whilst it is technically feasible that nuclear power could produce liquid fuels for transport, it is not an economic option at present. Therefore, those who have presented nuclear power as being an alternative to oil were, in my view, quite dishonest in doing so. The far more valid comparison as to what nuclear power is the alternative to is coal. Coal reserves, even known reserves which are economically recoverable at present, are vast in comparison with oil reserves. At present rates of consumption coal reserves would last for several centuries. However, it ought to be recognised that there are significant environmental consequences associated with burning any hydrocarbon, any carbon-based fuel, in the quantities in which it is being burnt. There is clear and probably decisive evidence that the release of sulphur dioxide from coal burning power stations in Europe is responsible for very significant environmental damage. It was known in Japan some time ago to have been a hazard to human health. It is correct that, at a price, most of the sulphur dioxide emissions can be stopped. Measures to do that have been taken in Japan, for example. It is claimed that sulphur dioxide emissions-I am not sure that the evidence is decisive on this-coming down as acid rain are destroying the Black Forest in Germany. There is certainly widespread concern, most intense in central and northern Europe, I think, about the environmental consequences of continuing to burn the present large quantities of coal, or increasing quantities, because of the sulphur dioxide. A longer term and less certain danger associated with continuing to release into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide the enormous amounts of carbon which were locked up in fossil fuels millions of years ago is the green-house effect or the glass-house effect; the terms seems to be optional. From inquiries I have made about this matter, it seems to me that no one can predict with any assurance of accuracy what the long term effects of the continuing release of carbon dioxide at present rates will be, except that there seems to be general consensus that its effect will be to increase mean temperatures on the planet. The effect of that, of course, obviously would be influenced by the magnitude of the increase in mean temperatures, but if there were any significant increase in mean temperatures, one would expect it to cause the polar ice-caps to recede. If that happened to the point at which the polar ice-caps melted, the areas in which most of the human race now live would probably be below sea level. Certainly most of the world's major cities would be inundated by the consequential rise in sea level. I am not trying to be alarmist by saying that those things will happen if carbon fuels continue to be burnt or if the enormous quantities of carbon locked up in fossil fuels continue to be released by burning those fuels, but there is at least a possibility of that happening. I acknowledge also that since nuclear reactors produce additional heat and with the present technology convert a relatively small amount of that heat to usable energy, there may well be some danger of an increase in global mean temperature because of nuclear power operations. Indeed, apart from human or animal muscle power or something like that, probably the only environmentally neutral method of producing electricity is through the use of solar power. That is technically feasible. It is, however, extremely expensive. On what I believe are optimistic estimates, the cost of providing solar electricity on a continuous basis is of the order of 25 times the cost of producing electricity from coal burning stations in Australia. In some other parts of the world that figure would probably be considerably less; it may even be as low as 10. With present technology, although it is technically feasible to provide a continuous supply of solar electricity, it cannot reasonably be disputed that it is extremely expensive. That does not mean that there are no circumstances under which the use of solar power and even solar electricity is economically feasible . Household water heaters are widely used in Australia and solar produced electricity is currently used in areas where total power demand is very low. There is a need for continuous and reliable supply of low quantity power by Telecom in remote areas when the alternative power supply would be even more expensive than solar power. With respect to the use of coal as a source of energy, I bring up a point that I am not proposing as a policy which is being or ought to be contemplated but as an argument that could be used. A movement could develop to ban the export of Australian coal on the grounds that it was destroying the Black Forest and that there was a significant danger that the continual burning of coal will change the climate of the planet to the point that the areas in which most of the human population now lives would be inundated by sea or, at least, would be below sea level. The deserts would enlarge and so on. We really do not know; we have no reliable information on the long term effects of that. But it is conceivable that that argument could be used and that some people might come to a conscientious conclusion that coal exports should be banned for that reason. While recognising the very genuine and strongly held views on this question, and while recognising as I said in the very beginning that all responsible people by definition must be concerned about the dangers of waste storage and war, I do not believe it is responsible for us just to say that we will impose an absolute embargo on the export of Australian uranium without having at least considered the consequences of doing so within the global nuclear industry, which is established and which will continue at some level or other regardless of whether Australia ceases to be a supplier, and also the alternatives to electricity produced from nuclear power. Only one of those alternatives, as I pointed out, can be regarded as environmentally neutral. That alternative of solar electricity produced on a continuous basis is extremely expensive. I do not believe it is responsible to come to a conclusion without at least having considered all of those other things. I am not suggesting that all the people who say that an immediate embargo ought to be applied on the export of Australian uranium have not considered those things, but I suspect that a number of them who argue that way have not adequately considered all the alternatives. I think they should do so. In conclusion, the Government's final policy in regard to Australia's participation or non-participation in the nuclear industry is scheduled to be decided next Monday. It has been reported in the Press that a particular recommndation has come from Cabinet and that an alternative recommendation will be put to the parliamentary Labor Party meeting on Monday. I will not comment on the precision of those reports, although I think the alternative recommendation was publicly released. The recommendation of Cabinet was released to members of Caucus. If some journalists do not actually have copies of it, nevertheless, it is quite clear that they have a rather good knowledge of what is contained in it . The decision on the degree of our involvement in the industry for the immediate future is scheduled to be made on Monday. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.56) —The Customs (Nuclear Materials and Hardware Prohibition) Bill introduced by Senator Chipp is a Bill seeking to stop the nuclear industry. In recent weeks we have had circulated within the parliamentary precincts a number of documents. One of the arguments in those documents concerns the obligations that Australia has to the Third World and to other countries. Senator Walsh today raised again that issue. It is the issue which I wish to concentrate upon in my speech on this Bill. Senator Mason will be speaking somewhat later in the debate and Senator Jack Evans also will probably take up other areas of this debate. The proposition I wish to put initially is that nuclear power is not economically or logistically attractive. It is not necessary for energy supply, nor is it commercially sustainable. Nuclear power has, as Senator Chipp said, been promoted often to replace oil. The replacement of oil is undoubtedly an urgent and necessary task. Unfortunately, the discussion in relation to energy tends to be a very simplistic one. Nuclear power cannot be a timely or significant substitute for the vast bulk of energy use in the world. It is the wrong kind of energy; it is too slow to construct; and it is prohibitively expensive. The energy problem is spoken of as though there were only one problem and one sort of energy. Energy is spoken of in this chamber on many occasions as though it were any type, from any source, at any cost. Nuclear power is not a source of energy in the general sense. It is a source of energy for electricity generation . The high cost of nuclear power today limits its conceivable economic role to the base load functions of electricity only, that is to those functions which only electricity itself is able to provide. The base load function is extremely important in getting any economic argument going about nuclear power. The electrically specified functions constitute between 4 and 8 per cent of total delivered energy needs in the world. Even if nuclear power produced all the world's electricity, it would provide only 9.8 per cent of total energy needs. But as it is, the electricity generation contribution that is made by nuclear power is of the world order of roughly 10 per cent. Nuclear power, therefore, will never be able to solve the oil crisis. Oil is used around the world in vehicles, heat generation for both domestic and industrial purposes and for providing petrochemical feed stocks. The world has long term difficulties in relation to this and certainly that fact cannot be avoided. However, it is absurd to suggest that electricity will be able to replace 90 per cent of the world's oil consumption. The low rate at which nuclear power already provides electricity makes it even more absurd to suggest that nuclear power will be able to do that. As an example, had the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries been able in 1975-that was the year of the oil crisis, as honourable senators would remember-to replace overnight their electrical generation with nuclear power, their total oil consumption would have dropped in the order of only 12 per cent. This example also tends to exaggerate the possibility of the displacement of oil since nuclear power stations involve a 10 to 15 year lead time. I shall return to the cost of nuclear power stations shortly. I turn to the example of Japan, which has dedicated itself to the production of a very large proportion of its electricity by nuclear power. If Japan is to meet half its projected energy needs by the year 2000 with the generation of nuclear power it will need to order a new nuclear power station every 20 days, which is an absolute absurdity. It would also cost $US500 billion at current prices to achieve that, which is also an absurdity. However, if it did that ordering and spent that amount of money its fossil fuel imports would still increase by over 70 per cent. So let us get into some perspective what it is we are talking about when we say that nuclear power will solve all the energy needs of the Third World. Let us look at some of the current costings of nuclear power. For this example I will have to use United States figures, basically because only the United States publicly provides economic statistics which allow analysis. I think it is a reasonable country to take as an example since it was the home of nuclear technology and it also has the largest number of nuclear power stations of any country. Forty-three per cent of nuclear power generation takes place in the United States. I have shown to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) a table on United States nuclear reactor costs in October 1983 figures. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table reads as follows- U.S. NUCLEAR REACTOR COSTS, OCTOBER 1983 Capital costs to produce a kW per year (kWe) $ $ 1. Direct construction costs 1,976 2. Plus interest during construction (x 1.206) 2,383 3. Initial core 112 4. Net capital additions 1,243 5 . Incremental investment in transmission and distribution 574 6. Incremental investment in front end fuel cycle facilities 136 7. Decommissioning 68 8. Waste transportation facilities 10 9. Waste storage/disposal facilities 100 (kWe net installed) 4,626 10. Divided by 0.55 Capacity factor (kWe sent out) 8,411 11. Divided by 0.9309 grid loss (kWe delivered) 9,035 Total cost 9,035 Source: A. B. Lovins, Rocky Mountains Institute, Colorado, U.S.A.; verified in Australia. Senator MACKLIN —The costing in the table is on a per kilowatt basis. I make it very clear that over 100 variables must be considered when trying to make some estimate of electrical generation. It is very difficult getting a lever on an adequate costing basis for various electrical generation procedures. However, this particular costing has been done on a very conservative basis. For example, in a kilowatt year only $68 is included for decommissioning, which is an excessively low figure on the decommissioning costs now becoming available in the United States. The cost for electricity delivered to the consumer according to these figures is 12c a kilowatt hour. Of course the prices vary in the United States. The lowest cost I have been able to discover is 7c a kilowatt hour and that ranges up to 20c a kilowatt hour. The Australian average cost for electricity generation is between 1.2c and 6.9c a kilowatt hour. So there is a considerable difference and certainly, in terms of cost, Australia would not be looking at this alternative, although certainly nobody has suggested that we do. Later on I will show that if Third World countries are to be able to use nuclear power remarkable economies of scale will need to be instituted. To comprehend the situation and get it in perspective in terms of oil costing, the current cost of nuclear power generation would be equivalent to buying a barrel of oil at $US191 per barrel. That is the level that we are talking about on current United States generation costs. Of course there have been astronomical additions to power generation budgets in the United States. More funds become available each day to investigate the problems that the public utilities in the United States have with their nuclear power stations. Essentially, then, the judgment to be made on the operations in the United States is that it simply had a very bad tack of market forces. No nuclear power stations have been ordered in the United States since 1978; all orders since 1974 have been cancelled. The number of units to be commissioned in the United States is shown in a table that I have circulated to the Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). I seek leave to have that table also incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- The number of units to be commissioned in the U.S. is as follows: Number of Year reactors 1983 12 1984 13 1985 10 1986 9 1987 6 1988 3 1989 . . 1990 1 1991 1 1992 . . 1993 . . 1994 . . 1995 . . 1996 . . 1997 . . 1998 . . 1999 . . 2000 2 Total 58 Senator Chaney —Senator, do you have figures for conventional plants over the same period? Senator MACKLIN —Not at the moment. Senator Sir John Carrick —Do you have any coal-fired ones that were cancelled and not built at the same time, because of recession? Senator MACKLIN —I am trying to develop an argument. I will come to that at a later stage. So we have increased costings for nuclear power stations. Around the world 38 reactors are due for completion from 1990 onwards. Twenty-eight of these have been deferred indefinitely which, of course, means that they could be completed at any time or could be cancelled. Only 10 reactors are actually planned to be completed after 1990. The Nuclear Engineering International of May this year-which is a very pro-nuclear journal of engineering items-contains an article entitled 'Extensive construction activity masks the lack of new orders' which discusses the whole area in a fairly exhaustive way. Let us look at some of the operations in the United States. For example, the Washington Public Power Supply System started five reactor systems in 1972 at a cost of $4 billion. In 1982 this cost had exploded to $28 billion and, of course , the utility has gone bankrupt. Time magazine put it in the following way: They promised power without cost and they delivered cost without power. The Zimmer nuclear power plant's projected cost in 1969 was $240m and it is now projected to be completed in 1987 at a cost of $3.1 billion. The Clinton nuclear power plant's projected cost in 1976 was $429m and it is now projected not to be completed until 1986 at a cost of $2.8 billion. The South Texas nuclear plant's projected cost in 1976 was $1 billion and it is now projected to be completed in 1987 at a cost of $5.5 billion. The Diablo 2 plant's projected cost in 1970 was $240m and it is now projected to be completed in 1985 at a cost of $4 billion. In other words, the problems that confront the nuclear industry in the United States are very real. I think we have to consider-if we are to look at the suggestion of exporting nuclear technology to Third World countries as a way of overcoming our energy problems-some of the real, hard facts. For example, I quote from a number of Wall Street specialists. First of all, Lewis Pearl of National Economic Research Associates said: If I were a utility executive today either with a nuclear plant a short distance underway or with one I hadn't started building, I'd get out of it and never build another. Because I think the risks to your stockholders are just intolerable. The Washington Analysis Corporation stated: WAC estimates the overall prospects for the domestic nuclear industry as highly unfavourable. Longer-term prospects continue to be clouded by severe economic uncertainties resulting from long construction lead-times, local political opposition, unfavourable utility rate structures, inability to compete in foreign markets and a failure to resolve the radioactive waste problem. Saunders Miller, an investment banker, said: (to rely on nuclear energy) will constitute economic lunacy on a scale unparalled in recorded history. In other words, if one intends to put money into something in the United States, the advice of the best people is that they should certainly not put it into nuclear power. It is important that we look at the position to get some type of perspective on what it is we are talking about. If one looks at the current United States supply capacity in terms of electrical generation-the latest information that I have been able to find regarding the peak load day was for 1980-one will see that the excess electricity supply was 35 per cent over demand . If one allows a 15 per cent over-demand as a prudent level, in this case one would have an over-capacity somewhat in excess of twice the nuclear power generation capacity of the United States. Let us compare this situation with the Australian situation. Let us consider New South Wales which has the largest grid system in this country. Total energy supplies in the 1981-82 peak demand period were 33 per cent over-capacity in that grid. So we have a comparable basis, as most developed countries do, in terms of our over-capacity at the current time. One should look at the percentage sourcing of total energy supplies in the United States. It is useful to get some idea of where the nuclear power generation fits in. If one looks at the figures which are supplied by the various energy utilities in the United States, one comes up with the following figures: Oil, 47 per cent; natural gas, 26 per cent; coal, 19 per cent; hydro- electricity, 4 per cent; and nuclear power, 3 per cent. Let me put that 3 per cent into some perspective. Wood burning in homes and factories in the United States has taken on a fair amount of prominence in the last five years, without any government subsidy or encouragement. Wood burning now delivers twice as much energy as nuclear power in the United States. That is the order of energy sourcing about which we are talking. We are looking at an enormous cost in a very small industry. Nuclear power is put forward as necessary for the health and well-being of the world's vast majority who suffer from savage living conditions. This has been advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a number of other people. In relation to the arguments which I have just mentioned, the contribution of nuclear power must be surely almost non-existent. The International Atomic Energy Agency has projected that by 1990 nuclear power will provide 5 per cent of the underdeveloped world's electricity supply. This means that 95 per cent of its energy sources will come from sources other than nuclear power. That is the type of projection that IAEA has made. When we talk about nuclear power as being the support for the Third World and its energy problems we are not talking in realities. We are not talking about the hard world of energy sources. I think that is extremely important. We have given enough cold hands to the Third World without leading it up the garden path on yet another one. The less developed countries which have nuclear power at present are Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, Mexico, India, South Korea and Taiwan. Those nations are far from being the poorest of the world's poor. Even in those nations nuclear power will not aid the poor of the peasants. They live either in slums or in desperate communities. Nuclear power will contribute to the already massive social inequalities in those countries. While the nuclear power station may look romantic silhouetted against the slums, it certainly will not do anything for those countries in terms of their desperate foreign aid debts and fragile economies. If we look at that situation we must be very careful of what it is that we are doing in terms of technology transfer in a North-South dialogue. If we are to look at the possibilities of nuclear power and at the possibility of sourcing power to Third World countries, what are the types of options? The substitutes-if we are not going to build a nuclear power station-are neither oil -fired nor coal-fired power stations. In most countries it does not matter in the least what kind of new power station can send out the cheapest electricity, because none of them can remotely compete in either cost or speed with the real alternatives. The cheapest energy generation alternatives in this order are: Eliminating waste of electricity; replacing, with efficient building improvements and cost-effective solar systems, the electricity now used for low temperature heating and cooling; making motors, lights, appliances, smelters, et cetera, cost efficient; industrial coal generation, combining heat and power stations; low temperature heat engines operating from industrial waste heat and from solar ponds; modern wind machines; filling empty turbine bays in existing dams; and small scale hydro-electrical generation. To know what can be saved is important. Energy efficiency projects can save 75 per cent of electricity demand without spending anything more than 1.5c a kilowatt hour saved. This cost is about only a quarter of the average delivered cost of electricity. It is less than the running cost alone of any thermal power station, including a nuclear power station. That is certainly the area to look at. In the United States, that has been the area in which gains have been made. That is what we need to look at regarding the rest of the world. The United States alone has saved 2.5 billion barrels of oil a day, which is equivalent to 30 per cent of total United States oil imports, simply by plugging holes in typical dwellings; in other words, retrofitting of buildings. These types of savings are astronomical. Their cost is very low. To return to a point which was raised by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), in terms of other types of alternatives which are possible and may come onstream, I refer to a speech made some time ago by Senator Sir John Carrick in which he talked about solar energy as being primitive. The largest private power utility in the world is in California. A report prepared by Lawrence Livermore, of the Lawrence Livermore laboratory, which is the major nuclear weapons research centre in the United States, says: Harnessed renewable energy resources could make California (United States' most energy intensive state) fully energy self-sufficient by the year 2025, while doubling its population and tripling its state economy. I think we must be careful when we make statements about that current state of research. I am not suggesting that solar energy can take over. That is an absurdity. But what we have to look at is the correct mix of energy sources. If we do not let ideological commitments get in the way, we can start looking at a range of energy sources and try to get the ones which are most appropriate for Third World countries or our own country. Essentially, energy is going to be the problem of the future, and this problem is not going to be solved by nuclear means. Let me give some examples. In Sacremento, California, a biomass conversion plant, fuelled by 20,000 tonnes a year of tree, lawn and grass clippings, is now currently being installed. This plant, costing $3.5m will produce 16 megawatts of heat, enough to replace 50 per cent of the natural gas currently used for heating government buildings. A food company, Diamond Sunsweet, is burning hundreds of tonnes of its walnut shells in a cogeneration plant to produce 4.5 megawatts. This company's investment will be paid back in three years. The cogeneration of energy is the single largest source currently available to the world which is hardly being tapped anywhere, certainly in the Western world. Cogeneration is readily available now without any new developments in technology and at very little investment cost. The Boeing aircraft company is now building a cogeneration plant to burn various waste products from its plants. A wind energy project to be completed shortly will provide electricity to 450,000 San Francisco residents at a cost of 3.5c per kilowatt hour, which compares more than favourably with our coal burning plants in Australia. Senator Sir John Carrick refers to photovoltaic solar cells as primitive energy. It is very interesting to note that the Sanyo Corporation is currently investing $50m in a plant for the commercial production of photovoltaic solar cells in the United States alone, apart from the plants which it is already operating in Japan. One does not very often find such hard- headed companies undertaking such operations unless they think they are going to get some kind of return. There have been problems, and there will continue to be problems, in this area. We have not even scratched the surface when we compare the money which has been put into nuclear research and the money that has been put into this area. Research in this field in Australia has commenced and is proceeding well. Solar dishes, solar generating stations and solar ponds, of course, are the types of things which have been probably to the fore in terms of most of the research which is currently under way. A variety of these are applicable in certain places. However, they are not applicable in all places and I do not wish to give that impression. My argument is that a mixture of energy sources will solve the energy problems of the future. If we believe and argue that nuclear power is absolutely and totally essential for Third World countries to solve their energy problems, we are in fact suggesting a course of action which not even the most highly industrialised and richest country is any longer able to afford. We should use a little bit of economic sense if we are to talk about the energy needs of Third World countries. Satisfying those needs certainly does not involve going down this line. I believe that we in Australia have a moral obligation which has been expressed often. I, for one, support very strongly the North-South dialogue. We have an obligation to transfer and use technologies which will be compatible and useful for those countries. There should be some prospect for those countries at some stage in the future to come out of their grinding poverty. They should not be made hostage to the rich countries in the West. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.25) —The Senate is debating a private member's Bill brought forward by Senator Chipp. It is a piece of legislation which, in the words of Senator Chipp in his second reading speech , proposes an absolute prohibition on the export of uranium, an absolute prohibition on the import of hardware necessary for nuclear power stations and uranium enrichment plants and an absolute prohibition on the import of spent nuclear fuel rods. The debate is one which, although it has started only today, is, I suppose, timely because the issue of Australia's place in the world nuclear business is very much in the forefront of Australian politics. The policy of the Australian Government is a policy which has been under very active debate within the Government. We have been told by Senator Walsh, the relevant Minister here today, that he anticipates that important decisions as to what Australia's place in that industry will be in the future will be made in the Caucus next Monday. So it is a very timely debate. If Senator Walsh's contribution to the debate is a sample of what is to follow, Senator Chipp may well feel pleased that he has brought the Bill forward whatever the result might be in terms of Senate support for or opposition to his Bill. I think most, if not all, honourable senators would agree that Senator Walsh put in a quiet and considered way many of the points of view which are held by senators from all around the chamber. I thought it was a very helpful and very good contribution to this very important debate. I express the hope that all members of the Labor Party will have the opportunity to consider the points made by Senator Walsh. I express the hope that within the councils of the Party, which are, of course, private, there would be the same very careful approach and careful attempt to weigh up the arguments which apply. Perhaps I praise Senator Walsh's speech because I disagreed with so little of it. It is always easier, of course, to praise a speech with which one agrees. I think that it was a very useful contribution to what is in fact a very difficult debate. I wish to echo some of the points which he made because I think they bear repeating. In particular, in addressing the Bill which has been brought forward by Senator Chipp and which the Opposition intends to oppose, I wish to say that all Australians and I think all members of this Parliament would certainly regard our involvement in the nuclear industry as a matter for concern and care. This is not a matter which should be treated lightly. Senator Chipp very properly raised the concern which we all have about the threat of a nuclear war and the appropriate concerns we should have about effective waste disposal and the non-proliferation of weapons. All of those issues make this a matter for careful consideration. When in fact the previous Government, after very long consideration, decided to affirm a policy for the mining and export of Australian uranium, it did so only after it considered a range of policies which covered, in its view, the concerns which had been expressed by many people in the community. I refer honourable senators to Parliamentary Paper No. 198/77, which contains statements that were put down in August of 1977 by the then Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and four other Ministers in regard to their various areas of concern. One finds papers on nuclear safeguards, the health and safety aspects of nuclear power generation, the mining and milling and safety of that process, the impact on the Aboriginal society, the impact on the Kakadu National Park and a history of uranium development in Australia. Various questions were raised and answers were provided. I mention that because at that stage I think there was a most serious attempt to come to grips with all of the issues which are raised in this debate and to lay down clear rules which would show that Australia would participate in this trade at the highest levels of responsibility. Time would not permit me to refer to all those papers. But I will quickly refer to the paper on nuclear safeguards . One finds in that paper very clear commitments that there would be a careful selection of countries to which uranium exports would be permitted. In the case of non-nuclear weapon states, sales would be made only to countries which are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Further, in the case of even those states the prior conclusion by bilateral agreements would be required which would lay down the conditions on which Australia was prepared to provide uranium . That would include fall-back safeguards which would guarantee that Australian uranium would not find its way into the world arms trade. Where we were to export to nuclear weapon states-there are a limited number of those-there was to be a condition of agreement with those states, an assurance, that nuclear material supplied for peaceful purposes would not be diverted to military or explosive purposes. The concern which was referred to by Senator Walsh was a concern which was shared by the previous Government. I believe that the very careful approach to the making of our policy in that area, back in the early years of the life of the Fraser Government, and the very careful administration of that policy indicate the serious way with which this was dealt. I adopt many of the points which were made by Senator Walsh about the effect of Australian withdrawal. Otherwise, I do not wish to comment in detail on what he said. I simply commend it. In the interests of a genuine debate in this place, I make some comments on the matters which were addressed by Senator Macklin in his contribution. Of course, he confined himself to a particular aspect and indicated that Senator Chipp dealt with different aspects and that Senator Mason, his colleague, would deal with others. But I think that a great deal of what Senator Macklin said does not really go to the issue which the Government of Australia faces and which, to some extent, the Senate faces in having to deal with this Bill. The really central theme to Senator Macklin's speech was that it was not economically or logistically attractive to pursue the use of nuclear power for the generation of electricity. He produced a great number of facts and figures, referred to various authorities and incorporated a certain amount of material into Hansard about nuclear reactor costs. Now I, in the course of that I have to say, will quote a few authorities which suggest that, in comparative terms, nuclear power plants represent a better prospect and a more economically attractive prospect than other forms of power generation. But, to an extent, what Senator Macklin said and what I might have to say in rebuttal or in putting forward an alternative view does not really matter very much because, if Senator Macklin is correct and if all the smart advice is that if one wants to generate electricity one does not do it using nuclear power, really this legislation is almost unnecessary. We simply will not get a developing nuclear industry if the economics are wrong. If the power stations are not going to be built, of course, there will not be customers for the nuclear power stations and they simply will not require fuel. Whilst I found a lot of what Senator Macklin said interesting, I do not believe that it really helps us very much. Indeed, if he is correct, I think his concern about the Bill and, indeed, his Party's concern about this Bill, is somewhat misplaced because we all know uranium is available for those who wish to make weapons. The real question we are facing here is the potential for Australia to be part of the supply system for the peaceful use of nuclear energy for electricity generation. There was a lot in what Senator Macklin said with which I would not disagree. I do not think anyone in this chamber would disagree with it. No one would argue that it is not highly desirable that we should gain as much energy as possible by conservation. But that is one of the areas where there have been signal successes since the various oil shocks. In fact, conservation measures have succeeded beyond the expectations of those who have pushed their importance. We all know of the massive shift from the use of fuel oil in favour of coal. We all know that the actual use of energy has been made much more efficient. Only today I spoke with someone who told me of the extraordinary changes in the energy efficiency of electric motors, refrigerators, air-conditioners and various other things. The sorts of measures which Senator Macklin addressed were measures addressed by the previous Government in a program sense. Senator Sir John Carrick could, no doubt, give chapter and verse the sorts of measures he promoted to encourage energy conservation. The reality is that since the oil shocks we do have a much more energy conscious world and we do have a world which is conserving energy. Measures which are being advocated by Senator Macklin are certainly being pursued by governments and, indeed, by private industry which sees the advantage in it. So I do not join issue with Senator Macklin at all in some of those areas where he suggested that the effect of an economical use of energy is one part of meeting the world's energy problems. That is a view which was stoutly promoted by the previous Government and which is, in fact, being put into effect around the world. I also wish to express some respect for Senator Chipp's stance with respect to this Bill. I disagree with it, but I think it has certainly strong elements of consistency and principle in it. Whilst I disagree with it, I think the Bill arises from the form of conscientious belief which was described by Senator Walsh, that there is certainly in Senator Chipp and, perhaps, in the rest of his Party for all I know, a burning, strong sense that whatever the economics, whatever the safeguards and all the rest, it is not right and cannot be tolerated. Senator Mason —No, it is much more rational than that. Senator CHANEY —I do not mean to be disparaging. I think it is a firmly held belief. I believe there are sound arguments why that belief should not be held by all and, indeed, as to why it is not held by me. I contrast that very consistent view which has been adopted by the Australian Democrats with what I think has been a much more inconsistent view on the part of the present Government and on the part of the Australian Labor Party. I do not wish to labour that but I think the illogicalities and the inconsistencies within the existing policies of the Labor Party have been acknowledged by Senator Walsh and others in the debates over recent weeks. One can only hope that those inconsistencies will be removed. The sort of inconsistency to which I refer is a readiness to approve the mining and export of uranium from a mine which has been described by the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as the daddy of them all-that is, of course, Roxby Downs-with a preparedness on a mixture of principles to block off the mining and export of uranium from very much smaller mines. I see no logic and no principle in that stance. I see nothing conscientious in that stance. All I see is a confusion which is borne of an attempt to reconcile what are ultimately irreconcilable views within the present Government. I make clear why it is that the Opposition is opposed to Senator Chipp's Bill. It is opposed first because if the Bill were to become law it would take Australia out of the chain which is part of the peaceful use of nuclear power and it would remove in that process not merely employment and jobs-I do not wish to labour the economic aspects of the matter-it would also remove our ability to influence the world nuclear trade. We believe that our influence on that trade is good. We believe that the influence that we bring to bear is one which helps to avoid some of the dangers and difficulties which are the concern of Senator Chipp. We think that if Australia became a non-participant its moral lead which is being sought here would be much outweighed by the loss of Australia's demands that the trade be carried on in a responsible and sober manner. I think also the Bill is to be opposed because it underrates the importance of the peaceful use of nuclear power, and both Senator Chipp and Senator Macklin have tended to talk down the significance of nuclear power on a global basis. I would like a little later to refer to the significance of nuclear power to some particular countries and suggest that it would be a matter of some moment to them if the access to uranium were to be removed. We also oppose the Bill because in a sense it would not achieve any of its idealistic objectives. We do not believe, in fact we know, that it would not prevent supply from other sources-it would not prevent supply from South Africa and it would not prevent supply from Canada. Indeed those countries would be prepared to supply on terms which would be I think less stringent than those imposed by Australia. There are economic elements to our opposition. We believe that were this Bill to become law it would simply export Australian jobs to the countries I have mentioned and to other countries which are able to mine and export uranium. We further believe that it would further damage our already bruised reputation as a reliable supplier of commodities. That reputation has been bruised partly by Government actions in the past but also, of course, by the very bad industrial record which we have. If we, as a country with a major interest in foreign trade, move to the point where with political changes of wind suppliers of commodities which have been contracted for are cut off, we believe that the whole of our export trade must suffer in comparison with those of our competitors. We do not believe that the Bill will advance the cause of nuclear disarmament and indeed we believe it may do the reverse, again, by removing Australia's benign-we believe-influence in that area. So we see no positive features in the Bill which would advance the cause of nuclear disarmament. Finally, we believe that to pass this Bill and to act on it would be in breach of our treaty obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I mentioned a few moments ago that Senator Chipp had referred in his second reading speech to the relative unimportance of nuclear energy as a substitute for oil. Quite clearly for many of the reasons that we need energy, oil is the premium fuel, in particular for transport purposes. That is the use on which it should be concentrated. Over the last few years there has been an important move towards both substitution and conservation, but there remains a key role in electricity for uranium. If I can just remind the Senate, there are many countries which by last year were getting a very significant part of their electricity from nuclear power. Of course the Scandinavian countries led. Finland had over 40 per cent of its power coming from nuclear generation; Sweden just under 40 per cent; France just under 40 per cent, which of course is a figure which is rising very rapidly; Switzerland 28 per cent; Belgium 27 per cent; Bulgaria 25 per cent; Germany over 20 per cent; Japan over 20 per cent; and the United Kingdom 15 per cent. So in fact nuclear power is an important power source for many countries. It is fashionable of course to suggest that the industry is in decline, and figures were cited by Senator Macklin to that effect . I quote here from a source which has an interest. Energy Resources of Australia Ltd recently published a report in which it indicated: In 1982, world generation of electricity from nuclear fuel grew by 9.3%, compared with an increase of 1.9% in that from coal. In the same period, the proportion of electricity generated from oil by power utilities actually fell by 3% and there was . . . a decline of 1.2% in electricity generated by combustion of natural gas. A little later it points out: The forecast by some industry observers that by the end of 1983 world consumption of uranium for power generation will exceed production for the first time in many years. . . . . Last year throughout the world 21 nuclear power plants were commissioned, six of them in the United States. Five new orders were placed outside the US, all for pressurised water reactors. One can point to a decline in the number of plants being commissioned and the cancellations, but as was taken up by interjection both by me and Senator Sir John Carrick, the reality is that we have been in a period of declining energy usage because of the world recession and because of energy conservation. So one has a situation in which new power stations have simply not been coming on stream and where there have been substantial changes in the predicted demands for energy. So it simply is not possible to look at the actual number of nuclear stations in isolation and say that from that one can assume that the industry is one which is in decline. Indeed, it does appear that notwithtanding the figures quoted by Senator Macklin many see nuclear power as being the most economic source of power when power requirements start to increase again. A study by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development which was made in 1982- this was published by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency- commented: There are economic reasons in most OECD countries why nuclear would be the preferred course to follow when new electrical base load capacity is installed. Nuclear power is invariably much less costly than oil and in many situations is considerably cheaper than coal as a means of producing electricity. Although analysis of safety and environmental effects are uncertain they generally favour nuclear power plants and their associated fuel cycle over plants using fossil fuels. So the reality is that for many countries it is likely that the route will be the increased use of nuclear power for the generation of electricity, and the likelihood is that there will be a continuing and expanding demand for nuclear fuels. The other matters which I want to touch on, Mr Acting Deputy President, are the sorts of issues which concern those who are opposed to the nuclear industry. I refer to waste management and non-proliferation. I will not have time to deal with those in any detail but I do want to refer during my remarks to a very recent statement which was laid down by Australia at the International Atomic Energy Agency general conference in October of this year. I will be quoting from that because it represents-I commend it to the attention of honourable senators-precisely the sort of constructive contribution that Australia is able to make to international activities in the nuclear field which contributed to removing the sorts of doubts and difficulties which are the concern of Senator Chipp. With respect to waste management I will quote this official statement which was made on behalf of the Australian Government at that conference in October: The Seattle Conference, as the Director General has noted, concluded on an optimistic note. It reaffirmed that no further technological breakthroughs were required for the establishment of safe waste management systems. It concluded that fully feasible concepts have been developed for the disposal of high level waste, although further work needed to be performed to establish internationally accepted criteria for safe disposal. There are many lessons still to be learned, and there is a particular need for highly complex scientific developments which are closely linked to the welfare, health and environmental protection of mankind to be made convicing and comprehensible to the public. International collaboration in the field of waste management, as the Seattle Conference demonstrated, will play an increasingly important part in the safe development of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. My Government would welcome urgent action by the Agency to follow up that Conference. I am quoting there a source from the present Government; a submission made to an international energy meeting which is devoted to ensuring that this trade is conducted in a safe and reasonable manner. As far as safeguards are concerned I again quote from that report: In its Annual Report for 1982, the Agency was again able to conclude that the level of assurance associated with its implementation of safeguards had continued to improve. The assurance which these findings provide is at the heart of the IAEA safeguards system and constitutes an essential political benefit to all Member States and the international community at large. We welcome the fact that the Agency is again able to perform effective verification in the two cases where it was unable previously to conclude that nuclear material under safeguards remained in peaceful nuclear activities, or was otherwise adequately accounted for. I quote that merely to indicate the sorts of activities in which Australia is involved and the sort of attitude which has been brought forward. I mentioned the fact that this Bill, if passed, would amount to a breach of our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I would have thought that in general our adherence to that Treaty would be a matter which would have been welcomed by the Australian Democrats. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a treaty which seeks to ensure-again I am referring to a government document, the inter- departmental committee report which the Government produced and circulated to its members as a guide in these matters. The present Government and its bureaucrats describe the treaty- Senator Chipp —But 50,000 nuclear weapons have been created during the existence of that treaty. It has not stopped that. Senator CHANEY —The point is that an active international program is being pursued now to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons among non- nuclear weapons states and active measures are being pursued by the nuclear weapons states to try to reach agreement on ways of reducing nuclear armaments. Will Australia be a party to that or not? I point our that the treaty seeks to ensure that peaceful uses of nuclear energy are developed so as not to contribute in any way to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and that nuclear weapons presently existing will be reduced and eventually discarded. I think that Australians have a very great opportunity to participate in this industry in a way which will improve the conditions under which the world nuclear industry is conducted. There is a chance for us to be positively involved in an industry which is contributing to the essential energy requirements of the world. We can, I believe, consistent with safe practices, economically improve the position of our country by continuing to develop a resource in which we are rich and which the rest of the world wants. I believe that there is a whole series of reasons why the Senate must vote against this Bill and I believe, quite to the contrary of what is believed by Senator Chipp, that it is in the positive interests of the world that we should oppose this legislation and continue to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the objectives of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.52) -I rise to support this Bill which has the full support of the five Australian Democrat senators and the Australian Democrat membership generally. I believe the majority of the Australian people would also like to see a Bill like this pass the Senate. To introduce the topic to which I particularly want to look and which I think is crucial to this debate , that is, the danger of proliferation of small, dirty, dangerous atomic weapons as a result of nuclear power, I begin with a quotation: The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war. This is the most serious hazard associated with the industry. That is not a quote from some left wing greenie or radical. This was the conclusion of Mr Justice Fox in 1976. That this contribution to the increased risks of nuclear war might be unintentional does nothing to reduce the actual consequences of nuclear proliferation. All commercial nuclear fuel cycles are fuelled with uranium. The irradiation of uranium fuel in any reactor produces the artificial element of plutonium, which is a bomb material, regardless of its isotopic composition or its chemical form. The only practical source of plutonium is from spent fuel rods discharged from power reactors. This plutonium becomes a proliferation risk immediately it is extracted from the other waste by reprocessing, which is a normal procedure. Once reprocessed, it is in a concentrated, homogeneous form, which can be handled, readily transported, and negotiated. It is anonymous and cannot be identified once it is on the move. Natural uranium can also be enriched to bomb usable concentrations, using low technology centrifuges. An effective centrifuge design was published quite openly some 20 years ago. Better versions, much less efficient than the high technology commercial varieties, I grant, but still adequate, have been made by a good tradesman-machinist in a few weeks. Although hundreds of such crude centrifuges and tonnes of uranium would be needed for patient accumulation of even one bomb's worth of highly enriched uranium, the centrifuges are simple, cheap, concealable and highly accessible. It is too much to expect that they will not be made and used in the world. More sophisticated bomb design certainly is needed to achieve the same performance from reactor grade as from weapons grade plutonium and the yield of that bomb will be uncertain. However, it will still be an unpleasant, highly dangerous weapon, capable of destroying a city. This more sophisticated bomb design is a small price to pay for the greater ease of obtaining plutomium from reactor waste. The power reactor then becomes an innocent civilian cover rather than being obviously military, like a special production reactor. Reactor grade plutonium is very freely available. The total nuclear power production capacity for 1980, for instance, would have produced 80,000 kilograms of Pu-239, that is, plutonium 239 which is the bomb fuel. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that it takes 8 kilograms of Pu-239 for an average nuclear size weapon and I am speaking of a 20 kiloton weapon, five kilotons larger than the Hiroshima bomb. Power reactors, then, can be considered large-scale military production reactors with an electricity by-product. Despite the conventional wisdom that bombs need reprocessed uranium in the form of plutonium, reactor grade plutonium can be used directly in weapons. They are unreliable, dirty weapons of uncertain yield, but still explodable. In 1977, a spokesperson for no less an authority than the United States Energy Research and Development Administration officialy confirmed that the United States had constructed and exploded a nuclear bomb made from reactor grade plutonium. That is on record. It astounds me that still the old saw that this cannot be done is touted around the world and even in this place. It is not only reactor waste and fuel that increase nuclear proliferation. Many instruments or theories used in civil nuclear power have a military application. Such data as the criticality conditions of plutonium are secret when they are applied to bombs. But, and this is the important bit, precisely the same data can be found published in textbooks available in any public library and in civilian literature which reactor programs make available to proliferators. I should like to give the Senate a brief historical perspective which demonstrates how often and inevitably the manufacture of nuclear weapons follows the development of nuclear power. The British and the French were able to have a nuclear arsenal once they developed the capacity to reprocess spent fuel, ipso facto, because of the facts I have already mentioned. The Indians purchased civilian and research reactors, fuel and expertise from Canada and lo, in 1974 they exploded a bomb. That was no accident, it was inevitable. The South Africans have developed an enrichment facility at Helikon that can produce weapons grade plutonium. That is a matter of record. The West Germans assisted them to build that facility. The Pakistanis, no doubt worried by India's bomb explosion in 1974, tried to buy nuclear technology openly. They were rebuffed, so they have developed an enrichment facility through espionage, taking Urenco centrifuge technology illegally from Holland. Brazil has purchased an enrichment plant from West Germany. They and the Swiss have also sold the Argentinians a similar facility. We say that there is not any proliferation. Let me go further. The French sold the Israelis a research reactor and the fuel in the late 1960s. The United States is now considering using its own stockpile of commercial reactor waste for nuclear weapons. It is interesting that the United States has trained many of the world's nuclear scientists. Half of the key staff of the Indian bomb program were trained at the expense of United States taxpayers. The 1,000-odd Taiwanese, 200- odd Argentinians and 272 South Korean nuclear scientists, all United States trained, provide the bulk of their nations' expertise. All these nations are believed to be the closest of any in the world to having nuclear weapons capability, if indeed they do not already have it. It is widely suspected that a number of them do. Given these inherent dangers, it is no surprise to realise that the world community went to some trouble to develop a system of safeguards to prevent nuclear proliferation. How good are those safeguards? Let us have a good, honest look at them. The safeguards have a number of inherent problems which, at the moment, cannot be overcome because, importantly, all nuclear technology does aid a country in acquiring nuclear weapons if it so desires. Safeguards delay or perhaps publicise the inevitable. Ironically, the foundations of the international non-proliferation regime, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-the NPT-and the International Atomic Energy Agency, actually encourage the spread of nuclear technology while trying to control nuclear proliferation. That is a compromise which cannot work. The safeguards treaties are documents of convenience. They have a large number of signatories precisely because they are not restrictive, and they do not impinge on national ambitions. They are drafted that way deliberately. Safeguards themselves have an inherent flaw that few realise. They do not prevent, in any sense, diversion of bomb material; they only detect diversion. Once safeguards are of any use it is already too late. At that stage the bomb material has been diverted. No system of safeguards can predict a nation's future intentions. Even a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty can withdraw after three months' notice. That is not a very long period. Let us look at an example. An excellent example of failure to predict future intentions was in fact the 1979 proposal to export our uranium to Iran. Some months after the proposal the Shah of Iran was overthrown and the political complexion of the country changed drastically. What use are safeguards agreements when countries which are parties to the treaty can withdraw in circumstances like that after three months' notice? What sort of safeguard is that for the human race? No safeguards, no matter how well drafted, how binding or complete would have prevented our uranium from going into bombs in a country where there was a radical change of government. The only way such a thing could be prevented from happening in the future is to prohibit the export of uranium, as this Bill proposes. Even if there is advance or timely warning about diversion of uranium into weapons, safeguards still become of scant value. The Pakistani intention to acquire nuclear weapons has been known for several years; yet no safeguard could prevent Pakistan from acquiring that capability in the long run. Israel and India are similar examples. There are other examples in the world as well. All attempts to provide for international safeguards have been flawed from the beginning and will continue to be because in a world of nationalism, of independent states, it is not possible, other than by some world government or world dictatorship, to provide a system of safeguards which will work. Apart from the contradiction of having to encourage the spread of nuclear technology while constraining it, a number of nations with nuclear power programs did not sign the treaty; for example, France, to which we export uranium, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Cuba. Most of those countries have an interest in nuclear power. The International Atomic Energy Agency which is charged with monitoring safeguards has only 138 inspectors to cover 774 facilities. Inspectors often cannot speak the language of the country in which the reactor is sited. A country can reject inspectors on the ground of nationality only. Thus, Iraq accepted only Soviet or Hungarian International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. That was the reason, of course, why Israel became concerned. It led to the the bombing of Iraq's Osarik reactor. That was the reason for it. The safeguards inspectors are permitted to allow a one per cent to 1.5 per cent loss of plutonium or highly enriched uranium in inventories. This material unaccounted for-it is referred to briefly as MUF-could be enough to build a small arsenal of weapons. Indeed, it is enough to do so at this stage. An average reprocessing plant handles 1,500 spent fuel rods containing 3.3 million pounds of waste each year. Of that waste one per cent, 33,000 pounds, is plutonium. One per cent of that Pu-239-a permissible amount of material unaccounted for, allowed by the safeguards inspectors-is enough for 20 nuclear weapons. We call this sieve, this mesh, of safeguards something which is going to protect to the world. It is a joke, but not a joke at which one would laugh. It is a tragic, disastrous joke. Those people who ignore these facts do so to their discredit because the future of the human race is involved in these matters. There is no doubt at all that significant amounts of bomb material have disappeared. Public disclosures about missing bomb material make it clear that the international nuclear fuel cycle has leaked profusely, all safeguards notwithstanding. A sanitised summary of a United States General Accounting Office confidential report released in 1977, which was some time ago, said that the United States Government was unable to account for tens of tonnes of uranium and plutonium which had disappeared since World War II. One plant alone-the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation in Pennsylvania-has lost 208 kilograms of weapons grade plutonium since 1978. That is enough for 26 Hiroshima -sized weapons. In January 1980 a General Accounting Office report showed that between 1955 and 1978 Du Pont's Savannah River plutonium plant had lost 146 kilograms of plutonium, enough for 18 bombs. The fact is that any country possessing a modern nuclear power station can obtain from the plutonium recovered from its spent fuel rods enough material to make at least five to eight atomic bombs a year. It is naive to believe that this will not happen. It will happen. What will the consequence be? Quite simply , over perhaps a century or so, the risk of the destruction of human society-not with a bang but with a whimper-will be great. The destruction will probably be on a permanent basis. There will be an increasing incidence of cancer. I will deal with that a little later when I talk about the regrettable events recently at Windscale. There will be gross deformities in animals and children not yet born and other genetic consequences which are perhaps yet to unfold to the world . When one looks at the huge amounts of recoverable uranium from Roxby Downs-1.2 million tonnes-to be sold somewhere, we understand, on a very competitive market for uranium, I believe that one may be looking at the decisive act which will destroy this world. I repeat: To go ahead with Roxby Downs is very likely to be the fatal act for the world because of the vast quantities of the material which are at Roxby Downs. Ironically, it is the Australian Labor Party which has spoken so much over the years about the dangers of nuclear power and the nuclear cycle which is prepared to accept those 30 pieces of silver for the economic short term gain it sees. It will become the architect of that final diabolical betrayal by indeed agreeing that these huge masses of disastrous material be let loose on the world. Let us examine that situation a little more closely. Development of Roxby Downs will represent a huge investment. That is well known both by the State and by the people developing Roxby Downs. The pressure will be on to permit sale of its massive amounts of uranium to anyone prepared to buy it. Of course, the current pattern is that it is the unreliable, autocratic societies which want to buy that uranium. They do not want it for nuclear power houses. They do not want it to benefit their people. Such places as Libya, Argentina and so on do not want it for generating electric power. That would be the incidental purpose, the cover for the real purpose, which is to realise their ambition-that is, to join the nuclear club, to be able to make nuclear weapons and to be able to strong- arm, blackmail and subdue their neighbours and pursue their political ambitions. Let us examine again these weapons, made by relatively restricted technology. They will not give reliable yields, but they will be all the more terrifying to the world because of their crudity. The major nuclear powers at least have been able to evolve weapons which do not have high fallout and which are not dirty in the sense of permanently contaminating the earth. This is not so in relation to the weapons which would be made as by-products of nuclear power. These will be Nagasaki and Hiroshima type A bombs which, when they are used in regional wars, will permanently contaminate the air and the seas of the planet with cancer- inducing substances and all those deadly isotopes, unseen and unsuspected, which cause genetic mutation and gross birth defects which will create monsters of children yet unborn. Am I justified in saying that? Let us examine the latest report from the United Press International only yesterday, relating to the Windscale area in the United Kingdom. The headline is 'Child cancer levels jump near nuclear plant'. the report states: Alarming levels of leukemia and cancer have been found in children who live near a nuclear power plant in north-west England, according to a television documentary research team. Yorkshire Television said research for the documentary found the village nearest the Windscale nuclear plant had 10 times as much leukemia as the national average and a significantly higher incidence of cancer. Plutonium dust has been found in homes 65km from the plant. The reports say animals are grazing in fields that are contaminated with 100 times the normal level of radiation. A farmer, whose land borders the plant in Cumbria, claims calves with hairless, deformed limbs or without tongues and ears have been born for the last three years. The television team studied five coastal villages near the plant and found 14 children with cancer. The Windscale plant, which is run by the state-owned British Nuclear Fuels, is a commercial operation that reprocesses spent nuclear fuel. For years we have been told that the Windscale operation is perfectly safe; that the British are great at technology. This now is the consequence which is emerging; it is probably only the beginning of what we are to hear, and to what we shall contribute if we allow this export of uranium to go on. It is a fact, of course, that the supporters of nuclear power have lied over this matter, consistently and knowingly. Regulatory commissions and, indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency have at times lied and deceived the world. When 200 tonnes of yellowcake disappeared from the ship Scheersburg A in 1968, the International Atomic Energy Agency successfully for years suppressed any information about that. That operation was almost certainly organised by the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, and the material went to the Dimona research organisation in Israel, where it was probably made into nuclear bombs. Israel does not admit to this, but some very interesting studies made on it point to very strong circumstantial evidence. Even a whole book, well researched, which has been written on the subject points directly to this as the conclusion. The point, of course, is that, if the yellowcake did not go to Israel, where did it go? In fact, we have never had an answer on that from the Agency or anyone else. It is not known where it went. That was an entire ship with its cargo. The ship disappeared for three weeks. The cargo of yellowcake disappeared , and the ship reappeared under another name. None of the so-called safeguard organisations can tell us the truth about that matter. They are powerless organisations designed to give the world a false reassurance on this subject. Reports of regular losses of plutonium come into the news with monotonous regularity, as I have said, but, even more alarmingly, it has been reported that there is a world black market for plutonium with anonymous buyers offering huge prices. That is only too likely to be true. Reprocessing and enrichment plants can readily be adjusted to provide weapons grade material, and that will happen. Will all these new weapons be used? We are looking at a world now in which economic and social pressures will become acute in the next few decades, largely and ironically, due to the massive amounts of money being spent on nuclear arms which might otherwise be spent, as they should be, on improving the conditions of life and health for the human race. The destruction of Flight 007, the Beirut bombing, events in Grenada are all part of a terrible sequence of events which should give us all pause. They portend a world of greater ruthlessness and violence, in which the destruction of large numbers of human beings is accepted casually, almost inevitably, as being part of the good clean fun of the power struggle in the world. Of course the nuclear weapons made from nuclear power- houses will be used. They will be used all right, and quite soon, in regional wars which we shall see on our television sets, just like the others. But the wars of the future will be different, because unknown to us, unseen and undetectable except with special instruments, will be the deadly radiation which cannot be removed or cleaned up, which will remain for perhaps 50,000 years- further into the future than we can trace back our history into the past. That is why this Bill is a vitally important one. We are truly at a crossroads of decision in this matter. The question whether or not we export uranium now is fundamental. It is not just a small political or short term matter. It is something which will, perhaps, change the course of the world. Finally, what will the war in which these weapons are used be like? I turn to yesterday's Melbourne Age and to a report of the Washington conference dealing with the world after nuclear war. It based its findings on the use of only one third of the weapons now in the world, and they are as follows: Eleven hundred million people would die immediately and another 1,100 million would be severely injured. That is more than half of the population of the planet. The report continues: Within weeks after such an exchange, according to the report, soot, smoke and dust from nuclear fires and groundbursts could reduce the amount of sunlight at ground level to a few per cent of normal. 'An unbroken gloom would persist for weeks over the Northern Hemisphere'. For the next months, the light filtering through this pall might not be adequate to sustain photo-synthesis, the process by which plants convert sunlight to food. At best, the reduced light could severely limit growth 'and the consequences would cascade through all food chains' . . . The lack of sunlight could cause a 'harsh nuclear winter' with temperatures dropping as much as 25 degrees Celsius in inland areas. Many areas could be subject to continuous snowfall, even in summer. If the nuclear exchange occurred in spring or summer, virtually all crops would be killed in the Northern Hemisphere. Many animals would die of thirst because surface waters would be frozen over in the interior of continents. I think that I cannot do better to stress the importance of this matter than to read that quotation and to try to make especially our colleages in the Australian Labor Party understand that this is just not a matter of votes in South Australia or of whether the Government there survives or, indeed, whether any government survives. It is not a matter even of economics. It is a matter of sheer survival for the human race, because that which I have described is the nightmare to which we are all contributing if we decide to export uranium. This Bill proposes that we regain our sanity, that we give an honest and principled lead to the world by saying: 'This must stop, and we are the ones who are going to say that it must stop. Follow our lead'. I believe that the balance in the world now is so delicate that, if Australia gave that lead, others would follow. It is nonsense to say that by acquiescing weakly with what international power and monetary structures want, what big business and international corporations want, by selling our uranium, we will have any influence on events. Of course we will not have any influence on events. We will just run along with the rest of the lemmings. We will influence events only by taking a powerful firm view of the matter ourselves and saying: 'We, as a community, as a society, and as the owners of the world's most massive resources of uranium, will be taking a responsible view of this. We see the historical obligation placed on us , and we shall honour that obligation and not betray it'. That might turn back the world from what may well be the final tradgedy of the human race. On that basis I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.17) — The Customs (Nuclear Materials and Hardware Prohibition) Bill is one which I am sure is brought before this chamber with the utmost of sincerity but, I believe, with a considerable degree of misunderstanding and misdirection of effort. I should like to develop some of the basic points further to those already made by, in particular, Senator Walsh, to whom I offer congratulations on a responsible speech, and by my leader in this chamber, Senator Chaney. In starting to refer to this, I should like to quote first from Professor Ted Ringwood's paper entitled 'Australia's Uranium and the International Nuclear Industry'. On page 13 he said: We should accept the basic reality that the unavailability of Australian uranium will not affect the development of the nuclear industry in France, UK, Japan, USA, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Finland, Taiwan , Korea, Brazil, Argentina, and many other countries, including third world nations and the eastern bloc. These countries, most of which do not possess substantial reserves of fossil fuels or indigenous uranium, are nevertheless firmly committed to the use of nuclear power, for economic and other reasons, which are seen to be compelling in their respective national interests. In these circumstances the withholding of Australian uranium from the world market appears to be something of a hollow gesture. The principle consequence of such a policy is that we are losing any influence that we might otherwise have had on the international nuclear scene. On the other hand, if Australia marketed uranium responsibly as a member of the international community and became a trusted trading partner, there is a real chance that we could influence the nuclear policies of other countries in desirable directions. I believe that that is a fair statement of the situation which I would wish to argue. Many countries are committed to nuclear power. Attempt's to curtail the supply of uranium yellowcake, can, I believe, only further encourage the use of fast breeder reactors and the production of plutonium which can then only make more dangerous the possible conversion of uranium to nuclear weapons. Senator Mason —But you will get that in the end, anyway, will you not? Uranium supplies are finite. You must face that in any case. Senator PETER RAE —I would hope that long before the supplies of uranium have been exhausted, solar power and other renewable energy sources will have been developed to a stage where we do not have to worry about either the use of fossil fuels or finite resources such as uranium. It is my very strong hope-one can only have faith in the future-that events will go in that direction. But, in the short term, the position is that other sources are needed. We hear much about the morality of nuclear energy. I wonder about the morality of two aspects of certain of the current alternative energy sources. I also wonder about the exhaustion of the finite resources which have multiple and essential uses, such as hydrocarbons, which have a variety of uses in our society when there is a substitute which is available and which has no alternative use. That substitute is uranium. One would hope that the world would be conscious of the need to ensure that the supplies of hydrocarbons can be husbanded for as long as possible. The intemperate use of them can be slowed down. I wonder about the morality of continuing with the development of coal mining, particularly underground coal mining with its incredible dangers and the continuous loss of life that is involved. I will quote some figures to support this view. During 1982 I understand the following accidents occurred: In January a coal mine explosion in Kentucky with 17 killed; an oil mine explosion in Mexico with 8 killed; in February an oil rig sank off Newfoundland with 84 killed; in March a coal pipe collapsed in Calcutta with 18 killed; in April a coal mine explosion in Poland with 15 killed; in May a coal mine explosion in Yugoslavia with 39 killed; in October a dam collapsed in Libya with 200 killed; in November a coal mine explosion in Poland with 18 killed; in December an oil fired power station explosion in Venezuela with 145 killed. Senator Jessop —All on about page 50 of the newspapers. They did not get any publicity at all. Senator PETER RAE —I acknowledge Senator Jessop's interjection. I believe most of those accidents were the product of negligence. If one looks at what has happened so far as the United States nuclear industry is concerned, it is hard to escape the conclusion that any of the problems that have arisen there are the result of negligence and not any more inherent in the operation than is the risk of a dam collapsing and killing a lot of people who are flooded by the water or of a coal mine collapsing and people being killed. I would have thought that the latter two examples are far more likely than the first. Senator Jessop —Do you have any statistics on lung cancer among coal miners? Senator PETER RAE —I have some, but I was not proposing to cite them. No doubt later speakers in the debate will be able to do so. I also wanted to refer to the morality question-the morality of continuing to pollute the atmosphere with coal fired thermal power stations, with the creation of acid rain, with the impacts which have hit particular parts of the world very severely. I refer to the effects generally of the pollution on the health of humans and animals not just in coal mines, but also on people who live in the area and are subjected, whether they like it or not, to the fall-out from burning hyrdocarbons. If one looks at any of the objectively acquired figures, it is very hard to escape the conclusion that the comparative risk between coal fired thermal and nuclear power, places nuclear power at the relatively safe end of the scale and coal fired thermal power at the very disadvantageous and dangerous end of the scale. Following on from that, I want to refer very briefly to what I think is an unfortunate and a fairly massive scale campaign of disinformation by people who perhaps have some vested interests. I refer, for example to some of those who provide funds for the so-called peace movement in Europe. They have vested interests in attacking the situation of the West and its capacity to defend itself. Senator Chipp spent quite a bit of time referring to the horrors of a prospective nuclear war. Whilst I subscribed to the general points he raised, I think some of the emphasis in his speech was unfortunate. For instance, he said that the United States could deliver 12,000 warheads on the Soviets and the Soviets could unload 8,000 warheads on the United States with such accuracy as they would land within 100 feet of a target, often after travelling thousands of miles. I rather had the impression that the whole concern of western Europe and the NATO allies is that the position is the reverse. The escalation since 1979- in the last four years in particular-that has taken place has been by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics upscaling dramatically the number of warheads, not necessarily the number of missiles. I will just quote from a paper presented to- Senator Chipp —Does it matter? Are not 20,000 nuclear warheads aimed at human beings enough for you? Do you want some more? Senator Jessop —We don't want them all on the one side. Senator PETER RAE —I wonder whether honourable senators would let me make the points as I go. I started to say that I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Chipp. I want to get the balance into this aspect of the debate. I wanted to quote from a document presented by Mr Michael Forrestall of Canada to the North Atlantic Assembly just over a month ago. Senator Chipp —Who is he? Senator PETER RAE —He was the Rapporteur appointed, as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly, to consider the question of the military balance and the arms control agenda. He said: Warsaw Pact long-range nuclear forces deployed in the Soviet Union consist of SS-4, SS-5 and SS-20 ballistic missiles. He further said that the SS-4 and SS-5 missiles: . . . have been replaced beginning in 1977 with MIRVed SS-20s carrying three warheads. Thus, although the number launchers has remained approximately stable, the number of warheads deployed on long-range systems has increased, nearly doubling since the December 1979 NATO decision. That is the dual track decision. The Rapporteur continues: Currently, the Soviet Union has deployed 360 SS-20s, and retains 248 SS-4s and SS-5s, totalling 1328 warheads. 108 SS-20s are deployed in Soviet Asia, and it is expected that this number will double within one year. Even more horrific in many ways-I think there is a degree of control in relation to anybody starting a nuclear war-is another aspect that was not mentioned. I refer to the horror that is facing Europe and the world as the two major power groups, the Soviet bloc and the NATO allies, remain in a stand-off position each , as Senator Chipp pointed out, with immense nuclear power. I quote again from the same paper: Soviet chemical agents are thought to include Soman and Tuban nerve gases, as well as Mustard gas. Means of delivery include artillery, rocket launchers, aircraft and tactical missiles as well as land mines. It continues: Some estimates suggest that the Soviet Union is equipped to fight a chemical war with NATO for 30 days at a depth of 500 kilometres. Soviet chemical agent stockpiles are estimated at 350,000 tons. I repeat, the Soviet Union has 350,000 tons of chemical agents to be used. The paper goes on: The United States last produced chemical weapons in 1969. The current US stockpile of chemical agents is estimated at roughly 42,000 tons, 15,000 tons of which consists of nerve agents GB and VX, with the rest as mustard gas. I quote that as part of my joining in the concern expressed in relation to what is happening, including the escalation of nuclear weapons and horrific weapons of war. I do not think there is any real doubt on the part of anybody that the escalation which has taken place in recent years has been because of the use of Soviet SS20 missiles and their deployment. They are aimed principally at Western Europe, and Western Europe has responded by going ahead with the Pershing and Cruise missile program. It is typical of the attitude towards self-defence, which has been a dominant force since the Second World War. Whether or not the figures I cited are accurate, the prospect of the first firing of a nuclear weapon is quite horrific. The situation is that, whoever is responsible for refusing to go ahead with the disarmament talks that NATO allies claim that they are endeavouring to hold and whoever is responsible for the escalation, the fact is that it has happened; the fact is that we have this incredible stand-off, and the fact is that it is not simply limited to Western Europe, although that is where the major problem exists. In the light of what I have said, I cannot see that Australia's exporting of uranium for use subject to nuclear safeguards and subject to the controls which we have developed, probably as responsibly or more responsibly than any other country, will enhance the risk of the sort of destruction which will take place if someone is mad enough, insane enough, to start a nuclear war with the weaponry already available. From the point of view of the misuse of nuclear material by terrorists, to which reference has been made, I would like to quote very briefly from a paper prepared and published by the Home Mission Division of the Methodist Church of London. At page 15 it says: Violence and terrorism are sadly fairly common, and it is of real concern that nuclear materials such as fission product waste or plutonium might provide terrorists with new opportunities to cause harm or hold communities to ransom. Neither uranium ore nor fresh fuel for thermal reactors are attractive materials for the terrorist. They cannot be made into nuclear weapons without colossal effort and expenditure and they are much less poisonous than many weedkillers. Once inside a reactor, the uranium in the fuel is steadily converted into fission products and plutonium, but at this stage it presents extremely difficult problems for a terrorist who might want to use it. In order to steal the fuel he must take over the power station, use the complicated fuel loading and unloading machine to take out some fuel and choose between taking it away in an ordinary lorry, in which case its radiation will kill him within a short time, or using a heavy, slow and easily located fuel transport lorry. The fuel is so radioactive at this stage that it is highly self-defending, as it is when it is being transported from the power station to the fuel reprocessing plant. After reprocessing the fission products (the waste) are just as self- defending as ever and by the time the terrorist can handle them they do not pose a very great threat to anybody. The article goes on to develop that argument but it is worth bearing in mind the points made in that passage. I would have thought the real risk in relation to terrorists is that they may steal an existing nuclear weapon, not try to get hold of uranium fuels to build their own. Reference has been made to the comparative costs of power generation and I would like quite briefly to put the other side of that story. The cost of power from France's significant and very advanced nuclear system is 26 per cent less than that generated from its coal system. As it has to import some coal, although it has a large amount of its own, and it has to import virtually all of its uranium, one imagines that those costs are reasonably comparable. Senator Macklin referred to the cost of nuclear power generation in the United States. One would think that is the least appropriate country to cite and that France, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden and a number of other countries would be far more appropriate. A Press release of 16 September 1983-just a couple of months ago-indicated that even in the United States the cost of producing electricity per kilowatt hour averaged, in 1982, 3.1c for nuclear power, 3.5c for coal and 7c for oil. The figures given by almost every country on which I have been able to check are similarly comparable in showing nuclear power as costing significantly less than anything except hydro- electricity. As everybody knows, hydro-electricity is becoming more expensive because of the long lead times and higher positive interest rates. The next point I refer to is the impact of this matter on Australia. A paper prepared by the office of the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with the aid of the appropriate interdepartmental committee, suggests that a shutdown of the uranium industry would cost $7,000m and up to 18,600 jobs in the next 10 years. I agree that if the question were simply one of jobs or bombs we would have a very serious responsibility. But one can argue, as I have, that it is not a case of jobs in Australia or bombs around the world because the bombs are already around the world. It is a very serious responsibility when we are considering closing off those 18,600 jobs in Australia. If Australia opts out of the uranium industry we will have no say in regard to safeguards, nuclear proliferation or waste disposal. We would suffer an enormous loss of revenue, investment and jobs if that happened and, rather than going in that direction, I suggest that Australia's interests require that we control even more and also get more value added benefit out of our uranium exports by moving towards enrichment processes which will quite obviously produce those results. Australia would then be in a position to influence even more effectively decisions resulting from the world- wide nuclear debate. It is my belief that one of the problems in relation to nuclear power is that so much of the debate takes place on the basis of the very understandable emotions of the 1940s when people looked at 'nuclear' as nuclear bombs. It is understandable that, if one lived in Europe on either side of the demarcation zone between the two Germanies, one would feel very conscious and very concerned about the possibility of nuclear war and nuclear bombs. But nuclear power and nuclear weapons-- Senator Chipp —But you do not think we would survive a European nuclear war, do you? What has it got to do with the Europeans? Senator PETER RAE —I would have thought that living where the weapons are situated and aimed at each other, many of them at a relatively short distance, and where there are both tactical and strategic-- Senator Chipp —Not one Australian will be left alive. Senator PETER RAE —I do not have time to debate that in detail. I am saying I can imagine that if one lives-- Senator TATE —That is groundless. Senator Chipp —You are a hypocrite. Senator Robert Ray —I raise a point of order. Senator Chipp referred to Senator Tate, who was seeking to interject, as a hypocrite. I request that he withdraw that remark. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I did not hear the remark. Did Senator Chipp say that? If so, he must withdraw it. Senator Chipp —Yes, I made it. I withdraw it. Senator PETER RAE —The point I was endeavouring to make is that if one lived right under the shadow of the nuclear weapons stand-off position, one's sensitivity would be considerably heightened. I suggest, notwithstanding that, there is virtually no debate-contrary to what the media in Australia portrays- about nuclear power in most of those countries. The debate is about nuclear weapons. When the subject is portrayed in the media in Australia, particularly the electronic media, it comes through as if the protests are against nuclear energy and nuclear power. This is where one of the major unfortunate confusions in the nature of the debate takes place. The technology of the 1980s is very different to the nuclear technology of the 1950s. Technology which is now available is subjected to incredible testing and safeguards. Recently I visited the Fromotome plant in France which builds high pressure water cylinders. It takes four years to build a cylinder, over half of which time is spent on testing to ensure the safety of the cylinders. For those who say that there is not much of a future for nuclear power energy, I can only say that something like 30 cylinders were being produced on the production line at that plant. Obviously Fromotome believes it has plenty of orders to fulfil. France has probably gone more strongly down the nuclear energy track than almost any other country. An extremely high percentage-43 per cent-of its power is now produced by nuclear power. It is moving towards a situation where, by 1990, 70 per cent of its electricity needs will be provided from that source. Senator Chipp —One of the most immoral countries in the world. Senator PETER RAE —Senator Chipp interjected about morality. I go back to the fact that I believe the burning of hydrocarbons and their being let loose on the world is an immoral act. I refer also to the huge growth which is planned in Japan in the development of nuclear power. A figure of 20.3 per cent of Japan's total requirements are already provided as a result of nuclear power. If there were any country which one would expect to be extremely sensitive to nuclear energy, to nuclear power, it would be the only country that has experienced a nuclear bomb. Yet last year Japan announced the expansion of a further 100 nuclear power plants as a program to the end of the century. Already 20 per cent of its power is provided from that source. I believe there are very genuine issues of concern such as proliferation, safety of operation and the question of waste disposal. As I have stated, I think there are ways in which these issues can be overcome. Rather than stopping Australia's participation in what will happen in any event and which would certainly remove our power to participate in making the likelihood of nuclear war and the misuse of the capacity of uranium less than it is now, we should strongly support the endeavours of our ally, the United States, in the disarmament negotiations which are taking place and will continue to take place. We should encourage the further development of waste disposal methods. In particular we should strongly support the further development of the synroc waste disposal method developed by Professor Ringwood and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. We should encourage the continued development of nuclear safeguards agreements and the extending of the participation in their enforcement. In semi-final conclusion I wish to quote the conclusions of the Methodist Church document from which I have already quoted. It states: In this chapter we have tried to present the essential conclusions of our two year study of nuclear power. In summary they are: i. Nuclear energy is an integral part of nature, just as much God's creation as sunshine and rain. ii. It does offer mankind a new energy source which is very large, convenient and not very costly. iii. Around the world the most important energy sources, oil in the rich world and wood in the poor, are becoming scarce, so that we cannot afford to set aside any energy technology with large potential which is cost effective, provided it is reasonably safe. iv. There are risks associated with the use of nuclear power, as with everything else, but these have been very carefull evaluated, are not very big and are not at all out of scale compared with risks of other energy sources and other ordinary hazards. Finally, I quote from page 19 of Professor Ringwood's paper to which I have referred. The paper states: There are very few areas of major enterprise where Australia has the capacity to play a strategic role on the world scene and exercise a degree of International leadership. The nuclear fuel cycle is one such area. If we fail to accept this challenge, we would be abandoning our responsibilities to the remainder of the world, and simultaneously sabotaging our national interests. I endorse and accept the words of Professor Ringwood. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for the consideration of General Business having expired, the debate is interrupted. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the second reading speech. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to continue bounty assistance during 1983-84 to the manufacturer in Australia of certain refrigerated room air conditioners. The Temporary Assistance Authority (TAA), in its report No. 62 of 7 June 1983 entitled 'Certain Room Air Conditioning Machines' recommended that bounty assistance continue during 1983-84 at the same rates and limits that applied in 1982-83. The Government has decided to continue bounty assistance on locally produced room air conditioners for a further 12 months to 30 June 1984. An additional $1,500,000 is to be made available for bounty payments during this period. Bounty will be paid on room air conditioning machines of a portable or fixed window type designed primarily for use without ducting and having a nominally rated cooling capacity of 5.4 kilowatts or less. The rates of bounty are $60 for smaller units not exceeding 3.528 kilowatts cooling capacity and $90 for larger units. The Email owned Kelvinator plant in Adelaide has been subjected to severe import competition, and the extension of the bounty is designed to assist the company to secure sales of their locally produced air conditioners. However, given existing high levels of imported stocks, the bounty may do little to assist Email contain competition from new imports in 1983-84. Accordingly, the Government has also introduced import restraints for 1983-84 by a tariff quota limiting imports for that period to 55 per cent of the 1982-83 level. These combined temporary measures-bounty and tariff quota-are considered essential if the local industry is to regain economies of scale to ensure its future viability. Without them there would be a significant risk that local manufacture could cease and thus the bounty already accorded and production investment made by the company would have been wasted. The cost of the additional bounty is $1, 500,000 in 1983-84 and there are no direct offset savings. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Consideration resumed. GROUP B Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $653,298,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.49) —Earlier I asked the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) whether he could give me the total cost for public information in the area of social security. I said also that some cost must have been involved in relation to the Department of the Special Minister of State. The Minister suggested that I ask this question when the Committee is considering the estimates for that Department. I do not mind doing that, but I suggest that as the question relates to social welfare the Department of Social Security should get from the appropriation of the Department of the Special Minister of State any costs that accrue or are even connected with that Department. I ask it to do that for me. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.50) —I have no further comment to make. The expenditure that Senator Walters is talking about is in fact expenditure by the Department of the Special Minister of State. It is not easy with information of this type to single out that sort of expenditure. I dare say we can ask the Department of the Special Minister of State whether it can isolate such expenditure. I do not mind doing that. However, I think it would be more appropriate to ask this question when we are considering the estimates for that Department. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.51) —I have only one more question. Will the Minister get for me information in regard to the increase in staff in the permanent, part time and temporary areas of the departments of Social Security, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Housing and Construction and Health which are contained in group B? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.52) —We have given the honourable senator the figures on the estimated increased staffing in each area. Firstly, one of the problems is that many of the people who end up on the permanent staff in fact start off in a temporary capacity. Secondly, there is quite a high staff turnover in a department of this size which performs this sort of work. Thirdly, to give an example, people will be trained to carry out assessment work in the assets test area. As has been said, most of the increase in the staff will be in the initial period next year. A lot of those people in fact will eventually end up in the Department as natural attrition, resignations and all the other reasons for turnover occur. However, I will ask the Department to try to get out the sorts of figures that the honourable senator wants. Senator Walters —I want them for all departments in group B. Senator GRIMES —I will ask all the departments to do that. I am not too sure how easy that will be-that is all I am saying. I am not sure how significant the figures will be. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.53) —I would like to ask a question which relates to the increase in numbers. I think the Minister said there would be an increase of about 2,000. How many of these people are likely to be employed in the Australian Capital Territory? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.53) —I cannot give the honourable senator an answer now, but I will certainly find out if I can. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.54) —I was wondering, in a sense, whether there is likely to be recruitment from within the Australian Capital Territory or will people from other places come into the Australian Capital Territory? Canberra, as the Nation's Capital, should be easily accessible for all Australians, as well as for an increasing number of overseas visitors. Canberra's existing transport links with other Australian cities and towns are inadequate and not of a standard appropriate to Australia's Capital City or for a city of the size and importance of Canberra, the seventh largest city in Australia. Improvement of these links is now essential and overdue. It must be stated unequivocally that, in CARD's view, it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to provide adequate access to the National Capital. The report offers some comment on the sort of access that is essential. It states: That sufficient funds be provided to the A.C.T. (for example under the National Roads Grants Act) to ensure that road links are provided connecting Canberra to the regional and national road netword at a standard appropriate to the National Capital and a large regional centre. Specific recommendations in this regard are : continuation of the present program of upgrading the Hume, Federal and Barton Highways; and that greater priority be given to the provision of funds for the improvement of the King's Highway, Tumut Road, and Boboyan Road. It also mentions the need for funding for Canberra's airport to enable it to handle not only the increasing internal services but also international services . It also mentions the need for adequate rail access. It is in this context that I think we have to have regard to the Committee's comments and its disappointment that funds will not be available under the bicentennial road development program to ensure the duplication of the Federal Highway between Canberra and Goulburn and that it is most unlikely that that project will be completed in time for the bicentennial celebrations in 1988. I regard it as an absolute disgrace. I have put questions on notice to the Minister for Transport in order to get further information on this matter. I think it is important that the Minister take this matter up urgently on behalf of the people of Canberra. It is important that Canberra's members of Parliament take this matter up with their colleagues in the New South Wales Labor Government. I cannot imagine how the situation can continue whereby Labor governments in New South Wales and in Canberra would allow Canberra to be treated in such a shabby way. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.54) —I have no doubt in the world, and I am advised, that there will be some of both. However, I dare say that, as is usual, a large percentage will be recruited in the Australian Capital Territory. People will be employed in central office in the Australian Capital Territory. They will also be employed in the large offices in Sydney and Melbourne. The number employed in these cities will depend a bit on the relative percentage of pensioners in each State. The training and other functions that are the concern of central office will mean that there will be an increase in the number of staff in the Australian Capital Territory. However, I will seek to obtain an exact breakdown for the honourable senator. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.55) —What is the situation in regard to space in the Department's present accommodation? Is more office space needed for expansion? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.55) —I think the accommodation situation in respect of all Department of Social Security offices is the same as that of other departments-it is tight. As Senator Reid would know , we are to have new buildings in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) has announced that new buildings are to be built in most States. In recent times there has been a great increase in the staff of the Department partly because of the considerable and sudden increase in the number of unemployment beneficiaries and because of the usual increase in the number of other forms of pension beneficiaries. The situation varies from offices that could be described as satisfactory to offices such as the one at Maroubra in Sydney that no one could consider satisfactory. A considerable program of improvement of accommodation is going on. It has already been anticipated that improvements will have to be made in regard to the introduction of the new automatic data processing system-Stratplan. All I can say is that I am not happy with the situation which is tight in many cases. These are hard times. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.56) —I draw attention to that section of the report of Estimates Committee B which relates to the question of special funds of some $53m, $20m of which was allocated by the Department of Finance to the Department of Social Security for the purpose of establishing staff and facilities for the introduction of the assets test. It became evident during Estimates committee hearings that the Department of Social Security did not know of the composition of or the purpose for which this $20m had been allocated until after the Budget had been presented and after there had been an announcement about the assets test. The point I want to make here is that clearly the Department of Finance had determined how much of this so-called special fund was to be set aside for the use of the Department of Social Security. However, it came out in evidence that the permanent head of the Department of Social Security indicated that he in fact had not sought the funds prior to the Budget and in fact quite clearly the total had been determined outside his own control. As I understand it, he was not clear, at the time the Budget was brought down, what this money was going to be used for. I think this highlights the point that was made during the debate on this matter last night, that in fact there was a great deal of haste on the part of the Government in the putting together of the assets test in the final days before the presentation of the Budget. Consequently the Department of Social Security clearly was not aware of how much money it was going to need to establish the assets test. Consequently, its role in determining this matter is brought very clearly into question. The other aspect of the problem I want to raise is specifically mentioned in the report of the Estimates Committee. I think it is worth quoting from the report just to draw attention to the problem that I think is raised by this matter. The report states: Finally, the Committee questions the practice of seeking funds for the assets test under the vote for the ordinary annual services of the Government which is not subject to amendment by the Senate. It goes on: The assets test is clearly a new program and its initial funding should have been included in either Appropriation Bill (No. 2) which is intended, in part, for the funding of new policies or otherwise in a subsequent Appropriation Bill which could be introduced when the purposes for which the funds are required have been identified to the Parliament and the program approved by the Parliament. The point that needs to be made straight away is that the device that was used to create an allocation of about $53m, part of which was to be used for the establishment of the assets test under the votes of the Department of Social Security, was included in this manner in the Estimates even though there had been no passage through the Parliament of the necessary legislation establishing the assets test. The report clearly demonstrates that a very significant question arises because, while Parliament is allocating funds by legislation for the purpose of establishing an assets test, there can be no guarantee that the necessary legislation establishing the assets test will be passed by the Parliament. I am not in any way indicating what position may be taken on policy or what the fate of such legislation may be. I am only drawing attention to the fact that surely the Department of Finance would be used to handling sums of money in accordance with the normal Treasury requirements so that the proper formalities for dealing with the funding of new programs by the Government are met and the Parliament has a full debate on programs before funds are allocated to it. This program has got under way with the allocation of $20m. Of course, there has been a pre-emption of this Parliament's role in determining the question of policy in that funds have already been allocated. I think that requires some answer. I draw the Minister's attention to the Estimates Committee report on this matter. The Chairman, Senator Giles, is present in the chamber. I am sure that she would agree that this matter needs some answers. Advances are made by the Minister for Finance from time to time for various urgent and unforeseen needs. That system of funding for particular needs is a well-defined one and one for which guidelines are very clearly laid down. Reports must be made to the Parliament on the nature of the expenditure, albeit after the event. But the guidelines stipulate that the allocation must be for urgent and unforeseen matters. It is a different matter when a special fund for a particular purpose is established. For allocations from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, a seemingly less important area, there are strict guidelines yet, in this case, where the Government has decided upon a new program, funds have been allocated well in advance of the determination of the program. I believe that the Parliament should be concerned about funds being allocated in this fashion. During Question Time today Senator Gietzelt made a personal explanation about a statement that I made about him last night. It related to the naming of certain millionaire service pensioners who would be caught by the assets test but who are currently eligible for a pension. He made the point that I had challenged him to have the courage of his convictions and that he had squibbed on naming people when he had previously claimed that he would do so. It is true, on looking at my files, that I cannot directly attribute that remark to Senator Gietzelt. But I draw his attention to an article which appeared in the Age on 14 July this year. It was a report upon a speech he gave to the Victorian branch of the Returned Services League. The report said: Senator Gietzelt is expected to release during the next session of Parliament the names of particular veterans said to be exploiting the pensions system. They are believed to include distinguished members of the community. The rest of the article referred to people with very substantial assets and millionaires. It is true that I cannot directly link that remark with something that Senator Gietzelt said because it is a report of something that he was expected to do. If I cast some slur on his character in my statement last night I certainly apologise. However, I have not seen any denial of or challenge to that article. I think I came to a natural conclusion. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —Senator Messner, you are supposed to be debating the Estimates and not other matters. Senator MESSNER —Indeed I am. There is only one other matter I would like to raise in connection with the Estimates and that is the matter of identity cards for social security recipients. I noted some debate on this matter yesterday in the House of Representatives. My attention was drawn to the remarks of the honourable member for Darling Downs, Mr McVeigh. I perused a transcript of an AM program some weeks ago and the following reply by Mr Snow, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, to a question from Michael Dodd: If that doesn't work then I think we'd have to look at the possibility having identity cards so that people can be listed with a number for instance that would indicate that they are receiving a social security benefit, they have to produce that identity card, and if that was done I think it would be much easier for governments to tell where there are abuses of the system. I think Mr Willis, in his remarks yesterday in the House of Representatives, completely repudiated this suggestion in respect of identity cards. However, his remarks were limited to the unemployed. I ask the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes): Is that the Government's position in respect of all social security recipients? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.08) —I suppose I should deal with the last point first; that would be easiest. I am certainly aware of Mr Snow's remarks on the AM program in which he seemed to advocate the view that if the present methods for cutting down on social security fraud were not successful we should introduce identity cards for the unemployed. I make it perfectly clear, as I made it clear to Mr Snow at the time, that that is not government policy and it is certainly not my policy. In answer to a question in the Senate the other day I said that there is all the difference in the world between having a system like that which exists, for instance, in the United States of America, where everyone from the President right down to the latest new-born child has a social security number, and the sort of thing that is being advocated by Mr McVeigh and, I think, on face value, by Mr Snow-that we provide identity cards to disadvantaged groups in the community. I am always amused, as I said the other day, at the Opposition's attitude to this sort of thing. We have frequently heard Opposition members, particularly members of the National Party of Australia, advocating the view that unemployment beneficiaries and pensioners and others should have cards to identify themselves and to single them out from the rest of the community. Yet at the same time with the introduction of Medibank and Medicare, when people had Medibank and Medicare numbers for the convenience of the accounting system, this was painted by Mr Fraser, Mr Anthony and others as somehow returning to the days of nazi Germany and identity cards. I really think the situation of the Government is clear. We have no intention of introducing identity cards for unemployment beneficiaries or others. There is no proposal of that type before the Government at the moment, nor do we have any intention of introducing social security numbers a la the United States for everyone in the community. That is our position. I do not know what the Opposition's position is. It depends on who talks and who says things. Mr Snow had a view. Mr Snow, as honourable senators know, is the honourable member for Eden-Monaro in another place. He had a view about one group in the community. That was his personal view and it is certainly not the view of the Australian Labor Party or the Government. Let me go back to Senator Messner's initial remarks about the assets test and how it came about and about division 312 of the Estimates, which covers the special funds for expenditure in relation to government programs at the direction of the Minister for Finance. I do not know how many times I have said this, but I will say it again now: Senator Messner's assertion that the assets test was conceived in haste in the last week or 10 days before the Budget is just not correct. It is not true and I do not think I need to say more than that . Just because Senator Messner says it every time he gets on his feet in this place does not make it true. The matter of assets tests and all the other options in the incomes policy was one for consideration of Cabinet, of Cabinet committees and working parties for a considerable time-in fact practically from the time we got into government. Senator Messner can feed his prejudices by making assertions like this over and over again as much as he likes. Of course, that is what Dr Goebbels and Adolf Hitler did. The more one repeats a lie and the bigger the lie the more one hopes it will be true. But he will be no more successful in the long run than Goebbels or Hitler were in their little efforts. I repeat that the assets test was given proper consideration. I repeat that it was not conceived in haste in the last week or fortnight before the Budget, nor has it been hastily conceived since. It was done in this way so we could consult with various members of the community and various pensioner organisations. As I say, I cannot stop Senator Messner saying it, but if he wants to bore everyone to tears with that sort of assertion, fair enough. As for division 312-this other area of the Estimates which Senator Messner has such a problem with-in the past where new or extended programs have been approved for introduction late in the Budget context, where the decision is made for introduction later on in the year, additional staffing requirements of administering departments have often been considered by the Public Service Board after the Budget with the salaries and related administrative costs being funded from the Advance to the Minister for Finance pending the Additional Estimates. We all know that and we all go through it every year. The Additional Estimates contain what has come from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. It is believed, and I think has been believed in the Department of Finance and Treasury for some time, that this practice can adversely effect the integrity of the Budget Estimates and so for the 1983-84 Budget progress was made towards the integration of staffing and financial estimates such that where time permitted it, administration costs associated with new or extended programs were provide under the departments concerned. Where inefficient time precluded specific allocations, bulk provision was made under division 312. That was the $53m that Senator Messner is talking about. Senator Messner seems to be under the illusion that no one in the Department of Social Security knew about this or knew how much money was coming or where it was coming from. In fact he first asked Mr Calvert, an officer from my Department, in the Estimates Committee hearing what it was all about. Mr Calvert said that the $20m was to cover the assets testing and that he had had it communicated to him in broad terms consequent upon the introduction of the Budget. That was Mr Calvert's situation. He answered accurately-particularly so. Mr Ayers-he is the Director- General and he knew-later on pointed out that under the new arrangements the Department of Social Security had made a particular bid for the particular share of the breakup of that money to cope with the assets test situation. It was not as though the Department of Finance suddenly came along and said: 'We will throw you $20m.' The decision was not made off the top of the head. It was made because it had been informed of the potential cost and the staffing problems associated with the assets test. So we have the situation where insufficient time precluded the specific allocation; this bulk provision was made under division 312. As the amounts not allocated were known to relate to salary and related administrative costs it was considered that parliamentary control and scrutiny would best be served by making a specific provision rather than utilising the more anonymous Advance to the Minister for Finance. We have the previous situation of the Advance to the Minister for Finance which we all find out about in the Additional Estimates, when we all try to sort out what has gone where. In this situation there is a specific allocation in division 312 which is brought before the Estimates Committee, which is brought before the Parliament, and there is nothing anonymous about it. If there was something anonymous about it Senator Messner would not be able to talk about this $20m. Particulars of the allocations made to specific departments under the provision of this division 312 must be submitted to the Parliament as soon as practicable. Now I do not see anything anonymous or mysterious or dangerous about that sort of situation. We know that a large part, some $20m, is likely to be required by the Department of Social Security, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Administrative Services for administrative support in respect of the pensions assets test. But no final decisions have been made on the allocation of any part of the $53m provision and determination cannot be formally made in respect of division 312 until the Bill has been enacted. Surely that is a sensible approach and that is a practical way to go about it. If we had said in the chamber: 'We are going to introduce an assets test. We know it will cost a few bob to introduce. We know we will need more staff. We know we are going to have to train them and we know we will have all these administrative costs but we are not going to tell you what it is likely to cost or where it fits into the Budget situation because the legislation has not been passed', we would have had Senator Messner saying: 'You are outrageous. You are coming into this place and introducing a new program; you are going to sneak the money out of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and you are not telling us everything.' Senator Messner cannot have it both ways, although he tries. Senator Messner —I did not use that kind of language at all; I was seeking an explanation. Senator GRIMES —That is the implication of what he is saying. He is getting an explanation. Senator Messner —I thank you for it. Senator GRIMES —Good, that is terrific. The Chairman of the Public Service Board advised heads of departments and relevant authorities of the approved average staffing levels for 1983-84 and, where applicable, suggested that where additional responsibilities cannot be absorbed within approved levels their Ministers should submit details to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. Division 312 relates only to departmental salaries and related costs of departmental administration and is thus included in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in line with normal practice; program expenditures in relation to new initiatives have been provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 2). This normal practice is consistent with the Compact of 1965 on Ordinary Annual Services of the Government and has been followed ever since that time. I am not aware of any previous instances of departmental salaries and administrative expenses having been provided in other than the Ordinary Annual Services Bill. While the report of the Committee of Government Senators on 'Appropriation Bills and the Ordinary Annual Services of the Government', which formed the basis of the 1965 Compact, dealt primarily with matters that should be excluded from the Ordinary Annual Services Bill, it is clear from the context of the report that salaries, et cetera, were regarded as ordinary annual services and that program expenditures on new policies were not; I think that is an important distinction. For example, paragraph 58 states: Those quotations give support to three propositions -(1) That ordinary annual expenses are those for the general upkeep of the Government, including the salaries of public servants; (2) That new works and undertakings should be separated from the ordinary annual expenses; and (3) That appropriations for new policies should not be tacked to the annual Appropriation Bill. It is for that reason that I believe the perfectly reasonable practice of introducing appropriations in this area of division 312 was made. I do not think there is anything mysterious about it. I think it is quite wrong of Senator Messner to give the impression that this was something that was done by the Department of Finance with the Department of Social Security in ignorance. The individual officer who was asked the question first was not in a position to know how much money was involved. But clearly there was discussion between the Department of Finance and between those concerned in the Department as well as to what the amount was likely to be. I believe that this is a perfectly satisfactory way for the Parliament to be able to look at and debate expenditure of this type. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.21) —I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for his comments. All I am really seeking is the Government's explanation in relation to this matter. The report of the Estimates Committee, of course, spells out the relative clauses of the various finance guidelines, and so on, and it is for that reason that I sought to raise this matter. I think I have obtained a quite satisfactory reply from the Minister. I hope that he does not jump at shadows in this way in other circumstances. The other question I wanted to ask is in connection with the payment of unemployment benefit. It relates to the number of recipients that are anticipated in this financial year. I know that this matter was raised last night and was followed, too, by my colleague, Senator Chaney. I think that where we left the matter last night was that the Minister had indicated that the average level of unemployment benefit recipients in this financial year would be of the order of 680,000 but that he expected a somewhat lower average figure through the financial year. I do not challenge that at all. The question I should like to ask the Minister is whether it is expected, on his best estimates , that there will be a considerably lower figure in this year. What information can he help us with in determining what the average level may be? I should also like an estimate of the year end figure as at 30 June 1984. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.24) —I bought into the debate on the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations estimates yesterday because of the interesting phenomena that unemployment beneficiaries are now down to about 601,400-that figure is approximate; I do not have the figures before me at the moment-whereas, as Senator Messner says, the estimated average for the year by Treasury in the Budget was 680,000. I said that this was a hopeful sign but not something that I was going to get excited about and that in fact we were levelling off a bit in our unemployment benefit payments, although I am aware that the number of unemployment beneficiaries will go up in the new year, particularly with the school leavers coming on to the employment market. I hoped that the number of beneficiaries would be less than the average of 680,000. I think we would all welcome that, as Senator Chaney did yesterday, if it happens, because the estimate for unemployment benefits this year is something like $1 billion up on the year before. At the moment, Treasury, which has the responsibility for these estimates and which draws up these estimates on advice from other departments, has the matter under review. But the estimate in the Budget has not been changed and the Department of Social Security has not been notified that that estimate has been altered downwards. I hope it is. I hope it is a portent of things to come. As I say, I have been around long enough in this place to know that one swallow does not make a spring. I would rather see what happens in the next few weeks and months, as I think we all would. The Department gets the numbers and pays the money. Apart from internal purposes to attempt to try to anticipate what the work load will be, the Department does not have a unit which can accurately assess figures in a forward way. From the efforts in the last few years, at least since I have been in the Parliament, I doubt whether anyone has. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.26) —I have only one question left. I refer to an answer I received when I was talking about the health card and the issuing of the health card to children under 16 years of age or dependent children. When I asked for some statistics, in answer to my question Mr Ayers said: We do not keep separate statistics- this was in regard to children in certain areas- but my impression from visiting regional offices is that there are very few that I am aware of in this situation. Indeed, the Department does keep statistics. I found out that until February 1983, 5,248 health cards were issued for children under 16 years of age. Of those 1,339 were issued to children under 16 years of age who were on special benefits. I felt that that matter should be brought to the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). When we were talking about the present system of health cards for children under 16 years of age and the new system to come in with Medicare, at page 142 of the transcript of Estimates Committee B, the Minister said: But I would like to emphasise also that there has been no change in policy, as far as I know, between this Government and previous governments, as to this matter. His meaning was a bit ambiguous but I was talking about the difference between the two methods of issuing cards to children. I can assure him that there is quite a big difference. Under the proposed Medicare scheme any child who wants a card can get a card. Indeed, as Senator Grimes has said today, anyone from the Prime Minister down can get a card. Under the previous Government's policy, that was not possible. I should like to point out that there is a big difference between the two policies, and I should like to point out to Mr Ayers that the Department does keep statistics. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me if I am wrong. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.28) —I have no comment on the latter point. I am glad that the Department keeps statistics, and I will certainly chase that up. I certainly realise that such statistics would be kept, particularly for children on special and other benefits. I will follow that up with interest. We need all the statistics and data base that we can get. I do not want to go into debate on the under 14 years of age cards that we went through in the Estimates Committee and in this place. I repeat what I said before: The provision of those cards does not alter State laws or licensing laws for doctors on who can be treated, at what age they can be treated, what treatment they can have and whether they can be treated with or without their parents' permission. Medicare is a system of simplifying the method of collection of the fees and the benefits available under the system. I make the remark that I made earlier: I hope Senator Walters does not think that the introduction of Medicare will result in thousands of 14-year-olds around the country running to the doctor and getting contraceptives or whatever else people may be worried they are getting. I do not believe this is true. I believe provision has to be made in the system for the odd case where children need treatment. I do not really anticipate any problem in this area nor do I think it heralds the breakdown of our society. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.31) —I did not expect that sort of sarcasm from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). I was pointing out that he said ' policy'. It was nothing to do with legislation. I did not suggest that legislation had to be altered to include the new scheme. I said that the Minister had said: . . . I would like to emphasise also that there has been no change in policy . . . There has indeed been a change in policy. I agree with him. I am pleased that statistics are available. It was only because Mr Ayers told me there were no statistics that I followed it up and I found that indeed there were statistics. I was bringing this to the attention of the Minister. I did not expect him to say that he hoped I did not think that thousands of children would be seeking contraceptives. I sincerely hope not. As a medical man he would know that promiscuous young children have a great health problem. He, like me, would sincerely hope that that would not be the case. That was not the question I posed. If he wishes to rant about that because he is feeling a little testy, that is his problem. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $153,455,000. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.32) —My question relates to the document that was presented in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, 1 November which contained a statement from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). The cover was headed: 'Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Labor's Policies in Action'. My question-debate in the House of Representatives does not reveal this very clearly-is: Who is responsible for this cover to the statement? Was it the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as the cover seems to indicate? At what cost has it been produced? How many covers have been produced? What is the intention regarding circulation of this document? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.34) —I am informed by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that this document was produced by that Department. The number of copies printed was 370. The cost of the materials was $50, the covers being $28. The cost, including labour and overheads was $200. Twelve copies with covers were sent direct to the Table Office by the Department; 150 copies were sent to the House of Representatives with covers direct from the Department; 80 copies were given to the Press Gallery; and a further 150 copies are being produced without covers for the Senate, at my request. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.35) — That possibly explains why the statement was available so late to honourable senators. It was my intention to raise this matter yesterday at the time of the tabling of papers but we did not reach this item on the list. Whilst I know this may not be specifically relevant to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, although it partially involves the printing of its report, this report was not available to honourable senators until 5.30 p.m. yesterday afternoon, 2 November. It had been tabled 24 hours earlier in the House of Representatives. I ask the Minister: On whose instruction did the Department produce a cover for a report which is nothing other than political propaganda? I accept that it is quite legitimate for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) to have said what he said in his statement. However, I cannot recall in nearly 10 years in the Senate a report being produced in a cover for the Press Gallery, members of the House of Representatives or anyone else that is very clearly a party political document. It is extremely unusual for any party in government. As I said, as far as I am aware it is unique in my experience to produce a cover for a document like this which, as it is presented and as the statement stands, a party manifesto. I would like to know on whose instructions or advice this cover was produced by the Department. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.36) —I am informed, that the document was produced in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) saw the final draft without the cover. It was produced by the Department. In view of the flack that arose from it I think the Minister would prefer that it had not been done. I think Senator Martin is drawing a long bow when she says that that sort of thing has not happened before. It has happened in different forms. Senator Walters —Come on, tell us how. Senator GRIMES —I am about to tell you, Senator Walters, do not be too anxious. I can remember a document produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs that had no fewer than nine photographs of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs in it. I can remember documents of this type in the past. I make no bones about it. I am the spokesman on immigration in this place. When I saw the document I asked that copies be produced for the Senate without the cover before I knew there was any fuss about it in the House of Representatives. We all make errors of judgment. Someone in the Department made an error of judgment. I do not think anyone will be too excited about that sort of thing happening. I am sure it will not happen again. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.38) —I wish to make one comment. The present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) gets his photograph in publications of the Department of Foreign Affairs and no objection has been raised to that. That is not the same situation as this. In the House of Representatives, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), said: As far as the cover is concerned, I did not authorise the distribution of the cover in this House. From the answer the Minister has given on the number of covers printed and their distribution, I take it that the Minister so far as he was aware of the cover only meant it for Press Gallery distribution plus 150 extra copies which were going somewhere or other. The matter may well have been an embarrassment to the Minister. One gets that feeling from reading the debate in the House of Representatives. However, it was not clear from the debate in the House of Representatives who had authorised or was responsible for the publication. It is extremely unusual for a department of the Public Service which is meant to be apolitical apparently to initiate, according to what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has said, a party political document like this. I point out to Senator Grimes that I would have absolutely no objection to this cover if the crest of the Commonwealth and the words 'Immigration and Ethnic Affairs' were not on it and it had been printed by the Australian Labor Party-- Senator Peter Baume —And paid for by the Labor Party. Senator MARTIN —And paid for by the Labor Party and distributed by the Labor Party in the proper way. I certainly hope that this is the last example of this sort of thing emanating from the Department. I do not know whether I have understood correctly the comments of the Minister for Social Security, but they came across to me as though the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was unaware of this cover, to a certain point, and certainly unaware that it was to be circulated to members of the House of Representatives. That is not surprising , because he might have expected some embarrassment-the embarrassment that he got when it actually went into the hands of members of the House of Representatives. Have the covers been removed from a number of reports for circulation? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.40) —First, let me say that if the previous Government had produced a document such as that, I would have been the first person to get stuck into that Government. I am not justifying it. It will not happen again. Secondly, it is my understanding that when the objections were raised, covers were removed from at least a large number of those that had not been distributed. As I say, when they hit the deck in this place, I had the covers removed before they were distributed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.41) —Are there copies of the report out in the community as is? That is what I am concerned about. We can take the Labor policies bit, but the community would not be aware of the tragedy of that sort of thing. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.41) —I think there are 370. I do not think there would be too many out in the community. I am sure that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) would want the document to be distributed in the community, because he stands by the contents if not by the cover. I am told by the officers that about 500 will be produced to go out to the community. I shall obtain further information as to whether they are supposed to have covers and who will print them. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.42) —As I understand the report, it is being printed in 11 languages, which is not an unreasonable number with a report on immigration policies. So one assumes that copies of this statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) are going to leaders of ethnic communities. Are they going in these covers printed at the Government's expense when they should have been printed at the expense of the Australian Labor Party? There was a suggestion in debate in the House of Representatives that this document might be circulated within the electorate of Moreton some time this week. Is the Minister aware whether that has happened? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.43) —Not to the knowledge of the officers present. I shall also seek that information for the honourable senator. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Housing and Construction Proposed expenditure, $313,106,000. $ Housing and Construction 313,106,000 Buildings and Works (Defence) 150,538, 000 Repairs and Maintenance (Defence) 77,916,000 Housing for Servicemen ( Defence) 5,300,000 Buildings and Works (Defence Support) 59,331,000 Repairs and Maintenance (Defence Support) 13,823,000 Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $493,045,000. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.44) —When the Income Tax Laws Amendment ( Medicare Levy) Bill 1983 was debated in this chamber, Senator Baume, on behalf of the Opposition, raised an anomaly with regard to members of the defence forces who are receiving free or government-paid medical and hospital benefits. The general provision under Medicare is that such employees of the defence services are exempt from paying the one per cent Medicare levy. However, if they have dependent members of their family, they will need to contribute half of the normal levy. If, in addition, the other spouse in the family is earning an income, that spouse has to pay a one per cent levy on that spouse's own income. This extra financial penalty on such a serviceman's family was referred to on 22 September by Senator Baume, and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes ) then adequately and fully responded with the benefit of advice available then to the Government. However, since that time this anomaly has continued to be discussed in the community and, I understand, within the Government. I shall not ask about Cabinet minutes, and so on, but I understand-and it is the understanding of many within the community-that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is concerned about this anomaly and has requested the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in writing, to solve the anomaly. My question is: Has the government reconsidered this anomaly? Is it the case that such a one per cent levy will not now be required from the spouse of a serviceman? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.46) —First, I have no knowledge that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or anyone else has asked the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) about this matter, and I have some difficulty in knowing what the anomaly is. Servicemen have, as part of their pay and conditions, free health care. Therefore, when they signed up in the forces, part of their pay and conditions was free health care. Therefore, there is a perfectly valid argument, put forward by them and accepted by us, that they should not pay the levy, because that would be asking them to pay a levy on top. However, if servicemen have dependent wives and children, under their conditions of pay the dependents do not get free medical treatment. A serviceman at present would take out health insurance to cover those people. It is reasonable that they pay half the levy if they have dependants in those circumstances, because the pay and conditions of servicemen do not cover their wives and dependants. If a serviceman's spouse is earning a taxable income, for the life of me I cannot see that it is an anomaly that the spouse should have to pay the one per cent levy when everyone else in the community has to pay it, with the specific exception of the serviceman who has it as part of his pay and conditions. So I do not know what the anomaly is. All that I can say is that I will seek the information. I have no knowledge of it myself. I can recall no stage in the Cabinet discussions at which the Treasurer or the Minister for Health has discussed this matter since it was settled some time ago, and I understand that the officers present know nothing about it at all. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.48) —Perhaps I may clarify the anomaly as I see it. Let us compare two families-a serviceman who has a wife and no children, and another serviceman who has a wife and no children. The difference between the two couples is that one wife is working and the other wife is not working. With respect to the non-working wife, the serviceman husband, say, is required to pay half of the levy in respect of his dependent spouse. With the other family, the working wife is paying one per cent of her income and the serviceman is required to pay half of the one per cent of his income towards the Medicare levy. If the spouse is working, there is a double contribution. That is a real anomaly. I understand that there has been concern about this not only within the community but also within the Cabinet. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.50) —I will clarify that position for the honourable senator. It is my understanding that the serviceman with the dependent spouse pays half the Medibank levy, but the serviceman without a dependent spouse-in other words, a serviceman whose spouse is working-does not pay half the levy. The spouse pays the one per cent levy on her income. That is my understanding. I may be wrong. It certainly would seem anomolous on the surface. I will clarify the situation for the honourable senator by seeking some information. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(6.51) —During the hearings for Estimates Committee B I asked several questions. I was concerned about people working with dangerous substances such as pollutants. The Department of Health was kind enough to provide me with information. Referring to workers who are working with materials that are dangerous, I asked: Does the Department inform workers of how dangerous they are and what precautions should be taken? The Department has supplied me with a list of products, chemicals and other things that are dangerous. I appreciate its doing so. I further asked about occupational health matters. I said: My experience in the work force is that no information goes out to the people who are actually doing work in areas where great dangers exist . . . The Department has also supplied me with a list with probably thousands of names and addresses of people and unions to whom they supply details about dangerous chemicals and substances. But on further examining this matter by asking people working with dangerous substances, I found that they are still not getting that information. I ask the Minister: Can he look into this matter and see that the people actually on the work floor receive this material? In some instances the unions are supplying it; in other instances, because of the many areas of work, they cannot. The information gets lost along the way. Management does not always put this material up for workers to read. It is my experience that people in the work force are not getting the information. I believe it is essential for everyone in the community to try to reduce the number of instances regarding compensation, especially among those working with dangerous materials. I simply ask the Minister whether he could look at this question and see what further provision can be made. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.53) —I think all honourable senators would share the concern expressed by Senator Elstob about the availability to workers of information on dangerous substances. When the Minister answers the points raised it would be helpful if he could advise us of Commonwealth and State responsibilities in this area, and how we can work to get the best kind of advice sent out and a proper recognition of the area of responsibility. It seems to me that one of the problems here may be jurisdictional. Perhaps that is not the right term, but it is a problem of where responsibility rests and how one lines up that responsibility with the goal which Senator Elstob seeks to achieve . Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.54) —Senator Elstob has raised a very important question. Many more hours are lost in this country every year from industrial accidents and industrial illnesses than are ever lost from industrial disputes. One of the problems is the great complexity and diversity of industrial processes, and the rapid changes in them. I think Senator Elstob is correct when he says that in a lot of cases some of the accidents and some of the difficulties arise out of ignorance by workers of how to use or get involved in processes because the information simply does not get to them. I think an answer given to Senator Elstob pointed out that the National Health and Medical Research Council has an occupational health publication which is spread fairly widely to the community, but obviously that is not satisfactory. As Senator Baume says, the problem is also one of jurisdiction-I think ' jurisdictional' is probably as good a word as any in this case. In many cases the responsibility is shared particularly between States-in some cases local government bodies as to regulations, for example-and the Commonwealth Government as to the introduction of toxic chemicals and the like. Thus there is a certain amount of confusion as to who is responsible for getting the information out. The Government is very conscious of this. One of the reasons that the Interim Council for Industrial Safety and Health was established by the Minister for Health was so that we could take a rational and more co-ordinated approach at all levels of government, industry and unions to this very real problem, a problem which bedevils all industrial countries. I hope that out of that initiative and new approach would come a better look at how we can get the information to and educate the people at the work face, who are the people, as Senator Elstob said, who suffer in these circumstances. I think there is a much greater consciousness now than there was in the past about the dangers and potential dangers in many areas. I hope that, by a combination of efforts of unions, government and industry and more co-operation, we will reach a more satisfactory situation. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(6.57) —My comments relate to the issue of Medicare cards. There are two points I want to raise. The first one relates to the system of issue. As I understand it, householders are being asked to fill in forms and send them back, whereupon they are sent the appropriate type of Medicare card. There is an exception, I gather, that applies to people who happen to have private health insurance with Medibank Private. These people are being sent Medicare cards directly. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. I make a comment on behalf of at least some percentage of Medibank Private subscribers. I can understand one of the reasons that that procedure would have been undertaken. It would have saved the expense of sending out the form and handling the paperwork when it came back. However, there are two issues which arise. One is that that card is effective as from 1 February 1984 and that system has given those people who happen to be subscribers to Medibank Private no opportunity at all to make whatever adjustments they might have had in mind between now and 1 February 1984 for the issue of their cards. For example, it is possible that some Medibank Private subscribers are about to go from a single rate to a family rate. They now have to go through all the loopholes and red tape of getting an adjustment to a card when it could have been done at the same time as a card was applied for. I would also like to know upon what basis Medibank Private took it upon itself to provide its list of subscribers to anyone. I am sure that when people have subscribed to Medibank Private they have believed they were subscribing on the same basis as they would have subscribed to any other private health fund; that is, that their decision to subscribe to that health fund would have between them and the health fund, and not between them and the Government. Details of their medical insurance-namely the type of insurance, whether single or family or whatever-have been handed over by a private health fund to government. That is not a particularly sinister sort of action in this case, as it happens, but one which is right out of order. As a subscriber to Medibank Private, I was unaware that my health fund had taken it upon itself to give to the Government certain personal information. Certainly, the health fund did not inform its subscribers that it was going to do that. The second point I want to raise relates to some information that has come my way on the issue of Medicare cards. I do not know how this could have happened. Perhaps the Minister or his officers could illuminate us. If they cannot, perhaps they can do some careful checking of this automatic issue of Medicare cards. I have been informed by one of my constituents that her family has had staying with it a visitor from overseas who came to Australia for medical treatment that was not available in the country the person came from, a Pacific country. This week a Medicare card arrived at that home for this citizen of the other country who has since returned home. Senator Walters —For all next year. Senator MARTIN —Yes, that is right. It is valid from 1 February 1984. One wonders how this could have happened, and one wonders in how many cases it happened. I wonder whether the Minister could illuminate us a little on the system of issuing Medicare cards and as to how a non-Australian citizen, not a member of a medical benefits fund, could receive medical treatment in Australia and receive a Medicare card. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.01) —First of all, the Medicare card is a card with a name and a number on it and it facilitates the processing of health insurance claims. It does not do any more than that. Secondly, the Health Insurance Commission is running Medicare. It sent out cards to those who were members of Medibank Private because it has their names and addresses and whatever other details are needed and an identity card can be provided in that way. The Commission also sent out cards to pensioners using names and addresses obtained from the social security system. I cannot understand what the honourable senator means by a breach of privacy in this area . I think there may have been a misconception in what she was saying. I assume that when she says people may want to adjust their status between now and February, she means that they may want to get married or unmarried or change their name, or something like that. Senator Walters —Or maybe give birth to a child. Senator GRIMES —Sure, and if they have a child between now and February and they want that child's name on the card, they can go in and have that done. They can adjust it as much as they like. It is only a card with a number to facilitate the claiming of health insurance. It does not do anything magical. As I have said in the past, it does not entitle one to health care and the absence of a Medicare card does not stop one from getting health care under the Medicare system. It is a means of facilitation. As for the person from overseas who got a card, I do not know how that happened . I will try to find that out for Senator Martin. I suggest that in the distribution of the millions of cards which will obviously be necessary the odd thing like that will happen. It is hard to imagine how it did happen but I suppose that person could have been on-- Senator Walters —The mind boggles. Senator GRIMES —I do not think the mind boggles at all. That person would have been receiving some sort of assistance in Australia and the name came from those records. She may well have been a member of Medibank Private. That might be the reason for it happening. If a person from overseas is a member of Medibank Private, then the name may slip through the system. I would not have thought there was a huge number of those people. I will certainly find out how that might have happened and provide the information to Senator Martin. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(7.03) —I was unable, when the Estimates committees were meeting, to ask some questions in relation to the Department of Health; so on 20 September I put on the Notice Paper a series of questions relating to items which arose out of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts progress report on medical fraud and overservicing. Of particular concern to me was the 'pay-under' system. I have not yet received any information in relation to that. I am happy to await that information if it is to be coming shortly. Otherwise, I would now like to pursue the various items I raised in that question. If the Minister for Social Security is able to assure me that that answer will be forthcoming fairly rapidly, I will not pursue the matter now. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.04) —Fortunately, one of the officers here does know about Senator Macklin's question and assures me that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is in the process of giving him an answer. He expects it to be next week or the week after. I have no knowledge of the question. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.05) —Senator Grimes may recall that there was a lot of discussion in the Estimates Committee on the backlog in the processing of direct billing claims. I asked whether details in relation to the backlog of bulk bill claims on a State by State basis could be given, including the period of backlog and the number of claims made. I am surprised that the Department of Health would forget Tasmania, particularly as it has a Minister from Tasmania. I have the information from New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia , Western Australia, and Australia as a whole. I know for a fact that there is a backlog in Tasmania. I would be more than a little surprised if the Department does not know that Tasmanians are a little sensitive about being left out repeatedly, but if the Minister representing the Minister for Health cannot get across to the Department that Tasmania exists then I am just not quite sure how we can do it. Nevertheless, could I have the figures for Tasmania? There are a number of other questions on that matter, so perhaps including them now will save time. Is it a fact that a 'work to rule' or a 'go slow' is still going on in the Medibank claims processing centre at Moonee Ponds, Melbourne? Does that mean that there has been a serious deterioration in the processing time since I received these figures, which apply until 9 September 1983? Has the backlog grown? I have had a number of complaints, indeed ever since the Minister answered Senator Tate's question in the Senate about how wonderful it was all going to be when Medicare came in and there would no longer be any problem in this area. Complaints have continued to roll in from my Tasmanian constituents and, as he would well know, there is a cash flow problem in the area of self-employed doctors. If the Minister could answer those questions I would be grateful. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.07) —I am very happy to be a Tasmanian and to represent Tasmania but I make it perfectly clear that I am not one of those Tasmanians, as the vast majority is not, who run around looking for lists or maps without Tasmania tacked on them. The Tasmanian bulk billing claims are processed at Moonee Ponds in Victoria with the rest of the claims from Victoria. Tasmanian and Victorian claims are processed together because that is an efficient and sensible way to do it. Hence there is no separating out of the Tasmanian figures. The processing figures given to the honourable senator referred to the place where they were processed. Frankly, I do not believe that one person in Tasmania is going to lose any sleep tonight over the fact that Senator Walters did not get a separate list for Tasmania for the bulk billing of doctors in that State, but she can try. Senator Walters —I am not suggesting for one moment that they are. I am wanting the figures. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters should not get all sensitive. The good senator talked about Tasmanians being sensitive about being left off lists and maps and about how it was surprising that even though we had a Minister from Tasmania- that is, me-the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) did not give a list with Tasmania on it. She went on at considerable length and I am just pointing out that I am not going to enter into that barney with her. On 21 October I am told, approximately, 1.8 million bulk billing processing services were outstanding; there were 2 million on 9 September. There has been an improvement in all States except New South Wales where some difficulty was experienced in containing the backlog, particularly with regard to initial claims. In South Australia and Western Australia the processing of the claims is up to date. In Queensland it is almost up to date. In Victoria the situation was progressing satisfactorily until work bans were imposed on 5 October. Despite those work bans the cheques have been going out and the situation has not worsened; that is, whilst the office is not up to date it is not getting any further behind. I understand that a meeting was held today regarding the Moonee Ponds situation and that the dispute is now settled. The cheques will be sent out today, which will solve the situation in that Victorian office. I am sure that as the methods improve, as they have been improving, the backlog will not cause any difficulty. As an anecdotal counter to the sort of thing about which Senator Walters spoke, I add that only today I received a letter from a doctor in Hobart who told me that he objected to the way in which some medical practitioners in Tasmania were carrying on about what they consider are inordinate delays. He found the system very effective and did not mind waiting two weeks for his money in view of the money that he got and, in fact, he welcomed the introduction of Medicare because he believed the bulk billing system would become more efficient under that system with more experience, as it did under Medibank. Not all doctors are complaining about the system. The answer to Senator Walters's question is: No, I cannot give her the separate figures for Tasmania. I suppose I could ask someone in the Moonee Ponds office to go through the postcode numbers and separate that specific group of figures in Victoria. Senator Walters —Well, I would appreciate it. Senator GRIMES —If the honourable senator really needs that-- Senator Walters —Yes, I would. Senator GRIMES —I will try to do so. I really think that sort of effort, in view of the cost to the public purse, would not assist the progress of this chamber at all. What we need to do is have an efficient system of bulk billing, as I am sure the honourable senator would agree. The most efficient way to do it on a cost benefit basis would be to incorporate Tasmanian bulk billing into the Moonee Ponds office. As I say, I will make some attempt, as Senator Walters insists, but I make it perfectly clear that I am not doing it for chauvinistic reasons. I am not doing it to prevent the sorts of remarks which Senator Walters made earlier in her questions. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.13) —I have received complaints. If a delay of two weeks were involved I do not think for one minute there would be any complaints. To me, two weeks would be a very reasonable time for anyone to put up with sending in their claims and getting them back. That is not the sort of time about which I have had complaints. Senator Grimes may have received a complaint today from someone-he might be a good socialist Labor fellow-who believes that everyone should be bulk billed and should be under government pay. He probably believes doctors should be nationalised, but that is not the view of the majority of doctors in Tasmania. Indeed, the complaints are rolling in. A person phoned me today. In that case a six weeks delay was involved. That is a different story from Senator Grimes's two weeks. Let us look at the claims which have been rejected for perhaps a small mistake on the form. In Victoria and New South Wales an extraordinary number of weeks seems to be involved. In New South Wales the figure is 9.9 weeks. Obviously that figure is only an average. If the Minister were to provide me with the Tasmanian figures we might find that Tasmania is much worse off. We might find that the Tasmanian figures are much worse, for some reason, than the figures for Victoria . I believe the Minister should be willing to ascertain whether that is so, particularly in view of the fact that one of his own senators, Senator Tate, has conveyed complaints from my State. I am not the only one who has received complaints. It is for this reason that I ask the Minister to separate the Tasmanian backlog from the Victorian one. Finally, on the question of bulk billing, can the Minister explain to me in great detail how Medicare will overcome all these problems caused by strikes, mistakes in numbers and so on? I would be most interested. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.16) —I wish to make a couple of comments in this general area. I accept what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) said; that is, for reason of efficiency and operation of the Department of Social Security certain administrative arrangements should be made. No one is contesting that. It may be proper for the Moonee Ponds office to carry out this procedure. Senator Grimes was a co-signatory to a Senate report on evaluation. He will recall that the question of accountability came up. I do not know the details in Tasmania, but it is a reasonable exercise in accountability-quite apart from any questions of politics, ideology or anything else-for people to be able to text the efficiency of a system under which they are operating. I would have thought the information being sought, just on the grounds of accountability alone, was reasonable. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated that he will try to get the information. On the question of delays, I wish to raise the problems which exist in New South Wales. Senator Walters mentioned a figure of 9.9 weeks. The problem arises in relation to people who run pathology practices. I start off by saying that I operate on the assumption that most members of the medical profession and pathologists within the profession are ethical, professional and decent. I would say further that the practice of pathology is notable for the fact that it operates at a high volume and low profit margin. Indeed, that is what it should do. The pathology rebates have been structured so that people get a smaller return on each service, but because there are so many services they can make a living. The problems which a pathology practice have relate to its high capital needs; the high amount of cash and overdraft servicing, which is part of the business; the relatively large staff and the fact that that staff is expensive and trained. It is a very expensive business to run. As I say, it is a high volume fairly low turnover practice. A pathology practice in Sydney, with which I have had dealings, a practice which I found to be very ethical, very responsible and very professional, is concerned that its current experience with Medibank involves a five-week turnaround time for the payment of accounts. This five-week turnaround time is putting that practice in some jeopardy and placing it under some strain in terms of its own needs to service money and to operate its business. I ask the Minister, in addition to what Senator Walters has already asked him-- Senator Elstob —With that cough, you will have to change your brand of cigarettes. Senator PETER BAUME —I am grateful, Senator, for that very healthy and constructive interjection. I notice that Senator Elstob remains very healthy on his cigarette smoking. Perhaps that will be the subject of my next lot of questions to the Minister. I wish to ask the Minister several questions. Is the Minister aware of the particular problems which are associated with pathology services in terms of the need for speedy payments to meet the continuing high labour and capital leasing costs? The questions are important in terms of the efficiency of the new Medicare system which is now to be introduced, legislation for which the Parliament has approved. I also ask: Have any arrangements been made with the Health Insurance Commission for payments to be made to pathology practices promptly? That really should not mean a five-week turnaround. People have been talking about a five-day turnaround. However, that five-day turnaround should in fact become a reality because without that, people who often take very small margins, will be put under some strain. Can the Minister assure us that the present lag time of five weeks will be reduced to five days, as is being claimed by the Health Insurance Commission will be the case? Unless this happens there will be considerable difficulty. Will the Minister agree that without prompt payment many pathology services will be placed under great strain and that one could in fact drive a pathology service to the wall simply by interfering with its cash flow and its capacity to service its business? I accept that the Minister is approaching this matter in a fairly constructive sense and I hope that he can give us some answers to these problems. They are real problems in Sydney. Many of the people concerned are offering a public service and are operating at a very professional and ethical level. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.22) —I am sorry if I gave Senator Walters the impression that I believed that all claims were settled within two weeks. I was quoting from a letter I received today. Certainly, the delay has been longer with projections and claims that have to be re-examined. In the case of those who have been serviced at Moonee Ponds the delays have been longer still because of the industrial dispute. I have never made the claim that the introduction of Medicare will stop industrial disputes any more than they can be stopped in any other area. Senator Baume raised important questions and the answers to his questions partly answer the problems that Senator Walters raised. Of course, as Senator Baume says, certain services, particularly pathology services I would imagine, have a fairly high cash turnover because of wages, et cetera and therefore prompt payments are needed if they are to bulk bill in these circumstances. The big advantage of the Medicare system over the existing system is that there are no eligibility criteria, there is no need for the matching with social security records to ascertain whether a person has a pensioner health card and so on as is the case now. For these reasons, the Health Insurance Commission with great confidence says that it will get that processing time down to five days. I would have thought that five days was a very satisfactory turnover time for pathology services or any other services. I think that because of the basic simplicity of the system, because of the experience the Health Insurance Commission has had and, of course, with modern technology, we will be able to get this turnover time down to five days. I certainly agree with Senator Baume that there is a case, if that were not possible, for some specific services perhaps to receive special treatment. However, I do not believe that will be necessary because with the lack of the need for matching and the lack of the need to chase eligibility criteria which will exist in the new system we will, with modern technology, the new cards and all the rest, end up with a turnover in the order of five days. I think that will be to everyone's benefit-the patients, the doctors, the pathologists, whoever they are. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.24) —Is there any possibility that claims can be sent from Tasmania and payment received within five days? We would need the co- operation of Australia Post for this to happen. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.25) —The good senator may or may not know that every night I lie in my bed in Launceston I am frequently woken up by planes-they are things with wings that fly and change their pitch as they go over. Things are frequently sent backwards and forwards from Tasmania to Moonee Ponds on those planes. In fact, they can be sent overnight in this modern world. So I do not think that the fact that Tasmania is separated from the mainland by a couple of hundred miles of Bass Strait should prevent us from being efficient in this area. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.26) —I am really well aware of the aircraft that fly over. It is the directions to the pilots that worry me. I wonder whether Senator Grimes will direct the pilots to fly low but inconspicuously over Tasmania so as not to disturb the natives. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.26) —Senator Grimes answered a question, I think today, concerning nutramagin and pregestimil and a conflict that had occurred between the Government and a particular pharmaceutical company. I take Senator Grimes's mind back to an adjournment debate which we had here some weeks ago in which I raised with him the question of a group of patients who require the drug cyclophosphamide and who are being caught, as it were, as the meat in the sandwich in the same conflict between government and the pharmaceutical company. The people, who are suffering from the disease dermatomyositis and for whom this drug is required on a continuing basis, are being severely disadvantaged. The proposition that I put to the honourable senator at that time was that I did not care how the issue was resolved. That was a battle which government and the pharmaceutical company would work out in their own way and in their own time and that would depend on the merits of the case. But in the meantime, a group of patients, small in number, for whom this drug is necessary and is needed on a continuing basis are being disadvantaged. The only way in which they can get the drug is to be admitted to hospital. I will admit in this Committee that there have been occasions in the past-I imagine Senator Grimes might make the same admission-when I have had patients admitted to hospital for very brief periods in order to comply with the ridiculous prescribing requirements for certain essential pharmaceutical agents. However, those days are behind me because I am no longer in active medical practice. It is undesirable, anyhow, that people with these diseases should have to go to those lengths. The Minister promised to try to provide me with some information and tell me what solution had been reached. Is he now in a position to do so? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.28) —Indeed, I did. From memory, the Department of Health was about to make provision for people suffering from dermatomyositis to get cyclophosphamide through the out-patient departments of hospitals. However, I apologise profusely to Senator Baume that he has not received the answer by now. The answer has gone out of my head. I will promptly, on leaving this place tonight, see whether I can get the answer to him as quickly as possible. I am also interested as to what sort of solution has come up. I have asked the officers present tonight but, unfortunately, none of them is connected with the section which has information in this matter. But I will certainly seek that information for the honourable senator. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.29) —The Minister for Social Security might remember that during a meeting of the Estimates Committee I asked what amount was paid to Dr Deeble in the last financial year and how much it was expected would be paid this year. I got a reply that the Public Service Board approved a temporary employment for Dr Deeble at the level 5 Second Division rate for a three-month period commencing 22 March 1983. The Public Service Board subsequently approved an extension of that period of employment until 30 September 1983. The amount paid for the three-month period was $12,734.96. I was also told that it was not expected that that amount would be exceeded for the next three months. However, I find that today, 3 November, Dr Deeble is still speaking in the health area. I ask the Minister: Is this a voluntary capacity or is he still being paid by the Department of Health? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.30) —The answer is as was previously provided. Dr Deeble was getting the equivalent of $50,000 per year which is the salary for a level 5 officer in the Second Division. He is no longer being paid by the Department of Health. He is back at the Australian National University. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Lewis) —Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr Kevin McAlister-Taxation Evasion and Avoidance-Uranium Mining in Northern Territory-Commonwealth Government Funding of Northern Territory The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that today is the last sitting day on which the Senate has the services of Mr Kevin McAlister who, for many years, has looked after the needs of honourable senators in this place. Mr McAlister is to retire tomorrow. He commenced duty in Parliament House in 1968. In his time he has worked in all the attendant positions, including in the chamber and in the Government and Opposition corridors. I am sure many honourable senators will be familiar with the courteous and unassuming manner with which he has carried out his work. On behalf of honourable senators I offer my best wishes to Kevin and Joyce, his wife of almost 44 years, and wish them both good health and a long and happy retirement. The President is aware of the fact that Mr McAlister is retiring and has asked me to pass on his best wishes for the future. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(7.33) —On behalf of the Government I would like to join with you, Mr Deputy President, and, I am sure, with all honourable senators in wishing Mr Kevin McAlister and his wife well in his retirement. Mr McAlister has lived in Canberra for along time. He arrived in Canberra from Captains Flat where he operated a barber shop. He was a barber in Canberra from 1963 until 1968. Senator Chaney —I wish I had known. Senator GRIMES —We all wish we had known that. I am frequently in need of assistance in that regard. Kevin started in Parliament House on 19 August 1968. Since then he has worked in Parliament continuously except for an 11-week period in 1980 when he was ill. During the 15 years and three months he has been here there have been five Prime Ministers. I do not think he has had anything to do with the turnover of Prime Ministers in that time. We are pleased to know that Kevin is staying in Canberra with his family during the summer months and will be travelling to the north coast during the winter months where he can take up his interests in cricket, bowling and rugby league. As an old rugby league player and as someone who would certainly like to be travelling north each winter, I wish Kevin well as I am sure all Government senators do. I hope that Kevin and his wife enjoy their retirement. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.35) —Mr Deputy President, on behalf of the Opposition I would like to add our support to your words and to those which have been expressed by Senator Grimes. Kevin McAlister is a friend to many people on both sides of the chamber. Many on this side know him well. We have had a chance to get to know him very closely. He and I have sometimes discussed medical and professional matters over the years. Many would not know that Kevin left school at a very young age in a hard time. Only today we were discussing the capacity of young people to go out rabbit trapping to raise a few bob. We were discussing the fact that when I was a young fellow I would go out and do a bit of rabbit-trapping and hang all the skins up ready to sell to raise a bit of money. Those were the days when there was a good trade in this kind of thing. He also told me that his ties to Canberra are quite extensive. He has children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in Canberra. He is blessed with a large family. We completely endorse his decision not to move away and to stay here where his roots are. We hope we will see him in Parliament House. He has been courteous and friendly to us all. The only thing that is really hard to take is that he supports the Parramatta team. Senator Grimes —So do I. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Grimes does as well. That is doubly bad. We will see if we cannot do something about that next year. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.36) —I do not intend to speak on the same subject. I should say in explanation to Mr McAlister that I asked Senator Peter Baume to speak on behalf of the Opposition because I was going to speak on less pleasant topics. I did not want to mix up the general good wishes for Mr McAlister with the other matters that I wish to raise on the adjournment. Perhaps I should say, personally, that I express the same good wishes to him on his retirement as have been expressed by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) on behalf of the Government and by Senator Peter Baume on behalf of the Opposition. I do not wish to detain the Senate at great length, but I wish to refer to a question and answer in this afternoon's Question Time. The question was directed to Senator Walsh by Senator Cook. It was described by Senator Cook as one of the Christo Moll series. He referred to a letter to the editor in the West Australian of 22 October, signed by Mr John Gillett, the senior partner of a Perth-based law firm, Northmore Hale Davy and Leake. The question, in part, stated: Is the Minister aware that in that letter Mr Gillett claims that the statement made to the Senate by the Minister, namely that Northmore Hale Davy and Leake had set up the first tax evasion scheme for Christo Moll, was 'untruthful'? Is Mr Gillett's assertion accurate? I would like to read that letter, which appeared in the West Australian on 22 October 1983. It states: On page 19 of the West Australian (October 20) it was reported that Senator Walsh said that our firm set up the first tax-evasion scheme for Christo Moll. This firm did not set up and has never set up or devised a tax-evasion scheme for Christo Moll or any other person. The untruthful statement by Senator Walsh is defamatory and we would have taken action had it not been protected by parliamentary privilege. It is quite clear from the answer given today that Senator Walsh has not chosen to accept that invitation. He has not repeated it outside the House and therefore has not given Mr Gillett the chance to take action as Mr Gillett said he would like to. However, I wish to refer to the answer which was given by Senator Walsh, which is a very sad attempt to obscure the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. I think Senator Walsh is quite well instructed in these matters. I think he has no difficulty in his mind in distinguishing between tax evasion and tax avoidance, the former being illegal and the latter being legal and being referred to by various terms such as tax minimisation and so on. I know that Senator Walsh is well informed because he has made that clear in debates in this place. I know that he is a member of a farming partnership. I am sure that he understands that in setting up the affairs of a farming partnership and rearranging interests, action is taken by lawyers and accountants to ensure that stock is transferred at correct values and that things are done so as not to attract unnecessary income tax, stamp duty and so on. I am sure that he is quite familiar with the idea of tax minimisation as part of the normal commercial life of Australia. I would very much doubt whether he would arrange his own affairs in a way to maximise tax; rather he would do what a normal prudent man would do and I am sure he would act on professional advice. Senator Walsh, in responding to the question this afternoon, used some words. Perhaps I should use the words that he used. He said: I have a number of comments to make. Firstly, Senator Chaney has placed on record officially in the Senate that Christo Moll was a client of that firm. Secondly, some lawyers make a living through casuistry. Mr Gillett has used the term 'tax evasion'. Many lawyers would quibble about what is evasion and what is avoidance. That is another possibility. I simply wish to say that an allegation which was the original allegation by Senator Walsh on 19 October, that that legal firm had set up a tax evasion scheme for Christo Moll, is an allegation of complicity in illegal conduct. That is a very offensive statement. That is no doubt why Mr Gillett said that if the statement were made outside this place of privilege, it would be the subject of defamation action. So much for that, Mr Deputy President, but in a quite extraordinary way Senator Walsh went on, slid on, skidded on-or whatever one does in these circumstances- to mention Sir Victor Garland. This was apparently done because it came to mind that he once had a complaint from a solicitor in Melbourne who apparently had something to do at some stage with Sir Victor Garland's affairs and who, he tells us later, is now facing criminal charges-that is, the lawyer-in relation to tax evasion. This is a classic example of an attempt to roll a whole lot of things up so as to leave some dirt attaching to somebody. I cannot see any reason why Sir Victor Garland should be mentioned in this answer in the way that he was, and I wish to reject any suggestion that might be implicit in that mention that Sir Victor Garland is in some way involved in things which are out of order. There have of course been odd mentions of him in this place. Because of Senator Walsh's record of persistent attempts to blacken other people's names , I have kept a copy of a letter which was sent to Sir Victor Garland by the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the Australian Taxation Office in Perth, and I would like to read that letter: Dear Sir Victor I refer to your letter of 21 September 1983 and your earlier 'phone call asking for written assurance in respect of matters mentioned hereunder. After examination of income tax returns lodged in respect of yourself and entities with which you have been involved I am able to confirm that: (a) You were not a person to whom the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax-Vendors) Act 1982 had application. (b) Neither would you have incurred a liability under the proposed amendments to that legislation either in respect of those which were defeated in parliament on 2 June 1983 or those presently before parliament. (c) There was no involvement in artificial schemes of tax avoidance. Yours sincerely (R. S. CONEY) Acting Deputy Commissioner of Taxation As I say, I am at a loss as to why Sir Victor should be brought into this answer and rolled up in the reply in this way. I think in fairness to him-he after all is still serving Australia and indeed this Government in the position of High Commissioner in London-I make it clear that he has that letter from the Commissioner of Taxation, and indeed I seek leave to incorporate that letter in full in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Dear Sir Victor I refer to your letter of 21 September 1983 and your earlier 'phone call asking for written assurance in respect of matters mentioned hereunder. After examination of income tax returns lodged in respect of yourself and entities with which you have been involved I am able to confirm that: (a) You were not a person to whom the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax-Vendors) Act 1982 had application. (b) Neither would you have incurred a liability under the proposed amendments to that legislation either in respect of those which were defeated in parliament on 2 June 1983 or those presently before parliament. (c) There was no involvement in artificial schemes of tax avoidance. Yours sincerely (R. S. CONEY) Acting Deputy Commissioner of Taxation Senator CHANEY —I do believe that we all have a difficult task in this place in using privilege in the way in which it was intended. It was intended to provide us with the opportunity to raise matters of public importance fearlessly. I believe that in this case, as on other occasions, Senator Walsh has gone beyond his duty in this matter. He has merely sought to blacken people's names quite unjustifiably. If he has the courage of his convictions he should face up to the suggestion made by Mr Gillett in his letter to the newspapers. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.44) —I am concerned about three statements. First, as a lawyer, Senator Chaney should know that the truth is not of itself a defence against an action for defamation. Secondly, Senator Chaney made the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. I do not know whether in making that distinction he intended to imply that in fact the firm of Northmore Hale Davy and Leake was involved in a tax avoidance or tax minimisation scheme, or whatever one would like to call it for Mr Moll. If that is the case or if Senator Chaney was acknowledging that that was the case, judgment as to what is avoidance and what is evasion is ultimately made in the courts, but in this case Caesar is judging Caesar. Senator Chaney seems to be acknowledging that the firm has arranged, or whatever verb one would like to use, a tax minimisation scheme for Mr Moll. He asked why I mentioned Mr Collie. The reason for that is that at the time-I think it was about 1979 or it may have been 1980-I was reporting matters which concerned Mr Collie and also concerned some companies once owned by Sir Victor Garland, as Senator Chaney has said. I received a telex from Mr Collie vehemently denying that he had any association with any unsavoury or illegal activities, and I note that criminal charges have since been laid against him. I mentioned that because I believe it has some relevance in that denials without any corroborating evidence are not accepted by me, particularly when there is other evidence to suggest complicity. Mr Collie also, as I mentioned-- Senator Peter Rae —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. What Senator Walsh has said is that he made an attack on Mr Collie and Mr Collie vehemently denied it but that he has subsequently been charged. I would have thought that that is the very time when propriety would require that one did not refer further to the matter at least until the charges have been heard and the court has determined one way or another. I think it is quite contrary to the practice of the Senate, as well as to the Standing Orders, for that matter to be debated whilst the man is facing a charge. I ask, Mr Deputy President, that you seek from Senator Walsh an assurance that he will not deal further with the circumstances of a man who has been charged but apparently not yet tried. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question of the sub judice rule is one of the more difficult ones to administer in this chamber. The rule basically is that anything said which would prejudice the fair conduct of a trial is out of order. So far Senator Walsh has not said anything which in my view would prejudice a fair trial, but I ask him to refrain from continuing in any line that might affect a fair trial of the individual concerned. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr Deputy President. I believe I have done no more than state facts which are already on the public record, including that last fact. This is on the public record because I said in the Senate in or around 1980 that I had asked Mr Collie to supply the details since he disputed the facts. He did not respond to that invitation. I then went on to extend a similar invitation to Mr Gillett. It was for that reason that that was mentioned, and for that reason only. I did also mention today, and I have attempted to follow this up but there has not been sufficient time, that Mr Moll has requested the firm of Northmore Hale Davy and Leake to hand over documents-or I may have said that, in which case it was a minor error on my part. The Australian Federal Police have received a letter from Mr Moll in which he authorises the firm of Northmore Hale Davy and Leake to make available all records for the period in which the firm acted on his behalf. That was reported in the Melbourne Age on Tuesday of this week. I seek leave to incorporate the article from the Age of that day in Hansard to save the time of the Senate. Leave granted. The article read as follows- MOLL FREES RECORDS FOR POLICE SCRUTINY By Marshall Wilson and Stephen Foley A Perth legal firm will be asked to hand over confidential documents relating to private investments by clients of the financier Christo Moll, including payments to the Liberal Party. Federal Police have received a letter from Mr Moll in which he authorises the firm Northmore, Hale, Davy and Leake to make available all records for the period in which the firm acted on his behalf. The letter specifically isolates: Gemstone valuations and delivery receipts contained in a file marked '' confidential clients''. Schedules of overseas bank accounts including some in the United States. Cash payment sheets and codification ledger detailing cash paid overseas and donations made to the Liberal Party. Copies of contracts and schedules relating to Mr Moll's half share interest in the firm Quartermaine Travel in Perth. The file marked ''Minutes of Confidential Meetings-Clients''. The confidential files on firms Mogill Ltd and Quamolt GmbH together with the proforma financial statements. The hand-written letter dated 18 October arrived at Federal Police headquarters in Perth this week. Two weeks ago the Energy and Resources Minister, Senator Walsh, alleged in Parliament that the Opposition's Senate Leader, Senator Chaney, had been an active partner in the firm Northmore, Hale, Davy and Leake in 1973 ''at the time that the firm set up the first tax evasion scheme for Christo Moll''. Senator Chaney denied any involvement in advising on tax evasion schemes during his years with the firm, which he left in 1974. Senator Chaney said in a statement that he was aware that Mr Moll was at some stage a client of the firm but he ''was never involved in personal dealings with him''. In Perth the firm of Northmore, Hale, Davy and Leake has strongly denied setting up tax-evasion schemes for Mr Moll. Mr Moll has also written personally to the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, seeking protection and immunity from prosecution to help police inquiries into his business affairs. The registered letter was posted in Nice, France, on 24 October. Mr Moll, a former prominent WA businessman, has admitted to having been the head of a money-moving operation which used couriers to move millions of dollars into Swiss bank accounts. He left Australia in 1979 after the sudden collapse of his investment conglomerate. An officer of the Federal Police who accompanied an 'Age' reporter to Austria last month to interview Mr Moll, has submitted a report to Canberra indicating Mr Moll could play a major role in identifying areas of irregularity arising from documents handed over. The Federal Police in Perth believe more than $200 million may have been moved through the Moll pipeline. Senator WALSH —That article specifies a number of specific items which Mr Moll has asked the Federal Police to recover from the firm. Finally, my office has attempted, through Mr Beazley's office, to find out whether the Police have in fact made the request and whether they have in fact received the documents. I am afraid I have not got a reply at this stage. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.48) —Mr Deputy President, I regret that I have to take up the time of the Senate now but, as you would be aware, Question Time this week and particularly today has been very crowded and I have not been able to raise a matter that I wish to bring up before the Senate retires for the weekend. I refer briefly once again to the problem associated with the development of the uranium mines in the Northern Territory. There has been a most incredible situation in the last two or three weeks with the wrangling within the Government, in public and in private. Of course, the media have been full of all the variations of the Government, the Cabinet and the left wing of the Australian Labor Party and the machinations and moves that were changing day by day. A very good description of events appears in today's Australian Financial Review in an article referring to uranium double dealings. It is quite an interesting article. The first paragraph reads: The political argument on uranium policy is getting into a rare old mess. Principles and expediency have become hopelessly intermingled, to the extent that hardly anyone in the Government or in the Labor Party has a clue what the real argument is about. The article finishes with these words: But it is absurd for Australia to forgo a valuable export industry for the sake of mildly inconveniencing the world nuclear medicine and nuclear power industries. In the last day or so there has been talk of compensation. It is very interesting to see what the Director of the Bureau of the Northern Land Council had to say on After 8 this morning. I refer to Wesley Lanhupuy, an Aboriginal person from Galiwinku. The interviewer said: Well, it's not just the Northern Territory Government that would contemplate seeking compensation for the halting of the uranium mines. Wesley Lanhupuy, Director of the Northern Land Council says that mining royalties have, until now , enabled Aboriginal traditional owners to provide services for their own communities and to invest in the Territory without having to put a hand out for Government funds. Mr Lanhupuy said: Well, I think the concept of accepting mining, and I'm not necessarily saying uranium mining, slowly gained over a period of time, and they have seen the benefits that they are receiving now because of the established existing mines and it assisted them in investing in the Northern Territory stabilised their communities even though there might be signs of distortion to what benefits they are receiving. For example, you are very much aware of the reports that the Institute of Aboriginal Affairs has done at Oenpelli and I think in all from my personal observation, I think that Aboriginal people are better off with another source of funding which makes them self-sufficient. He goes on to say: Well, the Land Council has not actually discussed that- that is, seeking compensation from the Federal Government- but we will certainly be making inquiries for the people that are the recipients of the existing royalties that we are receiving to get their views but there is no doubt that we could be approaching the Federal Government on compensation because it is going to deprive them of a source of income. The question that I should have liked to ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) today is as follows: I refer to a Press Conference held by the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, last Tuesday, at which he said he had instructed the Territories Co-ordinator General to look into the question of compensation for the Territory if the future development of the uranium industry is stopped. I refer also to a transcript of this morning's After 8 program in Darwin, in which the Director of the Northern Land Council, Wesley Lanhupuy, said there is no doubt the Council could be approaching the Federal Government on the compensation issue. I ask the Minister: (1) does he acknowledge the necessity for compensation to be paid to (A) the mining companies involved who have, in good faith, spent millions of dollars in carrying out the Government's requirements for development and to (B) the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land who have given their permission for mining to be undertaken and stand to lose some two hundred million dollars in royalties if, as I understand it, it is not. (2) In view of the precedent for compensation which has been set by the Federal and Tasmanian Governments concerning the Franklin Dam issue, does the Minister acknowledge that no matter what amount the Government may settle on, compensation for the Northern Territory could not make up for the loss of the uranium industry, and (3) Is it the intention of the Government to review the decision and to allow the development of the uranium industry in the Northern Territory? One would think that after all the mess and wrangle-the absolutely incredible situation that has eventuated-that that would be the correct thing to do. I wish to refer briefly to another matter that concerns me. On Tuesday of this week, when we were discussing the Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill, I was complaining about various situations in the Northern Territory and I was querying the necessity for a review by the Commonwealth Government into the memorandum of articles for the funding of the Northern Territory by the Commonwealth Government. Today I received a letter which concerns me considerably. I refer to a letter to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) from Mr Ian Tuxworth, MLA, Minister for Community Development, Northern Territory. The letter states: In response to your telex of November 2, I must ask whether you have yet had an opportunity to consider the contents of my letter of October 11. This letter was in response to yours of September 5 and effectively responded to your later correspondence of October 6, received in my office after the despatch of my letter. This letter outlined the Northern Territory Government's understanding of the conditions applicable to the transfer of functions to my Department from the Commonwealth Government. This included a reference to an expectation on the part of the Commonwealth that- ' . . . the Northern Territory Government will make arrangements for the introduction of an appropriate scale of charges for service' You will see that this is in accord with the Commonwealth Government's own intentions prior to the transfer of this function, that is prior to self- government. I am surprised, therefore, that you regard this as a departure from the spririt from the original agreement. Further, it is my clear understanding that the very purpose of the title attaching to the land on which the Aboriginal communities reside is to provide facilities exclusive to their own use. In effect, this is in regard to electricity charges. The letter continues: In effect, these facilities are not available to the wider population, unless by invitation. It is necessary that I should reaffirm the Northern Territory Government's policy that wherever possible all sections of the community should receive similar treatment at the hands of Government with respect to the payment of all services. The user groups in these cases do have the capacity to meet these charges and it is irresponsible and contrary to a policy of self determination and self reliance to continue the current situation. The Northern Territory Government has not diverted funds for expenditure in Aboriginal communities to other areas. Your threat- a rather surprising comment from a Federal Minister- to interfere with the memorandum of understanding and to direct the Northern Territory to use general purpose grants to satisfy Federal Government aspirations is repugnant but is the type of jackbooted approach that has become familiar to us since have dealings with you. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is getting quite a reputation. The letter goes on: If the Commonwealth wishes to vary the agreement reached on July 17, 1978 and provide special purpose grants to absolve aboriginal groups of meeting their financial responsibilities, I would be only too pleased to have our officers meet and agree on the level of additional funding required to satisfy your wishes. On 17 July 1978, the Commonwealth Government devolved upon the Northern Territory responsibility for providing services to the Aboriginal communities. This was done in a letter from the then Prime Minister to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. For its part, the Commonwealth provided a level of funding in the Northern Territory's general purpose grants equivalent to the amount of expenditure at that time and it required from the Northern Territory an undertaking that the Northern Territory would introduce charges for those services, such as power and water, that it was providing. The Northern Territory did not plunge headlong into this exercise and create any unreasonable harassment for the Aboriginal communities and camps concerned. However, in recent days it has been criticised by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Commonwealth Grants Commission for not making any effort at all to recoup costs in these areas as it had formerly agreed to do with the Commonwealth. Earlier this year the Northern Territory Government advised the communities concerned that they would be charged for power and water for those communities living inside town areas and that they should make provision for those charges in their budgets for 1983-84. The Aboriginal communities have taken the very strong position of refusing to pay at all for their services becuse they regard themselves as a special group and they believe that these services should be provided to them by the Government at no cost. Perhaps the Federal Government should pick up the tab. The Northern Territory Government, in line with its undertaking to the Commonwealth, has not been prepared to accept this and has indicated that it will disconnect services where people refuse to pay their accounts. As a result of representations made by Aboriginal communities to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding has advised the Northern Territory Government that he will be seeking to have the financial arrangements with the Northern Territory altered so that funds can be taken from the Northern Territory and given to the Aboriginals concerned at the Minister's discretion. What arrogance! This proposition is equivalent to tearing up the constitutional arrangements that exist between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory. I, as a senator representing the Northern Territory, seek a clear and unequivocal understanding from the Federal Government that the current arrangements will not be interfered with, that the general purpose funding arrangements will be honoured and the Commonwealth will not direct the Northern Territory to spend funds from the general purose grants on those things that interest the Commonwealth. I further seek an understanding from the Federal Minister that he will ask the people concerned to meet their community obligations and make appropriate arrangements to pay their bills. I think it would be a very good idea if the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs stopped interfering in State-like matters and arrangements that have been made between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government. Now, on a much more pleasant note, I would like to add my remarks to those of other senators in farewelling Kevin McAlister. I would like particularly to mention the willingness and courtesy with which Kevin has conducted his duties at all times. Kevin's office, of course, is across the corridor from my office on the Opposition side. He has been a most pleasant neighbour. It was particularly heartening to see Kevin McAlister return to his duties after a bout of illness which may well have caused the retirement of a less courageous person . Kevin is a reserved sort of person and we know little about his life before he joined the Senate some 15 years ago other than-this was mentioned by Senator Peter Baume-that he, as the town's barber, cut the hair and shaved with a cut- throat razor the heads and faces of the inhabitants of Captain's Flat. For those who do not know it, Captain's Flat is a once thriving mining community just outside Queanbeyan. He watched that town go from boom to bust. I think that Kevin has had a very fascinating life. He has been a very quiet person here. I have no doubt that at some time in the future we would like to hear more of the tales of his past at Captain's Flat. It is with regret that I watch him go. He is called away from us to the care of his garden, wife-not necessarily, of course, in that order-and a well deserved retirement. I am sure he takes with him all our good wishes for his future happiness. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.02 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 November 1983 The following paper was presented: Public Service Act-Determinations 1983-No. 19. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 155 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 17 May 1983: What are the names and addresses of all those organisations for whom payroll deduction facilities are permitted in relation to voluntary deductions made by employees of (a) Australia Post, and (b) Telecom Australia. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice received from the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (a) Australia Post currently processes voluntary payroll deductions on behalf of its staff to the following categories of organisations: Number to which deductions Category are made Assurance companies/societies 47 Union/staff associations 22 Hospital and medical benefit funds 34 Credit unions 57 Commonwealth Government housing loans 1 Miscellaneous 1 (b) Telecom Australia permits voluntary payroll deductions on behalf of its staff to the following categories of organisations: Number to which deductions Category are made Assurance companies/societies 41 Credit unions 67 Hospital and medical funds 41 Permanent building societies 48 Union/staff associations 25 Charitable organisations 22 Miscellaneous 6 Names and addresses of the organisations concerned have been provided separately to Senator Colston. Question No. 343 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1) On Tuesday, 16 August 1983, did 700 Filipino workers strike against alleged slave labour conditions at the Australian-owned Dunlop factory in Manila which manufactures Grosby shoes for the Australian market. (2) Was the Philippine military called in by that company to break up picket lines outside the plant on Friday, 19 August 1983, injuring a number of striking Filipinos, despite the fact that, under Philippine industrial law, that strike was perfectly legal. (3) Was there a subsequent meeting in Manila between the Philippine Ministry of Labour and Employment, Dunlop lawyers and union lawyers, at which the Australian company was accused by the Ministry of Labour and Employment of breaking the collective bargaining agreement and, therefore, Philippine industrial law, by forcing its employees into compulsory overtime to meet deadlines for a recent large order. (4) has the Grosby factory also broken the collective bargaining agreement in the areas of maternity leave payments, emergency allowances and missing leave forms, unauthorised illegal wage deductions, shortages in overtime payments and Sunday premium payments. (5) Has the company also been accused of interference in union elections. (6) Is this the same company that closed its Australian operations to take advantage of cheaper costs of manufacturing in South East Asia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 400 Filipino workers at the Dunlop/Grosby factory in Manila went on strike from 16 to 19 August 1983. The 400 workers were members of KADIWA-the United Movement for Hope for Workers-at Grosby-Footwear. The issues that were in dispute are detailed below. (2) On 18 August, the Philippine Ministry of Labour and Employment signed an order directing the strikers to return to work and certifying the dispute for compulsory arbitration. On 19 August, an agreement to return to work, pending further negotiations, had been reached. This agreement apparently had not been transmitted to picketing workers before a group of management and other non-striking workers attempted to enter the factory. When local police intervened, violence ensued. Union leaders arrived on the scene shortly after the incident and explained the misunderstanding to the picketers, who agreed to return to work in return for the release of unionists arrested in the incident and the dropping of charges against them. (3) According to the Philippine Ministry of Labour and Employment, the Grosby factory has not been accused of breaking the collective bargaining agreement or of violating Philippine labour laws. On 1 September 1983, the management and union representatives of Dunlop/Grosby signed an agreement resolving a number of issues. This agreement covers overtime, back wages and leave to cover temporary layoffs. All other grievances were resolved at a meeting covened by the National Labour Relations Council on 28 September 1983. (4) According to a Philippine Ministry of Labour and Employment spokesman, the workers' grievances were: Compulsory overtime, temporary layoffs, determination of production quotas and the company's method of calculating wages. (5) The Dunlop/Grosby company has not been accused of interference in union elections. The union has alleged that management is encouraging the entry of an alternative union into the factory. The Ministry of Labour and Employment spokesman did not mention this matter as a cause of the dispute. (6) I am informed that Dunlop/Grosby has not closed its Australian operations. Last year it relocated its Melbourne operation to new premises in North Melbourne. The company also operates a factory in Geelong. The company provides employment for 681 people in Melbourne and Geelong. The relocation of operations carried out in August and September 1982 did not see any reduction in staff. Question No. 400 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: What is the current situation in relation to the Australian Capital Territory Veterans vis a vis concessional/free rail travel entitlement with regard to free rail travel for World War I veterans. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is: World War I veterans including those resident in the Australian Capital Territory are eligible for unlimited free rail travel on all services operated by the Australian National Railways including the line between Canberra and Queanbeyan. The concession covers the first class fare component but not charges for sleeping berths and meals. The New South Wales Transport authorities do not provide World War I veterans who reside in the Australian Capital Territory with free rail travel on the basis of World War I service alone. However, most of these veterans would qualify for free or concessional travel, subject to certain restrictions, on the New South Wales rail system by virtue of being service pensioners with pensioner health benefits cards. Senator Grimes —On 4 October 1983 (Hansard page 1036) Senator Bolkus asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, a question without notice as to when it was envisaged that that part of the Fry Committee report recommending registration of foreign dentists in Australia would be implemented. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The report of the Committee of Inquiry into the recognition of overseas qualifications (Fry Committee) was tabled in the Parliament on 12 May this year. The report was discussed with State and Territorial Ministers responsible for immigration and ethnic affairs in July when a large measure of support for it was expressed. The report addresses complex issues (including recognition procedures for dentistry) which affect a wide range of Commonwealth, State and autonomous agencies. The report is being considered in detail by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in consultation with other interested bodies. The Government attaches a great deal of importance to finding adequate and equitable solutions to the problems facing migrants and refugees in obtaining recognition of their qualifications. It is expected that the Government's decision on the report will be announced towards the end of the year.