Wednesday, 9 November 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 1932-33 Ukrainian Famine To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Ukrainian nation has suffered a genocidal act at the hands of the Kremlin when 7 million Ukrainians perished of starvation in 1932-33 in a deliberately planned famine. Ukrainian Australians deplore the fact that the Kremlin has never been called upon by the free world to give a public account of this tragic event. Russian great power chauvinism which caused this famine survives to this day. The Ukrainian Helsinki Monitoring Group, in the forefront of the opposition to the Russification and Ukrainian cultural destruction has been ruthlessly eliminated and protests by the West on its behalf ignored. As the only founding member of the United Nations with no western diplomatic presence, Ukraine's political isolation allows Moscow to move unimpeded towards its goal of the complete elimination of the Ukrainian nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Australian Government denounce the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine as a genocidal act by the Kremlin against the Ukrainian nation. (2) The tragic events of the Ukrainian famine holocaust be highlighted during the day set aside by the Australian Government to honour victims of genocidal acts and imperialistic aggression. (3) The Australian Government immediately implement the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to convene a Standing Committee to monitor the adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of all signatories, in particular, the U.S.S.R. (4) The Australian Government immediately take steps to expand official government representation to include all member states of the United Nations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 110 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 right 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 members of 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 Watson (from 40 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of Government standard costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Sir John Carrick (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 114 citizens) and Richardson (from 213 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That there is grave cause for concern in the Australian community at the continuing sensationalist media and political campaign directed against the humanitarian and socially just effects of the welfare state (most recently exemplified by the front-page article 'One in 4 get Welfare Hand' in the Melbourne Herald of Monday, 3 October 1983). That, whilst enlarging public awareness of the critical social problems facing our community, such articles tend to paint the victims of our social system as worthless parasites living off the work force. 1. We believe that the 635,000 persons receiving unemployment benefits at the end of June 1983 deserve full support from the Commonwealth, and that the 85,104 persons receiving sickness and special benefits deserve society's sympathy rather than castigation. 2. We also believe that the 2,011,542 persons receiving age, invalid, wife and widow pensions, supporting parent benefits and sheltered employment allowances at the end of June 1983 deserve help from the Commonwealth. 3. We affirm that it is the time-honoured and moral right of Australians to receive assistance in times of distress and hardship, and we remind the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia of its profound responsibility to safeguard and enhance the dignity and well-being of its citizens. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within seven days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Rates Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory needs to be amended so that the burden of rates for the Australian Capital Territory is spread more equitably amongst all the rate payers of the Australian Capital Territory. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: An inquiry be initiated to inquire into the A.C.T. rating system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 21 citizens). Petitions received. Notices of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish a National Crime Authority. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make certain amendments consequent upon the enactment of the National Crime Authority Act 1983. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and for related purposes. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals contained in the reports of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 22 September 1983 and 11 October 1983 , respectively, namely: (1) Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue extension to the New Parliament House. (2) The construction of pier protection under Commonwealth Avenue Bridge. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Geitzelt) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.05) —I move : That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- This Bill will amend the income tax law in a number of respects. Primarily to modify the prescribed payments system and to implement some of the Government's measures announced in the Budget and the May economic statement. The modifications of the prescribed payments system were announced on 5 October 1983 in response to a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. They will simplify the operation of the system by significantly reducing the paperwork burdens for many payers and payees and by making compliance generally easier. Included in the Bill are measures to exempt from tax the open employment incentive bonus payable after 1 October 1983, and the remote area allowances payable from May 1984. It also exempts, from 1 March 1984, the additional benefit paid to unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries caring for children, and the supplementary allowance paid to sickness beneficiaries to assist towards rent costs. The Bill also provides for the remote area allowance received by a taxpayer to be deducted from any income tax zone rebate otherwise allowable to the taxpayer, and for the spouse carer's pension, which is to be introduced from 1 December 1983, to be taxed on a similar basis to a wife's pension. Other measures being implemented include the phased withdrawal of the tax exemption for pay of part-time members of the reserve defence forces and termination of the deductions for certain capital expenditure incurred in the clearing of primary production land and in respect of the cost of insulating a first home. Other provisions abolish the rebate on up to $1,000 of dividend income of individual taxpayers and terminate the deduction for losses from tax exempt businesses. Modification of the averaging system applicable to primary procedures and an increase from $1,590 to $2,000 in the expenditure threshold for the tax rebate on concessional expenditure are also included. The Bill will also restore the position relating to rebates of tax in respect of dependants temporarily resident overseas that had existed before it was disturbed by the Domicile Act 1982, and will free certain trustees for non- resident beneficiaries from liability for provisional tax. Finally, the Bill provides the basis for calculation of provisional tax for the 1983-84 year of income. I will now address the provisions of the Bill in greater detail, dealing first with the amendments of major significance concerning the prescribed payments system. Prescribed Payments System On 5 October 1983, I informed the Senate that the Government had decided to introduce amendments in line with unanimous recommendations in a report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations which was tabled in the Senate on 4 October 1983. These amendments will refine certain of the system's administrative aspects so as to reduce paperwork burdens on some taxpayers and to facilitate taxpayer compliance with its requirements. They do not, however, put at risk the essential 'anti-evasion' objectives of the system, nor will they have any effect on revenue collections. The Government is aware of some criticisms of the prescribed payments system and, while these have generally exaggerated the true position, it recognises the need to monitor the operation of this new system of tax collection. This is being done. The present amendments evidence our willingness to meet valid concerns about the operation of the system on an on-going basis. Put briefly, the changes proposed by the Senate Committee, and accepted by the Government, will virtually take outside the system payments to payees who hold exemption certificates on the grounds of good tax compliance. They will also allow payees to lodge a deduction form at any time during the month preceding the month of payment. This will be of particular benefit to payees operating cycle billing systems. For a payment that is deferred, other changes will relieve the payee from lodging a fresh deduction form. Finally in this area, the amendments will ensure that a payee will not need to prepare and furnish more than an annual deduction form to a payer if the payer assumes the responsibility of completing the forms on the payee's behalf. This will particularly assist payers with computerised accounting systems incorporating high speed printers, and will also reduce the paperwork burden on payees. A technical amendment is also to be made to the provisional tax self-assessment provisions to simplify calculations for taxpayers wishing to vary provisional tax on account of income subject to the prescribed payments system. Unemployment, Sickness and Special Beneficiaries A number of Budget measures, together with others announced in the May economic statement, are directed at re-establishing priorities in favour of those in the community who are among the most disadvantaged. One of these is an increase in the rate of payment of additional assistance for the children of pensioners and beneficiaries. When paid to pensioners these amounts are already exempt from tax. This Bill, by making payments of such assistance to unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries also exempt from tax, will establish uniformity of tax treatment in this area for all pensioners and beneficiaries caring for children. At present, payments to pensioners to assist with their rent, lodging or board and lodging costs are exempt from tax. The Bill will ensure that payments for the same purpose to sickness beneficiaries are also exempt. Both amendments apply to payments falling due on or after 1 March 1984. The estimated cost of these taxation measures is $22m in a full year. Single unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with dependent children will also be eligible from 1 May 1984 for the mother's or guardian's allowance now payable to single pensioners, including supporting parent beneficiaries, with dependent children. This allowance, which is already exempt from tax in the hands of pensioners, will be exempt when received by beneficiaries as a consequence of the amendments contained in this Bill. Spouse Carer's Pension A recent amendment to the Social Security Act 1947 provides for the payment of a spouse carer's pension from 1 December 1983. This pension will assist men providing constant care and attention at home for their age or invalid pensioner wives suffering from a severe physical or mental disability. The spouse carer's pension is proposed to be given the same taxation treatment as is now given a wife's pension paid under the Social Security Act to a woman because she is the wife of an age or invalid pensioner. The effect of the existing income tax law, together with the amendments proposed by this Bill, will be to exempt the pension from tax except where the man is 65 years or older or his wife is 60 years or older. Accordingly, a man in receipt of a spouse carer's pension will be taxed on it only if he or his wife is of pensionable age. Similarly, a man caring for a wife suffering a disability may qualify for a service pension under the Repatriation Act from December 1983 if his wife is a service pensioner. This service pension will also be exempt from tax if the wife is in receipt of a service pension equivalent to a social security invalid pension and neither the man nor his wife is of pensionable age. In other circumstances the service pension is to be taxable. Open Employment Incentive Bonus Assent has already been given to a Bill to amend the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act to allow for the payment of an open employment incentive bonus as an incentive for handicapped people to enter the mainstream of the work force. This once-only payment of $500 is to be made to recipients of sheltered employment allowance of 6 month's standing or more who move to full-time paid open employment, or self-employment, and remain so employed for a continuous period of at least 12 months. The Bill will ensure that the bonus, which is payable to persons who complete their period of open employment on or after 1 October 1983, is exempt from tax. Remote Area Allowance On Budget night the Treasurer announced the Government's decision to introduce from May 1984 remote area allowances-which are to be exempt from tax-for persons living in income tax zone A who are in receipt of certain social security pensions or benefits or repatriation pensions and whose incomes, in most cases, are too low to enable them to benefit from the income tax zone rebate. The existing income tax law dealing with the exemption of various pensions, allowances and benefits is framed in such a way that a remote area allowance to be paid to a social security pensioner or beneficiary is exempt from tax, whereas a remote area allowance to be paid to a repatriation pensioner is not. This Bill will amend the law to ensure that remote area allowances, whether paid under social security or repatriation legislation, are exempt. To avoid doubling up of benefits under the remote area allowance and the zone rebate, the Bill will also alter the income tax law so that any zone rebate otherwise allowable is reduced by the amount of remote area allowance received. This amendment will have negligible effect on revenue in 1983-84, and is expected to yield $2m, as an offset to the cost of the allowances themselves, in a full year. Part-time Members of the Reserve Defence Forces Honourable senators will recall that in the Budget Speech the Treasurer announced the Government's decision to phase out by 1 December 1984 the present exemption from tax of the pay and allowances of part-time members of the reserve defence forces and the emergency reserve defence forces. This Bill also will give effect to that decision. One half of payments in respect of service on or after 1 December 1983 and before 1 December 1984 will remain exempt but payments for service on or after 1 December 1984 will be taxable in full. The tax exemption available to a part-time member of the emergency reserve defence forces on a gratuity received by reason of being called out for continuous service will be phased out at the same time. This measure is estimated to save $5m in the current financial year and $20m in a full year. Income Tax Rebates for Certain Dependants of Migrants On 20 June 1983 the Minister for Finance announced the Government's decision to amend the income tax law relating to rebates of tax in respect of dependants to restore the position that had existed before it was disturbed by the Domicile Act 1982. One of the rules relating to tax rebates for dependants, which has special relevance to a migrant who precedes his family to Australia, is that both the taxpayer and his or her dependants must be residents of Australia. Under the old laws of domicile, the domicile of a wife and dependent children followed that of the husband and, provided arrangements had been made for them to come to Australia within five years, they were accepted as residents of Australia for income tax rebate purposes. The Domicile Act 1982 changed the situation by giving a wife and children over 18 years an independent capacity to acquire domicile, with the result that such dependants could not be considered to be residents of Australia until such time as they had actually taken up permanent residence in this country. The amendment to the rebate provisions to be made by this Bill will restore the earlier position of migrants awaiting the arrival of their dependants from overseas and will apply from 1 July 1983 the date on which their position was changed by the Domicile Act 1982. I also note that the amendment is framed to ensure that the same rules apply should it be a wife who precedes her husband to Australia. Rebate in Respect of Certain Dividends Paid to Residents One of the measures announced in the Treasurer's economic statement in May was the abolition of the rebate of tax on up to $1,000 of dividend income of resident individual taxpayers which had been introduced in the previous Budget. As the Treasurer indicated in May, the Government does not consider the rebate to be an appropriate or equitable response, if one were needed, to criticism of the taxation treatment of dividends resulting from the interaction of the personal and company tax systems. Under provisions contained in this Bill, the rebate will be abolished with effect from 1 July 1983. This is expected to increase revenue by $75m in 1983-84 and $105m in 1984-85. General Concessional Rebate The present income tax law makes available a tax rebate of 30 per cent of the excess over $1,590 of expenditure on certain eligible items such as superannuation contributions, life insurance premiums, net medical expenses, education expenses and private rates and taxes. This Bill will increase the threshold amount of eligible expenditure to $2,000 with effect from the beginning of the 1983-84 income year. This measure is estimated to save $11m in 1983-84 and $70m in a full year. Home Insulation Expenses The Bill also gives effect to the Budget proposal to terminate the deduction for expenditure on the thermal insulation of a first home. The deduction will not be available for thermal insulation costs after 23 August 1983 except where they are paid under a contract entered into on or before that date. The estimated revenue saving is $6m in 1984-85 and $7m in a full year. Exempt Business Losses Another measure announced in the May economic statement now being given effect by the Bill is the withdrawal of the deduction against income from other sources for a loss incurred in carrying on a gold mining business, the income from which is exempt from tax. The rationale for this deduction is questionable and its potential use for tax minimisation purposes has become apparent. The deduction will be withdrawn in respect of losses incurred in the 1983-84 and subsequent years of income. In the interim, the statutory requirement that loss deductions allowed in any of the three income years preceding a year in which profits are derived from the exempt business will continue to apply, where relevant, in respect of deductions allowed in the 1982-83 and earlier income years. The exemption from tax of profits from gold mining in Australia is not otherwise affected by the Bill. Expenditure on Land Clearing, Swamp Drainage, etc. As announced in the Budget Speech, the deduction over 10 years for capital expenditures on such things as land clearing and swamp drainage in preparing land for use in primary production is being abolished. Expenditure incurred after Budget night, 23 August 1983, will no longer qualify for deduction on this basis unless it is incurred under a contract entered into on or before that date. This measure-which will not disturb the basis of deduction of capital expenditure on soil or water conservation or of revenue expenses of established primary production businesses-is estimated to save $3m in a full year and will remove the encouragement through the tax system of environmentally and economically unsound activities. Averaging for Primary Producers I turn now to changes to the primary producer averaging system which were foreshadowed in the Treasurer's economic statement of 19 May 1983. The changes will mean that, commencing with the 1983-84 income year, the tax liability on primary production income will be determined every year on the basis of the tax rate on average income and not-as has been the case since the 1977-78 income year-only in years when this would reduce the tax payable. The existing arrangements go beyond the reasonable objective of removing undue tax effects of fluctuations in incomes that typically arise in the primary production sector. They give taxpayers with access to averaging a clear advantage over other taxpayers. The essential basis of operation of the existing system will be preserved in the new system and an averaging rebate will continue to apply in years when taxable income exceeds average income. In years when average income is greater than taxable income there will be a complementary adjustment to bring the tax on primary production income up to that determined on the basis of averaging rules. It is estimated that this change will yield $15m in 1983-84 and $20m in subsequent years. With the re-introduction of automatic averaging year by year, the Bill also affords primary producers the right of election to withdraw permanently from the averaging system if they wish. A similar election was available under the comparable averaging provisions in force before 1978. Collection of Tax Payable by Non-Residents Provisions introduced into the income tax law in the autumn sittings to facilitate collection of tax from non-resident beneficiaries made trustees primarily liable for tax, including provisional tax, in respect of trust income distributed to such beneficiaries. Many trustees affected by those measures have claimed that, because other existing provisions of the income tax law, in effect , authorise and require them to retain from any distribution to a non-resident beneficiary an amount sufficient to pay the tax on that income, it is not appropriate for them to be also subject to payment of provisional tax. These trustees have also claimed that these arrangements give rise to difficulties for them because they are obliged to incur additional expense in establishing separate trusts in which to accumulate the amounts retained until assessments are issued. To meet these representations, the Government has decided to amend the income tax law to free trustees from liability to provisional tax in respect of income distributed to non-resident beneficiaries. To avoid the need for the creation of separate trusts, while preserving the application of pay-as-you-earn principles to such income, the trustees affected will be required to promptly remit the amounts deducted from distributions to non-resident beneficiaries to the Commissioner of Taxation when the distributions are made. The amendments will have a negligible effect on revenue in 1983-84 and, since they affect the timing and not the amount of tax payments will not have any revenue effect in the long term. Provisional Tax As provisional tax is part of the broad pay-as-you-earn system and is designed to collect tax on non-salary-or-wage income within the year in which it is derived, it is generally accepted as reasonable that the amount charged should approximate as closely as practicable the amount of tax actually imposed for the year. Incomes for 1983-84 are expected to be higher than for 1982-83 and effective rates of tax for 1983-84 will be lower than for last year. Accordingly, as in past years, it is proposed to vary the basis of calculating provisional tax for 1983-84 to be notified in assessment notices to issue this year. The Bill thus provides for 1983-84 provisional tax to be calculated on the basis of 1982-83 taxable income as increased by 11 per cent and applying to the adjusted amount the lower rates of tax to apply for 1983-84. The changes to the averaging system for primary producers-as outlined earlier- will also be reflected in the calculation of 1983-84 provisional tax, if appropriate. Generally, the amounts of the rebates allowed in 1982-83 will be taken into account in the calculation. However, where a taxpayer with dependent children was allowed a rebate in his or her 1982-83 assessment, based on the higher maximum amount allowable for a spouse, daughter-housekeeper or housekeeper, or was allowed a sole parent rebate , the relevant rebates-including zone rebates where appropriate-will be based on the increased 1983-84 amounts. Where a rebate for concessional expenditure in excess of the $1,590 threshold was allowed in a taxpayer's 1982-83 assessment, the amount to be allowed in calculating provisional tax will be determined on the basis of the increase in the threshold amount-from $1,590 to $2,000-and at the 1983-84 standard tax rate of 30 per cent. Any pensioner rebate allowed in the provisional tax calculation will reflect the higher 1983-84 maximum amount. Also, the dividend and health insurance rebates, and the rebate for home loan interest in excess of 10 per cent per annum, all of which were abolished from 1 July 1983, will not be allowed in calculating 1983-84 provisional tax. An amount for provisional medicare levy will be added to the provisional tax otherwise payable where it appears, from the information available in the taxpayer's 1982-83 return of income, that he or she will be liable to this levy in 1983-84. It is, of course, open to taxpayers who consider that their taxable income for 1983-84 will increase by less than 11 per cent, or who consider that sufficient rebates have not been taken into account, to 'self-assess' and have the provisional tax for 1983-84 recalculated on the basis of their own estimates. Mr President, as usual, a technical explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in a memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. This Bill is related to two income tax measures announced in the May economic statement. One of these is the modification of the income averaging provisions for primary producers and the other is the reduction in the income threshold at which special rates of tax become payable on certain income of children. Income Averaging Provisions for Primary Producers Under this heading are amendments complementary to the changes to be made to the primary producer averaging system which I mentioned in speaking to the previous Bill and which restore that system to one of automatic application each year. The amendments will establish the rate of complementary tax that is to be payable by way of averaging adjustment where the average income of a taxpayer for a year exceeds his or her taxable income for that year. The complementary tax is the obverse of the averaging rebate which is allowed in years when the average income is less than taxable income. Its effect is to adjust the tax payable to the amount appropriate to application of average tax rates to taxable income from primary production. As I indicated earlier, the revised system is to apply for the 1983-84 and subsequent income years. Special Rates of Tax Applicable to Minors The income tax law currently provides for tax at the rate of 46 per cent or higher to apply to certain types of income derived by some unmarried minors. As indicated in May, the $1,040 income threshold at which these rates become payable has come to be exploited in many tax minimisation schemes and is to be reduced by this Bill to $416 with effect from 1 July 1983. The shading-in arrangements for incomes marginally greater than the threshold amount are also being appropriately adjusted. Mr President, in introducing these amendments I want to make clear one point that has been the subject of media comment, and that is that these special rates of tax apply only to certain types of income derived by some unmarried minors. The relevant legislation-division 6AA of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which was enacted in 1980 to discourage income splitting by diversion of income to children-contains a number of important exclusions. One of these is for particular classes of children who are not subject to the measures at all. For example, children who are handicapped, disabled, orphaned or in full-time employment. The other exclusion covers specific classes of income such as salary and wages and other remuneration for services rendered, income from a business genuinely carried on by a minor, income from damages awards, compensation, divorce settlements, deceased estates and the like, where no avoidance arrangements are involved. It is therefore quite clear, Mr President, that the provisions do not apply to children's earnings attributable to their own part-time or full-time work. To refer to it in such terms as the newsboys' tax is absolute nonsense and a grave misrepresentation of its true nature. The particular amendments proposed will yield nothing in 1983-84 but are expected to increase revenue by $70m in 1984-85. Provisions of the Bill are explained in detail in a memorandum that has been made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. This is an annual measure which formally imposes personal income tax rates for the current 1983-84 financial year. The rates imposed by this Bill are those declared for that year in the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982 as proposed to be amended by the accompanying Income Tax ( Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. The rates for 1983-84 reflect for the full year the changes made to the personal income tax rate scale with effect from 1 November 1982. These will result in a reduction in tax payable, on equivalent taxable incomes, on 1983-84 assessments as compared with 1982-83 assessments, for all resident individual taxpayers. The reductions in tax will be reflected in provisional tax payable for 1983-84 which is also formally imposed by this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. This Bill will formally impose income tax for 1983-84 on the 1982-83 taxable income of companies and unit trusts treated as companies for tax purposes, as well as on the taxable income of superannuation funds and the trust income of non-resident company beneficiaries of the current year. The rates of tax are also declared by the Bill and, except for the increase, as announced in the 1981-82 Budget, in the rate for friendly society dispensaries to the general company tax rate of 46 per cent, they are the same as for 1982-83 . The provisions of the Bill follow the same lines as in other years and details of the various rates are set out in the explanatory memorandum that has been made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the basic rate of tax payable by a company under section 126 of the Income Tax Assessment Act on interest paid on bearer debentures where the company does not disclose the names and addresses of the debenture holders to the Commissioner of Taxation. This provision has existed in the income tax law as an anti-avoidance measure for many years and the rate was last increased in 1974. It is considered opportune to increase the rate to one more appropriate to the provision's purposes. For interest paid or credited on or after the date of commencement of this Act, the rate of tax will be 60 per cent-a rate equivalent to the special rate applicable to accumulating trust income assessed under section 99A of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The technical aspects of the Bill are explained in the memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business, order of the day relating to the consideration of committee reports pursuant to sessional orders, be not proceeded with this day. Consideration resumed from 8 November 1983. GROUP C Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $101,878,000. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia) —Leader of the Opposition) (10.08)-In the interest of orderly consideration of the Appropriation Bills and as Senator Walsh, the Minister for Resources and Energy, is not yet with us, I will proceed to raise the next matter relating to the Department of Resources and Energy that I wished to raise with him. When the Committee ceased to sit last evening I had put a couple of matters forward. Senator Walsh indicated that he would respond this morning. No doubt he will join us shortly and do that. Whilst I would rather make these remarks in the presence of Senator Walsh, Mr Chairman, in order to avoid you putting the motion that we should simply pass these items I will proceed with my part of the debate. Yesterday I raised the fact that, in a number of respects, the Government has failed to live up to its professed belief in rational economic principles and is taking refuge in making political decisions on matters of major economic significance. It appears to be the case that, in a whole range of areas, the Government is substituting politics for economic sense. One of the areas where Senator Walsh is most at odds with commercial realities is his, and the Government's statements on uranium and on Australia's ability to sell uranium. Senator Walsh consistently refers to the spot price when he is talking about the potential viability of Australian uranium mines. He has made much of the fact that the previous Government refused a contract which was put forward I think, by Pancontinental Mining Ltd. He has always suggested this is on the basis of price, although he has conceded, in response to further questions, that the rejection by the previous Government was on the basis that the review period within the contract-that is the period which was established for a price review to take place-was not satisfactory to the previous Government while the price which had actually been obtained was. So it was not the immediate price which was a matter of concern; it was the potential for future revision of price that was the concern. In any event Senator Walsh has on several occasions in the Senate referred to the spot price of uranium and has said that it was quite clear that with the spot price as it was there was potential for sales of uranium. Now it is quite clear that Senator Walsh is either not aware of or he chooses to ignore the fact that the spot price is of little relevance when we are talking about sales of Australian uranium on the world market. That is so, Mr Chairman, because the spot market for uranium accounts for approximately 10 per cent of the total world market and represents sales made usually from stockpiles to top up other stockpiles for immediate use. In fact as far as I am aware Australian uranium is not sold on the spot market but in the past has been sold on the basis of firm, long term contracts. The price he should be looking at, when assessing whether a sale should be allowed and whether sales of Australian uranium are possible, is the long term contract price. In any commodity market the spot price can fluctuate wildly around the long term price. The spot price represents the immediate demand and supply situation whereas the long term contract price represents the longer term demand and supply situation. At the moment, while the spot price is I think about only $24 a pound-Senator Walsh is fond of quoting that figure-the contract price according to some reports is averaging about $35 a pound. It is an illustration of why the spot price is misleading. The spot price of uranium has been below $ 30 a pound since mid-1980, but I do not think one will find that there have been sales of Australian uranium at the spot price because it has all been sold under longer term contract. A number of contracts have been signed since 1980 which were approved by the previous Government. While the previous Government did not reveal what the floor price it insisted on was for that period because it did not believe it was commercially desirable for that figure to be released-it could affect the negotiating position of the companies involved-Senator Walsh earlier this year, I think in an answer to a question, quoted a floor price of $US35 a pound. It is quite clear if that were the floor price, or if it were something similar to that, the contracts which have been written for Australian uranium since 1980 must have been made at prices significantly above the spot price. For example, the spot price throughout 1982 was less than $US23 a pound. So the general proposition I put to the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is now with us, is that the spot price is an inaccurate indicator of contract prices and his use of that figure in answer to questions and in debate in this chamber is in fact misleading and does result in the debate taking place on a false premise. I had my office do some work on this matter, Mr Chairman, and I will show a copy of a table to Senator Walsh so that he can look at it because I will be seeking leave to incorporate it a little later. This table, to which I am about to refer, is prepared on the basis of publicly available information. I am sure that the Minister could produce a more sophisticated document given his departmental resources and his access to information which is not on the public record. The table which has been prepared by my office shows the average price for uranium exported from Australia on a quarterly basis during the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. It shows the quantity exported in tonnes. It shows the value, the average price per pound in Australian and United States dollars, and it also shows the average spot price. I will be able to show that there is a very significant difference between the price at which Australian uranium has been sold under contract and the spot price which would have been available had we been operating on the spot market. I should explain that the conversions which are involved have been done using the Reserve Bank of Australia figures. We have worked on the average of three-month spot prices from a document produced by a company called Nuexco in September 1983. The value of Australian exports has been computed from the Australian Bureau of Statistics quarterly statistics reprinted in Australian Minerals Industry Quarterly and from the Bureau of Mineral Resources. It is the best effort which we are able to make to illustrate this point. You will find, Mr Chairman, that in the first quarter of 1980, Australia exported 434 tonnes to a value of something over $35m. We find that the average price per pound in US dollars was something over $40, with the spot price at $37 . In the June quarter, the average price of Australian exports was $US45, when the spot price was only $US31. In the September quarter the average price was $ US41, when the spot price was $US30. In the December quarter we exported at an average price in excess of $US43, when the spot price was $US27. So in 1980 the gap between the spot price of uranium and the contract price of uranium sold by Australia ranged from $US2.45 through to $US15.96. In other words, in the final quarter of that year there was a $US16 gap between the spot price of uranium and the actual price of the sales from Australia. The table shows similar figures for 1981. In that year the gap or the difference-and in each case the difference is in Australia's favour-ranges from a low of $US12.55 for the final quarter of the year to a high of $US15.43 in the June quarter of the year. In 1982, we find that there is a gap, again in Australia's favour, between the spot price and the actual sale price of a minimum of $US12.84 in the March quarter through to a maximum of $US15.90 in the June quarter. It remains over $US15 for three- quarters of that year. Again in 1983, on the statistics we have been able to get , the range is from $US15.98 down to $US10.68. I suppose that with the strengthening of the uranium market one can expect that discrepancy to reduce somewhat. Now that the Minister has had a chance to look at the table I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the table including the explanatory notes as to the source of the figures. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AVERAGE PRICE OF URANIUM EXPORTED FROM AUSTRALIA - QUARTERLY 1980 1981 Quarter March June Sept. Dec. March June Sept. Dec. Qty Exported (tonnes) (a) 434 168 148 381 461 523 160 481 Value $A('000) (a) 35 ,021 14,660 11,765 31,245 34,673 40,427 11,347 33,596 Av. price per lb $A (b) 36.60 39.58 36.06 37.20 34.12 35.06 32.17 31.68 $A/$US (c) (1.096) (1.138) (1. 163) (1.173) (1.165) (1.146) (1.143) (1.138) Av. price per lb $US 40.12 45.04 41.93 43.63 39.75 40.18 36.77 36.05 Av. Spot Price $US (d) 37.67 31.83 30.00 27 .67 25.00 24.75 23.50 23.50 Difference Av. price-Spot price $US 2.45 13.21 11. 93 15.96 14.75 15.43 13.27 12.55 1982 1983 Quarter March June Sept. Dec. March June Sept. Dec. Qty Exported (tonnes) (a) 1,505 630 1,893 1,432 518 589 761 Value $A('000) (a) 110,079 47,991 143,131 113,846 46,326 50,611 70,272 Av. price per lb $A (b) 33. 18 34.55 34.30 36.06 40.57 38.98 41.89 $A/$US (c) (1.075) (1.044) (0.970) (0. 957) (0.932) (0.875) (0.885) Av. price per lb $US 35.67 36.07 33.27 34.51 37.81 34.10 37.07 Av. Spot Price $US (d) 22.83 20.17 17.42 19.17 21.83 23.42 24.00 Difference Av. price-Spot price $US 12.84 15.90 15.85 15.34 15.98 10.68 13.07 (c) Converted using average US/Aust. exchange rate for 3 months Source Reserve Bank of Australia-reprinted Parliamentary Library Monthly Economic and Social indicators. Sept. 83. (d) Average of 3 months spot prices (exchange values). Source Nuexco. Sept. 83. (a) Source ABS quarterly statistics reprinted in Australian Minerals Industry Quarterly, various, Bureau of Mineral Resources. (b) 1 Tonne = 2204.634 lbs. Senator CHANEY —I point out to the Minister, in case he has not had time to sort out his thoughts on the matter, that the figures which I have put down of course do not differentiate between sales under contracts written in each of those years and contracts which were written at an earlier time. Those figures are simply not available to us. But the basic point which I think the table does establish quite clearly is that one cannot in a circumstance where Australian uranium is sold on long-term contracts and where only 10 per cent of the world trade is conducted on the basis of the spot market rely on the spot market prices as a reasonable indicator of the price which can be obtained for Australian uranium now or in the future. I wish to make a number of other points about comments which have been made by the Minister for Resources and Energy with respect to the marketing of Australian uranium. Once again, as recently as yesterday, we had a repetition by the Minister of the suggestion that there is a very limited market. The Government has assessed the market for uranium and it has decided that it can all be met from one mine-namely, Roxby Downs-and that is the end of the matter; that the market has been met so there is no economic reason-- Senator Walsh —One additional mine. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry, there will be one additional mine. As far as the Government is concerned that is the end of the matter and there is no room, therefore, for any other producer. That argument of course completely ignores the fact that the amount of uranium that will be sold by Australia is in part a function of what can be sold by those who are able to produce it and who are able to get out in the world market and to arrange sales. It is quite clear that those who seek to exercise the rights to mine which they have obtained after their exploration for uranium are confident that they have the ability to go out and to claim some part of the improving world market for uranium. As recently as last Friday the Chairman of Pancontinental Mining Ltd, Mr Tony Grey, in his company's annual report said that Pancontinental had reached an advanced stage in negotiating contracts with overseas utilities that would have covered a considerable portion of Jabiluka's base load. The Opposition simply does not accept that the Government can, with precision, say that there is a fixed market for Australian uranium, it is of the order of 3 ,000 additional tonnes per annum, and that can be met by Roxby Downs, therefore no other mines should be approved. There is, I think, a role for business in this area. There is a role for salesmanship and for entrepreneural ability which does not come within the province of government. Those people who are willing to invest money to produce uranium in the confident expectation they can sell it will, I think, be very unimpressed by Senator Walsh's desire to choose which mine should be allowed to produce uranium and, additionally, by his view that the market is totally fixed according to some estimate either of Senator Walsh or of his Department. There is room for a greater share to be taken by Australia if companies based in Australia are given the opportunity to expand, to go out and to make sales. I wish to raise other matters which I have held off mentioning because I wish to raise them while Senator Walsh is present in the Committee. No doubt the Minister wants to respond to matters which were raised yesterday, therefore I will stop now to allow him to respond to the matters raised yesterday and the matters raised so far this morning. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.23) — Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) raised the problem of explorers who have found gas for which there is clearly no commercial market in the foreseeable future yet there is, Senator Chaney argued, some moral obligation to provide some security of tenure for explorers who have found gas under those circumstances. The Government is, of course, aware of that problem of security of tenure over gas discovered by explorers but for which there is no apparent commercial market in the foreseeable future. We have paid some attention to that and one of the matters which is currently under consideration is that those companies be given longer term security to retain at least a part of the exploration permit areas within which those discoveries have been made. But, as yet, no firm decisions have been made. Regarding the other matters on the wholesale and retail prices of petrol on which I sought a response from other departments, it has just been brought to my notice that the Prices Surveillance Authority is intended to absorb the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority. It is expected that the new Authority will , in relation to petroleum products, operate in broadly the same way as the previous PPPA; that is, the emphasis would be on wholesale rather than retail prices. It is expected that the Authority, in exercising its powers, will have regard to the need for persons who supply goods or services to achieve a level of profitability sufficient to enable them to obtain an adequate level of investment and employment. Aspects of the Bill are currently under consideration in consultation with the business community. It is expected that the Bill will be introduced in the present session. I note that in the advice that I have been given, or the advice that the other departments supplied so far, there is no reference to the legal powers of the Commonwealth over the retail pricing of petrol, but as I understand it-and this is subject to confirmation-the powers of the Commonwealth in that area are very limited indeed. I turn to the matters that Senator Chaney has raised this morning. Whilst I cannot say off the top of my head whether the figures that he has presented in the table incorporated in Hansard tally precisely with those which are available to the Government-at least to the extent with which I am familiar with them, which is the fairly recent past-they are broadly consistent with the figures available to the Government. He makes the point, correctly, that there is a significant difference between the prices at which at least Australian uranium has actually been sold over the last couple of years and the spot price. But from that, he seems to have drawn the conclusion that the prices being secured for existing contracts could be obtained for new contracts. I do not believe that his claim is soundly based in that respect. I am not sure of the degree to which this information can be released. It is held within the Department of Trade anyway, of course, and not within the Department of Resources and Energy. The Department of Trade holds the precise details of the pricing review arrangements within existing contracts, contracts such as that which was negotiated by Pancontinental Mining Ltd in 1982 and contracts which have been negotiated by another producer more recently. I will see what detail the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) believes can be made available on that question without breaching commercial confidentialities. But I remind Senator Chaney that it was for that very reason-that is, that the provisions within any contract for price revision were to be taken into account- that they will be taken into account by this Government and, indeed, were taken into account by the previous Government. It was for that reason, as has been confirmed, if not directly by Mr Anthony certainly by a spokesman from his office, such confirmation being published in the Australian some months ago and not denied by Mr Anthony, that when that Pancontinental/Central Electricity Generating Board contract was put before Mr Anthony last year he declined to approve it because the pricing arrangements, not necessarily for the first year but for subsequent years, were considered by the previous Government to be unsatisfactory. Senator Chaney has advanced the argument that the potential market for Australian uranium could be increased if greater sales efforts were made and such efforts were made by a greater number of producers. That is a belief which, I suppose, anyone could hold. There is no objective evidence to support that belief. He went very close to arguing the principle, the absolute position, that government ought to leave such decisions entirely in the hands of private business. With respect to sugar, for example, it could be argued that more Australian sugar could be sold if there were not a monopoly marketer; that if a group of potential sugar producers were to establish an integrated sugar producing industry and be permitted to attempt to sell that product outside the existing monopoly marketing arrangements, the total sales of Australian sugar could be increased. Indeed, in that case that could well happen. The point is that Governments do not allow that to happen. If someone in Queensland decides to grow sugar cane on unassigned land, it will be commandeered by the Sugar Marketing Board for $1 a tonne. Thus, although it might be quite legitimate to raise that argument in a theoretical forum or a philosophical political discussion, it is not an argument which is applicable to the Australian economy or the way it has been managed in very many areas over very many decades by either Labor or non-Labor governments. If the Opposition is seriously advancing the proposition that there ought to be no government interference whatsoever, the absolute position, in determining who can produce or sell any commodity, I suggest that it direct its attention to the sugar marketing arrangements and publicly oppose them. The Government is not infallible in the judgments it has made about the commercial demand for Australian uranium. Nobody's judgment is infallible, but the material upon which those judgments have been made is not solely material supplied by or estimates made by the various Australian Government departments which are included. I refer again to the estimate which, I think, could reasonably be called the best estimate on movements in stockpiles of uranium. It was made by Mr Townsend of the British Central Electricity Generating Board and was published recently. Mr Townsend said that in his judgment the production from any new mine would not be needed on the world market until 1995. Under the decision made by the Government yesterday, the two existing mines may continue in production and Roxby Downs may commence subject to the partners or to the participating companies judging it to be a commercially viable proposition. In the judgment of the Government, the supplies from the two existing mines plus Roxby Downs are capable of filling the gap in the commercial market for Australian uranium well into some time between 1995 and 2000. We also see Roxby Downs and Jabiluka as being competitive or, if one likes to extend that, Roxby Downs and Yeelirrie was also being competitive. Given an existing, and for some time into the future, continuing high level of unemployment, the net economic benefits to the nation from Roxby Downs-I do not think this would be seriously disputed-are considerably in excess of the net economic benefits which could be gained from either of the alternatives I have mentioned or some others I could mention. I do not think that is sensibly arguable. What could be disputed and what could be sensibly argued, because it entails much more doubtful judgments, is the assessment that Roxby Downs is competitive with or mutually exclusive to those other two prospects, Jabiluka and Yeelirrie. In the judgment of the Government, that is the situation. An additional problem regarding Jabiluka, which I believe is generally well known, is that both the Ranger mine and probably more so the Jabiluka deposit are in a very environmentally sensitive area. While attempts are being made to monitor carefully the environmental effect of the mining at Ranger, that has not been under way for a very long period and there are valid grounds, I believe, for caution before making final judgments that there have been no adverse environmental effects in the Kakadu area and the Alligator Rivers wetlands. I think it would be premature to conclude unequivocally that there are no undesirable environmental effects. That is an additional reason for caution in regard to Jabiluka because if it is established at some time in the future that the mining at Ranger has significant and damaging environmental effects, then those effects are almost certain to be increased susbstantially if another mine is operating in the same area. For all the reasons which I have gone through today and yesterday, the Government has made the policy decision it has. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.37) —I wish to follow up a number of points made by the Minister for Resources and Energy in his response. I noted his reply with respect to the petroleum pricing arrangements that the Government intends to put into place, and I ask him to pursue further the question of overlap with State bodies because I do think that is a significant problem for industry and one which the Minister himself, on reflection, would agree does represent an unnecessarily complex approach even if one assumes that this sort of price control is necessary and desirable. I ask him to consider the problem of the dual jurisdiction of State and Commonwealth bodies, whether it be in regard to the new Commonwealth body or the old, and the various mechanisms which have been put in place by the States. As far as prices are concerned, I would also welcome his following up the suggestion which he made that he would check to see what non-confidential information could be made available with respect to the proposal by Pancontinental Mining Ltd that it should write new contracts and the sorts of prices which have been obtained under the contracts which have been approved by the Government for the existing mines. Indeed, I would welcome any information which would throw some light on a debate which I think is developing some substantial mythology of its own. To enable us to put some of that mythology to rest, I ask the Minister to consider providing additional information-that is, information over and above the matter of the recent contracts written by Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and the contracts Pancontinental believes that it could enter into if it had Government permission. I ask the Minister to obtain for me some information. All of these questions are subject to the Opposition's acknowledgment that there can be questions of commercial confidentiality, which certainly led the previous Government, as I understand it, not to release the floor price which it had established, although in fact Senator Walsh has broken with that precedent. I do not seek information which is commercially confidential and which would damage companies, but I will put the requests in forms which cover perhaps the obtaining of more precise information and then more generalised information. I ask the Minister to find out: For each contract for the sale of uranium approved by the Commonwealth Government since January 1981, what was the difference in dollars between the approved contract price and the prevailing spot price of uranium at the time of the signing of the contracts? I ask for the difference in price and also whether in each case the difference in the spot price was higher or lower than the contract price, although I am confident that in each case the contract price will have been higher than the spot price. If that sort of detail is not available for commercial reasons, can the Minister find out what the average difference was in the prices weighted by the amount of uranium sold in each contract? What was the largest and smallest difference between the prevailing spot price and the approved contract price? In each case was the spot price higher or lower than the contract price? Were there any sales of Australian uranium made on the spot market during that period, that is, since January 1981, or indeed in any other period? If so, how much was sold on that market? What was the volume of Australian uranium sold in new contracts approved in each of the calander years from 1978 to 1982 and so far this year? What was the volume of Australian uranium supplied under contracts in each of the calendar years from 1978 to 1982 inclusive and so far this year? I ask for that detail to be obtained because this is a matter of considerable public interest. It is obviously a matter of great interest within the Australian Labor Party. It is a matter on which there have been a lot of assertions by the Minister and other people. I think that sort of information will enable all of us to make more informed judgments. The Minister in his reply suggested that I had nearly argued-I am glad that he did not spend too much time covering all the things that I nearly argued as against the things that I did argue-that the matter of selling uranium should be left entirely in the hands of business. I would certainly agree that there had been a tradition in Australia for some interference with the free market in the sale of commodities which are produced in this country. However, there is a fairly significant difference between uranium and sugar. For example, there is the International Sugar Agreement, which covers a great deal of the world trade in sugar. Australia is a party to that agreement. I would agree with the Minister that there is very little of the free market in the arrangements which apply to the sugar industry in Australia. That is a matter which is of some concern in Senator Walsh's and my own State, where there is interest in establishing a new sugar industry which would have to be incorporated into those very highly structured arrangements. The world market for uranium is not like that. The world market for uranium in one which has much more of the free market about it. There is an improvement to the market in sight; certainly, an improvement is generally predicted. There are new sales to be made in the 1990s. There are Australian businessman who believe they can obtain a share of that market. Pancontinental is a very public member of that group. I think it is a very false parallel to draw this analogy with the sugar industry. I would suggest to the Minister that here is a case where the extent to which Australia benefits from an expanded world trade in uranium for peaceful purposes will in part be a function of the extent to which miners are permitted to get out there and be part of the market. I do not think that Senator Walsh would deny that Canada and South Africa have benefited very considerably from the very cautious approach which has been adopted by governments in Australia, including the Government of which I was a part, to the sale and export of uranium. The very careful approach which was adopted with respect to caring about environmental and Aboriginal issues-very great consideration has been given to the Aboriginal communities involved-non- proliferation, the requirement of bilateral safeguards and so on has enabled countries with a much less restrictive approach to get out there and claim a share of the market. I have met very few Canadians who are not deeply grateful to Australian governments for their attitudes to uranium, because they feel it has been of great benefit to their country. If we adopt restrictive policies, policies which are as restrictive as those adopted by the ALP yesterday, I would confidently assert in contradistinction to the Minister that that will diminish the share of the world trade which Australia may enjoy. That brings me to a point which Senator Walsh emphasised both yesterday and today in justifying the Roxby Downs decision. Senator Walsh has laid very great emphasis on the comparative advantages of Roxby in terms of the creation of employment. He points out that the nature of the mine is such that a greater number of Australians will be employed by Roxby than perhaps by other mines which, because of a different configuration and mix of minerals at location and so on, might produce the same amount of uranium at a higher profit but with less employment. I suppose in Australia in 1983 all of us would be concerned to see the creation of employment. Undoubtedly the greatest problem facing Australia at present is that by early next year it is anticipated by some that one-third of Australia's youth will be unemployed. That is not something which any of us can regard with equanimity. Therefore, the employment question is very significant. Senator Walsh's emphasis on employment, however, makes curious the Press statement which he issued also I think yesterday on the Government's attitude to uranium enrichment. If this Government is really concerned about ensuring that Australia's extractive industries, to use a term which is perhaps used in a pejorative sense about Australian mines and their failure to provide the levels of employment which might be wanted-- Senator Walsh —It is not used in a pejorative sense by me. Senator CHANEY —No, but the Minister understands the argument. People say that the industries do not provide the sort of employment that is required. Obviously there is very great interest in seeing our mining industry develop in a way in which there is more downstream processing, more employment in Australia, more value added in Australia and so on. However, if that is the case, why is it that the Government is blocking the uranium enrichment study? Senator Walsh, in his Press statement, said: . . . the Government has decided it does not wish to facilitate or be otherwise involved with the UEGA study. The Government does not propose to intervene in the study, but notes its completion would require UEGA to have access to classified information attracting international nuclear non-proliferation restrictions. The Government is not prepared to enter into relevant arguments with the relevant foreign Governments to enable such information to be passed to UEGA. Whether UEGA is prepared to continue with the study in these circumstances is a matter for decision by the companies involved. I think that is a very polite way of saying that the group really might as well give up. If we go back to April, at the time this Government was elected, we find that the uranium enrichment group put on ice its plans for the examination of a billion dollar uranium enrichment plan because of its then uncertainty over the Federal Government's approach to the nuclear industry. That was done pending clarification of the Government's uranium policy and pending further discussion. I think the group took a very reasonable view that it was fair to give the Government a chance to get its policy in order. However, the fact of the matter is that now that the Government has had that chance and has gone through all of this travail over its uranium policy, it has decided to stymie the prospect which Australia had-and I do not put it any higher than that-of getting into uranium enrichment, which would have added value to Australian exports and which would, no doubt, have also created additional employment. It seems to me that the decision announced yesterday by Senator Walsh is utterly inconsistent with the reasons which he put forward as to why Roxby was to be preferred over other potential uranium mines in Australia. It seems to me to be a decision which is devoid of principle. It seems to me to be part of the trade-off which has gone on within the Government Party to get, I suppose, a third of the way to a sensible policy for the development of Australia's uranium resources. I ask the Minister to explain why it is that this mere study of whether or not Australia could enrich its ores-in other words, upgrade them effectively, add value to them, increase the return to Australia and increase employment in Australia-is being stymied? What reason of principle is involved? What are the environmental, economic and safeguard reasons? What interest is being served by that negative approach on the part of the Government? It seems to me to be utterly inconsistent with what Senator Walsh has been telling us is the reason for accepting Roxby Downs. I believe it puts in doubt the reasons behind it and buttresses the Opposition's view that in fact the Roxby decision is one that is dictated by the politics of the situation, by the involvement by the Bannon Government and by its dependence upon that particular project for its continued success. Again we have a decision which is based not on principle but upon political horse trading which is now being dressed up in economic clothes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.50) —I should like to follow on from what Senator Chaney has just said. As a Minister, I had first-hand experience of the whole of that range. I remind the Senate that on Monday the Hawke Government, through the mechanism of its Caucus, made decisions upon uranium marketing-truly, by a majority, with 45 per cent dissenting and truly with the Sword of Damocles, in the form of a national conference hanging over it . But emerging from that decision were two things: That marketing could go ahead in a certain specified way and that there was an interest in choosing those areas that created the most employment. The Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) has repeated since, firstly, that there is a limited market in the world for uranium and that therefore we must ration the mines, and, secondly , that we must choose those that would have the highest employability. I want to remind the Senate what this test means because, frankly, if that is to apply, it is an absolutely compelling reason not to cancel the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia, not to phase out the uranium enrichment research at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, but rather to do the very reverse. I had a little to do with the origination of UEGA and its journey through life. I remind the Senate of UEGA's progressive findings and of their various acceptance by the Government. The first question, which touched on the market- and this is a very sensitive area-was, if there were a uranium enrichment plant in Australia, would there be prospectively a market for uranium enrichment as distinct from yellowcake. The report of the commercial experts said yes, after 1990 there would be prospectively a world market for enriched uranium from Australia. Of course, 1990 would provide a useful lead time in which to get the industry established. The second question was whether Australia could, technically and otherwise, have such an industry. The answer was yes, we could cope with it. The answer to the third question, as to what kind of technology should be adopted-gaseous diffusion, chemical exchange or centrifuge-was that the centrifuge principle ought to be adopted. The answer to the fourth question, as to which centrifuge-big or small, the American type or the European multinational enrichment plant type-should be used, was quite clearly that the Urenco type was to be preferred. As Minister-and I do not talk from secondhand knowledge on this matter-I had direct talks with a number of world governments and industries regarding the prospective market for enriched uranium. I had discussions with Urenco. I had discussions with European governments, with the French Government, with the Japanese Government and with industries. The situation emerging was that there was a very great likelihood that Australia could enter into a co-partnership with Urenco which might have one or both of two characteristics: First of all, that Australia might share with Urenco in Urenco's existing markets for enriched uranium; secondly, that Japan, which was toying with setting up its own enrichment industry, would look favourably upon an arrangement to buy enriched uranium from Australia if in fact some arrangement could be made. The key was to tie the technology and the market together. Having decided on the Urenco type of technology, the next phase for UEGA-and this is significant to Senator Chaney's argument-was for it to proceed to establish world markets. Having established that there would be a wider need for enrichment after 1990, that yes, we could do it, that yes the centrifuge process was right and yes the Urenco technique was right, the question was how we could clinch together the technology and the markets. It is a very significant thing indeed that, at the very time the Government is arguing that of course if there were more markets it would let more contracts, it is stopping the very study which would prove up more markets for Australia. Why would it stop a study which had a great prospect indeed of finding some co-partnership with the wider markets of Urenco throughout Europe? Why would it stop a study that would provide opportunities to get a wider market for enriched uranium in Japan? These are incontrovertible facts. They lie within the history of the Department and of the Government. That effort has been stopped. It was quite clear that the Government, under the pretext of being short of money-nonsense when it says now that it will have money left over from funds for unemployment benefits-phased out uranium enrichment. Of course, everybody at the Atomic Energy Commission knew why this was done. It was to be palliative, the giving of a toffee apple to the Left-saying to Caucus: 'Here is a toffee apple for you. We will cut this out'. How could the Government contemplate taking such an action? It will be noticed that the decision on Monday had nothing to do with any dangers presented by the uranium industry. In fact, the very reverse applied. To allow Roxby Downs to go forward, to allow new contracts for Energy Resources of Australia Ltd in the uranium province in Arnhem Land was of course an admission, as the Fox Commission said many years ago, that the mining and milling of uranium is a perfectly normal industry. But, of course, what the Government ought to know is that safer still, in terms of radioactivity, of environment and of ecology, is the uranium enrichment industry. Quite contrary to the belief of the propagandists, there is less radioactivity, virtually none, associated with an enrichment plant than there is with the mine at Jabiru or anywhere else. The fact is that enrichment is a chemical process in two stages, the first being the process of taking the ore, combining it with fluorine gas and getting the uranium hexafluoride. That is a chemical process with no radioactivity involved. The second process is trying to separate U235 from U238, using their different atomic weights, by spinning them around. That industry has been proven the world over to be environmentally safe and healthy and proven also to be labour intensive. It is the very kind of labour intensive industry that this country wants because a reasonably high technology is involved. To get some idea of the nature of a uranium enrichment plant in terms of cascades of the centrifuge, I say that we could have upwards of half a million or more centrifuges of this kind, shape and size, all with their own individual electric motors, all with their own operations and all with a high technology. But what has happened? Because of this hotchpotch, because Australia is not governed in the interests of the community, because decisions are made on the basis of a compromise in the civil war between the Left and the Right inside the Australian Labor Party-last Monday's decision represented simply a pause in that civil war-a palliative is to be given to the Left. I could not think of a more inappropriate time to say to UEGA, 'You must stop; you will not have access to the sensitive data', than right at a time when the Minister and his Government are arguing, by inference, that if there were wider markets they would permit more mines to open. I take it that is so. I am fascinated by the Minister. The Minister, in debate on 3 November in response to Senator Chipp, said: It can be argued that the effect of Australia's withdrawal- from supplying uranium- 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, if 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 judgement which some people will endorse and others will reject. I invite the Minister to let us know whether he and his Government endorse both those propositions. I took it from his speech that he was saying that that was his view. If that is the case then he is saying, as a Minister-let us be quite clear whether or not he is saying this because he used these words-that in fact it is marginally, at least, safer for the world for Australia to supply uranium than for Australia to withhold it. Let me say again that if uranium is enriched in Australia, then that would take the supervision and the safeguarding of uranium one important step further because, quite apart from creating jobs, the amount used and the output could be monitored in Australia. So one further step in the nuclear cycle would be done in Australia with total safeguards. The Minister said that it is better for the world at large for Australia to supply uranium than not and therefore the more of the world's uranium that is supplied by Australia the more control there is. He said that we are restricting the selling of uranium because of our view of the markets and our view on employment . Every report that the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia has made in the several years since it was established confirms that it is necessary to encourage UEGA to quickly get into markets because if we waste time now and others build the enrichment plants and put the contracts in place, not only will we not get more contracts but also there will not be a demand for our yellowcake throughout the world. Countries will make their contracts with others and there will be a fall away. I invite the Minister to consider the compelling argument that what has happened with regard to UEGA and with regard to the research at the Atomic Energy Commission is the very reverse of what should flow from last Monday's decision. If the Government wants more markets then UEGA reported that there were, potentially, considerably more markets. If the Government wants more jobs, UEGA said there are avenues for more jobs. If the Government wants the world to be at least marginally safer then we can supervise the whole of the process from the taking of the ore from the ground through to the enriching of uranium. Above everything else, what is perfectly clear is that a civil peacetime uranium enrichment plant is of no use at all for weapon making. All that happens in the uranium enrichment plant is that the uranium is enriched from about 0.7 per cent to about 3.7 per cent whereas weapons grade uranium is enriched up to 80 per cent to 90 per cent. Once again, if one wanted to do what the Australian Labor Party has been arguing should be done-that is, make the world more safe-then everything that Senator Chaney and I have said today argues that the Labor Party is entirely on the wrong track and has sold out to the Left. I may say, as one who has been a Minister and as one who has talked throughout the world on contracts for uranium, on yellowcake or enriched uranium, that it is nonsense to believe that governments know as much as free enterprise as to whether markets exist or not. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that a socialist government knows better so uranium cannot be mined and commercially exploited. I thoroughly reject the argument. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.06) —I find the last comment quite extraordinarily self-contradictory. Senator Sir John Carrick said that when he was a Minister he became an expert on the potential for marketing uranium in the world markets but that governments, by definition, do not know anything about it or do not know as much about it as private enterprise. I think it is necessary to straighten out a few facts. The Government has not terminated the study by the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia. The Government has done no more and no less than my Press release yesterday stated-that the Government does not propose to intervene in the study. The Government is not prepared to enter into relevant agreements with the relevant foreign governments to enable classified information attracting international nuclear non-proliferation restrictions to be passed to UEGA at this stage. What the four UEGA participants decide to do is their affair but the Government, at this stage, is not willing to enter into those agreements. I have a couple of other facts to relate. The full engineering and feasibility study to which Senator Sir John Carrick referred was not to proceed, according to the participants, until they were sure they had a market for enriched uranium . Senator Sir John Carrick seems to be sure that they have a market even though governments know nothing about these matters, so he says. He, as a Minister, somehow gained that knowledge in spite of his assertion that governments do not know anything about these matters. If the UEGA participants are sure they have a market they have not so advised the Government at this stage. Some of the points raised in respect to the Atomic Energy Commission are, in my view, too trivial to answer but if I do not answer them I suppose Senator Sir John Carrick will raise them again. We were faced with a very difficult budgetary situation. Senator Sir John Carrick may have known for some time-we did not find out until 6 or 7 March-that we were facing an enormous deficit. The general policy which was applied by the Government was that ceilings would be applied to expenditure programs. The ceiling which was applied to the Atomic Energy Commission-I have told Senator Sir John Carrick all of this before, at the Estimates committees hearings-was such that a re-ordering of expenditure within the AEC was required and that re-ordering decision included a reduction in the expenditure on the uranium enrichment program which had previously been proposed. The test bid however continues. It is a two-year program. It is related to Australia's participation in the imposing of effective safeguards. I want to put another matter straight. Senator Chaney asserted that I had broken the precedent that governments do not disclose details of the floor price . I reject that. In the public comments that I have made on this matter I have referred, in fairly vague terms, to prices in these sorts of words: I do not believe that this Government or the previous Government would have approved a contract at a price lower than around $A35. I have never given a specific figure . I do not believe that the previous Government had to my knowledge, a specific figure. It has been effectively acknowledged by Mr Anthony that not only the initial figure was taken into account by the previous Government but also the pricing review provisions. So I reject the assertion that I have broken precedent and released specifics of government policy on the floor or minimum price. Indeed even had I wished to do so I do not believe it would have been possible because there are many factors which would be taken into account in making a decision about a particular contract and factors which would vary over time. The specific information Senator Chaney sought will have to come from the Department of Trade and not the Department of Resources and Energy, so it will be a matter for the judgment of the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) as to what can be and should be released. However I do not think he will be likely to release on an individual company or contract basis information in the detail that Senator Chaney has requested. Perhaps something can be done along the lines of average prices rather than individual contract prices, but I cannot guarantee that either. I am advised that no spot sales of Australian uranium have been made. I want to deal very quickly with the analogy between Government intervention in the production and marketing of sugar and Government intervention in the production and marketing of uranium which Senator Chaney claimed was not appropriate because the Government was a signatory to the International Sugar Agreement. The Government did not have to sign the International Sugar Agreement . Previous governments on both sides of politics have made decisions, but if Senator Chaney wants to argue that the principle of Government intervention is wrong under all circumstances, he is making a drastic change to the practices followed by his own Party in government in the past. The degree to which governments ought to intervene is a matter for judgment or prejudice, I suppose, but there is certainly nothing unprecedented about it. I think it is quite conceivable that Pancontinental Mining Ltd could negotiate some contracts for uranium supply at some time in the next decades anyway, if not in this decade, and at prices which would fall within the price guidelines which would be acceptable to this Government. That is quite conceivable. What, in the Government's judgment, is not conceivable is that Pancontinental could negotiate contracts for sufficient tonnage to get that mine in operation without undermining or crowding out-to use a phrase once favoured by a former Liberal Treasurer-the potential for Roxby Downs to write those contracts. In other words , even though it is conceivable that Pancontinental could produce some contracts , in the judgment of the Government the two projects will be competitive at best and at worst are mutually exclusive for the foreseeable future. I think it is equally conceivable that if Australia had at all times been a gung ho-to borrow a highly technical legal phrase-seller of uranium, with no strings attached and with no price guidelines, then more of it could have been sold. I think that is quite a reasonable proposition, but neither the previous Government nor the present Government was willing to enter into the market as a supplier under those conditions. Party attitudes to enrichment change over time. I remember that the last Labor Government, and Mr Connor in particular, were eager to develop an enrichment industry in Australia. I also remember Mr Connor being subject to very severe criticism for that, and I remember reading an article published by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia and written, I think, by Dr Susan Bambrick -although I am not certain of that-on the economics of uranium enrichment in Australia, circa 1974, which was highly critical of the proposal of the then Labor Government to get involved in enrichment. I believe also the Opposition parties of the day were highly critical of Mr Connor's intentions in that direction. So attitudes to these questions change over time. Senator Sir John Carrick claimed that a market for enriched uranium for Australia was available some time after 1990. Well, that is a belief that Senator Sir John Carrick is entitled to hold. It may even be proven to be correct. Nobody can tell at this stage. But by his own admission it is some time after 1990 before that is likely . I do have some preliminary information from the Department of Trade regarding Senator Chaney's questions, but it is handwritten and difficult to interpret on the run. Senator Chaney —I would be quite happy to get it in a tabular form, as long as it is not in a month's time, but in the near future. Senator WALSH —As long as the honourable senator is agreeable to that, I will do it. I do not propose to try to read it out now because having just set eyes on it I will not be able to interpret it correctly. Senator Chaney —It sounds more like good news than bad news. Senator WALSH —No, that is not the reason, because I have not even attempted to read it. It is hard to read one piece of material while talking about something else-at least I find it difficult. Mr Chairman, I seek leave to incorporate the information which I sent over to Senator Sir John Carrick a while ago regarding the questions he raised yesterday. Senator Sir John Carrick —I have not got any information. Senator WALSH —Has the honourable senator not got it? Senator Sir John Carrick —It is still coming, whatever it is. Senator WALSH —I gave it to an attendant about half an hour ago. The CHAIRMAN —Perhaps you might like to ask to incorporate it later on once the Opposition has seen it. Senator WALSH —Yes, I will. On the question of employment, Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Chaney have both picked up the principal reason that I have advanced for the Government's decision on making a choice between Roxby Downs and Jabiluka. They may or may not of course accept the Government's judgment that the two are something between competitive and mutually exclusive. They have gone on from that to say we ought to be involved in enrichment as well, although there is no certainty that there is an economic potential for that industry either. I wonder whether they would care to extend their arguments a bit further because there is little doubt that Australia could become a repository for nuclear waste; that other countries would be quite happy to return to Australia the radioactive waste which is the end product of the use of Australian uranium in reactors, or anybody else's uranium in reactors. No doubt if that were done employment would be generated in that area. I wonder whether Senator Chaney and Senator Sir John Carrick would want to extend their argument to that degree, that we should also become a repository. Senator Jessop —A lot of engineers and scientists would agree with that because it is geographically stable. Senator WALSH —There is quite a rational argument to be put for it in my view, but I wonder whether Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Chaney want to extend their arguments to that point. That is a question of principle on questions of quantity. The construction phase of Jabiluka would employ about 1,250 people and the construction phase at Roxby would employ about 3,000 people. The operational production stage at Jabiluka would employ about 480 people and at Roxby about 2, 400. So there is an enormous quantitative difference. I am reading here from an answer given by Mr Anthony in December last year to a question on notice concerning a uranium enrichment plant. During construction stage the sort of plant that was anticipated would have provided employment for 400 people and, during the operational stage, for 200 initially, perhaps rising as high as 500 if the-- Senator Sir John Carrick —What about indirect employment? Senator WALSH —That applies to all the figures I have quoted. I have used no multipliers, only direct employment. Continuing employment would have been somewhere between 200 and 500 if the enrichment plant envisaged by the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia partners had, in fact, been economically viable and proceeded. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.22) —The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has, whether inadvertently or advertently, confused each of the questions I raised. First of all, as to the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia, let me make it perfectly clear what the position is today. Let the Minister refute it if he feels this is wrong. UEGA said the following things: First, that there would be a likely market for enriched uranium from an Australian industry from the 1990s onwards; secondly, that it is possible for Australia to have such an industry technically; thirdly, that the centrifuge is the right situation; fourthly, that the Urenco type centrifuge is the logical one, and fifthly, that it would now like to have the approval of the Government to go forward and, combining the technology and the opportunities for markets, to talk to the world to bring about arrangements whereby technology and markets can combine. In other words, should we join with Urenco and share its European market, should Japan come in and be part of it, or should any other arrangement be made? I put it to the Minister that where he has denied UEGA its ability to go ahead because the Government will not give confidential knowledge is the very crucial point. At this very moment UEGA is aiming to move into the field of technology and markets and seek to get the two together. The Government has denied it the ability to do so. To raise the red herring of Rex Connor is nonsense. Clearly, those who criticised the building of an enrichment plant in 1974 were right. They knew that, in fact, the American capacity for enrichment-and I challenge the Minister to deny this-was sufficient virtually to supply the world, certainly the free world, well into the late 1980s. Therefore, anybody building a plant as early as 1974-75 would be building miles ahead of the market. So, to raise an argument like that is to raise a red herring. To raise the fact that the Government is cutting off the research at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission because it needs to provide money for the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council is nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the previous Government, having supplied year by year millions of dollars for NERDDC, was able to supply the money out of the trust funds available last year. Of course, it is the normal duty of a government to find the money if the money is not in trust funds. So let us not have those kinds of excuses. It was done because the Left wing demanded it of the Government. The Minister raised the old chestnut, that is, that the Government had to do this because of the size of the deficit. Let me remind him, as I did yesterday, of his address to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia on 4 November. A substantial part of that address challenges the idea that large or over-large deficits are bad. In fact, the Minister said those kinds of arguments are at best ambivalent. He said that there has been too much talk about deficits. I do not know who is the discredited present Minister now, but the whole of the early part of Senator Walsh's address was based upon the fact that at best there was an ambivalence: The empirical evidence on these beliefs is at least ambivalent. He said: The perceptions are widely held . . . probably too much attention has been focused on the deficit ever since it became politically expedient to do so in 1975. He went on to argue about countries of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, saying that it was not the size of their deficits that mattered, but the existence of an effective prices and incomes policy. Let the Minister never again raise in this place the size of the deficit as an excuse for not doing things. Of course, he has run away from the question I asked him. I asked him a question in regard to his statement in refutation of Senator Chipp's Customs (Nuclear Materials and Hardware) Prohibition Bill 1983 the other day, in which he argued rhetorically that to deny uranium to the world could force up its price and could make it marginally less safe for the world in terms of nuclear war. When he was saying that I asked him specifically whether he was stating the view of the Government and stating his view. I say also that it is a pretty pathetic journey if, not being able to answer the arguments on enrichment, the Minister now has to trot out the question of waste disposal. Of all people, he should be the last to do that because he knows that the Fraser Government put aside major funds for the undertaking of the synroc development by the Atomic Energy Commission and indeed, in discussions around the world. In other words, the Australian Government, under the Fraser Government, was keen to help the world at large to find an absolutely safe method of waste disposal, a method which differs significantly from the vitrification method in two major ways. The vitrification method, which is regarded as safe today, requires the storage above ground of radioactive waste for some 30 years for cooling purposes because hot glass put into the ground with water around will leach. Therefore, one has to store it above ground for some 30 to 40 years. The great potential value of synroc is twofold: Its ability volume for volume to absorb is something like four times as much as vitrification and its ability to hold high level waste is much greater. But its major ability is to be placed in the ground immediately and therefore to be put away with immediacy. There is no question, and no question ever arose, that the Fraser Government was considering using Australia as a repository of world waste; none at all. What the Fraser Government was doing, both in its uranium enrichment research and in its synroc research, was making the world potentially immeasurably safer. Again, the Minister ran away from the enrichment situation. If indeed Australia can control the whole of the process and monitor it from the mine to the enrichment stage then that is one further step of making it safe. If it can have an enrichment plant that cannot be a weapons plant but can be only a peacetime plant, then of course one has made the world safer. If, in fact, synroc succeeds and we can provide to the world an immensely better method of waste disposal we have made the world safer. But let us not have these kinds of situations. If the Minister is good at rhetoric let us ask him the question: Does he personally, and does his Government, believe that Australia should be used as a repository for the waste of other countries? I think that it is important in an Appropriation Bill debate for Ministers to answer questions and not to put up rhetoric. I invite the answers. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.28) —I am very grateful to Senator Sir John Carrick for the information that the Fraser Government was going to use Australia as a dumping ground for global nuclear wastes. That is something of which I certainly was not aware before. I am very grateful to Senator Sir John Carrick for having told us that that was being contemplated by the Fraser Government. I would be even more grateful if Senator Chaney-or preferably, Mr Peacock-would tell us whether the policy of the Liberal Party remains the same in opposition as Senator Chaney says that it was in government, that is, that Australia was going to make itself available as a radioactive garbage dump for the rest of the world. I refer to the other matters raised by Senator Sir John Carrick. It was difficult to follow the disjointed meander that his 15 minutes or so took through a variety of subjects. He asked a series of questions initially. One of these questions was whether UEGA had said a number of things. I do not think I was able to write them all down. He asked: 'Did UEGA say that a market would be available after 1990?' I think that is possible, although I cannot remember for certain-that is, after 1990, UEGA has certainly made no reports to this Government that it has an assured market for enriched uranium at any time. Senator Sir John Carrick asked: 'Did UEGA say it was technically possible to enrich uranium in Australia?'. Yes, as I recall, UEGA did say that. It is hardly a startling announcement. It is technically possible to do an enormous number of things which no sensible person would do. It is technically possible, as I have mentioned before, to grow pineapples in Antarctica. Senator Sir John Carrick asked: 'Did UEGA say whether it peferred the Urenco technology?' As I recall it, the answer to that is yes. Indeed, reference is made to that in a Press statement put out jointly by Senator Sir John Carrick and Mr Anthony on 6 October last year. It was, incidentally, the last official statement made by the previous Government on this matter. In that statement a number of references were made to Urenco-Centec technology. It states: Although Urenco-Centec enrichment technology will be the basis for further studies by UEGA on the feasibility of enrichment in Australia, this does not mean that Australia will co-operate only with the Urenco-Centec countries. UEGA has advised the Government that there is greater compatibility between Urenco- Centec and Japanese centrifuge technologies than between Japanese and other technologies, . . . . Senator Sir John Carrick then meandered off in a sort of general discussion about macroeconomic policy, which does not appear to me to have a great deal to do with the estimates for this Department. I suppose macroeconomic policy being by definition the sum of all the components, for him to do so is not in breach of the Standing Orders, but this is hardly the place to have a debate on macroeconomic policy. However, since he has raised the matter, I am obliged to reply. In reference to the ceiling which has been proposed for the total expenditure of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, I have already said that that was reordered. Senator Sir John Carrick then raised the question of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council. I remember very well the situation we inherited in respect of NERDDC. That was that the previous Government last year had raided the NERDDC trust fund. It had emptied out the hollow log. If I remember correctly about 80 per cent of its total NERDDC expenditure came out of the NERDDC trust fund. What we inherited was a till that was almost empty. That imposed much more severe constraints, other things being equal quite obviously, on the amount of money which we could make available under NERDDC vis-a-vis that which could have been done the year before. I would have thought that was a subject that Senator Sir John Carrick would have had the good sense and the political sense not to raise. The fact is that in his last year as Minister he raided the NERDDC trust fund and almost entirely emptied it. That was the legacy which this Government inherited from Senator Sir John Carrick. He referred to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia address. What I did in my CEDA address-Senator Sir John Carrick quoted sections of that address-was simply to report some facts which I thought a number of members of the Opposition by now would have known. I said that there were about half a dozen countries which, throughout the very economically difficult decade through which we have just passed, by all the generally accepted indices of economic performance-employment rates, inflation rates and growth rates-had a very good economic record, certainly an economic record vastly superior to that which Australia had for the same period. I also reported the fact that the size of the deficits in those half a dozen or so countries varied enormously. The thing they had in common was an effective prices and incomes policy. I certainly would prefer it if in economic discussions and economic debate in Australia there were less concentration on the size of deficits. But we inherited from the previous Government a prospective deficit of $9 1/2 billion- for this financial year, on a no policy change basis. The size of the deficit was deliberately concealed by the discredited former Treasurer and discredited former Prime Minister right up until election day, when they were saying publicly that the projected deficit for the next financial year was $6 billion and they knew it was $9.6 billion. That was the situation we inherited fiscally. The situation we inherited psychologically was the widespread perception that under any circumstances a large deficit was economically irresponsible and inappropriate. We inherited those two things-the fiscal inheritance, which was an enormous bill, and the psychological inheritance of the expectations and perceptions of the community-which were generated by the irresponsible opportunism of the former Prime Minister in 1975, supported by Senator Sir John Carrick and, as I recall, every other member of the Liberal and National parties who were in the Senate at that time. The point I was making to CEDA was that if expectations are widely enough held they are likely to become self-fulfilling. Again, I would have thought that Senator Sir John Carrick, of all people, would have had the political sense not to raise the fact that we inherited, in the fiscal sense, a very serious problem, not only one which had been concealed from the public and the Australian Labor Party in opposition by the previous Government but also one on which false assertions had been made. The previous Government not only failed to tell the truth; it also made assertions which were simply not true. We inherited that situation. We also inherited what I regard as a psychological problem in that sensible discussions about an appropriate size of deficit in this country was stultified all the time from late 1974 until March of this year. Sensible discussions about the appropriate size of a deficit had been stultified because of the irresponsible opportunism of the Fraser Government and all those associated with it. Finally, Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned synroc. In one of the few statements he made that is correct he said that the previous Government had commenced to fund the synroc program. That is so. That funding has been continued. The amount appropriated this year for synroc, as I recall, is something like $1.3 million. The amount actually spent last year was about $0.3 million. I know that a greater sum was appropriated but the amount actually spent was about $0.3 million. That program has not only been continued; it has been significantly expanded under the present Government. As in so many other areas, nobody can be certain of the final outcome, but in the Government's judgment it is sufficiently encouraging to justify continued funding at the level we have provided this year. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.39) —I rise to deal with two matters. The first matter, if I heard it correctly, is one of the most blatant misrepresentations I have heard by any honourable senator in this place. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) asked whether we would respond to whether we would use Australia as a waste repository. I made it abundantly clear-and repeated-that the Fraser Government had never contemplated that at all ; that on the contrary it was working on synroc so that it could be used by other countries for the safe disposal of waste in those countries. For the Minister to say that I had suggested that the Fraser Government was contemplating using this country as a repository is outrageous misrepresentation , and typical of his attempt to run away from the arguments. Indeed, the interesting situation is that I asked the Minister what was the Hawke Government's policy and he ran away from that issue; he would not answer. Is the Hawke Government willing to have Australia as a repository? I asked the Minister to answer the two questions that I posed about his rhetoric in Hansard. He has not answered as to that matter. Since he has tried to use the argument of shortage of money as justifying cutting down the research on uranium enrichment, I remind him of his Party's economic statement. No amount of rhetoric on the part of the Minister can get away from the fact that virtually the whole of the policy speech and economic statement put out in February this year by the Hawke- led Australian Labor Party represented an argument which was a total refutation of every word that the Minister has said today. The argument of that economic statement-and I shall be happy to table it here in due course-was that the Fraser Government was wrong in putting ceilings on deficits, that very large deficits were healthy, not bad. That was the economic statement that was presented by the Labor Party to the people of Australia. The Labor Party argued that the larger the deficit, the greater the stimulus and the greater the employment. It suits the Labor Party and the Minister today to come here and explain away their failures by saying that the deficit would have been too large . The fact is that the speech made by his leader to the Committee of Economic Development of Australia is a total refutation of what the Minister says today. Fundamentally, the arguments on which the Labor Party was elected, and its economic statement, refute everything that the Minister says. For the Minister to suggest that a few million dollars extra going into uranium enrichment would affect the deficit is absolute nonsense. In any case, he now has a very clear situation. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, has informed us that prospectively more money will be left over from the unemployment benefits allocation, and I imagine that that will amount to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Why not now reallocate the money and get the enrichment situation settled? I must say that I have never heard more blatant misrepresentation in this Senate. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(11.42) —I hesitate to interrupt the debate between Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Walsh. I think that it is about time the Senate was reminded that there is still a strong body of opinion that seeks the reversal of the process in which they have been engaged-the further development and exploitation of uranium, especially to the point of enrichment. I can say only that I was horrified by some of the propositions that were put. I might even say that I was terrified. I remind the Senate, by interjecting in this debate, that that may be the case. I was of the strong hope that the industry would collapse economically, so I need to ask a couple of questions. I thought that what was appearing was an indication that the high cost of this industry would lead to its self-destruction. The question I put to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) is in regard to the two new contracts that have been negotiated with American firms. He indicated that there were some pricing guidelines. Is there a floor price below which Australia will not sell its uranium? If that is so, was the price for the new contracts below these guidelines? Can the Minister understand my concern? I am hoping that the industry will collapse economically. If we maintain a high floor price we shall not sell our uranium, we shall not mine it and we shall not export it, but if we are to drop the price, that will not eventuate. So I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the prices in the new contracts with the American firms are below the floor price which the Government has determined? Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.45) —The Australian Democrats obviously believe that the Government is sensible in getting out of the enrichment business. There is very little point in putting even the few million dollars that Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned into something which is of no value whatsoever to anyone. The centrifuge method being researched at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is now dated technology. That has been well established in other countries and other methods of enrichment are likely to become the means in the future. There is very little point, then, in our pursuing an experiment which will be of no purpose to us, which is immensely expensive and which is particularly demanding of electric power. I think that is the point: One virtually needs a nuclear power station to provide the power requirements of a large centrifuge plant, so by going into enrichment through a centrifugal process one would be creating the whole nuclear power situation and would probably need reactors in Australia just to service that whole incestuous situation. Arising from that are a couple of points that I would make. The Atomic Energy Commission, I understand-I want to ask the Minister a question on this matter- now has, with its reduced work load, a considerable number of fairly expert people-computer operators, statisticians and other professional and expert technical staff-who are under-employed. As a result of this, has the Government given any more thought to an idea that was projected some years ago, and which has come up over the years many times, including from the Australian Democrats, that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission as such should be ended and that the whole thing should be reconstituted as an energy commission, so that those people on the staff can be used more properly and there will be a diversity of occupation to which they can be devoted? My second question is related to that and concerns the extent to which I feel that the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council is not looking at alternative areas of generation, of electric power particularly, which are already successful and quite firmly established in other parts of the world. I would ask, for instance, whether NERDDC has had any kind of contact with Sanyo in Japan, which is now putting $50m into a project to make amorphous silicon cells. Silicon cells, of course, have developed very greatly over the last 10 years. Their cost has come down, because it is not necessary now to slice small sections of ceramic and use them as a photovoltaic cell. The silicon can be sprayed on to a substrate, which can be glass, metal, or even tile, with increasing cheapness, and this will provide the photovoltaic effect. It is interesting that in last week's Newsweek-I hope that the NERDDC people read it-under 'New products and processes', it is noted that Sanyo is now manufacturing a roof tile, which will be marketed within two years at $10 each and will allow a complete house to be supplied with power in perpetuity on a commercial basis at an overall cost of $3,000. That cost will come down considerably with the enormous amount of research going into this technology in both America and Japan. In a high sunlight country such as Australia, with remote localities and high costs of electricity reticulation, it would seem even more definite, as predicted overseas, that within a very few years amorphous silicon cells will replace nuclear energy as the best and cheapest way of producing electric power. The only use of nuclear energy is in the production of electric power. If indeed that technology is developing, as I understand it is, if a firm with the reputation of Sanyo is putting such vast sums of money into it, and if similar experiments are being carried out in America, why are we not doing it here? Is it because, as we hear from time to time from honourable senators, that all of these technologies are in the future, 30, 40 or 50 years away? We are merely revealing the fact that we are 30 or 40 years behind the rest of the world. For instance, is NERDDC studying the fact that in California now a series of wind generators is being built, in a fairly unfavourable environment which will supply 450,000 people in San Francisco? Why are we not in this kind of technology when, in the Cape Leeuwin area and on the western coast of Tasmania, we have the best areas in the world for it? What has happened as a result of that? A couple of weeks ago we heard from a Minister in this place that the research of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation into wind energy had been run down and had ceased completely. I ask the Minister whether we have to live in this sort of Rip Van Winkle world. Australia seems to have some antiquated scientists who do not even observe or know what is going on in the rest of the world. Perhaps they do. I would like the Minister to tell me so. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.50) —I join in this discussion because I am excited by the alternative energy proposition put forward by Senator Mason. I would like to tell the honourable senator that his proposition is quite uneconomic. The provision of electricity through solar means will not eventuate for probably 50 years. My authority for that would be Sir Mark Oliphant. Senator Walsh —It is not uneconomic under all circumstances. Senator JESSOP —Okay. I concede the point with respect to direct solar energy, but I am talking about illuminating electric light globes. Using the hydrogen economy through solar energy is a long way down the track. The most significant alternative source of energy is probably nuclear fusion. A lot of work is being done on it at present in the United States. I believe that laser beam technology or electro-magnetic containment-that is probably the preferable method-will see some strides forward as alternative forces of energy within the next 20 or 30 years. But a lot more research needs to be done on that. I have visited the experimental wind station near San Francisco. It is a windmill with vanes on it about the size of a Jumbo 747 aircraft. I can imagine the noise pollution that would arise in that area with several thousand or a million or so of those windmills. They are certainly a proposition but they are uneconomic. Senator Mason informed us that nuclear power is costly. I ask the honourable senator to tell me why, in France for example, it has been discovered that nuclear power is 26 per cent cheaper than coal. With the way the coal industry is going, it will become more and more expensive to win coal from the mines of the world. Coal fired power stations will become very much more expensive over the next decade or two. The Electricity Trust of South Australia is concerned at the cost. I would say that in a few years time honourable senators, if they are interested in the environment, as I am, will opt for nuclear power in Australia. I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) what research is being done by his Department into the pollution of the environment by carbon dioxide through the use of coal fired and oil fired power stations? Senator Georges —Oh, come on! Senator JESSOP —It is all right for the champion of the left to chime in. He showed his hand a few moments ago when he revealed the way he voted in Caucus the other day. He said that he was going to do his best to reverse the decision made by the Labor Party. I congratulate the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for what they have done. Although it is not enough, the fact that Olympic Dam will be able to proceed is welcome news for South Australia. It is welcome news for several thousand people in South Australia and other parts of this country who want to work. It is welcome news from our point of view. It may be of interest to Senator Georges that that particular mine is estimated to contain enough uranium to provide the world with energy for 40 years. Senator Georges —And radioactivity. Senator JESSOP —Right, radioactivity. The honourable senator talks about radioactivity, but he does not worry about the radioactivity that is associated with the coal mining industry. Senator Georges —Oh, look; that is nonsense. Senator JESSOP —It is not nonsense at all. Senator Georges does not worry about the 2.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide that is generated for every tonne of coal that is burned. He does not worry about the effects of the oxides of sulphur and nitrogen on the environment. The other day I read about the concern being expressed throughout the world at the damage that is being caused by acid rain. In West Germany it has quadrupled in the past year and a third of the country's forests are dying. Senator Peter Rae —And in Scandinavia. Senator JESSOP —In Scandinavia and also in North America and Canada. Senator Georges —Have a look at their power stations. Haven't they got scrubbers on them? Senator JESSOP —This source of pollution is operating throughout the world despite use of the most sophisticated scrubbing technology that anyone could wish to introduce. That comment displays the total ignorance of the left wing of the Labor Party. Its members jump to their feet because of emotive reasons without any knowledge of scientific fact. These debates are useful in trying to elicit some intelligent debate on the subject. I am glad that at long last some journalists in Australia have done some scientific research on this subject. They are now writing articles that seem to me to display the knowledge that they have gained by reading scientific documents. In the Weekend Australian there was an article written by Mr Des Keegan that demonstrated that he has done a bit of work on this subject. He refers all honourable senators and other people interested in the subject, particularly politicians who do not know anything about it, to a book called The Struggle for Power by Mr John Grover. Senator Mason —He is a publicist for the nuclear industry, as you know full well . The book is published at their expense. Senator JESSOP —All right. The point is that the facts are there. This article mentions some very interesting points. Senator Mason —It is a thoroughly biased book. Senator JESSOP —Well, Senator-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Lewis) —Order! The Committee will come to order. Please address the Chair, Senator Jessop. Senator JESSOP —I understand your concern, Mr Chairman. Certain honourable senators do not like it when one talks about a document that has been researched and is informed from an engineering and scientific point of view and which is able to discredit some of the anti-nuclear people who are pushing the line that the Australian Democrats would like to push. They are doing it very ineffectively, I might say. The article suggests that a number of the scientists who are anti-nuclear advocates are discredited. I also noticed an interesting article the other day which referred to the emergence of Senator Chipp as the self-styled moral conscience of those coercive Utopians seeking to arrest the very technological process on which the future of this planet Earth could depend . The article said: His loyal devotees, now occupying 16 tents around the lawns of Parliament House , this central tabernacle, are chanting incantations against Australia's most valuable sunrise industry, uranium mining and the peaceful fuel cycle. Senator Kilgariff —Where does that leave Senator Mason? Senator JESSOP —Senator Mason is probably the deputy high priest of Australia with respect to uranium. The objectives of the left wing, of course, appear to be well served by Senator Chipp's unswerving commitment to the formulation of a uranium policy which will guarantee to alienate Australia from the world community in general and from its major trading partners in particular. I suggest that the Democrats look at the path they are following. They ought to look at the problems of pollution that are being created throughout the world by coal fired power stations. They ought to look at the proposition that other countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan-- Senator Mason —They are uneconomic; they are yesterday's technology. Senator JESSOP —I just wonder at the amazing knowledge that my dear friend has in his brain. I cannot agree with any of it, of course; it is all nonsense. I am a little bit concerned that countries such as Japan, a former great military country, South Korea, Taiwan and others have little or no energy available to them. At present, they are forced to seek long term contracts from other countries. I thought that Senator Walsh very wisely suggested yesterday that they are obtaining their resources from Brazil and countries that have no great regard for the safety of those who use them. If we are involved in the provision of this energy source to other countries we at least have a strong voice with respect to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, about which I think we are all concerned. I applaud the Minister and the Government for getting into the act, albeit tentatively, for that reason as well as for another reason of great importance, which is that it will give us the opportunity to carry out scientific audits in the countries that are using Australian uranium to ensure that proper safety standards, proper storage technology, are employed. The only way we can do that is to become involved as a major supplier of uranium throughout the world because we can then exercise great influence in the areas that concern us all. I hope that ultimately the Government will see its way clear to enable other mines to commence for the benefit of the Australian workers who want some jobs. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.02) —Mr Chairman, I thought I would intervene before the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) replied because I will raise a couple of matters on which he may wish to comment. I am sure he would rather not prolong the debate. I want to make a couple of comments on the interventions of Senator Georges and Senator Mason. I merely wish to congratulate Senator Georges on being the only one of the famous 46, or whatever it was, who seems to be even vaguely interested in this debate. Although I disagree with his intervention, which seemed to be based on no particular fact, just that he is against enrichment-indeed, terrified of enrichment-he has at least had the grace to attend the debate and make some contribution. As far as enrichment is concerned, Senator Sir John Carrick made it quite plain that it is a process which relates to the upgrading of ore but not to anywhere near a weapons standard, that it is not a process which involves pollution or environmental problems and that it is in fact precisely the sort of move that we have hoped to see generally across our resource industries-namely, a move towards the processing of ores before they leave these shores. I, like him, would be interested in an answer as to whether new contracts which have been approved by the Government are below the floor price. No doubt we will get a response on that in due course. As far as Senator Mason is concerned, I must say I find what I would describe as his schizophrenic approach to scientific matters as quite extraordinary. He is an unabashed technological optimist about what one might call the fashionable possible developments that might save the world. He thinks we are going to have all of our electricity off the roof and that we will have all sorts of technological breakthroughs which will remove the need for nuclear and perhaps even coal-fired power stations. So we have a very high degree of technological optimism on his part, and I admire and respect that because I think that, the way the world moves, the discoveries that are made generally exceed our wildest expectations. It may be that if the honourable senator makes a hundred predictions, all of them wildly optimistic, at least some of them will prove to be true and he will be able to die a happy man, having seen his prophecies fulfilled. The odd thing about his attitude is that he is such a technological pessimist about the nuclear industry. The fact is that that industry has been operating on a commercial basis for peaceful purposes for 35 years with a safety record that is unparalleled. The industry has that record because of the technological skill that has been put into it. If other industries had made the same attempts to avoid pollution and to promote safety and avoid accidents as has been made by the nuclear energy industry then many of those other industries would have greatly benefited. I do contrast Senator Mason's extraordinary pessimism and Stone Age approach to the peaceful use of nuclear power with his extraordinary optimism in other areas. As far as the other matters are concerned, Senator Walsh allowed the standard of the debate to slip a bit when he resorted to an old tactic, when not finding arguments that suited him, of answering arguments which had not been put by his opponents. He did that-Senator Sir John Carrick has already commented on it-when he suggested that we were arguing that Australia should become the radioactive garbage dump for the world. That is a very emotional debating point; he might even regard it as a good debating point. It just bears no relation to the debate which preceded it. The debate which preceded it raised the issue of why it was that this Government was frustrating an investigation into the enrichment of uranium in Australia, a process which is not hazardous and which could not by even the wildest stretch of the imagination be called a process which would make Australia a radioactive garbage dump. We had in the debate the setting up of a straw man, and Senator Walsh had great fun knocking him down. I would like to ask Senator Walsh why he is trying to slide off the clear meaning of his Press release of yesterday. Senator Walsh put out a Press release-he has not suggested that it is not his-which states-- Senator Walsh —I what? Senator CHANEY —This is the honourable senator's Press release, is it not? Senator Walsh —Yes, I thought you said I suggested that it was not. Senator CHANEY —No, I said Senator Walsh had not suggested that it was not his. It states: . . . Government has considered its policy towards the study by the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia into the feasibility of establishing a uranium enrichment operation in Australia. He goes on to say: The Government does not propose to intervene in the study, but notes its completion would require UEGA to have access to classified information attracting international nuclear non-proliferation restrictions. I repeat, the Government is not going to intervene but notes that the group requires certain classified information. The Press release continues: The Government is not prepared to enter into relevant agreements to enable such information to be passed to UEGA. In other words, the Government is putting beyond the capacity of the group- according to Senator Walsh's own statement-the ability to complete its study. I think it is sophistry on Senator Walsh's part to suggest that the Government has done other than stymie the work of the study group on uranium enrichment. I believe he should be man enough to stand up in this Committee-indeed wherever the matter is raised-and admit that the Government has taken a decision that the study should not go on. The other argument which has been stressed again by Senator Walsh today is that the principal reason for supporting Jabiluka is the creation of employment. Senator Walsh —Roxby. Senator CHANEY —I am sorry-Roxby Downs. The principal reason for preferring Roxby to Jabiluka is the superior employment creation opportunities of the Roxby project. I ask Senator Walsh whether, in the great debate which occurred on uranium policy in the Australian Labor Party at its national conference last year, there was that sort of analysis of the options which faced Australia and whether, at the time when the ALP adopted as its policy-this was last year, not last Monday-there was the phasing out of uranium mining but the putting in of what we have generally described as the Roxby exception. Its policy said that uranium mining would be allowed where it was mixed with the mining of other minerals, although apparently that does not apply to Jabiluka. I ask him whether it is a fact that there was an extensive analysis of comparative employment creation qualities of the various projects. Was the Roxby exception put in on the express basis that it would do more to create employment in Australia? If it was, I think there can be some basis in fact for the arguments that he so conveniently trotted out this week. If it was not, then I suggest, as I said before, that he was simply justifying what were essentially political and doctrinal decisions on an economic basis which is a matter of subsequent construction. There has been a fairly lengthy debate on this part of the estimates. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on a number of those points which I have raised. I raise one further matter. I would also like the Minister to clarify the Government's attitude to compensation. What the Government did in the formal acceptance of the Cabinet policy by Caucus on Monday was to say that various prospects will not be able to obtain export permits and, therefore, will not be able to be developed. Senator Walsh, with a little sliding around yesterday in Question Time, confirmed that that was the meaning and the places such as Jabiluka would not be able to get export permits under the policy as it now stands. I ask the Minister: Is any action being taken by the Government with respect to compensation of those people who, in good faith and under the encouragement of various governments, including some State Labor governments, have invested heavily in getting projects to the point where they are satisfied that they have a potential mine for production and who have now seen those potential mines simply put into quarantine? I note that CSR Ltd, which is one of the companies involved in the Honeymoon deposit, in a quarterly mining report which it issues, has advised that the South Australian Government has refused the claim for compensation by the Honeymoon joint venturers. The Government has offered a five-year retention lease over the deposit. I think there is an important issue of principle involved here. The present Government is on record as saying that it, like the previous Government, encourages investment, both foreign and domestic. I think that the encouragement of investment has to be on the basis that there is some certainty, that there will not simply be an expropriation of the efforts and of the money which has been put into projects. I ask the Minister: What is the attitude of the Government to compensating those investors, those companies, both Australian and foreign, who, on the basis that they would be able to develop what they find, have put large amounts of money in? There are the costs of workers who cannot be retrained or redeployed by the companies. There is the cost of retraining schemes, and there is the cost of the care and maintenance of sites and so on. In some cases decommissioning expenses are involved. Will the Government be doing something to compensate those people who have effectively lost the capital invested? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.12) - There is one point that someone else might take up. I have been accused of misrepresenting Senator Sir John Carrick. That accusation is not correct. Apparently I misheard him. I thought Senator Sir John Carrick had said that the Fraser Government was considering storing nuclear wastes in Australia, or words to that effect. He claimed that he said no such thing and apparently others have confirmed that. I misheard him. I did not deliberately misrepresent him. However , that matter having been clarified, it leaves hanging in the air the other arguments which are being advanced by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, and Senator Sir John Carrick have argued that since the Government, in the context of choosing between allowing one mine or another to proceed used, as a major determinant of that decision, the respective employment generating potential of the mines, ergo the Government should be doing everything it possibly can to have Australian uranium enriched here instead of exported-as yellowcake. If that chain of logic were accepted, it inevitably follows that we should also store the waste. While there are some doubts, I suggest, about the economic viability of enrichment in Australia, I do not believe there is any doubt at all that the rest of the world would be quite happy to send radioactive waste to Australia and to pay us for keeping it in custody. That would undoubtedly generate employment. Senator Sir John Carrick asked: What is the present Government policy on using Australia for the storage of radioactive waste? Some waste, of course, that which is produced by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is stored here already. That is not a matter to which the Government has addressed itself and, therefore, there is no policy. The honourable senator also referred-I will go through this very quickly, Mr Chairman, because I know that debates on estimates are pretty free-ranging and I really think, this one having gone on for about 3 1/2 hours on matters which are non-specific to the estimates themselves, it is about time the consideration was terminated-to the February economic statement which was put out by the Australian Labor Party prior to the Federal election. It ought to be noted that that statement was put out in the context of the expectation of a $6 billion prospective deficit in this financial year. The macroeconomic conclusions were drawn upon that expectation and argued for a larger deficit. There is no inconsistency between that and the policy finally adopted by the Government which was for a deficit estimated, in round figures, at $8 1/2 billion. So the Government produced a Budget which included a deficit very much larger than what was believed at the time to be the prospective deficit. If Senator Sir John Carrick wants legitimately to criticise the Labor Party for putting out that statement in the context of the expectation of a $6 billion deficit on a no policy change basis, I suppose it is legitimate to do so. It is legitimate to criticise members of the Labor Party for having been mugs enough back in February to believe what the previous Government told them about the prospective size of the deficit, but on no other grounds is it legitimate to do so! The questions which were asked by Senator Georges have to a large extent, if not entirely, been covered by questions already asked by Senator Chaney to which I have responded by saying that the information on these matters is held within the Department of Trade and its release would be at the discretion of the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen). It would not be at my discretion. The questions will be referred to the Minister. However, I can say this much: I understand that there is a floor price policy. I think it is probably an over simplification to describe the policy which is being pursued in those terms, as it would be an oversimplification to describe the policy of the previous Government in those terms, because a floor price, as commonly interpreted, means that there is some fixed figure below which no sale will be made, whereas it is somewhat more complex, because there are mechanisms for varying figures from time to time. I will refer that question, along with Senator Chaney's questions, to the Minister for Trade to see what information, and in what detail, he will make available. Senator Georges —So what you are saying is that there is no floor price, there is a pricing policy? Senator WALSH —Yes. A pricing policy would probably be a more appropriate term to use than the term 'floor price'. This matter is not administered by me and I will seek clarification. Senator Mason raised a question regarding the future of the Atomic Energy Commission. Currently legislation is being prepared regarding the Atomic Energy Commission. As I understand it, the previous Government also had some legislation either in preparation or in contemplation regarding the restructuring of the Commission. Funds are provided for solar electricity generation. But with the exception of some very specialised requirements for electric current, that is, relatively low volumes in remote areas, the solar silicon cell continuous electricity supply option is not economically viable. Probably within a factor of 10 to 25 it is not price competitive with electricity generated for bulk usage in thermal power stations, at least in Australia, but it is viable and it is of course, used by Telecom Australia, amongst others, in some specialised circumstances. On the question of what one might call commercial scale electricity generation, principally I would expect, for the reason I have given, the use of solar electricity for the continuous supply of electric current in high volumes is far from being economically viable. Principally I would expect for that reason, an application for one quite large NERDDC project grant this year was rejected. In regard to the generation of wind electricity, particularly in Tasmania, in my view there are prospects that this may be economic in the context of a minor supply of the total grid. However, the technical data which is the prerequisite for making a responsible judgment on that question is inadequate. I have approved-the co-operation of the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission will be required for this to be fully effective-funds of, I think, $67,000 for a continuing study of wind velocities at various sites and at various altitudes in order to obtain a more adequate technical base upon which an assessment can be made. Senator Peter Rae —Is that in association with the air monitoring station at Cape Grim on the northern end of the west coast of Tasmania? It is one of the chain of air monitoring stations. Senator WALSH —I think not, but I am not certain. If the honourable member wants this matter checked out, I will see that someone does so. However, as I said, I am not certain of that point. Senator Jessop asked whether any research on carbon dioxide pollution is being funded. Not to my knowledge, but again that is subject to confirmation, although I guess that indirectly, through various university research programs, it is possible it is being carried out. To my knowledge research is not, in an obvious way, being funded through NERDDC. Senator Chaney returned to the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia question, within the context of which the employment argument was raised. He asked me whether this matter was considered by the Australian Labor Party Conference. I am not sure whether he meant to say 'Conference' or 'Caucus' meeting. The Labor Party Conference was held in public. There is a full transcript of its proceedings. If Senator Chaney wants to know what happened there or what was said there he can obtain a copy of that transcript from John Curtin House, I think for $30. I am not going to give him one. If, on the other hand, he meant the Caucus meeting held this week, yes, the employment generating potential was considered-at least it was raised in the debate and it was raised by me in a similar context and in a similar way to the way in which I have presented it to the Senate. I think that yesterday Senator Kilgariff asked me a question which included a reference to compensation. I did not answer that, not because I was trying to evade it but because it was part of a multiple question and I was not able to take sufficient notes to remember the question in total. Cabinet was requested by the Caucus meeting on Monday to consider the question of compensation, and that will be done. It is, however, my firm understanding that there is no legal obligation on the Commonwealth to compensate, for example, Pancontinental Mining Ltd for Jabiluka. My understanding is that the legal situation is pretty clear- there is no obligation to so compensate. But the matter will be considered by Cabinet at some time-possibly next week; maybe thereafter. Senator Peter Rae —There is the Fraser Island precedent, I presume, for there being a basis for an obligation even if it is not an enforceable legal obligation. Senator WALSH —I think it would be reasonable to argue that the Fraser Island precedent could be applied to a government decision which closed down an existing mine. However, I think we are moving into a qualitatively different area if we try to apply it to a potential mine site in which exploration actively has taken place and exploration expenditure has been incurred. That is something the Cabinet will consider. I might add that I understand the historical background to the Honeymoon prospect in South Australia for example, was that the venturers, the principal one of which is CSR Ltd, made an application to the South Australian Government for a production licence and that that application was rejected by the South Australian Government. I was aware of the fact that the South Australian Government stated that it accepted no obligation for compensation because it had never issued a production licence. Likewise, of course, no production licence has been issued for potential but non-operating mines in the Northern Territory nor, to the best of my knowledge, has any production licence been issued for Yeelirrie in Western Australia, although I am not certain about that. That is a question which is due to be considered by Cabinet. I know that Senator Peter Rae wants to say something. I know that debates of this nature are allowed to be wide ranging. However, we have spent a great amount of time on this matter and I think it is time that the actual subject matter of the appropriations was addressed by the Committee. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.26) —I take on board the words of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). I will not detain the Committee for long. However, I think that a final point needs to be made in regard to a couple of matters that have been raised during the debate. First, I thank the Minister for his replies. Telecom Australia installations and things of that kind of course use the old type of silicon cells. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the availability of new technology and amorphous silicon cells and hope that the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council will look at this. The next point arose from Senator Chaney's comments. Does the Minister agree with my understanding that an enrichment plant can be arranged quite easily to provide enriched uranium to any degree of enrichment; in other words, that it is quite possible and perfectly feasible to obtain weapons grade enriched material from such a plant, it being only a matter of the number of times the material is put through the centrifuge? That is absolutely fact. In fact, enriched uranium from just that source was used in the first atomic bomb that was ever exploded. I pose those two questions to the Minister. However, just briefly, I assure Senator Chaney and Senator Jessop that the most cursory investigation in a number of countries-including Japan, the United States of America and Scandinavia-will show that alternative renewable technologies are well advanced in those countries and that, indeed, we are truly the Rip Van Winkle land in that respect. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.28) —First of all, does the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) agree with this statement: 'It is the Government's intention to phase down the uranium enrichment research and development being undertaken by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights'? I mention to the Minister that the source of this statement is a letter under his hand. If he wants to check this quote I will be happy to send him the letter. I have a series of questions which I would like the Minister either to answer now if he can or, if he feels he cannot, perhaps to answer later. Do the Minister and his departmental experts have reason to dispute the claim by the French Ministry of Energy and the National Electricity Authority- the Electricite de France-that coal fired thermal electricity generation is more than half as expensive again as nuclear power generation in France and that oil fired thermal electricity generation is two and a half times as expensive? In France the claim is that coal fired thermal electricity generation is half as expensive again and that oil fired thermal electricity generation is two and a half times as expensive. Secondly, do the Minister and his departmental experts agree with the Federal Republic of Germany's Kraftwerk Union Corporation assertion that it would cost very significantly less to generate power from a 200 megawatt nuclear power station-and this is the important point I want to make-than it would cost to generate electricity from a similar oil fired thermal power station? Thirdly, do the Minister and his departmental experts agree with Japan's Overseas Electrical Survey Institute that nuclear is cheaper than coal, oil and hydro as far as Japan is concerned in the following proportions: 1:1.25 in relation to coal; 1:1 .6 in relation to oil; and 1:1.75 in relation to hydro? I would also ask the Minister what distinguishes the hydro-electric generating costs in Japan as being so comparatively expensive. Fourthly, I ask the Minister whether he and his expert advisers have any reason to dispute the study undertaken by the Finnish Atomic Energy Commission-and I remind the Minister that Finland gets over 40 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power stations-which showed that for Finland nuclear power including the full cycle of waste disposal, and decommissioning, was one-sixth less expensive than was the use of coal. Do not these facts and a whole horde of others demonstrate beyond doubt that the experience in the countries which have developed contemporaneously nuclear power and alternative forms of power shows that the economics of nuclear power is now beyond dispute-unless we quote some of the extraordinary figures from the United States of America which people have been quoting as support for what I believe to be the untrue case, that nuclear power generation is an extraordinarily expensive method of power generation. If I have a chance, I would like to talk a little bit about small nuclear power stations and the comparison with hydro- electric generation because it does have some relevance in the Australian scene in the future, particularly in one State. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.31) —I rise because of a number of remarks which have been made, in particular by Senator Georges-I compliment him on speaking in this debate and understand his reasons-and by Senator Mason. I think every Australian would agree that anything tending to promote nuclear warfare or the proliferation of nuclear warfare would be heinous and should be stopped. But I rise because there is a great distortion in the arguments that are put forward regarding the peacetime use of nuclear power generation, the use of uranium and the alleged dangers of enrichment. The fact is that all indications are to the contrary. Whilst in no way wanting to minimise the duty of people to reduce the effects of man-made radiation, I want very briefly to point out the evidence contained in a publication by the World Health Organisation. This is a United Nations publication, a factual publication on the effects of radiation, both man-made and natural, in causing carcinogenic disease or cancers. I want to state these points because I think that the matter needs to be put into perspective. I repeat that it would be the duty of every person to reduce man-made radiation to the absolute minimum. I say this against the background that if one lived in Sydney at sea level, over the year, one would absorb about 100 millirems of radiation. On top of that, all man-made radiation from atom bombs put into the stratosphere and into the cosmic mix over the years has added two millirems, so the level in Sydney is 102 millirems. By electing to work in Canberra one elects by altitude to add another two millirems to his total, or an amount equal to that produced by all of the atomic incidents. That is not to say that one should not try to reduce that level. If one travels in aeroplanes repeatedly, one adds more; they are elective things. To put this matter into perspective, I want to read a number of things very briefly from a publication by the World Health Organisation. The document states: Cancer is primarily a disease of old age. For example, in countries where life expectancy is in the range of 60-70 years, about 20% of all deaths are due to cancer, but the average victim is about 65 years old. Over 1500 different agents besides radiation are known to produce cancer. This list includes such items as chimney soot, arsenic, paraffin oil, coal tar, some components of tobacco smoke, ultraviolet light, asbestos, some chemical dye intermediates, fungal toxins in food, viruses and even heat. For a large majority of these agents the situation is less clearly understood than it is for radiation, and for most of these cancer-inducing agents there are no detailed and generally accepted regulations to protect against the risk of contracting cancer. The important paragraphs are the next ones, which state: Taking into account all the radiation (both natural and man-made) that a population is exposed to and the total number of cancer cases (from all causes) that are recorded, it is about 100 times more likely that cancer will be produced in the average individual by some other cause than by radiation. I repeat: It is about 100 times more likely that cancer will be produced in the average individual by some other cause than by radiation. The publication goes on to make clear the potential sources of cancer. Tobacco smoke and chemical pollutants in the atmosphere of industrial cities represent roughly 25 per cent, dietary factors represent 35 per cent, spontaneous events in the body represent 10 per cent to 20 per cent and other environmental causes represent 20 per cent to 30 per cent. The article concludes: It is presumed, nevertheless, that natural background radiation (and man-made radiation) do have some effects on human health; they may cause up to about 1% of all the cases of cancer and genetic defects . . . That includes the natural background-the cosmic rays, the phosphorescent rocks, our bones, the food we ingest plus what we have caused. I say this to put it into perspective. Senator Georges —Did they include Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have a very keen interest in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As Senator Georges may know, I was fortunate not to have been at Nagasaki when the atomic bomb was dropped but some 25 of my colleagues were. I have followed that journey and indeed I have a detestation of nuclear war and the suffering it causes. I have read all that I can on this subject. I rise merely to put the matter in perspective. Indeed, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) put it in perspective the other day-it was a rare occasion, one on which, as I said, he made a good speech-in responding to Senator Chipp. He raised the question which Senator Georges raised by way of interjection today thinking it a small matter. I refer to acid rain, that is, the nitric and the sulphuric acid that fall in the atmosphere. Let me just put it in perspective with what I have just said. At the International Atomic Energy Agency, where I was privileged to be an attending Minister, a subject of constant discussion by nations was the permanent damage being done to the ecology of the world and to human health by acid rain. It was pointed out that in Canada 2,000 lakes of significant size have been destroyed forever. Their flora and fauna, their whole ecological system, has gone forever because of acid rain. That figure has been doubled in Scandinavia. The Scandinavians are absolutely obsessed with the danger to the ecology from pouring nitric and sulphuric acid down upon people. The American Medical Association has estimated that it is possible that some 50,000 deaths a year in America are caused by the effects of acid rain. Nobody suggests that some 50,000 deaths a year are caused by nuclear power stations. The Minister also referred to the greenhouse effect, that is, of sending hot carbon particles into the stratosphere, raising the temperature of the atmosphere, melting the polar ice caps and therefore raising the sea levels. That is a great threat which in the next 50 years or so could lead to the destruction of everybody living on the littorals. Nobody here seems to be looking at this kind of situation. In a huge ecological situation they are confusing the danger of nuclear war with the peacetime use of nuclear energy. I want equally to point out, while I am on my feet, that the International Atomic Energy Agency, quite contrary to Senator Mason's argument, has said that no matter how much conservation there is, no matter how much use there is of renewable energy, of coal, of natural gas or of oil, an increasing use of uranium for nuclear fuel will be necessary. If that does not happen the living standards of the world will fall sharply. Indeed, the world will be imperilled by destabilisation. So we have a major job in that regard. It is not good enough for Senator Mason to talk about solar energy and wind energy as though they are reliable alternatives at the moment. Australia is one of the leaders in the world in solar energy research. It has done some very good research into wind energy. Honourable senators may like to go to Rottnest Island and see the helical wind-powered generators there. The more these alternative energy sources are studied the more we realise that we are dealing with something that is, at this moment, only fractional, as the Minister said. I rose to put the situation into perspective. It always seems to get distorted when we discuss uranium. Uranium exists throughout the world. If Australia does not export one further ounce of uranium, the world will still have recourse to unlimited supplies. Uranium will be used. But, as the Minister said, if we supply it it will not only be marginally cheaper to the world but also we will be able to monitor its sale so that there will be marginally less risk to the world that uranium will go into the making of nuclear weapons. The key is that uranium will be used throughout the world. Nothing will stop that. Uranium can be found in any country. It can even be obtained from the sea. The real question is: Will its use be monitored? The whole purpose of my intervention in this debate today was to say for Lord's sake let us obtain the widest markets we can for uranium consistent with our strengthening, to the utmost, the safeguards associated with the supervision of the movement of uranium throughout the world. For Lord's sake let us have a look at whether we can get a viable uranium enrichment industry because, if we do, it will be one further step in the monitoring of the sale of uranium. In other words, we will be able to provide enriched uranium to the world at a level of 3.7 per cent enrichment, which is not even close to weapons strength. I cannot understand why the Government should confuse this situation at all. I commend the World Health Organisation's publication on this matter. In no way have I ever attempted to minimise the dangers of ionising radiation. It is the duty of all mankind to minimise the elective amount of radiation that man absorbs. Man absorbs an enormous amount by non-elective or natural means. I have raised this information today because I think we ought to be able, from time to time, to have a civilised debate and put in perspective what is a vital matter and also to try to look at the nuclear debate in terms of the use of uranium in both peace time and war time. I would very much welcome a debate on nuclear disarmament. The Opposition and I are implacably opposed to nuclear disarmament. We are in favour of disarmament. But that question has no relation to this debate except that the more we monitor the use of uranium the more we restrict the danger of uranium being used for weapons purposes. I commend its export and I commend the enrichment investigation. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.44) —I do not have time to answer Senator Peter Rae's questions now. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 1.45 to 2 p.m. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to today's well documented reports from Caucus yesterday which I think have reported that the Government's apparent decision is again to examine aspects of the proposed assets test. What brought about this reappraisal? Was it the proposed reduction to the revenue contemplated by the introduction of the so -called leisure package? What further reduction in estimated revenue receipts is now expected as a result of representations made by the Australian Labor Party back bench in Caucus? What now is the expected revenue saving from the introduction of the assets test? Given that further reductions to the revenue are likely to follow, how will these reductions affect the Government's capacity to assist the most needy pensioners? Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner's question apparently results from a report in one or two newspapers this morning-a report which is speculation and which is not based on fact. As I said, after the Budget Speech this year Mr Keating announced the intention of the Government to introduce an assets test and gave broad outlines of how that assets test might apply. Both he and I also said that we would spend the time from then until the end of this session consulting various organisations, groups in our Party and other interested persons as to the outline of that assets test. There have been many meetings about the assets test; meetings of the policy committee of the Party, meetings of the policy committee of the Cabinet and meetings of the Cabinet. There are differences of opinion within the community et cetera as to the level, for instance, at which one may consider it reasonable to exempt a holiday home, if one exempts it at all. Naturally some people living in New South Wales, who consider their housing values to be higher than anywhere else, have different views from others. As a result of that the New South Wales group has made representations to me. At the moment the final outline of the assets test has not been completed. At the moment it is before Cabinet. When it has passed the Cabinet-if honourable senators understand our party system-it will go before the meeting of the parliamentary Labor Party and it will then be presented to this Parliament in legislative form. The exact amount of savings to the revenue on the assets test will depend on the final outline of that test itself. I think Senator Messner must contain his anxiety until the outline of that test is presented to Parliament. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. The Minister has , I think, implied that there was some discussion in Caucus yesterday about this matter. Is it the intention of the Government, in the light of the representations that have been made by various organisations, apparently to lock into the Government's decision, the various bodies in the community interested in this matter as it apparently is trying to do with Caucus? Senator GRIMES —I hardly think it is a supplementary question, but I point out that I neither implied nor said that there were any questions in Caucus about the assets test yesterday. In fact I do not mind saying that there were, as there were the week before and the week before that. Any suggestion that the Government can lock Caucus or lock any organisation into any bit of legislation through consultation is nonsense. The final form of the legislation and the final form of the assets test will be the result of a decision of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party and the Cabinet, and that is not locking anyone into it; it is consulting with them and talking to them about what the best form of that test might be. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is he aware of advertisements currently appearing in the media featuring recently retired Federal politicians? Is the public being accidentally misled into thinking that these financial ventures advocated by ex-politicians are Government backed? Will the Government consider a code of conduct that would exclude such activities, especially as Parliament has provided such generous retirement benefits? Senator BUTTON —No, I have not seen the advertisements to which Senator Ray refers, but I think from the perceptive way in which he asks the question I can divine what the advertisements were about. I think they have been about on previous occasions. I think it is very difficult for a government to prescribe codes of conduct for people who are beyond the reach of this Parliament. That has been a problem over many years in terms of retired public servants and a problem for governments of all persuasions. I think the same sorts of difficulties would apply in relation to former members of parliament. As the question by implication contains a constructive suggestion regarding this matter I will certainly refer it to the Prime Minister and have an answer given to Senator Ray as soon as possible to see if anything constructive can be done if the advertisements are misleading in the sense which Senator Ray suggests. Senator MARTIN —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, refers to media reports that the Minister for Home Affairs intends to change the method of arts funding by the Commonwealth Government and thus the Australia Council's role? Is it a fact that in a letter to the Australia Council the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment attempted to pressure the Council into support for the Australian Labor Party's preferred areas of funding, instead of allowing the Australia Council to follow its long standing process of peer group assessment and grant giving experience? Is it also a fact that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and some of his senior officers have been promoting changes in arts funding, by methods including background briefing of journalists, which would diminish the statutory independence of the Australia Council and the principle of arms length funding for the arts, and replace it with political assessment and pork barrelling methods? Is the Government deliberately promoting this climate of uncertainty about the future of the Australia Council? If not, will the Minister give an immediate assurance that the scope and independence of the Australia Council will continue undiminished by political interference? Senator RYAN —I will have to refer the specific matters in Senator Martin's question to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen, for an answer. But I can certainly assure the Senate that it is the policy of this Government to uphold the independence of the Australia Council and indeed to strengthen its capacity to assist the development of Australian culture. Evidence of that, of course, was the significant increase in the Budget this year for the Australia Council. I would also point to a major change in the administration of arts funding within the Council which demonstrates our commitment to independence rather than to political interference. That was the decision taken by this Government and by the Minister to transfer decisions about funding the two largest or two most generously funded companies-the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet-back to the Council. As honourable senators will be aware, prior to the change of government those companies had been directly dependent on political favour; that is, their funds had been secured directly by a decision of Cabinet and the views of the Australia Council in these matters were completely overridden and ignored year after year. Now, those two major companies, which receive such large amounts of funds in comparison with other programs funded through the Council, have been transferred back to the Council, and decisions about the funding of those bodies along with other bodies will be taken by the boards and by the Council itself. So I can assert in the Senate that there is no intention to undermine the independence of the Australia Council, which is not to say that we are not a government without views and policies with respect to the development of Australian culture. We do certainly have such views and have such policies and of course we would expect, in a general sense, that any statutory body operating as a part of this Government's activities would be aware of the general policy directions of the Government. But individual decisions about individual grants and individual programs are made and will continue to be made, I am sure-and Mr Cohen will be able to support this-by the Australia Council and its boards. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I am sure that all honorable senators would welcome the recent 1/2 per cent reduction in home loan interest rates announced by several government banks and at least one building society in the last week. In view of the reluctance of the private sector banks to cut rates, I ask the Minister: What action, if any, has the Government taken so far, and what action is planned to encourage the spread of interest rate relief to those home buyers repaying loans to the private banks? What would a further 1/2 per cent reduction in mortgage interest rates mean to home buyers if the private banks followed the initiative taken by the government banks? Senator WALSH —I understand that both Mr Keating and Mr Hurford are meeting representatives of the private banks tomorrow evening to discuss the provision of housing funds and, I would imagine, the question of interest rates to which Senator Maguire referred. But the decisions about those rates are, of course, at the discretion of the banks rather than of the Government per se. In regard to the latter part of Senator Maguire's question concerning the effects that a fall in interest rates of the magnitude which occurred recently in part of the banking sector and in particular, the Commonwealth Savings Bank last week, would have on actual or prospective home purchases, there are a number of points which I think are worth making. One point is that the Commonwealth Savings Bank interest rate is now 11 1/2 per cent; not since July 1981 has it been that low. The Commonwealth Savings Bank interest rate for housing loans peaked at 13 1/2 per cent last year and that of the trading banks at 14 1/2 per cent. So, from a level of 13 1/2 per cent at the beginning of this year, the Commonwealth Savings Bank interest rate has now fallen by 2 per cent. The consequence of that for actual or potential home buyers holding a loan of $ 30,000 is a reduction in the monthly repayment of $44 or $11 a week. Naturally, this is welcomed by the Government, not only because of the direct stimulus that a fall in interest rates is likely to have on building activity, but also because a fall in interest rates of that magnitude relieves a very significant proportion of the population of a substantial financial commitment which will then be available for expenditure in other areas and generate additional employment by adding to total demand. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . On the basis of one tonne of uranium oxide producing 1.9 kilograms of weapons grade plutonium when reprocessed after use in a so-called peaceful nuclear electric power station-and that, Mr President, is I think a generally accepted figure-does the Minister agree that the conservative estimate of 1.2 million tonnes of recoverable uranium oxide at Roxby Downs would produce 2.28 million kilograms of plutonium? Is the Minister aware that six kilograms of plutonium will produce a dirty, Hiroshima-size nuclear weapon? Is the Minister further aware that the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards inspectors allow a 1 to 1.5 per cent loss of plutonium without considering that a breach of safeguards has occurred, and I understand that Australia subscribes to that view , so that at least one per cent of the Roxby Downs plutonium, that is, 22,800 kilograms, is completely outside nuclear safeguards agreements and that this plutonium would produce 3,800-I repeat, 3,800-dirty, high fall-out, Hiroshima- size nuclear weapons? I reiterate that that is outside the safeguards agreement- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator MASON —Does the Minister not agree that even one nuclear weapon made from Australian uranium is one too many and that the only way to avoid up to 3, 800 weapons being made from Roxby Downs uranium without a breach of safeguards agreements is to refuse to mine and export this uranium at all? Short of that, what is the Government going to do about tightening up safeguards to prevent the sort of scenario I have described? Senator WALSH —The amount of plutonium which could be produced if the entire uranium content of the Roxby Downs ore body was put through a nuclear reactor power plant is of the order of 2 million kilograms. Senator Mason had a slightly higher figure but I am not going to quibble about that. Several points ought to be made, however. One is that that plutonium is not separated from the other materials and until it is reprocessed is not potential atomic weapons material. Moreover, it is not of weapons grade. I will expand on that a little later. A more important aspect, probably, of Senator Mason's question was whether the safeguards currently in operation are designed to or are guaranteed to be accurate to within a loss of 1 or 1 1/2 per cent. I am advised that the nuclear material balance for a reprocessing plant allows for an accountancy error of around one per cent, or is designed to keep any accountancy error to less than one per cent. There is, however, a back-up, or complementary safeguards measure which extends the containment and surveillance activity and has a goal aimed at detecting within 10 days the diversion of as much as 8 kilograms of plutonium, which is slightly more than the quantity which is required to make a nuclear device. But to return to the question of weapons grade plutonium, the point there is that weapons grade plutonium is produced by very special operation of dedicated reactors involving very short irradiation of fuel. This would be totally uneconomic for power generation. If power reactors were to be operated in such a way, the safeguards procedures would detect that they had been programmed to operate in that way. Reactor grade plutonium contains a large proportion of higher isotopes of plutonium because of its long irradiation time. These isotopes render such material unsuitable for weapons production, although it is technically feasible with a high level of technical capacity and sophistication to produce nuclear devices from plutonium produced in a nuclear power reactor. It is technically feasible, but the link between the generation of atomic power and an atomic weapon is tortuous. Provided that the controls are strictly maintained, it is, to say the least, highly unlikely. Finally, Mr President-I do not want to draw too long a bow with that-I have drawn attention to the tortuous and unlikely association of the operation of a power reactor and the production of an atomic weapon. Many other materials are used in the construction of an atomic weapon. Although I do not want to draw too long a bow, one could argue that none of those materials should be supplied either, lest they be misued for that purpose. In closing, I mention that the plutonium for the nuclear device detonated by India some years ago was, I understand, produced in a research reactor and not in a power reactor. I believe that it can be argued that a research reactor is more suitable for the production of plutonium for atomic weapons than is a power reactor. Senator MASON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that in 1977 the United States Government announced that it had successfully made and tested a small nuclear bomb made from reactor grade material? Senator WALSH —I was not aware of that specific fact. I have acknowledged that it is technically feasible to produce a nuclear device but that it would require a high level of technical sophistication to be able to do so. The linkage between the generation of power in a reactor and the detonation of a bomb is tortuous and, with the accountancy procedures and the back-up procedures to which I have already referred, it is highly unlikely. Senator COOK —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the article in yesterday's Melbourne Age headlined: 'Wage case gives shops 4.3 reasons to be jolly'? If he has, I ask him whether that article reports that the Victorian State Manager of Woolworths Ltd, Mr Ross Hanlon, said that: . . . his chain was expecting retail sales to increase as a result of the national wage decision. I ask the Minister whether the article reports Mr Hanlon as having gone on to say that: There were already some signs that sales were increasing as a result of increased consumer confidence following the wage result. Woolworths expected the trend to continue as the 4.3 per cent wage rise was paid to more workers. I ask the Minister whether it is also true that the article reported the general manager of Myer corporation planning, Mr Neil Williams, as having said that: . . . the national wage increase and a general levelling off in unemployment had contributed to rising consumer and business confidence which was being reflected in retail sales. Do these comments reflect business confidence in the Labor Government's economic strategy and, in particular, in its wages policy? Is it not pleasing to see comments from the business community which appreciate the two-dimensional character of wages; namely, that while wages are a cost, wages also provide purchasing power for consumers? Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Is it in order to ask a Minister whether something is pleasing? It seems to me to be a very strange question, one which is not related to the Minister's responsibilities. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —Senator Cook in the final part of his question drew attention to a very important-I think 'two-dimensional' was the phrase he used-aspect of increases in incomes. On the one hand, they obviously add to potential total demand; on the other hand, they add to costs. The judgment of the Government, which is central to the prices and incomes policy, is that increases in demand should be transformed into higher levels of output and higher levels of employment instead of simply higher prices. That is, as has been stated many times before, central to this Government's economic strategy. I believe the present indications are, as Senator Cook's question suggested, that that economic strategy has been appreciated by the business community in general, and the business community has considerable confidence in it. In the early part of Senator Cook's question he asked whether I had noted the reports from a number of very prominent retailers. Yes, I have noted those reports. I think it is beyond argument that anything which increases total demand when unemployment is at its present level in isolation must be regarded as a good thing and something that is ultimately likely to increase output and employment. Other factors, of course, can come into operation. A couple of weeks ago Professor John Nevile gave a paper at the Australian Labor economists' conference in Melbourne in which he analysed over the last six years what he saw as the primary cause of the continuing and deepening economic recession which has prevailed in Australia. His conclusion was that the paramount cause of that was a deficiency in total demand. I commend a study of that article to honourable senators on both sides of the House. In closing, there are two dimensions to this matter, as Senator Cook's question stated. The crucial point is to ensure that increases in total fiscal demand, which are to be welcomed and are welcomed, are supplemented by a mechanism to ensure that that increase in nominal fiscal demand is tranformed into higher levels of output and higher levels of employment instead of simply into higher prices. It is that objective to which the Government's prices and incomes policy is, of course, directed. Senator LAJOVIC —Has the attention of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs been drawn to an article in the higher education section of today's Australian entitled 'Overseas students ''face considerable financial hardship'' '? Has the Minister seen or heard of a submission to the Federal Government from student groups at the University of New South Wales and Macquarie University calling for the abolition of the overseas student charge as a way of easing financial pressure on these students? Has the Minister noted that that submission also labels as obnoxious the claim made by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and restated by its Minister, Mr West, and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, that most overseas students came from wealthy families? The submission further claims that the fees are not only inequitable and discriminatory but, in the context of Australia's foreign relations and aid, irrational in the extreme? What action does the Minister intend to take to alleviate the problems of overseas students as explained in that submission? Senator RYAN —I did see that article in the Australian. In reply to Senator Lajovic's question I point out something which he may not be aware of although it has received great publicity. I refer to the fact that the Government has set up an inquiry into the whole question of overseas students-who they are, their circumstances, where they come from, whether we should change the way in which they are selected, whether the fee does indeed impose hardship, whether there is a case for having more free places, the matter of our foreign relations and the relationship of that consideration to making free places available in Australian universities, and so on. In fact, all of the factors which we need to take into account when considering the contribution we will make to our region particularly and to other areas, through the overseas student program is under consideration by an inquiry. The inquiry is one in which the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and my Department are participating, but the chairman of the inquiry is an independent chairman, Professor John Goldring from Macquarie University. The inquiry has started to take submissions. Obviously the submission referred to in Senator Lajovic's question and reported, to some extent, in the Australian today was one such submission. Obviously, it reflects the views of the people who made it. The inquiry will be taking into account the views of all organisations that have an interest in this matter. Of course, the Government has its own overall views about foreign policy, immigration and education matters. However, I cannot respond specifically at this stage to the question of what steps we will be taking to assist overseas students, although there will be such steps, because we will wait for the inquiry to report and then we will reshape the private overseas students program. I should point out though-this is something that will be known to some honourable senators on the opposite side of the chamber-that that program does cost in excess of $70m a year. It is already a substantial contribution, if it is viewed as an aid program, which in some ways it certainly is, to our region. We have no intention of resiling from this level of commitment and indeed we may well increase it, but we are interested in all the questions that the inquiry is addressing. The inquiry will take into account the points raised in the New South Wales students' submission, as it will with all submissions that come before it. Obviously the Senate will be made aware of the recommendation when the Government has received a report from the inquiry and has made a response. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. My question is prompted by an article in the Courier-Mail of 7 November , in which it is outlined that a qualified teacher of the deaf cannot obtain employment as a teacher in Queensland because he is deaf. Are hearing-impaired teachers of the deaf able to obtain employment as teachers in the Australian Capital Territory or in any State of Australia other than Queensland? Senator RYAN —I am advised by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority that to be eligible for employment in Australian Capital Territory government schools persons must possess recognised teaching qualifications and meet residency and general medical standards. Hearing-impaired persons are not necessarily precluded from employment in Australian Capital Territory government schools on the basis of disability. I am not able at this stage to provide information about the provisions applying in the education systems in the States , but if Senator Colston wishes to bring to my attention more detailed information about this particular case, I shall try to get a more detailed reply for him. But in principle, hearing impairment is not in itself an obstacle to employment in the Australian Capital Territory teaching service. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Did Mr Costigan or his officers intercept telex messages from Sydney solicitors Allen, Allen and Hemsley to solicitors in Singapore and Hong Kong, as was alleged in the Federal Court of Australia yesterday? If so, was the interception authorised , and by whom? If the interception was not authorised, what action will the Minister now take to ensure that unauthorised intercepts do not recur? The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the Attorney-General answers the question, I draw his attention and that of the Senate to the fact that the matter was raised in the Federal Court of Australia yesterday. Senator GARETH EVANS —Although I think there are limits to the sub judice rules in the way in which they have sometimes been applied in this place, when a matter in issue is squarely one of those which a court is presently engaged in determining, it really would be quite inappropriate for me to put an answer on the public record even if I had one, which I do not. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. It refers to the Government's current education and enrolment campaign. Did young people have any input into the actual formulation of the campaign aimed at youth? Is the overall campaign being evaluated while in progress to establish whether it is having the desired effect on young people and other targeted groups? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer in both cases is yes. Prior to the development of any advertising material, qualitative research was carried out among selected groups of young Australians, mainly in the 17 1/2 to 21 year age group, but also among those up to the age of 30. The results of this research have already been made public by the Australian Electoral Office in its research report entitled ' A qualitative analysis of attitudes towards enrolment and voting'. That report also details preliminary research among non-Australian and British subjects and among non-English speaking members of the community. As advertising material was being developed, all possible advertisements were subjected to similar rigorous research. Many more advertisements than are to be used were tested on the sample audiences. The final products chosen were those which generated the most positive reactions. Concerning evaluation, it has to be remembered that there are influences on enrolment external to the campaign. There are habitation reviews, State elections and by-elections. There will be a change to the nationality qualification for enrolment as from 26 January next year. All of these things affect enrolment, so it could be almost impossible to say without hesitation that the campaign alone has resulted in this or that number of additions to the electoral rolls. Nevertheless, additions and changes to the rolls are being monitored. We do not expect that the campaign will result in a wholesale rush of people to become enrolled, but the campaign is designed to generate an awareness and an appreciation by the individual of the value of being able to take part in the democratic processes in the government of this country. Increased enrolment may well be gradual. But, for example, it is anticipated that there should be quite significant effects on the enrolment activity which will be triggered by the announcement of the closing of the rolls for the referendums on 25 February next year, and the electoral rolls will undoubtedly be in their best shape ever for the redistributions of 1984. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. It relates to the sex discrimination Green Paper on affirmative action in public and private employment, which the Minister promised the Senate would be available in about August to lie on the table to allow community comment. As nearly three months have now elapsed without sight of the paper, I ask the Minister whether she will now confirm that the Government has no intention of proceeding with the Green Paper in view of the vast problems that the Sex Discrimination Bill has encountered? Senator RYAN —I think that I have received what one might call a loaded question. I do not consider that the sex discrimination legislation has encountered vast problems. What it has encountered is problems of time-tabling and the lack of co -operation of senators such as Senator Walters, who insisted on calling quorums throughout that section of yesterday's debate that was concerned with that legislation, which demonstrates that despite the general support from the Opposition for the spirit of the legislation, some members of the Opposition are determined to promote a filibuster. Turning to the first part of the honourable senator's question, I assure her that a draft paper explaining the purposes, the mechanisms and the benefits to employers and to individual employees of affirmative action plans is well in hand. In fact, I have such a draft prepared at this stage, but I do not intend to make the draft public until the legislation is enacted. I can explain why that is so. All honourable senators will be aware of the fact that there has been sometimes a deliberate attempt to confuse-I think sometimes the confusion is genuine-the provisions of the sex discrimination legislation with the objectives of affirmative action. They are two separate kinds of programs. The sex discrimination legislation, as honourable senators will know-I shall not take up the time of the Senate on that now-simply provides a mechanism for complaint and redress by an individual who has been discriminated against. The affirmative action proposal will require major employers to remove obstacles to equal opportunity that exist within their organisations. Those obstacles will be identified by them. Time-tables will be identified by them. But they will be required to report to the Human Rights Commission about the progress that they have made in removing obstacles to equal opportunity for their female employees. This is something that applies to public and private employment. It is a rather separate kind of proposal from the complaint mechanism and redress mechanism that is being established under the legislation. Because there has been confusion on the subject in the minds of some people-confusion that could be represented no more clearly than in the case of Senator Walters herself and her comments both in this place and on the media-I have decided that it is sensible to complete the debate on the legislation and then proceed to have public discussion about affirmative action. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen the report in last week's National Times to the effect that my speech on 13 October on corruption in the Department of Foreign Affairs and my question relative to the irregular appointment by Mr Henderson to the Department of the son of Sir Robert Sparkes were cut out of the Department's magazine Backgrounder? Does this act indicate censorship by some person or persons within that Department? What was the cost, via wastage, of the exercise? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer that question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for a detailed reply, but I have no doubt that the basic consideration motivating the removal of that material from the Foreign Affairs Backgrounder was a quite legitimate and understandable desire not to slur unnecessarily and improperly the reputation of people who have been put under suspicion in this place. Senator JESSOP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the Government's recent decision to allow two Marxist organisations to open offices in Australia. Is the Government aware that the leader of the South West African People's Organisation, Mr Sam Nujoma, is on record as saying that he is interested not in majority rule but in seizing power by force? Secondly, is the Government aware that the African National Congress recently claimed full responsibility for a bomb attack in Pretoria which resulted in the death of 18 people, and 213 people being injured, many of whom were civilians, including children? Is the Minister aware of the Denton United States Senate Committee report on terrorism and security, which was published in November last year? I ask the Minister whether he is aware that on page 3 of that document the following statement appears: On the staff's return from southern Africa it was clear that a great quantity of evidence was indeed available to demonstrate the validity of the allegations that the Soviet Union had successfully penetrated and, in large measure, taken over the control of the ANC and SWAPO. Does the Government believe that these Soviet-backed terrorists are more acceptable to the Australian people and their way of life than innocent amateur black and white sportsmen and sports- women from South Africa? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Minister for Foreign Affairs announced in the last week of October that the African National Congress and the South West Africa People's Organisation would be allowed to establish information offices in Australia. An Australian resident, said to be the Pan-Africanist Congress representative, already operates an information office in this country. The Government's position on this can be further spelt out as follows: The African liberation movements already maintain offices in a number of Western and Third World countries. Their primary function is to disseminate information on apartheid and , to a large extent, counter the propaganda put out by the South African Government. It is true that SWAPO, the ANC and the PAC have each at times perpetrated acts of violence which have been properly condemned by this and previous governments. While not condoning the arms struggle, the Government nevertheless understands why opponents of apartheid have turned to it. The Government believes, and has said so over and over again, as, to give him his credit, did Mr Fraser, the previous Prime Minister, that apartheid itself is the root cause of the escalation in tension, in confrontation and violence in South Africa. Any liberation movement offices that are established in Australia will not be granted a privileged status; nor will their staff be given any special standing. They will have to abide fully by Australian laws. The Government would require and obtain an undertaking from any ANC and SWAPO representatives seeking to come to Australia that they would not advocate violent means of obtaining change. The Government would retain the right to withdraw permission to stay in Australia from any representative who failed to respect such an undertaking. No definite proposals for the establishment of ANC or SWAPO offices, however, have yet been presented to the Government. Should the Minister care to comment on some of the other more tendentious matter in Senator Jessop's question, I will draw the honourable senator's question to his attention and give him the opportunity to do so. Senator TATE —My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education. I preface it by alluding to Senator Walters's contribution to the debate last night on the Sex Discrimination Bill in which, amongst other things, when referring to a small country town in Tasmania, she said: Seventy books, including the New Testament and the Old Testament, other religious stories and animal books, were removed from a Tasmanian school library and destroyed on the ground of their being sexist. Is that not an appalling indictment of the Bill? Is that not an appalling indictment of this international Convention? Senator Lewis —A dorothy dixer. Senator TATE —It is not. I ask: Is it a fact that the Tasmanian Liberal Minister for Education, Mr Max Bingham, has completely and utterly repudiated that version of events? Is it a fact that he completely exonerated the librarian concerned? Were many books, in fact, removed from the library during a normal culling operation on the simple ground of being outworn and deteriorating from much handling? Can the Minister assure the chamber that none of this hysterical deception and charges of book burning have any basis whatsoever in the Bill or the Convention? Senator RYAN —I understand that Senator Tate's suggestion that the Minister for Education in Tasmania, Mr Bingham, has totally repudiated that newspaper account is the case and that he has repudiated the suggestion that there was any politically inspired motive in removing old books to get new books in stock. I do not have that information in writing from him, but I have information that he has repudiated that bizarre story that appeared in the newspaper. I would like to comment on the implication in Senator Walters's claim about this bizarre story last night that it had some relationship with the United Nations Convention. There is absolutely nothing in the United Nations Convention, and certainly nothing in this Government's policies or legislation, which would promote or justify any such bizarre behaviour. Senator JACK EVANS —The Attorney-General may be aware that in the last two days leading up to the 1980 general election I was subjected to the most dishonest and extravagant advertising campaign ever conducted by the Liberal Party in Western Australia. The matter of misleading political advertising was then taken on appeal to the High Court which ruled, in effect, that there is no law to prevent dishonest or misleading political advertising in Australia. In view of that I ask the Attorney-General: What steps will the Government take to prevent blatantly dishonest and misleading advertisements by politicians or political parties to win support for themselves or odium for their political opponents? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is undoubtedly a good deal of competition for the title which Senator Jack Evans conferred upon himself as having been the subject of the most dishonest and extravagant advertising campaign ever conducted by the Liberal Party in Western Australia because there have been many predecessors as subjects for such campaigns. It is well acknowledged that there are problems in the state of the law as, indeed, Senator Evans discovered when he litigated in a famous case before the High Court against another honourable senator in this place to discover the scope of the then section 161E of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The present Government, in response to that revealed deficiency in the present electoral law, which at the moment allows deceptive and misleading and thoroughly false and scurrilous advertising to take place, has brought forward remedial measures in the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill which is now before the Parliament and will shortly be in this place. In that respect, I refer the attention of the honourable senator to clause- Senator Chaney —Will it be retrospective? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not retrospective, regrettably. I refer honourable senators to clause 114 with its new section 161 of the Electoral Act and some accompanying further provisions in clauses 136 and 138 of the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill that is proposed which deal with the question of injunctions. The basic object of the exercise and of these new clauses is to enable action to be taken-particularly during campaigns, by means of injunctions as the preferred remedy, rather than challenging election results after the votes are in-to have struck out and prohibited advertisements which contain erroneous statements of fact and which are, in fact, designed or likely to be misleading or deceptive. The intention is not to rule out misleading or erroneous comment or opinion because to do so would obviously be to scrub out a considerable proportion of election puffery that runs during campaigns. But the intention is to address the particular matter to which Senator Jack Evans refers . There will, of course, be a full opportunity to debate that and other clauses of this Bill in this place. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware of a report appearing in the Canberra Times this morning of a meeting of parents of non-government school pupils held in Sydney on Monday last? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a statement attributed to Senator Peter Baume at that meeting, that the Minister had 'chosen to confuse school assets, often built up over generations, with the income needed every month to keep a school running'? Does Senator Baume's statement amount to a gross misrepresentation of Government policy? Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to the Canberra Times report of Senator Baume's statement in Sydney on Monday night. I can vouch for the authenticity of that report because I have seen a television film of Senator Baume making that very allegation. As all honourable senators in this place will know, the criteria used to determine which non-government schools would have their grants reduced by 25 per cent in 1984 had nothing to do with assets. The determination was made solely on the basis of their cash income per pupil from private sources alone after allowing for debt servicing and earmarked capital funds. Those schools that have income from private sources equal to about 95 per cent or more of government school recurrent costs per pupil had their 1984 Commonwealth grants reduced. There was no use of school assets in determining this year's funding formula. Senator Baume knows that to be the case because the funding formula was made public and was sent to all the schools which were to be affected by the decision. But not only that, Senator Baume sought information about how that particular budgetary decision, the formula, was arrived at, from the Commonwealth Schools Commission, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. So Senator Baume was in no doubt that assets were not taken into account in asserting the formula, yet before an audience of 5,000 people, as the newspaper report has it, he implied that assets had been taken into account. Senator Peter Baume —No, I did not, Minister. I did not say that. You are misinterpreting it. Senator RYAN —Senator Baume deliberately gave the impression, and indeed succeeded in giving the impression, that assets had been used in the determination of the formula whereas he had in his possession, after seeking details under the Freedom of Information Act, information to the contrary. One has to ask why the Opposition spokesperson on education is prepared to behave publicly in such a totally dishonest way. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I have noted her criticism previously and during this Question Time of those who have criticised the Sex Discrimination Bill. Is it a fact that she has now indicated that she will move on behalf of the Government more than 50 amendments to the Bill which she introduced by that name? Does she expect to move any further amendments beyond those she has already indicated will be moved on behalf of the Government? Further, does she agree that it would speed up consideration of the Bill if it were withdrawn and redrafted, incorporating the many amendments which the Government has now found it must make to make the Bill a reasonable piece of legislation, in the Government's view? Withdrawal and redrafting would obviate the need for a Committee debate on the more than 50 amendments of which she has already given notice. If she does agree to that, why is she not withdrawing the Bill and presenting it in proper form to the Senate for consideration? Senator RYAN —It is interesting indeed when in government to engage in an exercise of consultation and seeking co-operation on an important piece of legislation for which I believe, and many people in the community believe, there ought to be bipartisan support. When I introduced the Sex Discrimination Bill, I deliberately left it lying on the table for some time, saying while I did so that it was the Government's intention-because this was such an important piece of legislation and new, federally, although various States have had it for many years without this amazing performance that we have seen from some people here- to discuss the legislation with the Opposition and with the Australian Democrats , who I might say have been very co-operative, and with all interested parties so that we could make amendments, clarifications or elucidations in the Bill and therefore have a piece of legislation which is associated with Australia's commitment to an international convention, a convention signed by the Opposition when it was in government, and so that we could have a piece of human rights legislation for which we could all feel support. Having engaged in all sincerity and good faith in this process of consultation, having taken on board suggestions for improvements, clarifications and so on-- Senator Tate —From Chaney. Senator RYAN —From Senator Chaney, amongst other people, including the Australian Democrats and other interested parties-we are now being accused of ineptness and incompetence for continuing with the legislation in a form which will require a number of amendments. Senator Chaney —It would facilitate consideration if you would just redraft it. Senator RYAN —I would like to be able to attribute to Senator Chaney the same sincerity with regard to his comments on wishing to facilitate the passage of the Bill as I and my colleagues had when we brought the Bill before the Senate. We have considered the possibility of withdrawing the Bill and redrafting it to incorporate the amendments but after lengthy discussion with Parliamentary Counsel officers and other relevant experts we decided it would not facilitate debate and discussion. Honourable senators will wish to discuss particular amendments, and are entitled to do so. I believe the form in which the Bill has been presented, with the amendments incorporated into the text, clearly set out in different type faces and so on-- Senator Tate —The same as the FOI Bill. Senator RYAN —The same as the FOI Bill. It is a clear presentation of the Government's intentions and a useful indication of the amendments we have made as a result of the consultation process. The matter will be facilitated if honourable senators opposite adopt a serious and constructive approach to a piece of legislation which, after all, they say on an official level they are not opposing. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister did not respond to that part of my question in which I asked her whether she expected to introduce any further amendments beyond those of which she has already given us notice. Senator RYAN —We never believe that anything is set in concrete until the Senate has finished dealing with it but I do not expect there will be any substantive amendments. It may be that in the course of the many debates there may be some minor improvements that I and my colleagues will be happy to accept. Senator Chaney —Do you expect them? Senator RYAN —We have no further substantive amendments and I am not aware of any being proposed. If the Opposition has amendments which do not undermine in any way the thrust and purpose of the Bill then, as always, we will have an open response to them. Senator JONES —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is he aware of the concern expressed on the AM program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this morning about the future of the investigations being carried out by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union? In particular, is he aware of the query raised in the program about the Government's failure to express adequate support and confidence in the Royal Commissioner? How does the Attorney respond to such claims of concern and queries as outlined in the program? Senator GARETH EVANS —It has to be said that the AM commentary this morning was somewhat one-sided and muddled, as a lot of commentary has been so far, not surprisingly since most people who have chosen to leap into the public domain have not yet seen the details of the Bill which is to be tabled in this Parliament tomorrow. As to the particular question of the transitional arrangements, I have made it quite clear-as clear as one can possibly do-that there will be a smooth transition from the work of Mr Costigan and his commission to the new National Crimes Authority. Indeed, consequential amendments legislation to be introduced tomorrow, along with the major parent Bill, is specifically designed to facilitate that smooth transition by making provisions for the transfer of information where appropriate from the existing Royal Commission to the new Authority. In announcing the Australian Labor Party' s decision on Monday, I said in the statement issued jointly with the Special Minister of State: The Government believes that the proposed Authority will meet the major objectives and concerns that have emerged during the public debate on the Crimes Commission issue over the last six months . . . One of the points we listed as a concern that would be met is: The need to maintain intact the resources and expertise of the Costigan Royal Commission, and to ensure the continuation of its work; In our statement-this is all to demonstrate that there is no ground for misapprehension, or should not be, in the newspaper and public commentaries so far-we further said on Monday: It is proposed that, subject to further consultation, the Costigan Royal Commission complete any outstanding reports early in the New Year but not be formally wound up until at least 30 April 1984 in order to enable an efficient transfer of staff, materiel and ongoing investigations to the new body. I make it clear that a number of investigations, having a life span of anywhere between three months and three years, are presently being actively pursued by the Costigan Commission and in a great many of those cases it would manifestly be quite irresponsible to wind up the Costigan Commission without making provision for the ongoing character of those investigations. As to the question of confidence in the Royal Commissioner, I make it clear again, as I said at the Press conference on Monday, that Mr Costigan has and continues to enjoy the complete confidence of the Government in the conduct of his present commission. I take this opportunity to dissociate myself and the Government completely from the comments made by the honourable member for Prospect, Dr Klugman, in the House of Representatives yesterday. There is no foundation whatsoever for any suggestion that Mr Costigan is or has been engaging in any form of blackmail or indeed in anything other than an entirely reasonable and public- spirited desire to ensure the continued effectiveness in this country of the fight against organised crime. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. In answer to a dorothy dix question in the Senate yesterday by Senator Crowley, the Minister made a feeble attempt to justify the Government's policy on independent schools. In the long statement that Senator Ryan made there was no reference at all to the central, that is the previously established, principles of government funding of non-government schools, the basic grant, the funding nexus and the ability for newly registered schools to gain the established capital grants. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question and not make statements? Senator TEAGUE —Why does the Minister continually evade these central principles which are the bases of the recent protests and the public uproar? Why does the Minister evade attending public meetings, such as the one in Sydney on Monday at which 5,000 people protested against these very principles being abandoned? Senator RYAN —In answer to the last part of Senator Teague's question, it is rather difficult for me to attend public meetings which are organised specifically on dates on which I am unable to attend. As I have said publicly, the organisers of the meeting for Monday night in the Sydney Town Hall contacted my office before they established the date and asked whether I would be available on that date. When they were told that I would not be available they proceeded to organise the meeting for that date. Clearly they did not wish me to be present at that meeting. They achieved that objective. Senator Harradine —What about Ballarat next week? The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is answering the question. Senator Harradine —See you in Ballarat. Senator RYAN —I should inform the Senate that I have no rendezvous arranged with Senator Harradine in Ballarat. Senator Harradine —You have been invited to speak at Ballarat. Senator RYAN —It is very interesting that Senator Harradine indicates that he is closely associated with the people who are organising meetings specially set up for me not to appear at. Senator Grimes —The National Civic Council paid his expenses, just like it paid his election expenses. Senator Harradine —Mr President, I rise to call for Senator Grimes to withdraw what he has just said. Senator Grimes said that my expenses had been paid for by the people organising this meeting in Sydney. Senator Grimes —I did not. I said it was the National Civic Council. Senator Harradine —Well, I ask that Senator Grimes withdraw that also. It is a reflection on my integrity as a member of parliament. Senator Grimes —I happily withdraw the fact that I said Senator Harradine's expenses to go to Sydney were paid for by the National Civic Council. I note that he did not ask me to withdraw the fact that I said his election expenses were paid for by the National Civic Council. Senator Harradine —That is also totally incorrect. It shows how advanced the Minister's knowledge of the political situation is. I ask that Senator Grimes withdraw that remark also. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw that statement. Senator Grimes —If there is something offensive about the National Civic Council paying expenses, I withdraw. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator Grimes —I withdraw. The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Senator RYAN —Senator Teague, in the first part of his question, asked why, in answer to Senator Crowley's question yesterday, I did not discuss our view on matters such as the nexus and so on. The reason is that on many occasions in this Senate, not to mention in many other forums throughout the countryside, I have set out our Government's funding policies. I do not really think that at this stage of Question Time I should go through it all again. I simply refer Senator Teague to the education funding guidelines which clearly set out our reasons for changing the funding formula, and our objectives and justification for doing so and to the many other occasions in this Senate on which I have set them out. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The uproar in the Senate today is only a reflection of the uproar of the public on this matter. Why does the Minister evade not only at public meetings but also in her answers in the Senate the basic principles that are of concern to the public of Australia and this Senate? Why does the Minister evade giving answers? Senator RYAN —I have nothing further to add. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Harradine proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The divisive and potentially destructive character of the pivotal funding guidelines issued by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, to the Australian Schools Commission concerning non-government schools. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.07) — The cause of education justice in Australia has been set back two decades by the actions of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and by her guidelines issued to the Australian Schools Commission-those pivotal guidelines referred to in the matter of public importance. By the late 1960s, after 80 years struggle, particularly by parents who chose to send their children to non-government schools, all major parties recognised the principle that parents have the right to choose the type of education and the type of school most suited to their children and to have returned certain of the taxes earmarked for education as an essential to the free exercise of that choice. Limited and qualified though the recognition of that principle was, it was accepted. The principle of the basic grant was accepted as was additional help in respect of needs. Indeed, by 1967 a nexus, a link, was established between the grants to non-government schools and the cost per pupil in government schools; in other words, the government school standard cost nexus. This removed from political manipulation an exercise of education justice by parents. It removed from the political whim of the Minister their rights to exercise that freedom of choice. Many parents had to make, and continue to make, great sacrifices in the exercise of that choice. True education justice has not been achieved. Only 13 per cent of the Australian education budget is spent on the 25 per cent of the school population in non-government schools. Ten years ago it would have been unthinkable for a meeting of 5,000 people to be held in the Sydney Town Hall, overflowing into Sydney Square. But such a meeting was held as part of the outcry against the deliberate striking at the heart of these principles by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan. Senator Ryan's guidelines issued to the Commonwealth Schools Commission reflect her views, which she subsequently made public in the Canberra Times of 26 September 1983. In that newspaper she is reported as saying: The view that parents who choose non-government schooling for their children had a right or entitlement to government funding of that choice because they were taxpayers was a specious argument. Senator Ryan has destroyed the educational consensus that had developed by the late 1960s, albeit because of political pressure. So this vast outcry is building up throughout the whole length and breadth of Australia. On Monday night, 5,000 people in Sydney carried a resolution, the first paragraph of which stated: That this meeting applauds the spirit of co-operation and unity that has been shown by all parents in the Non-Government school sector, from all schools, Catholic and Non-Catholic, at all levels, in the face of the concerted and consistent attack presently being mounted against the right of freedom of choice in education and condemns the arbitrary action of the Government in discriminating against some children and causing uncertainty and apprenhension in the minds of parents and children alike. Ten years ago it would have been inconceivable that such a meeting could have taken place and, much less, that it should have been necessary. But necessary it was because the parents are becoming most concerned that their rights are subject to political whim, to the whim of whatever Minister happens to be in power, and to political manipulation. There will be further meetings. I know of one that will be held in Bourke on Friday night and another which will be held at Ballarat in a fortnight's time, on 22 November. Senator Ryan has been invited to speak to the latter meeting. I have been invited to that meeting and I have accepted. That is why I said I hoped to see her there. How destructive are the guidelines? The matter of public importance says that the guidelines are divisive. Patently the Minister's actions have been divisive. The matter of public importance also says that the guidelines are potentially destructive. Certainly, they have destroyed the educational consensus that had been built up over the years, that took out of the political arena the divisive sectarian debate that plagued this country for two decades before a certain degree of educational justice was achieved by 1969. The spectre of that sectarian debate has been raised by the Minister again, and by nobody else. Of course that is destructive of the type of consensus that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) talked about when he went to the people earlier this year. I am sure that he did not know what the end result of all this would be. Certainly the guidelines are destructive of the consensus. However, in the words of the Central Commission of Catholic Bishops of Australia, Senator Ryan's pivotal guideline is potentially destructive to the non-government school sector. Why has Senator Ryan taken this action? Why has she issued the guidelines? A number of excuses have been given. However, let me describe the pivotal funding guidelines that are referred to in my matter of public importance. First of all, the Minister in her guidelines has broken the nexus or the link between per pupil grants for non-government schoolchildren and the cost of educating children in government schools. That link will no longer exist; it is gone. Grants for 1984 have been made on the basis of a completely arbitrary Government decision. The Minister gave a most specious reason for disconnecting the nexus. In paragraph 31 of the guidelines the Minister says: . . . it does not redistribute sufficiently between schools on the basis of need . . . That is patently nonsense. Surely the existing categorisation system recognised the differences in needs, if that is a concept with which she adheres. Senator Tate —The key word is 'sufficient'. Senator HARRADINE —That is precisely what I was going to say. If she considered that certain children were not receiving a sufficient return she should have addressed that problem, but she should have maintained the current situation while she was doing that and, on an interim basis if you like, she should have improved the lot of the needier. But, no, she did not do that. She broke the nexus and left education justice to the whim of political manipulation. The nexus has little to do with distribution but everything to do with seeing that all grants, including needs supplements, rise automatically each year. But she has broken that nexus; that has gone. The Minister announced that in 1984 there would be a reduction of 25 per cent in the per capita grants to children in 41 schools in Australia. These schools are all protestant schools-mostly boarding schools. She stated that the moneys would be going to level three schools which, as everybody knows, and as she said , are mostly Catholic schools. This is a most provocative and divisive statement . It is one that has been rejected by Catholic parents right throughout Australia and by the Catholic Commission of Bishops, because they know something that Senator Ryan apparently does not know when she tries to rob Peter to pay Paul. They know that Peter and Paul happen to be brothers in the same faith, something that apparently she does not comprehend. Poor Catholic schools have been used as an excuse for this action. As I have said, if something had to be done, surely it could have been done without breaking the nexus. The Minister has broken the nexus and that has put at risk not only the schools that are directly affected now but also each and every single school from here on out. Furthermore, Catholic schools have been painted by her, and unfortunately I believe yesterday were categorised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) also as poor Catholic schools. A public impression has been created by this Government that we are somehow improverished, that we are somehow substandard. I believe that it is a disgrace and harmful to the future quality of education to have that sort of impression created in the minds of people. Senator Tate —They don't knock back the grants, though. Senator HARRADINE —That is a pathetic statement by Senator Tate. He would not know. He has no children, let alone any children attending schools. Nor does he have to fork out money for school fees. As I said before, this is a question of parents' rights to choose the type of education most suited to their children. That is what it is all about. The end result of Senator Ryan's actions is integration. Her hand picked Radford Committee made this recommendation relating to integration: . . . the only realistic approach to take is to envisage integration . . . on the basis of priority and need, of private schools into the public sector. A possible strategy might involve a target to achieve the integration of schools by the time of the Australian bicentenary in 1988 or by the end of the decade. The A.C.T. could provide a 'laboratory' to test the concept of integration so that a possible national implementation might be considered by the Commonwealth and States. That is what it is all about. That was the decision taken by the Radford Committee, which was hand picked by Senator Ryan, this year. That was its statement; that was its report. Senator Ryan, forced by the Prime Minister of Australia, who in turn was forced by the outcry in Canberra against that proposition, had to distance this Government from that Committee's report. The Minister should have resigned at that stage because through her actions she has herself attacked principles that are very dear to the hearts of parents and that she cannot ultimately take away. Of course she has been prodded into doing this by the New South Wales Teachers Federation. She has appointed Mr Van Davey to the Commission. She has appointed to the Commission at least three people who have themselves played, and whose organisations have played, an active role in the anti-State aid campaigns. She has refused to appoint one representative of non-government school parents, not one, and that is where the right lies-in the hearts and in the souls of the parents. Senator Ryan —What about the Catholic Education Commission? Senator Teague —And she took one off. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, she took one off. Whilst I am on that subject, this is not an argument between non-government schools and government schools. After all , I am a product of a government primary bush school. Senator Georges —What does that mean? Senator HARRADINE —I suppose many of my voters, if not the majority, are in that category. No, it is not an argument between non-government and government schools. There will be pressures on those schools also. Senator Ryan has denied parental rights. How has she done this? She has employed a sectarian device, and the typical capitalist ploy of economic blackmail, which is unworthy of a Labor Minister. She would not know what that means. She has appointed Van Davey, and I ask her to deny whether Mr Van Davey, of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, has said that the Schools Commission must for 1985 put forward to the Minister as one of its options, the zero option, that is, no funding for non-government schools. Her appointee to the Schools Commission has said that within the last three weeks and has insisted. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(3.27) —The matter of public importance which has been brought before the Senate today by Senator Harradine is extraordinary in its hypocrisy. Senator Harradine has taken it upon himself in this debate to speak of the divisive and potentially destructive character of the education funding guidelines of this Government. The only divisive aspect of these series of episodes which we have been witnessing lately are those which have been organised by Senator Harradine and his anti-Labor colleagues. Senator Harradine —That is totally incorrect. Senator Teague —What about the bishops? Are you saying they are incorrect? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine was given a fair go and I want Senator Ryan to be given a fair go. I call the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Senator RYAN —An objective observer of the current debate on education in this country, and the debate to which Senator Harradine has just made a predictable contribution, must be astounded by what is going on. We have in Australia nearly 10,000 schools. We have 7,556 government schools and 2,312 non-government schools. All of those schools, with the exception of 41, received in the Budget we introduced additional funds from the Hawke Labor Government. Not only this, but the pupils in all of those schools, including the 41, will receive considerable benefits from a whole range of new programs which will be administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. In the light of that, one would think overwhelming, evidence of our Government's support for pupils in all schools, it must be absolutely astounding to the objective observer that we have these debates and allegations about discrimination, rights being intruded upon, potential destructiveness and all the other melodramatic nonsense to which the Government and the general public is being subjected. I think the time has come to ask what is going on, who was behind the meeting organised at the Sydney Town Hall on Monday night and what are their real objectives? I should make it clear that I am not wishing to attribute any insincere motives to the majority of people who attended that meeting. Clearly, they had been alarmed by fallacious and mischievous interpretations of government policy. No doubt they went in good faith to express their anxieties. However, a few questions have to be asked at this stage. Why was the meeting organised specifically on a date on which I told them I would be unable to attend? If the organisers and the people participating in the meeting had a genuine desire to discuss aspects of education policy about which they felt concerned, why did they greet the contribution of my colleague, the State Minister for Education in New South Wales, Ron Mulock, who has also been extremely supportive of the non-government school sector, as I and this Government have been, with slow clapping and jeers? That kind of behaviour hardly suggests that the organisers, at least, were interested in a genuine discussion about, admittedly, complex problems of finding equitable funding and support formulas for all Australian schools at a time of economic hardship. We know Senator Harradine's motives. They are what they have been for a very long time. They are aimed at eroding the Labor forces in this country and the Labor Government. Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Since I cannot say what I would like to say in response to that I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) Senator RYAN —There seems to be some sort of campaign now being developed that I am unwilling to meet and discuss matters of education policy with the non- government sector. At this point I table a list of meetings that I have had with a very wide range of non-government organisations, all of them major non- government organisations, in the past few months. Of course, those meetings are part of an ongoing program of meetings that I have had and will continue to have with these organisations. I have had very favourable and constructive discussions at all of them. I table that list of meetings and the names of the organisations with which I have met. Of course, it is of great concern to Senator Harradine and his echo in News Weekly, Santamaria, that the Catholic education commissions are, in fact, extremely supportive of our needs-based approach to education. They are extremely appreciative of our new programs such as the participation in equity program. Senator Harradine —You are about as up to date as-- Senator RYAN —Senator Harradine has just treated us to a diatribe about how our real intention is to take over all schools. One could find almost word for word what Senator Harradine has just said in this article by B. A. Santamaria in News Weekly. That would not surprise anybody in this place. I will table that article too. Senator Harradine made one remark in leading off in this debate with which I totally agree. Senator Harradine said that in Australia true education justice has not been achieved. I can only concur with that. That is precisely the reason why our Government has introduced new programs, has increased funding for the needier schools and has adopted a different way of funding the non-government sector. We are concerned with educational justice in contrast with our predecessors. We are concerned with equity. We are concerned with the poor parish schools. Senator Harradine took offence at the reference by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to poor parish schools. I can assure Senator Harradine that there are many such schools. I have visited them in New South Wales, in the western suburbs of Sydney such as Marrickville, for example, and in Melbourne, Perth-- Senator Crowley —In Adelaide. Senator RYAN —Yes, indeed, I visited a very poor little school in Adelaide. It is doing a wonderful job with students, all from non-English speaking families, including a lot of new Asian refugees. Nuns are battling in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, with a little bit of bitumen and concrete playground and with no proper resources for the teaching of English to these migrant children. They have no back-up facilities to enable them to have consultation with the parents and so on who are also experiencing high levels of unemployment and difficulties with the English language. There is, as Senator Harradine seems not to be aware, a whole range of schools which are poor and which have my total sympathy, my total support and the support of our Government. I admit that I place a higher priority on visiting such schools and discussing the problems with the nuns who run them and the parents of the children who attend them than on meeting with the representatives of the 41 best resourced schools in this country. I have met with and I have had discussions with the representatives of such schools. I have no objection to meetings or discussions with representatives of those schools. But if Senator Harradine wants to know where my priorities lie, I should state that they do not lie with meetings with the representatives of the 41 best resourced schools in this country which have the support of some of the richest people in this community. My priorities do lie with those poor schools like the little school in the electorate of Port Adelaide that I visited recently. I make no pretence about that. That is where my priorities lie and that is where this Government's priorities lie. This is a Labor Government. This Government has been elected on a platform of redistributing wealth, power and opportunity so that the disadvantaged in the community can have a fair go. When we act according to those principles it seems to provoke great amazement and all kinds of wild allegations and accusations. We are determined to provide better educational opportunities for all Australian children. We are acting to carry out this determination. Our record is good. Senator Harradine chose to take a slightly historical approach to the development of aid for non-government schools in this country. Senator Georges —Historical or hysterical? Senator RYAN —It was slightly ahistorical, actually. I can only remind the Senate that at the time when the Whitlam Labor Government was elected the parish school system in Australia was about to collapse. Every Catholic education commission in this country will confirm that claim. Now it is stronger, larger, growing and in a much better position than it was at the time when the Whitlam Government came into office because, under the Whitlam Government, the needs- based education policy was established, the Schools Commission was set up and, under the ministry of Kim Beazley, a whole range of new programs, resources, teacher training opportunities and all of the facilities that are necessary for upgrading education were introduced. Until that time, under the previous conservative administrations, there had been no consideration or concern given to the poorer schools in the non-government sector. I think that that fact of education history in this country bears repetition at this stage and bears repetition to those representatives of the 41 schools who suffered a very modest reduction in their Commonwealth grant so that, at least, we can have a debate in terms of real information about what has happened. I also point out to the Senate that this Government took office at a time of record unemployment. The unemployment of youth is a national scandal. Honourable senators know that I recently visited northern Europe for the purposes of discussions and getting some directions about youth employment training programs . All developed countries of course have problems of unemployment, and all developed countries have the problems of unemployed youth. But no country that I visited in Western Europe has anything like 25 per cent of its young people unemployed. Countries in Scandinavia are appalled at having three or four per cent unemployment, but we inherited a situation where about 25 per cent of our teenagers are on the dole. I think that Senator Harradine, as he wishes to present himself as some sort of representative of the disadvantaged people in our community, should address himself to that problem. One of the reasons why we have this very high level of youth unemployment, which is much higher than the levels of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, West Germany or Austria, is that our education system has not been providing proper education opportunities for all children. Most of those unemployed teenagers come from the poorer schools, government and non-government, and they are the first objects of our concern. I think it is time that not only Senator Harradine but also Senator Peter Baume and the other members of the Opposition and the 5,000 parents who turned up at the Sydney Town Hall, gave some views about what their response is to the fact that we have this huge unemployment rate and this huge discrepancy vis-a-vis the opportunities available to the children who attend those 41 schools. All of the children attending schools in group 1 and group 2 have excellent opportunities. They are opportunities that we do not wish to see reduced in any way and which will not be reduced in any way. But when one compares their opportunities and their subsequent opportunities for higher education, for employment and for contributing and participating in this society, with the opportunities of those children in the poorest non-government and government schools, who are facing an ever lengthening dole queue, I think it is really appalling that all we hear from the Opposition and from Senator Baume is constant harping on the fact that 41 schools have lost a small amount of their Commonwealth grant. I remind the Senate that the purpose of our education funding policy is to improve educational opportunities for children, be they in government or non- government schools. We brought down a Budget which gave a 3 per cent real increase to the category 3 schools-the schools about which Senator Harradine expresses concern-and that increase was larger by $4m than what those schools would have got under the previous percentage link formula. It is not politically possible and it was not socially possible for us to continue with a formula which gave as much to the better off schools as it gave to the poorer schools. It is not possible for us because we are interested in improving the opportunities of the children in the poorer schools. We are interested in equity and in participation. Therefore, we could not continue a formula which simply maintained the discrepancies between the schools that can provide everything that children need in terms of their educational opportunities and the schools which are unable to provide, despite the best efforts of the teachers, adequate educational opportunities. For that reason we decided not to continue with the percentage link formula but to introduce a different policy, a needs based policy. I am amazed at why this seems to be causing such consternation. Any suggestion that there will be less funding for the non-government school sector from a needs basis than there was on a percentage link formula is wrong. There will not be less funding for those schools which had previously not been able to provide adequate educational opportunities for their children. There will be more. Senator Teague —And next year and the year after, and the year after that? Senator RYAN —Senator Teague, by way of interjection, refers to next year and the year after. I want to say this: We had no time to develop a comprehensive new formula for the funding of non-government schools because of the timetable of the Budget at the time when the Government was elected. Therefore we used, as the Senate has heard even again today, the formula based on the private income of schools to determine which schools needed more assistance and which schools in our view did not need the level of assistance they had previously been getting, and only 41 schools came into that category. However, for the next Budget we will have in place a more comprehensive formula of needs. That formula is currently being worked out by the Schools Commission in consultation with all of the non-government schools authorities. I am hopeful that at that stage we will see a true consensus about the purposes of Commonwealth education funding and that the current anxiety that some parents understandably feel, given the performance of people such as Senator Harradine and Senator Peter Baume, will no longer have any basis. But the development of that formula does depend on proper consultation and co-operation with the people concerned, with the people who run the schools, who are the parents who choose the schools- Senator Harradine —Why did you not do it before? Senator RYAN —The consultation has been an ongoing process. If Senator Harradine addresses himself to the list of meetings that I have had he will see that that is the case. What I am now becoming very concerned about is that the occurrence of public meetings, of the kind that was organised on Monday night, clearly set up to attack the Government and to continue the confusion and the misrepresentation of government policy, will militate against a sensible coming together of all of those who are genuinely concerned for the education of children. This Government is genuinely concerned for the education of children. This Government, in the short period it has been in office, has shown its good faith by the kind of Budget it introduced and by the accessibility that non- government agencies have to me. We have a marvellous opportunity, we believe, to establish once and for all a proper equitable formula whereby all schools in Australia will receive adequate funding. Our ultimate and, one would hope, shared objective of true educational opportunity for all children will be achieved. I sincerely hope that those people who organised Monday night's meeting will bear in mind the seriousness of the task we are involved in and will adopt a co-operative, instead of this very aggressive and eroding, approach . Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.47) —I must say to Senator Ryan that the parents of non-government school children do not believe her. While her Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) talks about consensus she is spreading division into the non -government school area. While he may preach reconciliation, she is separating group from group, school from school and religion from religion. She is part of a government which, while it gave assurances before the election, has wasted no time at all in dishonouring those assurances. Part of the Australian Labor Party agenda must be to appease those teachers federations whose support, directed towards the ALP to the extent of $750,000, was so important in the March election. That appeasement will require several things. It will require a movement towards the reduction of aid for non-government schools. It will require immediately the phasing out over four years-that is what Labor policy is , five per cent this year, five per cent in each of the next three years-of the support to a small number of schools. It will involve this year the giving to all group 1 schools of less support than they would have received under the existing formula. All group 1 schools and all group 2 schools will receive less than they would have received. Eventually the Australian Teachers Federation policies will be quite clear, as are the policies of many other anti-state aid groups-no support for any non-government school of any kind from any government source. This Labor Party and this Labor Government are beholden and indebted to the teachers federations. We have in place, only eight months after the Labor Government came to power, policies that are divisive in nature, that are potentially destructive of the dual system of education that we know and policies which are in clear breach of election undertakings given by the Labor Party when it was seeking the votes. It is quite clear now that the Labor Party and the Government had absolutely no intention of honouring the pre-election commitments served up to the community as part of its cynical vote-catching campaign. But it is worth recalling just how expedient the Hawke Government was prepared to be. It gave a specific undertaking in writing in relation to non- government school funding which I will read out: Funding at present levels will be maintained during the period of time required to allow the Schools Commission to determine the community standard and to allow schools in the light of that determination to make their decision. That is a specific written undertaking. Ask the 41 schools what happened to that undertaking. That promise has been dishonoured, cynically and quickly. What should those schools make of the statement by the ALP spokesman for education at that time, Mr Hurford? He said: I do have to say at the moment- and that was in February- the assessment of what is a 'wealthy' school is totally inadequate . . . We do not currently have an accurate assessment. But after the election, without being able to say what is a wealthy school and in spite of a specific promise given to the electors beforehand, Senator Ryan wastes no time, but starts paying off the teachers federations as quickly as she can. I am sure that the honourable senator's response today will be of some interest to the many groups of parents whom she has declined to address in person or through her representative. What about the thousand parents in the Albury district, many coming from long distances, from other towns, who were told that Senator Ryan was not going to be present? Actually, Senator Ryan had, in fact, declined to attend and had declined to send even a representative to meet the group. That meeting was mainly made up of parents of children at Catholic schools, mostly poor, parochial schools. If Senator Ryan thinks that these meetings were meetings of silvertails only, then she is even more out of touch than the rest of her party and the rest of Australia thinks. What about the parents at meetings in Canberra, the Minister's own electorate? Seven hundred people and 900 people attended those meetings. What about the many meetings in Melbourne? In Springvale a couple of thousand people attended. At meetings at Malvern, I think, 500 people attended. What about the meeting at Strathfield in Sydney? Those attending were told that the Minister would be attending. They were later told that no, she had changed her plans. That meeting was organised by the Catholic parents and friends organisation. The people there represented poor, parochial schools. But no, Senator Ryan accepted an invitation to that meeting and then thought better of it and did not attend because she was going overseas four days later. What about the 5,000 parents at Sydney Town Hall last Monday night? I understand that Senator Ryan could not be present. The meeting was organised not because she could not be present; it had already been organised. But if she was not going to attend, what stopped her from sending a representative? Does she have no confidence in her own colleagues? Senator Harradine —What stopped her from going? She was here. Senator PETER BAUME —She was in Australia. She was here. She declined to attend and she declined to be represented. She could have been represented by any other member of her Caucus. I understand that many parents in the Ballarat district are waiting with bated breath to see whether Senator Ryan accepts an invitation issued some time ago to join with them on 22 November. I mention to the honourable senator that the invitation has been sent to her. There has been no response. There has been no indication of whether she will send a representative . The parents have written to the honourable member for Ballarat, Mr Mildren- they have had no response, no indication-and to the Labor Minister of Victoria, Mr Fordham, and have had no response. But the Hon. Walter Jona is coming. I think the Minister should ensure that, if she cannot be at the meeting or if she will not be at the meeting, the Labor Party is represented. I find it amazing that Press reports state that Senator Ryan could complain about the bad treatment she says she received from the organisers of the Sydney meeting. I think she might reflect on the treatment that she and her Prime Minister have given to those people. For the organisers of the Albury meeting to get a message that no representative would be sent because the matter was too delicate-that is the message that was sent to the Albury meeting and it was read out to the meeting-almost beggars description. The campaign at the moment is committed to the defence of freedom of choice in education in Australia. It is about the freedom of parents to choose the type of education they want for their children and to be supported in that choice. They want to be supported financially as taxpayers to make that choice possible. It is a campaign that recognises that the majority of parents sending their children to non-government schools do so at considerable personal sacrifice. The majority of families are two-income families by necessity, not by choice. They need the second income to pay the school fees. But Senator Ryan ignores, as did Mr Hawke, just yesterday, these realities-that people are making financial sacrifices, major sacrifices, to get their kids as far away from the influence of the teachers federations as they know how. So they take them to non- government schools. Let me say further that recent opinion polls make quite clear the attitude of Australians. The opinion polls show that a majority of Australians are against the reductions in aid and that 71 per cent of parents with children at government schools support the continuation of aid to non-government schools. How can the Prime Minister claim that he has the support of all Australians in this kind of crusade? He has not. It is beyond me how he can make such a claim. Non-government schools across Australia have rejected the policies of the Government. They are not happy. They do not trust the Government. They believe that, group by group, schools will be lined up for arbitrary and punitive treatment. The Central Committee of the Catholic Bishops of Australia is against the measures. The Victorian Catholic bishops are against the measures. The Anglican bishops are individually against the measures. The Australian Parents Council is against the measures. The Catholic parents and friends organisation is against the measures. The National Council of Independent Schools is against the measures, as are the associations of independent schools. Not only are they against the measures, but they know that it is quite irrelevant in this debate to talk about so-called wealthy schools and so-called poor schools. What the Labor Party seems unable to comprehend is that it is the parents who are poor or wealthy, not the schools, and it is the parents, not the schools, who pay the fees. There is a difference between the assets which a school has built up over generations and which enable anti-state aiders to accuse the school of being rich and the income needed every week and every month to keep a school running. It is the school fees and the support which provides that income . I challenge Mr Hawke or Senator Ryan, who has left the chamber now, or any other member of the ALP to have the temerity to call every parent and every child at those group one schools either elite or privileged. I do not think they would be so stupid. Yet we see policies which do not acknowledge individual circumstance, policies which are shrouded in high-sounding principles about supporting the most needy, but which do not support parents on a basis of need and which strike at the very fundamentals upon which freedom of choice is based. The rhetoric of anti-state aiders has consistently talked, and in disparaging terms, of so-called wealthy schools. The schools chosen, whenever this kind of talk occurs, have always had good assets. So they go out and the photograph the gates of Santa Sabina, a school at Strathfield, and they say 'Look at this wealthy school', quite ignoring the fact that the parents who use Santa Sabina are parents who are struggling to pay the fees, and parents who need support from all taxpayers. Reduced support from government for some parents will mean higher fees for them to pay to keep their children in the schools they choose. The effect will be on the parents. It will not be on the schools. Senator Ryan seems to know absolutely nothing about the needs of parents. I do not believe that she has any information relating to the salaries of parents. She has no information that enables her to say that the parents at a certain school are less entitled to support than the parents at another school. Yet, in abrogation of a specific written election undertaking-I repeat, written undertaking-she has not waited for the Commonwealth Schools Commission to do its job. She has not waited for a new formula, but has introduced policies which will hurt these parents and hurt their chance of keeping their children at the schools they want. Senator Lewis —Create an elitist, wealthy system. Senator PETER BAUME —I agree with my colleague. What Senator Ryan will succeed in doing will be to make non-government schools more elitist and less accessible . We already know that fees for many of these schools will have to go up next year. In the group one schools, funds for which have been reduced below what they would have received, the rise will be higher than it need have been. I regret the disruption that will occur in the learning program of the students who may have to change schools and in schools that may have to change the structure of their classes or their offerings. These are the people, of course, whom Mr Hawke talks of as the elite and the privileged. The ones who will have to get out are the least privileged and the least elite. Those most in need of the support of those schools are the ones who may not be able to carry on. The Sun newspaper in Sydney yesterday in an editorial put it very well. It stated: They packed the Town Hall last night, leaving 2,000 people outside to keep in touch by TV with the event inside. They weren't there for any rock concert or to hail the newest superstar of show business. Five thousand parents turned up because the Federal Government is ripping off the private school system. And they-and many more-fear the ripping will emasculate the system or at least sap its strengths to cover the weaknesses of public schools. The editorial went on to say that private schools have long outlived their reputation of being places for silvertails. There is no doubt that the Government has miscalculated on these policies. I ask the Minister-I know many of her colleagues are concerned-to be careful that she does not end up out on a limb all on her own. This is the most pragmatic Labor Party in history. It would cost only a few million dollars to restore the basic grant and to restore the percentage link. If the Australian Labor Party did that we would have no objection at all to the extra support going to those schools most in need. Senator Ryan, however, could end up in a party of one if she is not careful. I say to her again: The parents of Australia do not believe her and do not trust her. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.02) —I utterly repudiate this matter of public importance brought into the chamber by Senator Harradine charging the Government with devising divisive and potentially destructive funding guidelines issued to the Australian Schools Commission. I certainly intend to deal with the matters of principle and notions of fairness and equity which have been propounded by both Senator Harradine and Senator Peter Baume. Before I do, in response to the puerile interjection by Senator Harradine that I had no capacity to comment on these issues because I did not pay the fees for any children of mine at Catholic schools or any other non-government school, I point out that, whilst that is true, I do pay the fees for my godchildren at Marist Regional College in Burnie. The short answer to Senator Harradine is: Neither do the bishops. I think Senator Harradine should consider that for one moment. In relation to the principles involved I urge on this chamber that the needs principle advocated by this Government indeed increases the very possibility of the choice of parents being exercised throughout the length and breadth of Australia. It actually increases the number of Australian families who can make a realistic choice of non-government schooling for their children. Far from being divisive and destructive, the allocation of funding to schools on the basis of varying degrees of need is such a neutral and widely understood concept that not only does common sense attest to it and perceive it as being neutral and fair but also, in being that, I believe it lifts the funding debate above the sectarian bitterness which characterised much of Australia's history for many years-for decades upon decades. I believe that the relevant guidelines, when assessed in a fair manner, as I said, must be seen to lift the whole funding debate outside a sectarian debate. Clause 5 of those guidelines is worth quoting. It states that the aim is: To assist in ensuring that each child has an adequate standard of resources available to support his or her education. The Government recognises that the majority of schools in the non-government sector . . . cater for children from a wide range of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, yet do so with limited resources by comparison with many other schools. The Government therefore has provided for a significant increase in resources to these needy schools. Considerations of equity and financial limitations require that the funds for needy schools be found partly by some reallocation within the education budget. That is the nature of the enterprise we are undertaking. What is divisive or destructive about that? It does draw a distinction between schools which are well resourced and those with inadequate resources. That is not a divisive matter. Senator Harradine —What about parents' rights? Senator TATE —I will come to parents' rights. Senator Harradine —Come to them quickly. Senator TATE —I will. That is a very relevant and proper distinction to be taken into account by a government distributing scarce tax dollars to support the education of all our Australian children. We say that capital and recurrent funding grants will be used to ensure the survival-this is my point-of a large number of ordinary non-government schools in category 3. That is how relevant and proper the distinction is. In the application of that needs principle a greater share of resources is being pushed into those areas where the household income of the parents-single parents sometimes-is meagre or absolutely fully stretched on ordinary commitments, so that children from those households can be sent to non-government schools if their parents so wish. Senator Peter Baume is correct; our policy of redistribution of some of these education tax dollars may make it marginally more difficult for parents who are spending large amounts of money on fees for a child's education at one of the 41 well-resourced schools to find a hundred or so extra dollars. Senator Peter Baume —It will. Senator TATE —I concede that it may be difficult for a household which is fully stretched to pay fees of that order. In the unlikely event that household income itself remains static over that year, this extra amount may lead a very small handful of such parents to withdraw their children from that well-endowed non- government school and place them if they so wish in another non-government school that does not have such a high fee structure, or perhaps they can send them to a government school. I concede that that may apply to a small handful of such parents, but I ask the chamber to consider the other side of the coin. I ask honourable senators to consider the responsibility of this Government to enhance, to increase the possibility of choice for as wide a range of parents as possible. That includes parents in the lower income groups where the household income is so meagre, so tightly budgeted-particularly in times of unemployment, which can have an absolutely catastrophic effect in many ordinary homes around Australia-that they could not afford the fees, low as they are, charged by the local parish school, the Christian Brothers or the systemic Catholic system. This Government generously supports the ordinary parish school systemic system established under the aegis of the Catholic church in Australia. Insofar as the level of resources in many of them is low or inadequate, this Government is determined to redirect a preference in funding, a priority in funding and, yes, a redistribution in funding towards them. Only by a redistribution-I believe this is the answer to Senator Harradine's claim-can the choice of many hundreds of thousands of Australian families be made a realistic choice. It is only in that way that non-government schooling can be made possible and accessible to many of these families throughout Australia. If we do not make this extra commitment of funds to those schools in category 3 or in the more needy and less well resourced schools, of course the payment for capital works and the payment for recurrent funding will have to be found by the schools taking loans outside the school's provident fund structures. They will have to fund those loans from higher fees, which those households will not be able to bear. The burden of such higher fees would be too crippling, would have too disastrous an impact on those households. It would be so devastating that the parents would have to withdraw their children from such schools, if indeed the schools themselves could continue. I believe that not to carry out this marginal redistribution away from the well-resourced schools to the more needy schools would be to reduce drastically, except for those parents who can afford higher fees, the opportunity for that choice of schooling which does reside in parents and which this Government very generously supports. All that argument can be based on simple egalitarian principles, a simple political program such as was put forward by the Australian Labor Party at the last election. This Government's preference for the needy can be adequately defended in this way. I would like to bring another strand into the debate since both Senator Harradine and Sentor Peter Baume brought up the question of the ethos of Catholic schools. The fact is that most of the schools in the non-government sector derive their special character, their ethos-indeed their very justification-from their adherence, as they say, to certain Judaeo-Christian ethical principles. I should have thought that one of the main strands, one of the leading motifs, in that set of traditions is that one is on the side of the disadvantaged, of those who are in need, of those who have less material resources, so that one can liberate them from that lack of material resources. It has that effect; but also, in providing those resources, of course, as a law giver or as a ruler, one is acting justly. 'Acting justly' does not merely mean acting in an even-handed way. It means actually getting on the side of those who are disadvantaged or who have less material resources and vindicating their right to exercise, in this case, freedom of choice as to where they will send their children for education. This Government is acting entirely in line with that tradition. In relation to the Catholic schools, it is about time that the Catholic education officers and the principles of Catholic schools, who know how generous this Government is being with its schools programs, its capital funds and recurrent funding, came out and showed a bit more fortitude. Senator Harradine —Do you say that the Government is generous? Senator TATE —It is extremely generous, as has been indicated to me at the opening of various extensions to Catholic schools-St James at Cygnet, and St Brendan's Shaw College at Devonport. Because of this Government's policy such schools have recently had extensions opened. It is about time that they revitalised the leaders of the great teaching orders that opened up the Catholic school system in Australia and looked at their particular priorities. Senator Harradine —You say that the Government is generous. Senator TATE —The Government has been and is more generous than was the previous Government in redirecting funds to this particular group of schools. I am very surprised that Senator Harradine cannot find any sort of generous sentiment to acknowledge that. Actually, I am not all that surprised. As for the leaders of the teaching orders in Australia who opened up the opportunities for that choice in education in the cities and all the great provincial towns, one thinks of Mary McKillop, who started teaching in a stable in South Australia and who founded one of the great bands of the Sisters of St Joseph. One thinks of Edmund Rice, who taught the poor lads in Ireland, and his brothers, who came out here and established that type of school in every centre of population in Australia. They would know what this Government is about, even if those who attended the meeting on Monday night do not grasp that. We go beyond pious platitudes, and we are carrying that sort of belief into practical effect. No one, as Senator Ryan correctly pointed out, can express surprise if the attitude of this Government is radically different from the response and the principles and guidelines issued by the previous Liberal-National Party Government. That Government had quite different motivations, and was rejected as a consequence by the Australian people in a decisive and overwhelming way on 5 March. In general, that rejection of Senator Peter Baume and his colleagues who were in government at that time, was because Australians wanted a government which perceived the obligation to act fairly and justly and without undue deference to particular vested interests trying to corner the resources which should be available to lift the standard of living and the opportunities for education, health care and so on of all Australians. That is in general. But in the particular-and this enables me to draw together the various themes of my remarks this afternoon-I say to those who pursue the line of attack advocated by Senator Harradine that they ought to listen to the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in our policy speech delivered on 16 February 1983, in which, having outlined our education policy based on needs, he said: I say frankly and unequivocally that under these proposals 98 per cent of children in the Catholic education system will be better off in terms of Commonwealth assistance, and in saying that I am mindful that the Catholic and the Government systems cater for children from all ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. I believe that we are enhancing the opportunity for parents who want to send their children to government schools and to Catholic schools which cater for children from all ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds so to do. Honourable senators opposite are putting in grave jeopardy the understanding which this Government has of what the Catholic education system is all about, as expressed in that statement by the Prime Minister. Senator Harradine —Next year and the year after. Senator TATE —I am fighting Senator Harradine because I believe that whilst his alliance with the 41 schools, which to him is a matter of ecumenical principle- something which this Government has no right to take into account-may have some virtue of ecumenical solidarity, in fact it will lead to a revival of sectarian bitterness in this country, not between denominations I admit, but between taxpayers and non-government schools. Senator Peter Baume has made the most vitriolic attack that I have heard on the government school system since I have been a senator. It was the most vitriolic attack that I had ever heard fall from the lips of any senator. It was a sort of reverse sectarian attack, which does not become the Opposition at all. The needs principle is the only neutral principle capable of acceptance by the greater part of the Australian community. It appeals to common sense. It enables the national Government to discharge its obligations to all Australian children, to ensure that none of them is disadvantaged in schooling because of inadequate material resources. Finally, and in complete contradiction to the charge levelled against the Government in this debate, it enables the Government to support a wider range and number of parents in the exercise of choice as to the sector in which they wish to educate their children. That is the mandate that the Government had conferred on it in the last election, and we shall fulfil that mandate. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.15) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Tate, in his closing remarks, suggested that I had attacked government schools. I made no such attack. A perusal of the Hansard will show that I attacked the teachers federations with vigour, and I shall continue to do so, but at no stage have I attacked government schools or government schooling. Unlike many members of the Australian Labor Party, I received half of my schooling in government schools. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.16) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Tate, in his misleading statement, indicated that I had suggested that he had no warrant to speak on this matter since he was not a parent and did not have children attending government schools. My statement was in response to his snide interjection- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, you are tending to debate the point. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Tate interjected that the category 3 schools would accept the 3 per cent increase. I did not say that he had no warrant to debate this issue. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.17) —I assume that honourable senators in this debate feel quite proud of themselves for having yet again inflamed in this community bitter and vitriolic attacks upon one another, using children as the excuse. This has been going on for about 15 years, and I suppose that it will go on for another 15 years. I intend to take no part in that type of debate any longer. The types of meetings that have been held around the country at which people have been cat-calling, yelling and clapping their hands when snide and personal remarks have been made about various people, be they Ministers or whatever, seem to be about the lowest type of debate that one can get, but it is fostered by people because it is seen to be useful for a few votes. What we need to realise, and some people must say it, is that if we keep looking back, we shall keep fighting the old battles that have been fought time and again and we shall use a new generation of kids to fight them for us. The only way in which we shall get out of our present problem is by looking forward and by putting forward propositions that may solve our current problems. I have not heard one speaker in this debate so far put forward a constructive idea as to how we can move forward from where we are. Obviously, what is needed is for us to take this debate out of the political arena, because politicians have shown yet again in this debate, that they will use anybody for votes. If the people who are interested in kids, the parents and teachers, got together out of the light of the Press, before which they have to make statements for public consumption, and spoke to one another honestly, on the basic principle that what they were interested in was not their own survival and a few paragraphs in a newspaper but the best education they could get for all of the kids in this country, that would be a meeting which would have the fruit of success contained within it. That will be the only way we will move forward. Otherwise we will just continue the brawling and the rather disgraceful cat-calling and name-calling that we have had for so long. During the last election every political party put out a series of statements about its position on various matters of concern not only to the teachers federations but also to the parents and citizens associations and the independent schools associations. In those statements various political parties made commitments. I do not know whether Senator Harradine filled out such questionnaires, but he may very well have done so. The various major political parties outlined what they would do in government and their position on what they would argue for if re-elected. The Australian Labor Party, in the document entitled the 'Hayden Education Plan', in item 12.4, stated the following: In government, Labor will take new initiatives to improve the resource levels of schools with little capacity to improve their level of resources. These initiatives will require discussion and agreement with the non-government school sector. I emphasise the words 'discussion and agreement with the non-government school sector'. The document continues: During the period of these discussions Labor will maintain in real terms the existing levels of funding for all group 2 and group 3 schools and for those group 1 schools which choose to operate within the community standard. That was written down. That promise was made and was promptly broken. There have not been those consultations, that holding off until some type of agreement was able to be reached. The money going to those various schools has not been maintained in real terms. There has been a shuffling of statistics, but I do not think that anybody who reads the figures would be taken in by them. Those promises have been broken, and broken decisively. Mr Hawke's policy speech of 16 February this year went even further. It stated that an Australian Labor Party government would: . . . reduce by 5 per cent per year the direct Commonwealth grant going to a very small number of wealthy private schools endowed with resources far above those of any other schools. That has not occurred. What, in fact, did occur was a 25 per cent cut in the first year. Further, the Australian Labor Party promised to 'maintain in real terms the existing levels of funding for all group 2 and group 3 schools. That did not happen. Thus, the commitment given not only in the Hayden document but also in the Prime Minister's speech have not been maintained. the Australian Democrats, in response to the questionnaires, said that we stood by the notion of funding on the basis of need. Indeed, we were the only political party to do so during the election campaign. Having had the courage of our convictions, we were utterly outraged when the Government, during the election campaign, deliberately weakened its position to entice votes from the non-government schools sector. Having sat down and scarcely warmed the benches on the Government side, the Labor Party cast that sector aside. I believe that the Liberal-National Party lost government not for the reason given by Senator Tate, but because it did not keep the promises it made to the electorate. The Hawke Government is doing precisely the same thing. Education is an extremely important area. If we are to accomplish anything meaningful in this area we will have to look at where we can make changes. I believe that the state schools system should become more decentralised. Individual schools must be given the opportunity to evolve their own approaches to the educational problems of their areas. Parents and teachers must be involved in the decision making in those schools and school finances, as far as is compatible with public accountability, must be much more under the control of the schools so that they are able to organise their own funding priorities and allocate accordingly. In other words, state schools have to take on some of the present characteristics of non-government schools. Likewise, the private schools system will have to change. Certainly, it will have to relinquish its control over entrance and exit requirements, and conform to the entrance and exit provisions which are imposed on the government schools in the various States and Territories. Senator Peter Baume —Are you talking about integration, Senator? Senator MACKLIN —A uniformity of such regulations will mean that undoubtedly problem children will be spread over all schools. Likewise, the ability to expel must be uniform for the same reason. I respond to Senator Baume's interjection to say that in one year that I taught in a government school I had 28 children in my class plus four who had been expelled from the local private school. Those children lowered the educational chances of the 28 children. They had been expelled for scarcely anything, certainly for nothing for which I could expel them from a state school. Everybody is involved. We must not treat this operation as though it concerned only that group of children and that group of children. We have to look at all Australian children. We have to get some sensible forward planning instead of trying to trade off one group against another and think that we get a few votes for doing so. With respect to the operations that I have been talking about, we definitely must attempt to come up with some propositions whereby we can suggest ways of moving forward. I believe that parents and teachers will be able to do this providing politicians leave them alone. Senator Harradine referred in his remarks to freedom of choice. I believe very strongly in freedom of choice but it does not extend purely to the freedom of choosing a religious school. It also extends to the freedom to choose a particular school with particular educational biases and bents. Such schools need not be non-government schools. They ought to be government schools as well. We ought to foster those types of schools and those types of outcomes. The only way in which these hopes can be realised, I believe, is by introducing a weighted index. To quote from a document circulated by the Democrats during the election campaign, a weighted index is one: . . . which takes into account the educational advantages of a school, its innovative or special character, the number of pupils, the state of buildings, grounds and equipment, the library and other resources available in the school, its isolation, the experience and stability of the teaching staff, the range of social, economic, physical and mental disadvantages catered for in the school. The aim of this weighted index is not to discriminate against any child but rather to ensure that the present operation of a dual system does not disadvantage any children in any way that would not have occurred if only one system had been in operation. I believe that that last principle is the principle that we need to implement. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of this country to be able to do that. We have argued constantly, not only with this Government but also with the previous Government, the need for increased educational expenditure. Indeed, the children of this country are out greatest asset. That statement has often been used as a platitude but it happens to be true. It happens to be true now more than ever before. The concept of human capital in developed and developing countries around the world is based very much on the capacity, the skills, the understanding and the knowledge of its citizens; it is based less on industry, less on primary industry and much more on that element which is associated always with education. By investing in education we are investing in our best resource. All governments have never grappled with that essential problem. Although one can get votes for building a dam, a road or a new building, one does not get them for putting more money into education. By looking only at the short term, we blight our own future. It is only by looking at the long term that we will provide our children with a country in which they will want to live. We believe that the debate as it has been conducted in the community is not a debate worthy of this nation or this society. We do have many problems and any debate and any group of people which purposely set out to divide our community I will not support, and neither will the Australian Democrats. Those people, whether they be in the government school sector or the non-government school sector who wish to work constructively together, we will support. I have met every group within both of those sectors and I have found people on both sides with good will, a willingness to debate and a willingness to try to look ahead for fruitful solutions for all children. Any group which wants to set itself up and condemn and cast slurs against another group is not worthy of this community. What we ought to be doing is working together to build lifeboats to our future. We need to assist each other in the development of that precious resource, the children of Australia, and we owe it to ourselves to bury our differences and show that reasonable people can co-operate to the maximum advantage of those in their care . Unless we do, then this debate will continue, the politicians will be happy and the children will suffer. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.31) —I would like to refer to some of the matters raised so far in the debate before I go on to make the contribution I originally intended. Senator Harradine referred to the destruction of education consensus. I do not think he would find too many parents in government schools or in needy non-government schools agreeing with the term educational consensus if he is talking about recent years. These parents, who are the parents of the majority of Australian children, welcome the new guidelines. I have attended meetings of parents in a number of schools over recent years and I can assure Senator Harradine that educational consensus is not an accurate description of the views of those parents. That was particularly during the time of the Fraser Government . Both Senator Harradine and Senator Baume referred at some length and I add, with some heat, to meetings which they allege the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, did not attend or to which she did not send representatives. I have here a letter which is an invitation to one of those meetings to which I think Senator Baume referred, a meeting in Ballarat on 22 November. It seems to me, from a long experience of working in schools and as a member of parent organisations, that it is a rather strange way to organise such a meeting. The letter is dated 31 October and the date of the meeting is 22 November; in other words, three weeks notice is being given. It reads, in part: The Committee of which I am a member represents concerned parents and teachers across the total spectrum of Education both in Government and Independent Schools. My Committee has asked me to inform you that Senator Brian Harradine ( Tasmania) has kindly consented to address a Public Meeing on this subject in the Ballarat Civic Hall on Tuesday, 22nd of November . . . I would have thought from my years of experience in schools that if one wants a Minister to attend a meeting, the Minister is likely to be the one with the heavy timetable so one first checks and organises the meeting to fit the Minister's time rather than organising a speaker who is known to be in opposition to the policies of the Government and then say to the Minister: 'Well , if you are free on that night perhaps you can tag along'. Senator Harradine —She is not half as busy as I am, at the moment. Senator ZAKHAROV —Don't make me laugh. I also mention my own experience of last week. I got an invitation to Monday night's Sydney meeting. I received it I think on Tuesday or Wednesday of last week and even for a back bencher that is pretty short notice. I would expect the parents' organisations in my own State to give me more notice than that. I wrote back explaining why I could not attend that meeting. Senator Peter Baume —It was acknowledged. Senator ZAKHAROV —I am glad it was acknowledged. I specifically asked for it to be acknowledged, knowing that sometimes these matters are misrepresented. Also, I cannot let pass Senator Baume's attack on teacher unions. I have been a member , and am still a member, of one of those teacher unions. I have been for the last 18 years. I believe that education in Australia is beholden to the Australian Teachers' Federations but not for the sorts of snide implications that Senator Baume made. It is the teachers who, on the whole have fought for better conditions for students. Some of those better conditions are qualified teachers in schools, smaller classes and more help for migrant and disabled students. The Teachers' Federation supported the election of this Government, not for any selfish reasons but because it believed that this Government shared its concern for education. I remind Senator Baume that government schools are supported by 75 per cent of Australian parents and by a very strong parents' organisation which, strangely, has not been mentioned today. I refer to ACOSS. Senator Peter Baume —No, ACSSO. Senator ZAKHAROV —I am sorry, the Australian Council of State School Organisations. The Australian Council of Social Service is another organisation with which I am involved. I refer briefly to something that Senator Macklin said . I quite agree that parents and teachers do have to get together for the benefit of their schools. In my State they have done that very effectively and I believe the Victorian education system shows the benefit of that long co- operation over many years. I know State schools, like private schools, do vary from State to State but in my State it is the government schools rather than the private schools that are doing the sorts of things that Senator Macklin believes they should do in terms of consultation. I am speaking, as I mentioned before, from many years of experience working in schools and also as a parent of former students in both government and non- government schools. I was also-I regret this fact-a student in a non-government school, but that was back in ancient history. The Government's guidelines provide the most help for the schools most in need, which did not happen under the previous Government. Under the previous guidelines it was possible for some schools to provide what most people regarded as luxuries. I refer to things like very expensive sporting complexes. At the same time, other schools in the non- government sector, as well as government schools, worked with substandard buildings, grounds and other facilities. Senator Teague —That is just not true. Senator ZAKHAROV —The honourable senator should come for a tour with me and I will show him I am referring to the needier schools. I would like to say something in this debate about the question of choice, which I know has been raised already. Many of the letters I have received from individuals and groups opposing the guidelines talk about the right of parents to choose their children 's school. Nobody is denying parents the right to choose their children's school . Perhaps it is significant, though and I say this as an educationist-that they do not talk about the child's right. By secondary level, at least, I believe the child does have some right of choice. In fact, in my experience as a counsellor very often the child's choice may be more valid than that of the parents. But how many people in the community really have had the right to choose, either under the old guidelines or before those guidelines were established? This morning's Age newspaper lists current fees, under the old guidelines, for a number of Victorian private schools. At secondary level the cheapest fees for the schools listed are $630 a term or nearly $2,000 a year. The dearest fees are $1,233 a term, or $3,700 a year. How many people on low or even average incomes can afford such fees? They are the basic tuition fees. On top of that parents have to add the cost of probably expensive uniforms and extra fees in some subjects such as music, art or science. Is that a real choice for the majority of parents, even if they have only one child, let alone three or four or more? Senator Peter Rae —There are an awful lot of women working to pay fees like that . Senator ZAKHAROV —I am coming to that right now. It is said that many parents do make sacrifices to pay those fees. I know that they do. Many parents also make sacrifices to keep their children in government schools. But many parents also make sacrifices for other things that they consider important for their children , such as a tennis court, a swimming pool or a house at the beach. We do not expect the Government to heavily subsidise those choices. I believe the right to choice in education does not include the right to have other people pay dearly for that choice. I would also argue from my own experience, and the evidence of the letters which I have received, that the choice of a non-government school is often based on insufficient or incorrect information about the alternatives. Many parents who send their children to non-government schools have mistaken beliefs about their value relative to government schools. They believe that if they pay a lot for something, it must be better. I wish to mention a few of those misapprehensions. There is much misunderstanding, for example, of the significance of pass rates in senior forms, because those who place emphasis on those rates are often unaware of the selection policies which vary vastly between schools. Senator Macklin also referred to that. Government schools accept all students regardless of their ability or behaviour record. They do not tell their students, as many private schools do, to move on if they are unlikely to pass in senior forms or if they are in any way perceived as difficult students, or if, as one local private school principal said to me the student does not measure up to the private school's standards. Apparently the principal thought the child would measure up to government school standards. Certainly, we accepted him and he was a credit to the school. To my mind that sort of attitude , particularly in a school which prides itself as being Christian, is appalling. This method of selection involves not only selecting students in the first place but also the promotion and retention of those students. It is a stark contrast to the government schools which accept and keep most of the students whom they accept. Another misapprehension is that parents have more say and involvement in their children's education at non-government schools. In Victoria at least the situation is quite the reverse. School councils have heavy parent representation . In most cases they represent the majority of the council. Those councils have a great deal of power. Parents are involved in curriculum planning. They are encouraged to be involved in these areas. As far as possible, parents are involved in the school programs. They are involved in areas such as individual help with reading and community involvement courses. Some parents claim that teaching is superior in non-government schools. This is often based on the spurious evidence of higher school certificate pass rates to which I have already referred. Honourable senators may not be aware that some teachers in those schools are without any teacher training. The class sizes are often up to 50 per cent larger than those permitted in government schools. Any teacher or student knows the benefit of smaller classes in terms of both the quantity and quality of student-teacher interaction. Students in government schools very often have a larger choice of subjects in the curriculum. At the school which I left at the beginning of this year there is a choice at Year 10 level of over 50 different semester units. None of those is a mickey mouse unit. They cover a wide range of academic, cultural and physical educational options. Many non-government schools make little or no provision for students who do not wish to pursue a career in non-academic areas. In the school which I left this year we had numerous students transferring from non-government schools, but not because they had been tossed out-some, in fact had won scholarships to those schools but they found that the schools did not meet their educational needs or that, sometimes, they were no longer welcome because their results might not enhance that school's academic record and hence its marketing power. Senator Harradine —What has this got to do with the debate? Senator ZAKHAROV —If the honourable senator thinks about it he will realise that it has everything to do with it. Government schools accept all students and endeavour to devise school programs to meet their needs. If parents are concerned about choice they ought to look a lot more at the government school system. I am surprised that organisations such as the Parents Council of Australia seem to have so little regard for needy schools in the non-government sector which have benefited from the new guidelines. Such groups seem to assume a choice only between government and non-government schools. If the 41 resource rich schools should become too expensive for some who wish to send their children to them-I would argue that many of those schools could well absorb at least some of the increases in net costs-those parents still have the choice of a large number of non-government schools of many varieties in the other funding categories. Finally, I know that many parents have chosen to send their children to non-government schools and still support our priorities which are reflected in the guidelines. They have exercised their choice, but they do not expect other people to have to pay for it. I conclude by quoting from those guidelines. Guideline No. 35 states: The Government acknowledges that many parents exercise a choice in favour of private schooling, but the extent to which this choice will be subsidised will be determined on the criterion of need. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.45) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance which was introduced by Senator Harradine in these terms: The divisive and potentially destructive character of the pivotal funding guidelines issued by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, to the Australian Schools Commission concerning non-government schools. The question that is before us is: Why have the Government's policies divided Australian schools? Why have the Australian Labor Party's policies reawakened the State aid debate with all of its division and destruction? Why is it that the one million Australian families who are associated with independent schools are being so alienated by the policies of the ALP Government? That is the question that is before us. It is right that Senator Harradine should bring to our attention yet again the divisiveness and destructive character of the ALP's policies. Mr Acting Deputy President, you are from South Australia. You have taken a very close interest in education matters. I am glad that I am addressing the chamber through you, as I want to appeal to you and to all members of the Government in this matter of debate on independent schools that the Government rethink its decisions and that it stop the uproar that is going on around Australia. I genuinely put forward this positive plea to members of the Government. The Government can stop the uproar by reintroducing the nexus. It would cost only $4m. The bill for education from public funds in Australia this year is $8, 000m. For $4m, back bench members of the ALP Government can ensure that this Government reintroduces what had been an established basic grant for all children in Australia alike. There is no monetary cost involved in the nexus. It is a commitment that the grants to the independent schools will be directly indexed as a proportion of the cost of a government school place. Very little monetary cost would be involved in this present financial year. The reason there is uproar around Australia and the reason the division has been reawakened by the policies of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, is that the independent schools know that the Government has taken away the honesty principle. It has taken away the guarantee that when the costs increase in the years to come an increased proportion of those costs will be met by the basic funding, the basic grant. It is a simple matter for the ALP members of this chamber to put to their Government that those two basic principles be re- established so that the Australian public can be guaranteed that independent schools will be treated fairly and justly by the present Government. Then the uproar will cease. We have heard about all the meetings which were held in Albury, Melbourne, Tasmania and Sydney. The meeting in Sydney attracted 5,000 angry parents. There was an overflow of 2,000 people outside the Sydney Town Hall. The Minister evaded attending that meeting. She only watched the television replay. Today in Question Time she said that she did not go and did not send a representative to that angry mass meeting in Sydney. All she did was watch the television replay. I sincerely appeal to members of the Government that they can stop the division and stop the debates in this chamber by simply reintroducing the two established principles for funding of independent schools. Those principles are concerned with the basic grant and the nexus under which independent school grants are a proportion of government school costs. That is what the Catholic Bishops of Australia complained about in their solemn joint statement of September. That is what people at all of the public meetings all over the country have been complaining about. They acknowledge that level 3 independent schools will receive more money in real terms this year through the current Budget. However, they are alarmed that two of the principles that had been established by the previous Government and governments before it have been abandoned by the present Labor Government. This public concern at last has reached the Senate Labor Caucus members. The front page of this morning's Australian carries the following headline: 'Ryan forced to defend school funds policy in caucus'. The article begins: The federal Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, was forced to defend the Government's policy on aid to private schools before the Caucus yesterday after the huge anti-government rally in Sydney on Monday evening. Both the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and Senator Ryan were faced with questions . . . In the Caucus this week the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs was put on the mat because of her policies. The ordinary Labor members of this Parliament are worried. They are worried not only about their seats but also about the public concern that is being expressed. Parliamentarians have a right to represent the people. Senator Crowley —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think that the honourable senator is grossly misrepresenting what went on in the Caucus. He was not there and he cannot know what went on. He is relying on the Australian newspaper report and is misrepresenting the position. I ask him to correct his remarks. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. Senator TEAGUE —Labor Party members of this Parliament-and the honourable senator who took the false point of order did not deny the newspaper report that this was hotly debated in Caucus yesterday-are now concerned that their Government is being seen to attack three groups of people in Australia: First of all, the one million Australian families associated with independent schools; secondly, the aged of Australia, and already discussions in Caucus and Cabinet have led to a headline this afternoon which says that the assets test is about to be abandoned or is about to be severely changed as a result of the alarm that has been expressed by the Australian public; and thirdly, the unemployed. They were the people who were promised jobs, jobs, jobs. However, the unemployment level has increased during the life of this Government. If I were-and I am not- an ordinary Labor member of Parliament I would have asked severe questions of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs at the Caucus meeting this week. I would have asked why the Minister's policies have led to such public uproar-why the public is so concerned about the policies that she has announced. She has undermined the established principles of the funding of independent schools and policies are now seen by the public to be divisive and leading to insecurity. I trust that that concern will lead to the Caucus persuading the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to reassure independent schools in regard to these principles. Senator Tate and Senator Ryan both tried to defend this abandonment of principles by appealing to one thing. They appealed to that one thing because they know it has bipartisan support in this chamber. All parties accept the needs principle; we all support the needs principle. Senator Zakharov in her contribution a few minutes ago misrepresented the former Government by saying that we did not embrace the needs principle and that we did not give increased support to those schools that were in need of more educational resources. It is well known that throughout the whole period of the Fraser Government we were seeking to achieve the Karmel targets for resource levels in government and non- government schools alike. There were six levels of funding under this arrangement. Independent schools received six different standards of financial support. Those in greatest need received very much more than those in category one, which were in least need. In 1980, when our policies had achieved a greater equality of resource, those six categories were reduced to three categories. Right up to this point-1983-level 3 schools receive far greater resources than other schools. In fact, they receive double the recurrent resources of level one schools. So Senator Zakharov is misrepresenting the former Government's policies . Senator Tate and Senator Ryan in part of their speeches gave a very constructive outline of the importance of the needs principle. We acknowledge that. Senator Tate, in a characteristic way, referred to the Judaeo-Christian values of the Australian community, which require us to give greater help to those who are disadvantaged. We acknowledge that. I accept even the argument and the values that Senator Tate put forward. We in the Opposition, in the Liberal Party, support that. Senator Harradine when speaking to the matter of public importance which he brought forward today asked: 'Why did you not give even more help to the disadvantaged schools?'. We are not complaining about that. But why, when $8,000m is spent from public funds, does the Government create a divisiveness by taking away $4m as the basic grant for some children in Australia? In the few minutes that remain I would like to refer to the strategy of those who want to upset the independent schools system in Australia by changing the vocabulary in regard to schools. The first is the notion or concept that a basic grant should not be talked about, that the Minister must evade any discussion of a basic grant, that abolition of the grant should not even be defended. Similarly there is the notion that a funding nexus should not be talked about, that that bit of the vocabulary has to go because the principle has been abandoned. 'The new vocabulary that we will introduce', say the radicals, 'is to bring in a notion of a subsidised school'. We now have this ridiculous nonsense of a non-government school, an independent school-they are the terms in which we have always talked about them-being referred to by the Minister as a subsidised school. A subsidised school! Senator Peter Baume —As if government schools are not. Senator TEAGUE —Senator Baume is right-government schools get a 100 per cent subsidy from the taxpayers. Independent schools get a 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per cent or whatever subsidy, if one wants to call taxpayers' contributions to schools a subsidy. I do not. The independent schools get a proportion of the 100 per cent subsidy going to government schools. So if we are going to talk about subsidised schools, and this word has been introduced for divisive purposes and to change the concepts, we have to realise that the most subsidised schools are the government schools. Let me further the argument in this way: The parents of children attending independent schools pay their taxes in exactly the same way as everybody else does. However, if their children attend independent schools they receive from the public purse, from government spending, maybe 30 per cent or 40 per cent-60 per cent in the case of the most disadvantaged schools-of their education costs. Therefore, between 30 per cent and 60 per cent of the cost of educating their children is received back from public funds. However, in the case of government schools 100 per cent is received from the taxpayer. So let it be understood that the parents of children at independent schools are, if one wants to argue that way, subsidising the children at government schools. I am not wanting to be facile about it but I am saying: Let the Government be on notice that it will not use this term 'subsidised school' when it ought to be referring to a non- government or an independent school. The strategy of the Government has been divisive and I appeal genuinely to honourable senators on the opposite side of the chamber to please take heed of the debate here today. It has been repeated almost fortnight by fortnight throughout the whole of this year, ever since the policies and principles that had been established for independent schools have been abandoned by this Government. The problem can be resolved by re- establishing those two basic principles, the basic grant and the funding nexus. With that positive step, we can have this divisiveness and destructive character taken out of education. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.02) —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- Some two months ago I introduced in the Senate a Bill by this title which itself was a revision of an earlier Bill by the same title. The major purpose of those earlier Bills was to give effect to this Government's election undertaking to recover personal tax avoided by former owners of companies that were the subject of 'bottom of the harbour' schemes. In addition, the Bills were designed to strengthen and improve in several identified areas the legislation passed by the Parliament last year to recoup the company tax that was evaded by the use of these schemes. The Bill introduced two months ago was estimated to yield $60m in 1983-84 and $ 270m in total. Honourable senators will recall that the Bill was defeated on a tied vote in this chamber. The rejection of this important part of the Government's Budget must have the effect of transferring the burden of taxes avoided by 'bottom of the harbour' scheme participants-which the Bill sought to recover-to the ordinary Australian taxpayer. As foreshadowed by the Treasurer ( Mr Keating) in his statement of 26 October 1983 the Government now has before the Parliament a Bill that deals only with measures to strengthen and improve the recovery of evaded company tax. Mr Deputy President, the present Bill proposes to strengthen and improve the company tax recoupment measures in the same areas as were proposed in the Budget Bill rejected by the Senate. I shall outline them once again. In addition, the Bill will provide new provisions for 'anomalies' relief in cases where a public company was interposed in the chain of ownership between the stripped company and the person seeking relief. I turn now to the details of the Bill. Post-Sale Avoidance Schemes The recoupment tax legislation contains a let-out provision that operates where the stripped company was the subject of an unsuccessful post-sale scheme to avoid tax. Under this escape clause there is no liability to recoupment tax on the people who benefited by non-payment of the company tax. This provision was inserted by the former Government for reasons which are best known to it. In our view it defies logic and nothing that has been said in recent months in any way dissuades us from that view. It is our announced policy to abolish it and this is to be done by the Bill. Pre-Sale Avoidance Schemes Consistently with the removal of the post-sale avoidance scheme provision, this Bill will also ensure that, in ascertaining the potential tax liability of a company for the purpose of determining whether the recoupment tax legislation applies in relation to it, any pre-sale scheme which is ultimately established to be ineffective of its tax avoidance purpose is to be disregarded. Anomalies Relief An addition to this Bill is the provision of an additional avenue of relief from recoupment tax payable under the present legislation, in cases where a public company was involved in the chain of ownership. The existing law gives the Commissioner of Taxation a power, the non-exercise of which is subject to a full review by independent taxation boards of review, to eliminate, but not to reduce, a particular recoupment tax liability. This power to give complete relief may be exercised where the amount otherwise payable is less than $100 or in other circumstances of a special kind. In administering the existing relief provisions, the Commissioner views as a basic ground of relief that the person liable for recoupment tax and closely connected persons have not in any way benefited from the evasion of company tax giving rise to the recoupment liability. The new provisions to be inserted by the Bill will enable full or partial relief to be granted in cases where relief is not available under the existing law. The provisions will assist people in cases where their recoupment tax liability was traced through an interest in a public company, that is, where they are well removed from the actions giving rise to the recoupment tax liability in question. In such cases, the proposed provisions will allow an appropriate level of relief from payment of recoupment liabilities. The situations to which the provisions could apply are varied and intended application of the provisions cannot be explained by arithmetical formulae or the like. However, they would, for example, men that a public company shareholder unconnected with the scheme who received only a relatively small benefit from the evaded company tax could have his or her recoupment tax liability reduced so as to appropriately reflect the benefit received. In the first instance, the Commissioner of Taxation will consider whether a person is entitled to this 'anomalies' relief on the basis of the guidelines laid down in the Bill. It is to be expected that by far the majority of cases will be dealt with in this manner to the full satisfaction of the people concerned. If the Commissioner does not grant relief to the full extent that the person concerned desires, there are rights of objection, review and appeal that may be exercised. In particular, a claim refused by the Commissioner may be reviewed independently by a taxation board of review, which for this purpose is to sit as a recoupment tax anomalies tribunal. Where a person has already paid company tax or recoupment tax from which relief is granted by the Commissioner or an independent tribunal, an appropriate refund of the tax paid or part thereof will be made. Other Changes Moving to other aspects of the Bill, there are several further amendments designed to improve the administration of the legislation or to correct technical deficiencies. The Bill proposes to remove one of the pre-conditions to liability for recoupment tax-the requirement that the company was by a stripping scheme rendered unable to pay its tax-which was inserted by the previous Government, it seems for presentational purposes. The element that the requirement expresses is, in substance, present in all cases of pre-tax profit stripping to which the legislation applies and a specific reference to it is quite unnecessary. The 'stripping scheme test', and an associated provision requiring full disclosure by the Commissioner of known details of it, is being exploited by some taxpayers as a means of delaying issue of recoupment tax assessments. It is also proposed by this Bill to re-insert in the recoupment tax legislation a provision removed by the previous Government which authorised the Commissioner of Taxation to report to this Parliament the names of persons who fail to meet their liability for vendors or promoters recoupment tax. The Commissioner is already required to provide in his annual report to Parliament details of breaches or evasions of the taxation laws and it is consistent with that duty that he be authorised, where he considers it appropriate, to report details of failure to pay recoupment tax. A still further change in this Bill, not contained in the earlier Bills, will enable a former owner to whom a refund of company tax is made as a result of a successful objection or appeal against the company assessment to receive interest under the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act on the amount refunded. Finally, I explain an amendment to an evidentiary provision of the recoupment tax legislation. The provision in question reflects the settled policy of the tax law in these matters and seeks to ensure that persons liable for recoupment tax can only contest the correctness of the underlying company assessment through the established objection and appeal procedures against the company assessment itself. For this purpose it provides that a certificate specifying the amount of a company's liability to company tax is to be conclusive evidence except in an appeal concerning the assessment of the company. Some technical deficiencies in the provision need to be corrected and the Government has, with an eye to a particular constitutional question, decided to press ahead with other amendments as well. Honourable senators will know that the recoupment tax legislation has been under constitutional challenge, on a number of grounds. One of them concerns the evidentiary provision and reflects a legal argument that the Commonwealth cannot validly levy a tax that is uncontestable. It is said that there are circumstances where a certificate that is conclusive evidence would render the tax uncontestable. Obviously it cannot be predicted what decision the High Court will reach on the particular point but the Government has concluded that it should solve the difficulty by legislating so that the certificate represents only prima facie evidence, with the result that the matters that are the subject of it will therefore clearly not be uncontestable. In providing to that effect the Bill also proposes that such a certificate would in appropriate circumstances represent conclusive evidence if a provision in the Bill that reinstates its conclusive nature were to be proclaimed. A decision on whether to make the proclamation, and thus have the provision revert to the conclusive evidence form that is reflective of settled policy, will be made in the light of any High Court decision on the underlying constitutional point. Mr Deputy President, the measures contained in the Bill are estimated to yield about $40m in respect of the strengthening provisions, while the anomalies relief would entail a revenue cost of about $5m. In the 1983-84 year, the net revenue collected would be about $20m, or about one-third of the amount which had been expected from the defeated Budget Bill. As usual with amendments of the taxation laws, an explanatory memorandum giving details of the amendments contained in the Bill is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented in a Press report. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is not a ground for claiming misrepresentation. Are you seeking leave to make a personal explanation? Senator HARRADINE —Yes. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —As will be known, I am regularly misrepresented. Senator Georges —You deserve to be. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, I deserve to be; I do not say things very clearly. But on this occasion I thought I said it pretty clearly and it was reported wrongly. An article headed 'Sex Discrimination Bill set to be law in the new year' in the Australian of 9 November concluded by stating: Senator Harradine (Ind.), has vowed to do everything possible to delay the bill by debating each clause of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Senator Georges —That is true. Senator Gareth Evans —True in substance, if not in detail. Senator HARRADINE —I agree that it is true in substance but not in detail as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said. I certainly will not delay the passage of legislation. It is not my wont to engage in filibustering tactics. What I said was that I would be requesting the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women ( Senator Ryan) to give the Government's interpretation of each article of the United Nations Convention which is part of the Schedule to the Bill and that I would be doing this consistent with the view I have that it is necessary for this to be done so as to avoid the interpretation being left to a non-judicial, non-elected sex discrimination commissioner. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows: 1. Advance to Minister for Finance-Statement on expenditure for September 1983. 2. Department of Special Minister of State-Annual Report 1982-83. 3. Australian Agricultural Council-Resolutions of the 117th meeting held in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 1 August 1983. 4. Medical Research-Report 1982-pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937. Resolutions Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.04) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report 1982 Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I was very interested to receive the Medical Research 1982 report and to glance through the remarkable list of research that has been funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. I am particularly interested in some of the things that the Council points out and highlights in its report. Some of the research that is going on in Australia, such as the recombinant DNA research, gene synthesis and major advances towards the development of a vaccine for malaria, illustrate three very important contributions being made by Australian research scientists to the world's fund of knowledge in these very important areas. Of course, that highlights some of the high technology growth area in this country. Biomedical research is one area of great optimism and prospect for Australia. The report further refers to the Commonwealth Research Centres of Excellence Committee that makes 10 awards, five of which were made in the biomedical field. I suppose that is a matter of considerable praise. On the other hand, it probably also illuminates the limited areas in which there is high excellence of research in this country. The report also suggests that the importance of medical research is not to be seen in terms of its immediate value to the community but in terms of its long term value and therefore it ought not be funded with short term benefits in mind . But in fact the principal contribution of medical research is the gain for the Australian health status of people along the line, if you like, further away. It takes quite some time, even if research is developed, to implement the results and make sure they are within the reach of Australian people, so the funding has to be based on the need for that time to elapse. It also suggests that the particular significance of contributions is to the prevention and treatment of major disease and that the prevention focus is the most important focus of the research. The report also points out that, of course, it is very difficult to put a costing on research grants for prevention, particularly when that prevention effect happens down the line. The Council is also arguing, of course, that the costs for research ought not to be in terms of prevention only but also in terms of the awareness of the medical community, in particular, of that new knowledge and therefore the saving of costs to the Australian taxpayer, in particular, because that research and that thinking permits proper medical practice and not a willy-nilly, uncritical, unempirical and inevitable expense as a consequence of poor knowledge. The point that struck me most, though, in this whole document was the mention made of the success of the Australian research sector in terms of the relatively high standards of health care in this country, the quality of medical education and research and the international prestige of Australian researchers. I think there is no doubt that we have a very high standard of health care in this country. But, if we look for an area in which we have very poor health care, it is amongst Aboriginal people in particular. I find it quite remarkable, and although I must say I have only skimmed this report with a broad toothed comb and not a fine toothed comb, I find no reference to any particular research into the problems of Aboriginal people and their particular health needs. I find that that is a little remarkable in an organisation that actually attracted $27.298m for research in its 1982 budget. I feel that it is worth while making the point that the health of Aboriginal people in this country is really quite deplorable, particularly when compared to the excellent health care provision for the rest of the population, although I might qualify that if we talk about poor Australians in cities. Even so, the health status of Aboriginal people is quite dramatically worse and yet there is no particular research addressing itself to those problems. Apart from that, I found the report a most interesting document. It highlights the extraordinary range of research that is being done in the health area. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the twelfth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1983, the Transfer of Prisoners Bill 1983 and the Transfer of Prisoners (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 13, dated 9 November 1983. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I present the 210th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —I seek leave to incorporate a short statement in Hansard and to refer to that statement. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The 210th Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance Minute on the Committee's earlier report, No. 199-Financial Statements for Commonwealth Undertakings. The Department of Finance Minute is the formal mechanism used by the government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's 199th Report, a Discussion Paper on the Form and Standard of Financial Statements for Commonwealth Undertakings, was tabled in Parliament on 28 October 1982. The 199th Report contrasted public sector and private sector reporting and canvassed contemporary views of financial reporting by public sector bodies. In evaluating the private sector the Committee was concerned only with its relevance to the public sector; it made no judgments on the adequacy of the process or standards for the private sector itself. The report covers a wide range of accounting and financial reporting issues dealing both with practical steps which may be implemented in the short term to improve the quality of financial statements and with the direction research in government accounting should take in the longer term. The Committee is generally satisfied with the Department of Finance response to Report 199 and is pleased to note continuing widespread discussion and critical analysis of the issues surrounding the development and content of accounting standards for the public sector. A major step in implementing the Committee's findings was taken on 16 May 1983 when the Minister for Finance issued guidelines which are intended to be adopted by Commonwealth undertakings, which have their financial statements approved by the Minister for Finance. Earlier, in November 1982, guidelines were issued for annual reports of departments and authorities. While the Committee welcomes the issuing of guidelines it wishes to stress that such guidelines are only the initial step in the process of improving published financial information on Commonwealth undertakings. The following three recent developments are of interest to the Committee: 1. The announcement on 1 September 1983 by the Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities that an Accounting Standards Review Board will be established and operate from 1 January 1984. 2. The announcement during September 1983 by the Australian accounting profession that it has established a Public Sector Accounting Standards Board; and 3. The recommendation of the New South Wales Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee that a (NSW) Annual Reports Act be introduced to specify the reporting and accounting requirements for (NSW) Statutory Authorities. The Committee commends the initiative of the Australian accounting profession establishing the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board and expresses the hope that the Board's responsibility and powers of enforcement are in accordance with the theme of the 199th Report's recommendations. The Committee will be monitoring the activities of the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board and the Accounting Standards Board in so far as they relate to Commonwealth administration. The Committee wishes to be accorded observer status at all meetings of the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. As previously stated, the Committee is generally satisfied with the responses to its 199th Report given that it is a discussion paper. The Committee is concerned that those responses in the Finance Minute calling for further research not go unnoticed and that appropriate resources be made available for the undertaking of such research. The Committee requests that the Minister for Finance report to the Committee, on or before 31 October 1984, on the progress made in researching those matters noted in his Department's reponse . I commend the report to honourable senators and members. Senator GEORGES —I incorporated that statement in order to save the Senate's time. I attract the Senate's attention to a part of that statement which states: A major step in implementing the Committee's findings was taken on 16 May 1983 when the Minister for Finance issued Guidelines which are intended to be adopted by Commonwealth undertakings, which have their financial statements approved by the Minister for Finance. Earlier, in November 1982, guidelines were issued for annual reports of departments and authorities. While the Committee welcomes the issuing of guidelines it wishes to stress that such guidelines are only the initial step in the process of improving published financial information on Commonwealth undertakings. There are three matters of interest to which I attract the Senate's attention. An announcement was made on 1 September 1983 by the Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities that an Accounting Standards Review Board will be established and will operate from 1 January 1984. That is a welcome initiative. Further, the statement referred to the announcement during 1983 by the Australian accounting profession that it has established a Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. That certainly is welcomed. The third point mentioned in the statement was the recommendation of the New South Wales Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee that a New South Wales annual reports Act be introduced to specify the reporting and accounting requirements for statutory authorities in New South Wales. That also is to be commended. With those few words I commend the whole of the report to honourable senators. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works: Telecom State Head Office Building, Adelaide, South Australia; and National Institute of Dramatic Art, Kensington, New South Wales. Ordered that the reports be printed. Consideration resumed. GROUP C Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $101,878,000. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.16) —I did not have time to answer Senator Peter Rae's questions prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch, but before moving on to that I want to correct a statement that I made. I was aware of this before lunch but there was not time to correct it. I am advised that Jabiluka does have a lease, Koongarra does not and Yeelirrie has been authorised under a Western Australian State indenture Act . The other uranium prospects do not currently hold leases. I mentioned that earlier in the context of the South Australian Government's decision not to grant a production lease to the Honeymoon prospect. Senator Rae quoted some words which I did not get down but they related to the phasing down of the enrichment research or study program at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. He asked me whether I agreed with those words. I think I wrote them down; if I did not I wrote something very similar to them. They were used in the context of a phasing down of the enrichment research or study which had been contemplated by the AAEC under the previous Government. The position at present is that the test bed will continue for this year and next year because it is doing work which the Government considers necessary for the safeguards arrangements and the safeguards review. The other question Senator Rae asked related to whether the Department or I agree that a coal fired station in the northern hemisphere-I think he said France-is 50 per cent more expensive than a nuclear power station, that an oil fired power station would be 150 per cent more expensive than a nuclear powered station and so on, and whether a 200 megawatt nuclear reactor would produce power at similar cost to an oil fired power station of the same capacity. Senator Peter Rae —It may help you to know that I have sent a copy of the pinks of my questions to your office. It should be on its way now. I would be happy for you to respond later. Senator WALSH —A response from the Department has not been possible because, until recently, we have not been able to get the precise questions that Senator Rae asked. Nobody in my office or in the Department was able to take them down quickly enough. The Hansard copy was not available. A departmental response will come through. However, I make the general observation that all such calculations make assumptions about things like interest rates, the price of oil, the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations and the cost of storage. Assumptions and judgments are entailed in all of those assessments. The final conclusions can be changed very substantially, as I am sure Senator Rae knows, by varying the assumptions which are fed into the models. With that quite important reservation , one thing that I think is particularly difficult to assess is the long term cost of storing the waste of a nuclear reactor. I have no trouble accepting that , in some parts of the world, nuclear power, by any reasonable assessment, would be cheaper than an alternative source of power. Likewise, I do not believe it is conceivable that in Australia nuclear power is likely to be produced at a similar cost to some alternative, although Senator Rae asked a specific question about the cost of a 200 megawatt nuclear station as against an oil fired station . Senator Peter Rae —That was in Germany. Senator WALSH —In Germany, was it? I make that general observation because in most parts of Australia where there is a substantial demand for electricity, fairly low cost coal is available for thermal stations. In areas where low cost coal is not available, the total demand for electricity is well below the optimum economic size of a nuclear power reactor. The sort of information that has been fed to me suggests that any nuclear reactor below about 500 megawatts is likely to have very substantial dis-economies of scale. Senator Peter Rae —That was another question I wanted to ask you. There were 140 allegedly operating around the world economically at under 500. Senator WALSH —Yes, but I do not think they have just been constructed. I think those nuclear power stations were built many years ago. The sort of advice that I have given is that anyone contemplating a nuclear power station now would be looking for at least a 500 megawatt output in order to achieve the economies of scale which are possible. But that sort of conclusion would be very substantially influenced by the assumption one makes about interest rates. I have been given some information in response to a question asked earlier, I think by Senator Peter Rae, concerning the link between Cape Grim and the air monitoring station operation and the study of wind generation in Tasmania. This study-that is the study to which I have referred in the Senate a couple of times -and which is proposed to the Hydro-Electric Commission, would include wind resource measurements, the collection of data on wind generators and assessment of power output from suitable machines, the study of the integration of wind generators into the grid, infrastructural and environmental studies, detailed cost estimates and a study of potential for local wind generator manufacture. Wind resource measurements, which would be the first part of the study, would involve an evaluation of the wind resource measurements already undertaken by the HEC and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in the Marrawah district and the Department of Science and Technology at Marrawah and Cape Grim. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.21) —Mr Deputy Chairman, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) was good enough today to give me information in response to questions I asked yesterday on the absorption of indigenous crude, and I thank him for that. I seek leave to incorporate this information in Hansard. The Minister has agreed. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- ABSORPTION OF INDIGENOUS CRUDE Following a survey of refiners the Department has estimated that the absolute minimum of imported crude required to meet the demand for products not produced by indigenous crude is 105,000 barrels per day (kb/d). In addition Ampol has a requirement for about 15 kb/d of low sulphur Sumatran crude to meet its product mix making a minimum requirement of imported crude of 120 kb/d. Total crude requirements for 1983 are about 560-570 kb/d giving total absorption for indigenous crude of 440-450 kb/d. Total idigenous liftings for this fiscal year have been: July-399 kb/d August-394 kb/d September-418 kb/d October-472 kb/d Production from major Australian fields during October was: Bass Strait-397 kb/d Barrow Island-21 kb/d 434 kb/d Cooper Basin-16 kb/d (The difference between total liftings and total production is accounted for by stock change). Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yesterday the discussion-I think it is an important one for the long term future and I was genuinely seeking information-was on what was the minimum amount of oil that one would have to get from countries other than Australia in order to deal with those fractions of the barrel that were from the middle and the lower end of the barrel. The Minister in the course of his reply indicated that he felt that the level of technical self-sufficiency for Australia-I hope I do not misrepresent him-was 70 per cent. During his answer I reminded him that we hoped that in the course of this decade we may be producing in Australia, for the short term at least, up to 77 or 78 per cent of our need in terms of barrels as distinct from particular fractions or qualities. I asked whether he would indicate some comparison of what was the minimum overseas necessity in the other fractions or the other qualities, and what we could supply here. What has been agreed for incorporation shows that out of a total requirement for a day of some 570,000 barrels, a minimum 120,000 barrels of particular kinds need to be imported. I thank the Minister for his co- operation. I do indicate, however, that that is 120,000 barrels-I am not cavilling at figures and I hope he will accept that-which is something like 21 per cent, making 79 per cent self-sufficiency possible. So that he has no thought that I am nitpicking, I point out that what I am basically looking at is the theoretical picture of where we might stand in Australia under all sorts of difficult circumstances, for example under circumstances where it might be difficult to find readily, through some Middle East trouble or otherwise, the particular kinds of oil from overseas. I simply rise, apart from thanking the Minister, to indicate that on this basis-it is purely theoretical and I do not develop the argument any further than that-technically we could use 79 per cent mix from Australia and 21 per cent import. The Minister will of course fully understand that we could do better than that if we had to, but we are just talking about a theoretical situation and I do not seek any response from him on that. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.24) —I will respond very briefly. What Senator Sir John Carrick has said is correct, but to get to that theoretical 79 per cent figure would require very substantial adjustments to existing supply patterns. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.25) —I want to raise a quite separate matter and to ask the Minister whether he could inform the Committee of the Whole of the role which his Department of Resources and Energy plays in assessing the likely impact of revenue changes on resource industries. I raise that matter in the context of one of the areas in which the Government had to go back on one of its Budget proposals because of the, I think , unexpectedly severe impact that the changes to the excise on fuel oil were going to have on a number of resource projects and indeed upon the Northern Territory Electricity Commission. In the Budget Speech the Government announced that it would impose an excise on fuel oil, heating oil, power and lighting kerosene at the same rate as the rate on motor spirit and diesel fuel, that is, 9.027 cents per litre. Heating would be subject to a rebate of 7.155 cents per litre leaving a net excise of 1.872 cents per litre. There was-I am sure Senator Walsh would remember-something of an explosion by some of those who were affected by the changes. After representations the Government, on 26 August, which was a very short time after the Budget was brought down, announced a number of changes. Excises on fuel oil, heating oil, power and lighting kerosene were reduced to 1.872 cents per litre and the process of having a high excise of 9.027 cents and then a rebate for heating oil, requiring a lot of paper work and costs, was abolished leaving a net excise of 1.872 cents a litre. That of course was a sensible procedure that could and should I think have been introduced at Budget time. I do not for a moment argue with the Government for its having changed its mind on this matter. It appeared to me, on the information which was made available and on the information which we found was available from public sources, including sources such as the Minister's own Department, that it was quite clear that a substantially greater amount than was shown in the Budget Papers would be raised by that levy. But I do not think that is so significant. The total amount of revenue to be raised certainly is not the point I am concerned with at this stage. What I am concerned about is that on a proper examination of the effect of the Budget change it became apparent that some projects would be subjected to very large additional costs. There was very limited ability on the part of those projects to substitute other fuels. It was quite apparent that the additional costs were unreasonable in that they bore too heavily upon those resource projects. I think the Gove alumina plant was a particular example. Again I do not propose to waste the time of the chamber by putting in a lot of detail, but I think it was said at the time that the changes would have meant that the price of electricity in the Northern Territory-that is already a very expensive commodity-would have risen by about 28 per cent to cover the costs. Perhaps this matter should be raised during the debate on the appropriations relating to the Department of the Treasury, because I guess that it is the Treasury's fundamental responsibility rather than that of the Department of Resources and Energy, but I must say that, in my experience, there was a preparedness on the part of departments to bring forward proposals where they had not taken the trouble to assess the actual on-the-ground impact. I think that if one went back through the seven years of the Fraser Government one would probably find a few examples of changes we introduced where the impact was rather greater than we would have wished or than we would have anticipated. I would like to know whether the Minister has given any attention to this matter and whether his Department in the past-and if not in the past, then in the future-may have had some role in trying to ensure that the changes which were made are not changes which are simply impossible for industry to cope with. In other words, I think that there needs to be foresight within the system, and I do not mean this as a partisan remark because I suspect that there is a deficiency in the way that Budgets are traditionally put together. I think there is a deficiency in that the matters are looked at in the broad and there is probably no attempt actually to see how that will apply to a particular industry , even a quite major industry. So, one of the questions I address to the Minister is: Did his Department or, to his knowledge, did any other department provide any information to the Government on the actual impact of those changes which I have outlined, the changes which the Government had to remove? The other matter is that there are continuing problems with respect to the changes which have been left in place. I want to direct the Committee's attention to what I see as the Minister's misapprehension about some aspects of that and to seek the Minister's comment on it. I think some concern has been expressed about the situation of Nabalco Pty Ltd in the Northern Territory, and the effect of the increases which have been left in place. A report in the Northern Territory News on 30 September this year has Senator Walsh saying that the big improvement in world aluminium prices recently should give Nabalco, which produces and experts alumina and exports bauxite, the capacity to pay the excise. I cannot vouch for the correctness of that report in the Northern Territory News, but that is what Senator Walsh is reported as saying. Senator Walsh —The Northern Territory News is not terribly reliable. Senator CHANEY —Let me give the quotation, because I am not trying to put the words in the Minister's mouth. I would be happy to hear any correction he has to make. The Northern Territory News reported: With regard to mining operations at Gove, he said the very big improvement in world aluminium prices recently should give Nabalco the capacity to pay the excise. The price improvement should more than offset a relatively small increase in fuel costs-less than 2c a litre. I do not know whether Senator Walsh made that remark on the advice of his Department, off the top of his head, or on the advice of somebody else. But it appears from the inquiries that I have made that that report, if accurate, is not based on fact. Nabalco will have an increased cost because of that excise. The cost that is passed on to the residents of Nhulunbuy will be $7.7m in this year, as a lot of the fuel oil is used to produce electricity for the town. The price that the town's residents have to pay for electricity has gone up by 10 per cent due to that excise change. So part of the additional cost is recovered from the residents of the town who simply pay higher electricity charges. As I said before, had the full excise increase gone through, the Northern Territory Electricity Commission claims that it would have had to increase the cost of electricity by 28 per cent. But the increase of under 2c which has been left in place has already given rise to an increase of 10 per cent in the electricity charges at Nhulunbuy. The statement that the Minister is said to have made about the price of aluminium going up appears to show that he has some lack of understanding about the industry as it is conducted at Gove. As I said before, Nabalco mines bauxite . It refines some of it but it exports both alumina and bauxite. While alumina is, of course, the raw material from which aluminium is produced, just because the price of aluminium has gone up, it does not mean that the price of alumina or bauxite has increased. In fact, on the figures which are publicly available, it would seem that the price of those commodities has not gone up at all. The Australian Bureau of Statistics produces a price for export of alumina from Australia. It is an average of exports from four sources. So it may be that more precise information is available to the Minister which would suggest that there is a saving. But according to the ABS, the price for the September quarter 1982 was $185.58 per tonne and the price for the September quarter 1983 was $185.80 per tonne. So there is, in fact, a price increase shown of 22c per tonne. But I doubt that that is the sort of price increase which would cover the sort of cost increase which is referred to. In the March quarter the price was $178.44 per tonne, so it dropped. It went up in the June quarter to $191.78 per tonne and in September dropped back to $185. 80 per tonne. I ask the Minister whether he has been reported accurately and whether the figures which I have are perhaps unrepresentative of Nabalco's exports. It may be that Nabalco has some high-priced part of the market. Whether or not the Minister stands by the statement that it can recover costs from increased prices as against the proposition which appears to me on the facts which are available to me-and I do not have access to a department-it would appear that the consumers of Nhulunbuy are picking up part of the increase and that the industry will have to bear the rest. The fact is that the Government has, by its measure, made this industry somewhat less competitive. I must say that one of the encouraging things for Australia was that in a time of very considerable downturn-and that time for that particular industry seems to have passed-Australia managed to maintain fairly high levels of production and certainly Nhulunbuy remained in production during those difficult times. But I would query whether it was a time to be imposing additional costs on that industry. Another fundamental problem arises out of the Government's decision to put an excise on fuel oil. Fuel oil is a generic term. There are many types of fuel oil , each differing slightly in chemical composition. There are a lot of other oils of similar chemical composition but which are not called fuel oil which are used for petrochemical feedstock. Those oils are not subject to the excise. It appears that the imposition of the excise relates to the end use of the product rather than to any particular quality that it has. Is that correct? Senator Walsh —That is correct. Senator CHANEY —So the question of the imposition of the excise really depends on the end use. There appears to be some inconsistency in the Greenvale nickel plant in Queensland. Most of the fuel oil there is used as a reducing agent in the production of nickel, rather than being burnt as fuel oil. Thus, the oil in that case is not used as fuel substitute and really is similar in its end use to petrochemical feedstock. But that is subject to the excise, unlike the feedstock . That might be thought to be a fine point. Perhaps the argument is that, in fact, when it is put in as a reducing agent, the effect is that it is really burnt because that is what a reducing agent does. It is oxidised. But it appears to me that there is some illogicality in the imposition of an excise in those circumstances. Other companies are in the same position. For example, Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd uses fuel oil as an aggregating agent in producing coke for its steelworks. I would be interested to know how the oil is treated in those circumstances. I think that is all I wish to raise during this part of the Estimates debate. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.38) —In regard to the last point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, that is, Greenvale, Senator Chaney has correctly pointed out that the excise was directed at fuel oil used as an energy source. In Greenvale the great majority of it is used as a chemical reductant. The Government has agreed to consider the Greenvale decision in that context. Senator Chaney —It is still a matter for consideration, is it, Minister? Senator WALSH —Yes. I have not previously heard that Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd had used fuel oil in what could reasonably be regarded as a similar way to the way in which it is used in Greenvale. The advice I received was advice to the contrary-that there was no other plant in Australia that could reasonably be compared to Greenvale in its use of fuel oil. In regard to Senator Chaney's first question concerning the role of the Department of Resources and Energy in making the original decision, I think there are limitations on how much detail I could or ought to divulge here. The submission on this question came from the Department of the Treasury. In retrospect certainly I acknowledge that the decision was made hastily and that the submission was probably presented without adeqaute co-ordination. The Government made a judgmental error in haste. I know that Senator Chaney has been through the process of preparing a Budget himself. He knows, no doubt, of decisions of the previous Government, made quickly when the deadline was approaching, which were on subsequent reconsideration decided to be wrong. The Government recognised that error of judgment very quickly and substantially rectified it. I will accept some personal responsibility for that error because, although the decision was made in haste, I had read the submission, I had previously known that the Greenvale project, for one, was a substantial consumer of fuel oil and was a marginal or sub-marginal project and was likely to be affected by the decision. In retrospect, I ought to have recognised that at the time and raised an objection on those grounds. I failed to do so. The outside sources of advice, however, are not very reliable. I think that on the basis of information supplied to the Opposition by people in the industry or by propagandists acting on behalf of people in the industry Mr Howard claimed that the tax, in its original form, would have yielded $400m. Senator Chaney modified that to $250m. I think the more correct figure was about $180m. So the outside source is not very reliable. I turn now to the article in the Northern Territory News. Perhaps Senator Chaney can indicate the date of that article. Senator Chaney —30 September. Senator WALSH —I have some recollection of making or authorising a comment over the telephone to the Northern Territory News. I am not sure whether it is quoted correctly. I do note, for the record, that the Northern Territory News is certainly not a very reliable newspaper in this respect. I have in front of me an extract from the Northern Territory News of 2 March this year. The headline states: 'Reeves, Walsh differ on uranium'. Referring to the then Opposition spokesman on resources and energy, it stated: . . . was today contradicted by Mr John Reeves. It reports a radio talkback program in Darwin. The article states: The caller: the caller was not even named- Senator Peter Walsh said only last week he would not expect that uranium mining would continue and that is what everybody else is saying except John Reeves. On the basis of an anonymous telephone call and without bothering to contact me or anyone else in the Australian Labor Party the Northern Territory News saw fit to print that as fact. Of course, no such statement was ever made. Indeed, in my judgment that is a matter which may well have gone to the Australian Press Council. Senator Chaney —They probably take the view that if you prove they are wrong they will retract it. Senator WALSH —If I prove they are wrong? I certainly made no such statement. An anonymous telephone call does not seem to me to be a very authoritative source, at least without having made some attempt to check it elsewhere. With respect to Nabalco Pty Ltd, I do not stand by the detail of what Senator Chaney read, especially considering the source from which it came, but I did make a statement along those lines. It was made, as I recall, without the benefit of departmental advice. It was made on what seemed to me to be the common sense conclusion that if anyone involved in the aluminium industry at any point of the chain were able to continue operations when prices were at a very depressed level, when prices for aluminium-I have taken the point about aluminium being the final product-had increased by, I think the figure was something like 60 per cent or 70 per cent from their trough, even those further down the marketing chain ought to be able to secure prices which would enable them to absorb the quite small additional cost which would be imposed by the fuel tax as modified. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.44) —Further to the answer which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) gave in general terms to my earlier questions about comparative costs of nuclear electricity generation and alternative forms, I ask: Will he elaborate a little further, using perhaps the example of Belgium, France and Britain-all of which are sitting on substantial coal deposits and have coal-fired thermal power stations using that coal-when he explains why in Australia we could not look at nuclear power stations at this stage of our development because we have cheap coal available? Whilst I acknowledge that in parts of Australia we do have cheap coal readily available, particularly that which does not have to be mined underground, I wonder where the distinction lies. The second part of my question relates to hydroelectricity. I asked the Minister earlier whether he was able to indicate in any way at all why it is that in Japan hydroelectricity is an extremely high-cost electricity generating method. It is nearly twice as expensive as nuclear-generated electricity in Japan. I would like to ask a question about electricity pricing in Australia and the importance of interest rates, to which the Minister has referred, but I think it is better that I ask my question in two parts. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.45) —I follow Senator Peter Rae's line of inquiry. In my short speech earlier I mentioned the cost escalation of coal- fired power stations in France. I demonstrated in that speech how in France electricity produced by nuclear power cost 26 per cent less than did coal-fired electricity in 1982. I want to know whether the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) can provide us with information concerning the escalation of costs in Australia, State by State, of coal-fired power stations generating electricity through hydrocarbon generation. Senator Walsh —The cost of a new station? Senator JESSOP —Yes. If the Minister can do that I think it would be very interesting to compare the costs. I said earlier that the Electricity Trust of South Australia is concerned about the cost increases in coal-fired power stations. I think that sort of information would be most useful. I was called out of the chamber after I spoke earlier and I am not sure whether the minister answered my question about research into air pollution through carbon dioxide liberated as a consequence of burning coal in conventional power stations. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.47) —I do not think I can say any more about Senator Peter Rae's first point on comparative costs. I have no idea why hydroelectric power vis-a-vis nuclear power is so much higher in Japan than it seems to be in most other places. One possibility which presents itself is that they have very poor dam sites with low total impoundment or a low head relative to the cost of constructing a wall. I do not know; I will see whether the Department has any information on why the cost of hydro-power seems to be unusually high in Japan. I just offer that as one possible reason. Senator Jessop asked a question about the escalation of costs over the last 10 years, I think it was, in power produced from new thermal power stations. Departmental officers have indicated that no information is on hand specifically about that. It would have to be derived from information supplied by the States. We will see what can be obtained and put together. However, again, I think the rider should be added that uniform practices are not adopted by State governments in estimating the cost of power from new stations because they make differing assumptions about interest rates and the real rate of return which they expect. Of course, that is a lack of uniformity caused by decisions of the electricity authorities or governments concerned. Obviously the costs are affected also by the distance over which the power must be delivered and the quality and production cost of the coal which feeds the power stations-coal is normally used-and also whether the coal is taken into the stations at the cost of digging it out of the ground or at opportunity cost. The Department of the Treasury some time ago argued that opportunity cost pricing ought to be adopted for coal that is fed into thermal stations owned by State electricity commissions. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.50) —I should like to question the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) further about small nuclear power stations, small reactors-that is, those of less than 500 megawatt or 600 megawatt capacity . I suggest to the Minister by way of interjection that there were 140 nuclear reactors of less than 600 megawatt capacity operating both reliably and economically in various countries, to which he responded that he believed that that may be because they were built some time ago and not at current costs. Does he not agree that cost in relation to nuclear power stations in most countries of the world-let us leave the United States aside for the moment-has escalated in a way somewhat comparable to that for hydro-electricity, which is a long term , high capital investment and therefore very reflective in its final cost of what has happened in interest rates, that so too some of the other forms of power generation-coal and oil-are subject to considerable cost increases because of what has happened in relation to interest rates and the lead time that is involved, although not as much as is the case with nuclear and hydro generation? The second part of my question about small nuclear reactors is whether the Minister can explain why, if small reactors are no longer an economic proposition, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Japan are all developing 200 megawatt to 300 megawatt reactors in what is regarded apparently, by some at least, as a major growth area in the market, particularly for some of the developing countries which do not have the capacity to consume or apply larger reactors at this stage. Does not the Minister agree that the technology for the smaller nuclear reactors is very much to the fore now, whereas a few years ago it may have been more questionable? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.52) —As Senator Peter Rae has said, by definition any capital intensive source of producing power relative to some other source of producing power must be more susceptible to higher interest rates. Nuclear power stations and, generally speaking, hydro power stations are both capital intensive. Therefore, their comparative or relative disadvantage, whatever it may be, suffers unfavourably as compared with less capital intensive means of producing power, other things remaining equal. That is just a true statement. As to the second point that Senator Peter Rae has raised, on the use of small nuclear power stations-small being defined as something considerably below 500 megawatts-again it is conceivable that there may be situations in which a power station of that size might be the lowest cost alternative, although one could quibble about that sort of conclusion on the grounds of the assumptions that have been built into making that final calculation. I do not have any relevant information with me, but I will see what information the Department can supply on the actual construction, or firm proposals to construct, nuclear power stations of that size, their location, and the estimated cost of power from them . Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.54) —I thank the Minister for that answer. In obtaining the information, I ask that he be conscious of my earlier request that we leave aside the United States of America, as being in an exceptional situation, in trying to arrive at any of the developments in relation to nuclear power generation around the world. Or, if the United States position is shown, I ask that it be shown separately, because I think that most people would agree that the situation in the United States has been exceptional in regard to nuclear power generation costs. What does the Minister believe has caused the exceptionally, dramatically high increases, sometimes at several times the rate of inflation, in the electricity charges being made Australia-wide by the various electricity authorities? Would he relate that in any way to the pricing policies and the policies by which the financial statements of the electricity authorities have been prepared and, therefore, the pricing policies determined? Does he agree that we are now reaping the 'reward' of profligate under-pricing which has taken place for too many years, to the degree that we now have a substantial and serious problem in curtailing the rate of increase in energy prices and, therefore, Australia's capacity to be internationally competitive in production in which electricity energy is involved. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.56) —I make two brief comments. I do not want this to be taken as my definitive statement on this subject or necessarily the last word on it. I was asked why I think that electricity prices have been escalating at rates greatly in excess of the increase in the consumer price index. That probably varies from State to State. In at least one State, I believe that a significant factor has been the extension of the grid and the policy of State-wide uniform pricing. The more that the grid is extended, the higher is the cost of actually supplying. The marginal cost is above the average cost of supplying electricity because of extensions to the grid into areas where total demand for power is low. That is one factor. I suspect, however, that a more important and general factor is that in recent years electricity authorities-as Senator Peter Rae would know very well because he has made a deep study of it-have been turning over loans raised many years ago at rates of interest of 5 per cent or 7 per cent and replacing them with loans at anything up to 16 per cent. Their capital servicing costs have therefore increased enormously. I do not have any trouble in accepting what I think was Senator Peter Rae's proposition, that a more realistic account ought to have been taken in the past by electricity authorities of the true cost of capital. In the period when real interest rates were negative, the electricity authorities, to varying degrees-I think that the record of the South Australian Trust, as I remember it, is probably better in this respect than most others-appeared to assume that negative real interest rates were a permanent feature of the economy. That, of course, proved ultimately to be wrong. Any reasonable person would have expected that ultimately that assumption would prove to be wrong. These effects have snowballed and have caught up very severely with electricity authorities throughout the country. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.58) —I take it that the Minister would agree that the greater the exposure in the gearing ratio of the authority, that is, the greater the debt in relation to equity, the greater the exposure of risk to this factor of conversion from negative to positive interest rates and the impact of that on the necessary pricing policies. In supplementation of that question, I ask the Minister whether he accepts the figure which is generally given and was given at the energy symposium at the Australian National University a little earlier this year and has been published many other times. That is, that last year the figure was 97c in every dollar of surplus operating return before payment of interest, and that significant roll-overs of debt are still taking place as a result of conversion from low rates of interest to high. So one can imagine that what we are looking at in Australia is a situation in which the taxpayer will have to provide a subsidy, or we shall have to continue, as has happened, leasing and selling off capital assets, reducing the value of capital investment already made, or will have to have further substantial increases in the rate of charges for electricity supply. Really, it cannot be anything other than one of those three if there is to be a continuing roll-over of low interest loan to higher interest loan. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.00) —I was not aware of the figure of 97c in the dollar that was quoted but on the other propositions, other things being equal, I can only agree. They are tautologies. Any electricity commission with a higher debt to equity ratio-that term might not be quite applicable in this case-obviously is in more trouble if real interest rates increase and remain at those higher levels. Ultimately loans have to be turned over. An authority in that situation, unless it receives a subsidy from the general taxpayer or it increases charges or efficiency, is faced with one or a mixture of all those three things. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.01) —In the Canberra Times today there is a heading 'Government abolishes uranium body'. It refers to the abolition of the Uranium Advisory Council. I think it is regrettable that the Government has had to take this action. The Council consisted of 12 members, representing the Aboriginal people, environmentalists, the uranium industry and others with interest and expertise in the area. Having seen this particular body work for some years now, I believe that it was bringing considerable expertise to advice on the industry. Such a composite body would have brought many varied views and advice to government, which surely must have been of considerable value to it. I think I have read in media reports that the Government considers that this body has not directed its energies to non-proliferation and waste disposal issues. As far as I know, the Council's principal role was to investigate matters on which the Government sought advice. As far as I can see it depended on the references it was given. Although given many references, it may not have been given this particular one. Perhaps the Government only obliquely sought advice on waste disposal and never sought advice on proliferation. Therefore, as I understand it, the Council did not pay much attention to these areas. However, in the later stages the Council did investigate these matters briefly, but it did not report on them. I am told that there is limited coverage of waste disposal and proliferation in the annual report, the first draft of which is now at the printers. While I think it would be a very good thing for the Government, if it so desires, to receive advice from other sources, it should think a second time before it loses the services of this body that it intends to abolish. As the Caucus has now made up its mind that uranium will be developed in a limited way at Roxby Downs, once again I think it is a pity that the Government has decided to have no further co-operation with the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia. This decision must surely be only to the Government's loss and to Australia's loss. I do not see that it costs the Government or the people of Australia anything to have the advice of this professional body which must keep a tab on the situation. Eventually, if it is the opinion of an Australian government that we should go into enrichment, we would be that much further ahead. I would have thought that the very responsible and informative advice given by Senator Sir John Carrick before the suspension of the sitting for lunch would have carried some weight. Yesterday I asked a question in several parts of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). He did not answer that part of my question which related to compensation. He has answered it today. I thank him for his answer this morning in which he indicated, as I understood him, that compensation would be discussed by Cabinet next week. That is well and good. But I wonder where the Government will start in assessing compensation. I note too that the Minister has said that the Government sees no legal basis for compensation. As the uranium industry has progressed over the last few years, very great requirements have been placed on various companies. For instance, Pancontinental Mining Ltd has invested something like $50m so far at Jabiluka. One of the requirements was that it should have an environmental research station. I have seen this station in operation, as, perhaps, has the Minister. It was a million dollar investment. The company has been checking on the environment for several years. This very fine project, which has cost a lot of money, is down the drain. There has been an investment of $100m in Koongarra. All these things have come a long way. It has been estimated that there is something like $16 billion worth of ore in the ground at Jabiluka. That has been ascertained as a result of a very comprehensive drilling program over the years. By the end of the century, the year 2000, some $9 billion worth of ore would have been extracted, with a gold content, so it is estimated, of some $154m or $155m. These vast sums of money have been estimated after very many years of research carried out along the lines of government requirements. The Aboriginal people also are concerned. In the last week Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the new chairman of the Northern Land Council, and Wesley Lanhupuy, its director , indicated their extreme disappointment that uranium development in what is known as the uranium province, Arnhem Land, is not to go forward. It is to be noted that Wesley Lanhupuy has said that the Aboriginal people looked forward to receiving the royalties. No doubt they would, because the royalties are estimated at something like $200m over the life of the present field, what has been found up to now. They are disappointed at this bitter pill. They felt that at last they would be off the Government's back, that they would not have to live on handouts. The Aboriginal people wish to live along different lines, with money coming forward not from Government handouts but from royalties from mining on their land. This could have been of considerable advantage to the development of the Aboriginal people. There is the question not only of compensation to the Aboriginal people, but also to the town of Jabiru. As far as population is concerned, one could say that Jabiru is a half finished town. The people from the Ranger mine live there, not those from Nabarlek. Nabarlek people live on the Nabarlek mine site when they are working, and are flown to and from Darwin after a few days on the job. With Ranger, of course, all the technical people, the Supervising Scientist and all the public servants, whether Commonwealth or Territory, reside in Jabiru. The town and commercial facilities developed in Jabiru were designed to cope with the much larger population envisaged. When one visists Jabiru one sees a very nice, modern town, but with only half the population that was originally expected. Commerce is geared to the population of a larger town. How do we start considering compensation in a situation like that? One can go further and refer to the infrastructure that would have been developed to support Jabiluka and Koongarra. The lack of that infrastructure will have an effect on northern development. The fact is that many people would have come to the Territory because of the many jobs there, so the area would have been more populated and very real development would have taken place. It is a vast disappointment to all those who are concerned. So where does the Government start to assess what is required in compensation? Some compensation was paid in the cases of Fraser Island and the dam in Tasmania. One would think that, following the way in which the uranium industry has been encouraged in the Northern Territory and after so many years of research have been carried out, there is a very real case for compensation. So it is with bitter regret that the Territory sees that this additional uranium mining is not to proceed. As it is, of course, the contracts for Ranger and for Queensland Mines Ltd at Nabarlek are being given a continuing lease of life. But, as I understand it, the Government has indicated that the life of the mines might continue only while the contracts now being negotiated-those negotiations have been confirmed by the Government-are filled over the next few years. As I understand it, the companies should not take it for granted that there will be any contracts after that. What will happen to the development of this area? How will the Government look at compensation? What will happen as far as shareholders are concerned, after hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent along the lines that the Commonwealth Government has directed? How can the whole of the north of Australia be assisted when what was to be one of its major industries will have to be discontinued, so halting that tremendous northern development? Of course, it would have assisted in defence, too, because of the increased population. How will the Government recompense the Northern Territory? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.14) — Senator Kilgariff seems to have made an assumption that the Government is going to pay compensation. That is an assumption he is not entitled to make. The Government will consider the question of whether any compensation ought to be paid, while recognising that there is no legal liability to do so. The Northern Territory, in fact, gets very little benefit from the uranium mines located there. They employ a few hundred people. There might well be greater regional benefits from using that same area for an alternative use associated with tourism rather than for uranium mining. The other question he raised was the Government's decision to disband the Uranium Advisory Council. Insofar as the Council provided technical advice, and it was not essentially a technical body, we saw it as being superflous because technical advice was already available from an adequate range of sources-the Australian Safeguards Office, the Office of the Supervising Scientist and the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. To the extent it provided non-technical advice, there was no need for the existence of such a body because advice and opinion on the non-technical aspects of nuclear related activities is available to the Government from within its own ranks, from the relevant policy-making departments and the community in general. Last but not least, it did cost $360,000 a year to maintain the Uranium Advisory Council and we believed that expenditure was not justified. I have a response to questions asked earlier today about the Prices Surveillance Authority and the old Petroleum Products Pricing Authority which adds a little to information that I supplied earlier. In particular, it deals with the intention of the Government regarding the relationship between the Prices Surveillance Authority and the various State bodies which are involved in petroleum price setting. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRICES SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PRICING AUTHORITY STATES' PRICING COMMISSION The Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) is to absorb the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority (PPPA) which will be abolished. Like the PPPA, the PSA will not have statutory powers to control prices. The States do have statutory powers to control prices and their pricing authorities may set (and do in the case of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia) wholesale and retail prices at levels other than those approved by the PPPA. There is nothing in the PSA legislation which would change this situation. The relationship between the PSA and States' pricing authorities is an issue of some concern, but the matter is to be taken up in future discussions with the States: the intention is to achieve a situation where the States' pricing commission are acting in a manner, consistent with that of the PSA; in particular, the undercutting of PSA approved price levels is seen as unsatisfactory and to be avoided; the emphasis to date has been to get the PSA established first, and to initiate discussions with the States subsequently. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.16) —I wish to discuss only one further point. I note the points the Minister for Resources and Energy has just made. I now come to the overall question of the future of this area. The Government has indicated that Koongarra and Jabiluka are not to proceed, and there is no indication now that the mines will ever produce under a Labor Administration. What, then, is to be the future of the surrounding area and, for that matter, the lease at Jabiluka? I speak of the area known as Kakadu II which is, as I understand it, not yet committeed. Is the Government going to declare Kakadu II in its entirety as a national park, locking in once and for all the many minerals in this highly mineralised area, or will it accede to the Northern Territory request that a conservation area of not more than 50 per cent be declared, say for a pre-determined period, to allow a stocktake of the resources of the area? Does the Government expect that if this action is not taken uranium and other minerals such as gold and copper-present in large quantities, as I understand it-will be locked in permanently? The whole situation is most complex. In Western Arnhem Land some time ago either the Bureau of Mineral Resources or a Northern Territory Government agency such as the Department of Mines and Energy undertook an aerial survey which was financed by interested mining companies. The maps produced which made available to all those who were interested, indicate the anomalies of the area. It was indicated that there were quite a lot of interesting places to be explored. It was agreed that the Aboriginal people should also have an opportunity to review the situation there. There was the thought that there should be an anthropological survey taken but the Northern Land Council said that it did not have sufficient money. It was estimated to cost some $300,000. It was suggested by the mining companies, in an endeavour to get the whole matter resolved in one way or another, that in the interests of finding out what is in the ground in that area they would finance a stocktake, but the Northern Land Council felt that that was not the right thing to do. I tend to agree. We now lack the money for an anthropological survey to be carried out on behalf of the Aboriginal people. Senator Gietzelt —I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I have listened with great interest and at great length to the contribution made by the honourable senator, but not once has he referred to any of the aspects of the estimates which we are supposed to be discussing. I think it might be relevant if you drew the honourable senator's attention to the fact that we are debating estimates and not the philosophical arguments about what is happening in the Northern Territory, South Australia or the rest of Australia. Senator Peter Baume —I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I understand this is one of those difficult areas where there is a question of mining in the Northern Territory which involves mining on Aboriginal land, which then involves a series of procedures relating to Aboriginal people, but which does come back to a question of resources. It does not fit precisely into the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or of the Department of Resources and Energy. I put it to you that there is a question which goes to the proper procedures which may relate to a resources matter on Aboriginal land. I think the honourable senator has been trying to relate to the procedures necessary before the exploration or extraction of some resources can proceed. Senator Gietzelt —It seems more like a filibuster to me. Senator Peter Baume —I inform the honourable senator that I am waiting patiently for the Committee to deal with the estimates which are of concern to me. Having had the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio, I can see clearly how the matter does relate to a resources issue. Senator KILGARIFF —Mr Temporary Chairman, why would I want to filibuster when I am endeavouring to have cleared up a matter about minerals in the ground in this area? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Lewis) —I have heard the debate on the point of order. I do not uphold the point of order. I am sure that in due course Senator Kilgariff will relate his remarks to the estimates. I call Senator Kilgariff. Senator KILGARIFF —Mr Temporary Chairman, I will be brief. What I am saying is: What is to happen to this area of the country in the future? It has been said in the Northern Territory that deliberately Jabiluka and other areas in the Territory which could be developed will be locked in by the Government because they will not have this period of grace for this mineral stocktake. It has been said that Kakadu II will be declared immediately a national park, despite the request of the Northern Territory that a conservation zone be defined for 12 months. I merely ask: What is the Government's intention in the future regarding Kakadu II? What will happen? What is to be the future of Jabiluka? What is to be the future of Koongarra? Is this the end of those projects? Are they now finished, wiped out? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.23) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I think that the discussion of these estimates has gone very wide of the mark. Senator Kilgariff asked questions which have already been answered. He raised a couple of matters which possibly deserve an answer. I think it is about time that the filibuster on the other side of the chamber was terminated. I am advised that the general geological survey to which the honourable senator referred was financed by 18 companies. The results were supplied to the Northern Territory Government. The Northern Territory Government has not released the results. Perhaps it regards them as commercially confidential; I do not know. I suggest that Senator Kilgariff follow the matter up with the territorial Government. In regard to the status of Kakadu, I am not able to give a definitive answer at this stage. These matters are still under consideration by Cabinet. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Trade Proposed expenditure, $301,577,000. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.24) —The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, is unable to be present. He asked me to request of the Minister for Resources and Energy that the questions which he asked relating to the appropriations of the Department of Resources and Energy, which the Minister said were more properly addressed to the Department of Trade, be taken on board and that the Minister, in due course, provide the answers to those questions. I so ask. I wish to speak on that aspect. Throughout the debate on uranium it has been implicit-indeed it was implicit in the decision-making of the Australian Labor Party on Monday-that the Government has made a decision based on very expert evidence that the world market for uranium is rigidly limited and will remain so , and that there is an upper ceiling that can be very clearly defined for Australia and, therefore, the Government must intervene and decide which mines shall operate and which mines shall not. If that is so, quite clearly the Government must have in its possession precise projections as to what the accepted projection of world demand is for uranium, year by year, for the next 10 or 20 years. The Government must be able to indicate precisely what the demands of individual countries will be and precisely what the supply to meet that demand from individual countries will be. Otherwise the argument falls flat. How can the Government argue that it knows that markets are limited? This afternoon the Minister indicated that the Government did have such expertise. I challenged that and said that commerce and industry has a wider expertise. If the Government has this expertise, and if it is so arguing, I ask the Minister to provide to the Committee, in the next day or two, the precise details as to the worlds projections of demand by individual countries over the next decade or two and the world projection of the directionalism of supply, indicating therefore how the Government reaches the decision it does, that there be nothing more than whatever is the forecast-some 3,000 tonnes extra availability for Australia. I believe this is fundamental. As I interpret the Labor Party's decision on Monday-and the Minister has not argued against it; I have said this before-the Labor Party has said: 'In principle we find no objection to the export of yellow cake: in principle we approve the export of yellow cake'. The Labor Party is saying: 'There is a rigid market in the world. We want to create employment in Australia and therefore we are deciding whether we shall have the forces of commerce and industry competing or whether we will have government intervention. We are interviewing and we are saying that we will limit the output of existing mines and he will grant a new mine, that is, Roxby Downs, the right to operate, because it will be mixed mining quality and it will have an employability'. What is needed is for the Government to come forward and support that thesis. Incidentally, the thesis is one which, again, will have very great difficulty in the near future in terms of coal. I presume the Government will exhibit the same interventionist qualities in terms of coal, because no doubt it has assessed the world situation and has found that in terms of coking coal there is a gross oversupply and that in relation to steaming coal demand is falling away. Therefore, on that basis the Government would probably say: 'Let us be interventionist and let us decide that this mine is not to open and that mine is not to have more than a certain number of forward contracts'. I remind the Committee that, logically, the decision on uranium as a product was made purely on a commercial basis, that is, it is right to mine it, mill it and export it, but the limit is the available market. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) The CHAIRMAN —I point out to Senator Foreman that it is against Standing Orders to leave the chamber while the bells are being rung for a quorum. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was making the point that the Government had asserted that it had precise knowledge of the limitations of the market for uranium. I was inviting the Minister for Resources and Energy to provide particular statistics regarding that market. Since the discussion today has also involved uranium enrichment, I ask the Government also to include with that information its survey of what it regards in expert evidence as being the demand for enriched uranium for the next two decades, what the supply will be and from what directions. Honourable senators will recollect that earlier today I raised a question about the pursuit of uranium enrichment in Australia, both in terms of re-establishing the research at Lucas Heights and giving the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia the go ahead to make its market survey. At that time I made assertions , a number of which the Minister refuted. I will now read to the Committee a public statement which was released today by the UEGA group through its Chairman . The document, which is headed 'Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia, News Release', states: The Chairman of UEGA, Mr E. F. Herbert, today expressed disappointment at the Minister for Resources and Energy's announcement yesterday that the Australian Government had withdrawn its support for UEGA to continue its studies into the feasibility of establishing a uranium enrichment industry in Australia. He said the members of UEGA accepted the Government's decision but wished to draw attention to the following facts: 1. Studies carried by UEGA, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and Urenco- Centec and other organisations involved with the sale of enriched uranium indicated that markets for Australian enriched uranium were likely to be available in the 1990s sufficient to justify the commercial development of a profitable enriched uranium industry in Australia. UEGA had secured approval from the previous Government to carry out a detailed market study in conjunction with Urenco-Centec to test this assumption as a pre-condition to embarking on a detailed engineering and feasibility study, in association with Urenco-Centec. UEGA had not commenced the market study pending clarification of the Government 's policy on uranium exports and will not now proceed with the study in view of the Government's decision. 2. Very long lead times are required to establish a uranium enrichment industry in Australia given the need for detailed feasibility studies, inter-governmental agreements, and the need for power utilities to commit for their enriched uranium supplies many years ahead of actual delivery date. To secure markets in the 1990s it was necessary that the UEGA studies proceed as planned. This is no longer possible and the potential 'market window' available in the 1990s for Australian enriched uranium could be lost. 3. The economic case for endeavouring to establish a uranium enrichment industry in Australia is encouraging. Construction of a uranium enrichment plant in the 1990s would involve capital expenditure on the plant and associated uranium conversion facilities of about $750 million and would provide direct employment for 600 persons in the construction phase and 500 persons in the operating phase. The export value of yellowcake is doubled by conversion and enrichment. Components for the very high technology plant could be manufactured in Australia and and such a plant would be in line with the policy of up-grading Australian mineral exports wherever possible. 4. UEGA has spent over $1 million on its investigations to date. These investigations were com- menced in 1979 at the request of the Australian Government. 5. UEGA hopes that it will have the opportunity of presenting its views to the inquiry-- Senator Cook —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. Standing Orders forbid honourable senators reading their speeches. Surely the reading of an extensive extract amounts to the same thing as reading a speech. I think the honourable senator is out of order. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order on that matter. The honourable senator is entitled to read a lengthy extract. Senator Sir John Carrick is in order. Senator Walters —Just you wait. Senator Cook —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. I ask Senator Walters to withdraw that remark. She made the remark: 'Just you wait'. I think that is an inappropriate remark in this chamber. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order on that matter. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I think that the Labor senator picks a wrong target because I say: 'Physician cure thyself'. As he knows, I never read my speeches, nor do I in fact refer to copious notes in this chamber. I will now continue. I fully understand why the Labor Party would want to interrupt my reading this news release. Every paragraph of this news release confirms what I said today, refutes what the Minister said today and makes a mockery now of the policies of the Labor Party. The final paragraph of the news release states: 5. UEGA hopes that it will have the opportunity of presenting its views to the inquiry foreshadowed by the Government into the future of uranium mining and processing in Australia. Let me remind the honourable senator what the news release says. Today I said that if in fact the Government's policy last Monday-that is, the 55 per cent of the Labor Party's policy on Monday-were 'we agree with the mining, milling and export of uranium; the only obstacle is the lack of markets and therefore we will ration the industries', it ought to be looking for new markets. Uranium enrichment offers just such a new market. Uranium enrichment does two things: It offers the opportunity of taking the nuclear cycle further in Australia under full safeguards and it offers additional opportunities for uranium sales from Australia as well as additional employment. I think the Minister had some doubt as to whether the Government had withdrawn its support. UEGA says that the Government had withdrawn its support from UEGA. The Minister challenged my statement-indeed, he challenged them all-that UEGA in its first report said that there were likely to be markets for Australia for uranium enrichment of a significant kind in the 1990s. I draw attention to the fact that this statement says that emphatically. The Minister said he had never heard it from UEGA. One of his duties should have been to read the reports of UEGA that had been submitted to the previous Government and obviously they ought to be the basis for his either continuing or stopping the research. In any case, he has now heard it. It is on public record that what UEGA is saying is that it was proceeding on the likelihood that there was just such a market. It goes further and says, as I have said, that it was doing this in partnership with Urenco-Centec-- Senator Walsh —Likelihood! You said it was likely that Rundle would be producing 50,000 barrels of oil by 1985. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —One of the lovely deflections that the Minister tries when he is cornered is to turn the issue away from anything but the subject matter. He has tried this all day today. He has made direct misrepresentations of what I said. I have looked at the Hansard. It was quite outrageous. He has a grin like a cheshire cat now as though he has done something clever. Let him now eat his statements of today because one by one they are bowled over. UEGA has said quite clearly, as the world now knows, that in its judgment and in the judgment of Urenco-Centec, the biggest of the enrichment industries around the world, experts themselves-but of course the Hawke Government knows better, we have heard that-there is likely to be a market. They have decided that the Urenco-Centec centrifuge technique is the right one but want to check the market and to firm it up before they go further. They are in the business of checking the market but have been stopped from doing that. What a nonsensical situation it is that the Minister is saying in the Senate that he knows what the market is , he knows that mines should be opened or closed, yet UEGA and Urenco-Centec are saying: 'We believe there is a market for the 1990s and we want to go ahead but you have stopped us'. Pending clarification, the market study had not been commenced. Now it will not go ahead. The news release goes on to talk about the long lead times and the need, if we are going to have an enrichment market, to get busy now. It concludes, in that paragraph: 'But if we do not start now the Australian market'-in other words, the potential market window available in the 1990s for Australian enriched uranium-'could be lost'. That is on the Minister's head, for the decision he made yesterday. They go on to point out the advantages to Australia in capital investment, in employment and of course they have quite clearly- Senator Walsh —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I thought Senator Carrick had spoken for about ten minutes before the suspension of the sitting. He has now spoken for another ten minutes and I think his time has expired. The CHAIRMAN —In Committee, Senator Sir John Carrick may speak twice in succession. He rose and no one else did. He is entitled to a second speech. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I can fully understand this second attempt to try to stop me speaking. But let me make it perfectly clear to the Minister that no device will stop me, I assure him of that-short of the Government applying a gag -from bringing before the people of Australia the heinous act of which the Australian Labor Party and he, as the responsible Minister, have been guilty. We have before us tonight a very simple situation. It is quite clear now that UEGA was to have embarked upon a market study and has been stopped. So it is not a question of limitation of markets and, bear in mind, I have asked the Minister to produce his survey of facts on the markets for yellowcake and enriched uranium. But let me come to the next silly season situation. Anybody who understands mining knows that the capital investment in a mine is based upon the economic use of the mine over a lifetime, that is, over a predicted development of the whole or body. To say to any kind of mining undertaking, 'Having been given approval, you cannot go on, with all your capital investment, with all your employment, to develop the whole of the ore body; you might be stopped at any time; you will get a contract perhaps, and maybe another but you may be stopped' , is of course to cripple enterprise in Australia. That is what is happening in the uranium province in the Northern Territory. That is what is happening to Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, to Ranger itself. It is inconceivable that a Minister or a Government responsible for the development of mines would believe that it could say to any mining venture: 'You can be stopped at any point of the development of your ore body, when we like to stop you'. Senator Walsh —Tell us what you did to Fraser Island. Tell us what you did to Murphyores. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —All day today, when he has been asked questions, this Minister has created diversions. I think listeners to this debate should understand that we are debating the Appropriation Bill and that the object of an Appropriation Bill debate is to enable honourable senators to ask the Minister responsible to respond in a factual way to questions posed. Instead of that, what he has done all day is to try to create diversions. The fact is that the Australian Labor Party and the Minister himself have been vocal in saying: 'We are going to have a limited development of uranium in Australia, not because it is a noxious industry or because it might be radioactive at all, because we are prepared for it to be radioactive in South Australia'-of course, that is nonsense-'at Roxby Downs or in the uranium province, but because the world market is rigid and we decide who shall mine and who shall not'. Suddenly it has all fallen to the ground because UEGA has said, 'We, the expert commercial people, in terms of the Urenco-Centec experts of the world say that there is likely to be a market- Senator Walsh —Likely! You said you would be pushing 50,000 barrels of oil out of Rundle next year. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I point out to the listening public that once again the Minister tries a diversion. That is the only thing he can do. We all know the old plea: 'When you are strong on facts and weak on law, pound the facts; if you are strong on law and weak on facts, pound the law; when you are weak on both, pound the blooming table'-and, by golly, that is what he is doing tonight. Let me conclude this section of the debate by saying that the UEGA public statement today has totally demolished the whole framework of the Labor Party's uranium policy and of the responses that the Minister made yesterday and today. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.17) —We have sat here for some time and listened to one of the most remarkable farragos of nonsense that I have ever heard in this place from Senator Sir John Carrick. What we have heard is apparently a most determined attempt in this place by the Liberal Party to push the barrow of a multinational company which wants to get into the uranium enrichment business in Australia. I do not really think that that is a matter that should go out on a broadcast to the public without comment. The centrifuge method of enriching uranium is one of increasing the amount of uranium 235 so that the material can become either a fuel for a peaceful nuclear reactor or it can become a fuel for a nuclear weapon. I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) a question earlier today, to which he has not yet given me a reply, probably because there have been so many questions that it has slipped his mind. I asked whether he would tell me whether it was not a fact that whether uranium is enriched to weapons grade or to reactor grade is a matter of technique. In other words, the centrifuge process progressively increases the amount of uranium 235 and the stage is reached where that product becomes an explosive mixture, not in the sense of a controlled fission reaction, as in a reactor, but an explosive reaction in a bomb. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Mason, the Committee is discussing not the Department of Resources and Energy but the Department of Trade. I am aware that they overlap as far as uranium exports are concerned. Nevertheless, you should confine your remarks to the areas of concern to the Department of Trade. Senator MASON —Mr Chairman, with all respect to you, I have sat in this place and in my office for 20 minutes and listened to the previous speaker range broadly, without comment from you. I thought I was speaking to matters which he had raised and which had been raised throughout this debate. The CHAIRMAN —There have been several debates but the earlier debate was relevant to the Department of Resources and Energy. We are now discussing the Department of Trade. Senator Sir John Carrick in fact was dealing with matters concerned with the Department of Trade. You are perfectly entitled to do so. I ask you to confine your remarks to that department. Senator MASON —I wish only to deal with these matters that Senator Sir John Carrick has raised. He has raised the point that there is a useful and viable export industry for this country in enriched uranium. I am merely making the point that this is a very dangerous industry. It is not something that is as innocent and as purely commercial as the honourable senator has given us reason to believe. It is a fact that any unscrupulous group which has access to an enrichment plant can use that enrichment plant to make weapons grade material at any time. I suggest that that is not a matter which Australia wishes to be concerned with purely from a safety and proliferation basis alone. To revert to the trade aspects, there is no market for enriched uranium. All over the world, in the United States and other places, the major utilities are selling off their supplies of enriched uranium to each other at increasingly lower prices. It is possible that there will be a recovery in the uranium market. If there is it will not be because nuclear power is on the increase. In fact, reactors are being cancelled all over the world, as Senator Sir John Carrick knows full well. It will be because there is an increasing interest on the part of a large number of countries-not democracies, not the Western countries, but the autocracies of the world with military ambitions-to acquire reactors so they can obtain from then the spent full rods, the plutonium, to make nuclear weapons. They might also feel at some stage, once they have nuclear technology that they should have an enrichment plant. The same comments would apply to such an enrichment plant as to the one which Senator Sir John Carrick is proposing for Australia. It is a dangerous, unnecessary technology which belongs to an industry which is on its way out, which is being replaced by other industries. We, properly, should have no part of it. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.22) —I understand that the policy relative to the sale of uranium was hinged around the fact that the Roxby Downs mine contains a combination of various metals. Besides uranium I understand it will produce copper, gold and silver. I understand that the decision was made in favour of Roxby Downs on the basis that to add the extra uranium from the other mines may tend to flood the market to some extent and make the value drop. Senator Walsh —No. There was no room for the uranium produced from them. Senator ARCHER —Right. If that was the basis on which the decision was made, can we be given the figures which demonstrate what the added supply of copper will do to the markets in Australia and to other producers of copper. In view of their capital expenditure, their existing markets and their long history of involvement in this industry, I guess that they received the same consideration that the Australian Labor Party gave to the uranium question. I would be pleased to be given this information so that we may be able to put those producers at some ease. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.24) —I will try to be brief. Senator Mason has said a number of things which ought to be refuted because they are quite non-factual. First of all, he referred several times today to the idea that centrifuge uranium enrichment was old fashioned and going out. I can only say that the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia is a highly expert body. Senator Mason —With big investments in centrifuges. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —None at all in terms of centrifuges. The group comprises a sugar company and a mining company and it has no interests at all in centrifuges. Nothing could be sillier than that. The situation is that there are three methods of uranium enrichment known to mankind at this moment, two of them proven and one still on the drawing board. The centriuge method is proven and operating throughout the world. Gaseous diffusion is proven and operating. The chemex, or chemical exchange method, is a theory; it has not been proven either at a pilot stage or a market stage. Those are the three. Senator Mason —What about laser tech- nology? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have heard of laser technology. It is not even at the drawing board stage. Senator Mason must know that the diffusion process is so heavy on electric power that in France four nuclear reactors are feeding one enrichment plant. It would be absolute nonsense to suggest that we should have a diffusion plant. We cannot have a chemex plant. The biggest of the enrichment organisations in the world, Urenco-Centec, uses the centrifuge method and so do the Americans. It is not on the way out. The experts say it is the right method. That is the first thing. Secondly, it is labour-intensive. Thirdly, it is absolutely non-radioactive. It is of no threat to the health of the people. I repeat that the situation for uranium enrichment is two-fold; that is, to take yellowcake and to apply it to flourine gas and get uranium hexaflouride, U206. In other words, to get uranium hexaflouride and to seperate the two different weight elements or atoms, U235 and U238, in this case by swinging them or swirling them around as one would a billycan. The fact is that it is entirely a chemical factory and not a radioactive factory. There is less radioactivity in that process than there is at Ranger mine. Senator Mason seems to think he knows more than others. The Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry looked at this matter and said that a uranium enrichment industry was an acceptable industry with the normal safeguards. Of course, Senator Mason would do it with solar or laser energy. It is absolute nonsense to talk like that. The uranium enrichment industries throughout the world are situated in areas of quite dense population. There has never been a suggestion of there being any kind of harm done to the public from such a plant. Senator Mason —Don't you read the newspapers? Windscale was a reprocessing plant . Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Do I not read the newspapers? It seems Senator Mason wants the public to believe that reprocessing and uranium enrichment are the same thing. They are at the absolute opposite ends of the nuclear cycle. Senator Mason could not be confusing the public more. The second thing Senator Mason keeps doing is inferring that if we had a uranium enrichment plant there would be a threat that products from it could be used to make bombs. The fact is that Australia is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Australia would be supervised not only by its own Australian Safeguards Office, which is under the command of this Government and the Minister sitting in the chamber tonight, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), but is also under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an agency with which I have worked and for which I have respect. Any industry in Australia, including our research reactor at Lucas Heights, is inspected regularly and at irregular intervals by the International Energy Agency and by ourselves. Everybody knows that to enrich uranium for peacetime purposes involves enriching it from 0.7 per cent to about 3.7 per cent. Does anyone believe that in Australia, under secrecy, any government would allow a plant to be altered in all its configuration and in the whole of its cascades? This plant would cover many acres and would have something like half a million centrifuges. Does anyone believe that, without the Safeguards Office knowing, without the Government knowing, without any Australian worker letting the world know and without the International Atomic Energy Agency knowing, somehow this plant could be upgraded to the weapons standard of 90 per cent? This is the kind of nonsense -- Senator Mason —It could be done deliberately under a future government. You cannot guarantee that it will not be done. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Done deliberately! The Safeguards Office and decent Australians would all contribute to the conspiracy, would they? I only raise this matter because time and again this issue has been corrupted by the kind of things that Senator Mason has said. To put this matter into perspective, if there is a uranium enrichment industry in Australia-the Government now having agreed to export yellowcake-we will be able to enrich yellowcake, to supervise it and to monitor it over so much more of its journey in absolute detail. There will be no chance of that yellowcake being turned into weapon-enriched uranium; none at all. In fact, the very thing we are advocating would be a safeguard built into the system. But of course equally it would create an industry absolutely non-radioactive, asbolutely safe in itself, an industry that would provide jobs and provide high technology. Senator Crowley —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I refer you to standing order 421 where there is reference made to the calling of an honourable senator to order if he practices tedious repetition, and I suggest we are rapidly getting to that stage. It is listed in standing order 421, and I recommend that you make a ruling that way. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Sir John Carrick is not being tediously repetitious. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I thought Senator Crowley was referring to Senator Mason. I did not believe she could be referring to me. I could not have believed that a senator with some scientific background would not want the Australian public to know the scientific facts, because if what I am saying is not factual let Senator Crowley get up on her feet and say that. Senator Mason is factual. Let her support him and say that what I am saying is wrong and let us have a debate on the factual things. What I am trying to do-I invite Senator Crowley to join me-is to try to get the facts on peacetime nuclear uses and the proper safeguards understood by the public. Senator Crowley is a member of the Government that has just decided that it is perfectly safe and perfectly proper to mine and to mill uranium and to export it from Australia. So in fact we are as one on that. Indeed there is only one person who is against that, and that is Senator Georges, because nobody else has spoken up. That being said, does she or anybody else refute the evidence that I have said about a uranium enrichment plant? Does she or anyone else refute what the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia has said in its news release today? Why should honourable senators use the device of diversion when they know that the arguments being put up by their Government and their Minister have fallen to the ground? Last week the minister said that indeed if Australia does not export uranium two things are likely to happen. One is that the price will go up in the world, and secondly, that there will be marginally at least more danger that the world will use uranium for making nuclear weapons. That is what the Minister said on this subject. So in point of fact what was being implied by the Government was that the more Australian uranium that was bought and monitored, the less likelihood there would be of its going into nuclear arms. What I am now saying, what I have been saying today and what is now thoroughly supported by UEGA, is that the Government's arguments have fallen to the gound. As UEGA has said there is very likely a market and if we do not now move towards it we will probably miss out. Of course if we have the uranium enrichment industry it will not only create jobs and investment but also we will be able to monitor it. I have invited the Minister to respond on the UEGA message. I believe the very facts that UEGA has mentioned today have destroyed the Government's argument that there is a limited market in the world and it has to ration uranium. In any case I raise two other matters. Let the Government produce those figures to support that and let it tell us how we can develop a mine unless there is a guarantee to the mining organisation that it can be viable until the whole of its ore body is worked. How can a mining organisation develop half way along the track not knowing whether it will get its head cut off? These are fundamental things and they need to be answered. The CHAIRMAN —Before I call the Minister I would like to say something about relevance in the Appropriation Bill discussions. I have allowed this discussion to proceed because there is in the Department of Trade estimates division 641 for Australian uranium export. I draw the attention of the Committee of the Whole to the fact that this provides a total of $285,200 for the facilitating of Australian uranium export. I think in view of the prolonged debate that the Committee had during the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy it would be appropriate if this discussion were truncated and the Minister could answer the points raised and we might get on with some matters more relevant to the estimates for the Department of Trade. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.35) —Mr Chairman, as you have very correctly pointed out most of what we have heard for the last 35 minutes and for the 30 minutes or so which preceded the dinner break was a rehash of what happened this afternoon. However, there are one or two additional points to which I will respond. Senator Sir John Carrick-I wrote the words down-said: The Government has asserted that it had precise knowledge of the state of the uranium market. The Government of course has asserted no such thing. The Government has made a judgment on evidence provided from a variety of sources, importantly from the interdepartmental committee report on the likely commercial global demand for yellowcake from Australian sources. The Government has taken account of an admission-if that appears to be a loaded term I shall use another one-or a statement by Mr Grey of all people, the Chairman of Pancontinental Mining Ltd, who acknowledged only last month that for the first time in very many years we were approaching a situation in which the production of yellowcake was likely to come to balance with consumption because for very many years production has been in excess of consumption and stockpiles have continued to accumulate. Mr Grey expressed the opinion that consumption and production were about to come into balance. We have also taken account of a statement by Mr Townsend of the Central Electricity Generating Board of the United Kingdom, that not until 1995 would the product of a new mine or new mines be required on the World market. But the Government has not asserted that it has precise knowledge. Senator Sir John Carrick might think that he has precise knowledge of these things but the Government makes no such assertion. The Government has made judgments on information which it has received from a number of sources-the Commonwealth bureaucracy and other sources-as to what the likely commercial demand for Australian uranium will be. Concerning the other matter which Senator Sir John Carrick raised on behalf of Senator Chaney when he first commenced to speak at about quarter past six this evening, regarding the details of contracts, prices, quantities, delivery dates and so on which have been negotiated between Australian producers and overseas customers, I repeat what I said in the debate in the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy, that I will refer those questions to the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) with the caveat-a very important caveat- that a good deal of that detail I expect would be regarded by the Minister, Mr Bowen, as being commercially confidential. But I will provide to the Committee- it cannot be done tonight-whatever detailed information Mr Bowen believes can be provided without breaching the commercial confidentiality of that information. Otherwise, what we have been through for the last hour of sitting time is a rehash of what happened this afternoon, and I concur entirely with what the Chairman said a while ago, that it is pointless to continue this discussion, and it is time that the Committee addressed itself to the question of the estimates for the Department of Trade per se. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.38) —I asked Senator Walsh questions concerning the amount of consideration that had been given to the copper industry in particular as it affected the opening of a substantial uranium mine. I would like to get that advice from him as to exactly the sort of consideration that was given, who it was carried out by, what the future of the copper industry is seen to be and whether there is going to be any effect as a result of putting on to the market substantial amounts of copper, as I understand it. He may be able to tell us the actual amounts of copper we are talking about, what the prediction is for the price of copper at present and what it is likely to do to the world price and to the future of the other mines around Australia. Senator WALSH(Tasmania-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.39) —The preliminary mining plan which the Roxby Downs venture has put out envisages the annual production of 150,000 tonnes of copper a year. The Government has not taken into account what the likely effect of that additional-assuming it is additional-supply of copper on world markets will have on price. That is a decision which the joint venturers will take. What the Government has done is to make a decision or a judgment-Senator Archer, of course, is at liberty either to concur with or to reject this judgment which the Government has made-that the Roxby Downs potential project and any other potential uranium producing project in Australia of comparable size are at least competitive and probably mutually exclusive for a considerable time into the future. Having reached that judgment, the Government has made a decision that, given the very much larger net economic benefits to the nation which would accrue from the development of Roxby Downs as against any alternative purely or overwhelmingly uranium project, the national interest is best served by allowing Roxby Downs to proceed, incorporating in that, of course, the judgment that if any alternative source of uranium supply of the same magnitude were allowed to proceed, Roxby Downs would be made non-viable. But the question as to whether Roxby Downs is to proceed is to be decided by the companies involved. The present expectation is that those companies will make that decision before the end of next year. If the companies make a decision that Roxby Downs is non- viable on commercial grounds I expect that the position will be reviewed. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.42) —Mr Temporary Chairman, that answer still avoids the question concerning the viability of the existing copper mines. If viability was taken into account in regard to the question of whether there could be uranium mines and if the actions of the Government is selecting one is going to place the copper industry in Australia in jeopardy, I would like to know. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.43) —I do not have the precise figures with me, but Australia's copper production potential in the context of the total world supply of copper is relatively small , compared to our potential as a uranium producer for that portion of potential uranium demand which is not tied up in long term contracts. One important point which probably should be made is that it is customary in regard to the supply of uranium oxide for contracts to be written over a very long period-that marketing practice does not normally apply to copper-so the amount of free or uncommitted potential uranium supply is quite small. Copper, if not sold on a completely spot or open market, is sold under circumstances which are very much closer to spot market, spot sales. Therefore, the marketing arrangements for the two commodities are not comparable. Even in the absolute sense Australia is a relatively small potential supplier of copper compared to its potential to supply uranium oxide. Indeed, that basic reality is reinforced when one looks at the uncommitted potential in regard to the supply of uranium oxide or of copper. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.45) —Following Senator Sir John Carrick's notice to the Senate of the new release of the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia, when the Minister for Resources and Energy was assessing the potential markets for uranium-he has come out and told us that Roxby Downs is the only mine that could possibly fulfil those-did his assessment and source of information include the companies that were mining uranium? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Lewis) —I call Senator Tate. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(8.46) —I would like to answer, but I will leave it to the Minister. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The Minister has not risen yet. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.46) —I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy a question. I wonder whether he is going to answer it. I want to know the source of his information for the marketing potential of uranium. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I can call the Minister only if he rises. Senator Walters —Obviously, the Minister does not intend to give us any answer. Senator Walsh —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Walters has resumed her seat. She is not entitled to speak again. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes, she is. I call Senator Walters. Senator Walsh —Without an intervening speaker? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes, without an intervening speaker. She is entitled to two calls. I call Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.48) —I again ask the Minister for Resources and Energy whether he will indeed answer the question. It seems to me to be a very reasonable question. He told the Committee that the market potential could be fully covered by uranium mining at Roxby Downs. We now have proof that that is not so. Other companies believe that they can seek and, indeed, have markets overseas. So I think it is quite reasonable for me to ask the Minister from where his source of information came and whether indeed he obtained his information from the uranium mining companies. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $458,586,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $146,912,000. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.48) —I would like to raise a few matters as a result of the Estimates debates and subsequent matters. In particular, I would like to start by endeavouring to get some information on the matter of the Export Inspection Service. During the Estimates Committee hearings I asked a series of questions on how the Service operated, what changes were to be made and how the costing was arrived at. After quite a series of questions to Mr Miller, who was then answering, we were able to ascertain the fact that yes, it looked as though some changes were going to be made, but Mr Miller expressed some disappointment regarding the amount of assistance he had received from the industry. He said: I think it is fair to say that most of the ideas that we have about saving costs in the Service have come from within the Department and were contained in the submission which we put to the Royal Commission. We put forward proposals then for a fundamental rebuilding of the Export Inspection Service, including such radical changes as passing over a substantial part of the responsibility to industry under a quality assurance program. We have to re-establish the integrity of the inspection system before we can get countries to go along with those radical transformations. A five-year plan laying out all of those points will be available for consideration by the industry within about a month. Following that, we came up against the question of the enormous increases in charges being made. When I subsequently asked for details of how the charges were made up, I was told that I would be advised subsequently. I raised the question again when we debated the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1). Again, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) was able to assure me that I would be advised. I demonstrated the reason for my request by producing the table of how the estimated costs for fish export inspection services had been arrived at. Again I was told that the information was not quite right and that I would receive it at a later stage. When I did not hear any more about it I wrote to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on 23 September. He thanked me for reminding him that Senator Walsh was going to give me certain information. He replied on 24 September giving me another set of figures which told me nothing as well. Before I go on to other matters I would like to know whether we are going to get the figures which show how the cost of the Export Inspection Service is arrived at and, from that, how the cost that is charged is arrived at. The figures that were produced in relation to fisheries merely showed at the bottom of the page that there was a cost for salaries-it gave the various breakdowns-a cost for overtime, a cost for travel and a cost for laundry. Then there was an item which just said 'On-cost provision based on 50 per cent of salary component'. I want to know what that 50 per cent is? Is it an arbitrary figure? What does it cover? I suggested that it might cover long service leave and superannuation. I have not even received confirmation of that. I would like to know the various components of that figure. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.52) —The basic Government policy, which I note was also the stated policy of the previous Government, is to recover by way of charges 50 per cent of the costs incurred for all export inspection services. On several occasions previously the individual components and the way in which that cost estimate, if you like, has been made has been supplied. But basically the formula, which is no longer applied, was that salary expenses were the basis of the cost estimate and a 50 per cent figure was added to that to cover superannuation obligations, long service leave, travelling expenses and so on. That was a quasi-arbitrary way, I suppose, of assessing the total cost. I am advised that that formula is no longer applicable and the current practice is to attempt to measure more directly and precisely the actual costs incurred. I have just been advised that the direct costs include-this is not necessarily an exhaustive list-salaries, travelling expenses; protective clothing; I would assume laundry expenses; on-costs of superannuation, which are assessed as being 20 per cent of salary; long service leave, which is assessed at 2 1/2 per cent of salary; and a portion of the general administrative costs carried within the Department-I do not have a percentage figure for that. In time I would expect, if Senator Archer wants it, that a more detailed explanation of the way in which costs are currently assessed could be provided. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.55) —I have been waiting now since 12 September for that information. I would still appreciate receiving it. The people concerned in this matter would like to know what they are paying and the method that is adopted. I am pleased to hear that some change has been made which may let us get closer to finding out how that figure is arrived at. All the reports that I have read-reports of the Industries Assistance Commission, the report of the Kelly Committee of Inquiry to examine Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems-and the comment of Mr Miller and others have indicated that we are working towards a system that will reduce costs. The only thing that has happened to costs since we started getting this information is that they have increased by 300 per cent. I think that everybody who is paying for this Export Inspection Service will find it very difficult to accept that fact. That will be even more difficult to accept if, in due course, we hear that costs are likely to go up. I think that these people have a lot to be frightened of. If costs have gone up 300 per cent while everybody is saying that they are coming down, that is a terrible situation. I also understand that the meat industry still faces one or two problems in relation to the Export Inspection Service. I would like the Minister to advise how the arrangements are proceeding between the various States in relation to the single inspection service project. Will he indicate which States have entered the single inspection service, which States have not entered it and which States are contemplating entering it? I would also like some information about the expectations of a challenge being made through the High Court of Australia. I read in the newspapers yesterday that a challenge is likely to be taken against the Commonwealth Government and its powers to actually levy the amounts that have been charged. If the Minister provides that information for a start we can then proceed to deal with other matters I wish to raise. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.57) —In response to the last question, I understand that suggestions have been made that the present export inspection charge, at least in regard to meat, may be defective on technical grounds as distinct from constitutional grounds. I, of course, will make no judgment on whether such a suggestion is valid. I will refer this to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for confirmation, but I would expect that if action before the courts should find that the charge which has been imposed-I would expect such a judgment would encompass charges which have been imposed for some considerable time-is technically defective, and moneys have been collected under technical conditions which are imperfect or fallible, the Government would take action to ensure that moneys which had been collected would be retained by the Government. The important distinction I make, which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has made from time to time, on some other matters I recall, is that there is a very substantial qualitative difference between a court ruling which overturns, on grounds of technical defects, a decision to impose any charge and a court action which overturns, on constitutional grounds, a policy which imposes a charge. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.59) —Can the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) also answer the first part of my question, in which I asked which States are currently in the system, which States will not come into the system and which States are contemplating entering it? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.59) —New South Wales, as Senator Archer probably knows, has entered into the single inspection service arrangement for meat; I am advised that Victoria is prepared to enter into it; and South Australia has been in it for some time. Discussions at officer level are proceeding with the remaining States and the Northern Territory. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.00) —I should like to ask a question or two about fishing. Over the last two or three years, I have asked a series of questions concerning the publication called Australian Fisheries. After the Estimates hearings this year, we were told that Australian Fisheries produced 7,200 copies per month. Of these, 2,800 are supplied to the Australian Government Publishing Service for distribution to subscribers and for shop sales. Of the balance of 4, 400 300 are for internal departmental use and the remainder are distributed free to parliamentarians, government departments, research institutes, media and advisers, foreign governments and, on a selective rotational list, to fishing organisations and fishermen. The report states: In addition to the $100,000 provided under Item 490.2.04, Australian Fisheries- Printing and distribution costs, expenditure is incurred for salaries . . . $120 ,000, overtime . . . $2,000 and travel . . . $7,000. Therefore total estimated costs for 'Australian Fisheries' . . . is $229,000. I understand that $70,000 was collected from the Department for paid subscriptions and $70,000 was raised by way of revenue from the sale of advertising. The report finished by saying: Estimated shortfall of revenue when compared to costs in 1983-84 is $89,000 which will be a charge to consolidated revenue. The report then goes on to say that as from November 9,491 copies will be distributed free to all Australian licensed fishermen, with the additional cost being met from the fishing industry research trust account. I believe that to supply a free magazine at the cost of the fishing industry research trust account is something that probably the Public Accounts Committee, or some authority, ought to examine, because it must be a fairly marginal operation if a very substantial proportion of the advances to the account is spent in providing this magazine free to fishermen, particularly when we take into account the fact that another Australian journal, called the Professional Fisherman, is also on the market. That journal survives on very much a free enterprise arrangement without any subsidy from the Government and without free postage and delivery. I believe that, for instance, the alternative that this publication, the Australian Fisherman, should be looking at is the question of taking alternate space in the Professional Fisherman and paying accordingly. It is ludicrous to have two first-class publications running parallel to each other and have one which is operating very successfully and one which is operating only by being propped up to the extent of well over $200,000 a year. I keep raising this matter because the answers that I get become less satisfactory from year to year. I should like there to be serious consideration of that matter. While I am on the subject of fishing, I should mention that some months ago I also wrote to the Government concerning the arrangements for the catching of tuna in the southern waters. I have not yet received a reply. I am wondering, in view of the enormous financial involvement and the likely returns to the industry and to the Government as a result of these arrangements, what will be happening in the southern tuna waters, particularly as between Western Australia , South Australia and New South Wales. Representations have been made about the minimum size of allowable fish, as I understand it. I should like to know the result. I should also like to know the present situation concerning two or three joint ventures which it seems to have taken a considerable time to sort out. Two of them concern squid fishing in Bass Strait, and one concerns gill netting in northern Australian waters. Again, there is considerable national and international interest in these ventures because of their nature. More recently, we have been making representations on behalf of the fishermen in the Gulf concerning the abolition of the safe anchorage situation. The northern prawn fishermen have done a tremendous amount of work in the last three or four years and have made every effort to try to get the northern prawn industry into reasonable shape. It has depended very largely on them being able to maintain the safe anchorage status for the receipt of fuel and the price at which that enables them to get it. They have recently established and have become ready to institute a buy-back system to rationalise the number of boats in the Gulf and be able to do so without involving the Government in a heavy pay-out, but it involves fishermen's money to the extent of about $1m a year. As the latest information that they were given was that the loss of the safe anchorage and the increase in price accordingly would amount to a cost of about $5m, before doing anything about reducing the numbers of fishermen and only increasing the costs, it was appearing to be non-viable from their point of view and they would be unable to proceed unless they got more consideration. On the day that we were discussing the problems of the Northern Territory fishermen in the Gulf, Senator Robertson was in the chamber saying: 'What more can we do to assist the industries in the Northern Territory, and how can we provide industries which will help?' I do not understand a matter that may allow us, on the one hand, nearly to wipe out the prawn industry and, on the other hand, to look for ways of providing additional assistance for the Territory and its people. To me, we would do far better to look after the industries that are successful and are standing on their own feet than to try to wipe out one lot and then look around to see what we can do to establish another. From that point of view alone, I trust that the proposition I have put forward will be considered. I should like the Minister's advice on it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.07) —Senator Archer may be surprised that I am answering on this matter. That is because Senator Walsh was absent, briefly, while he was asking his questions. As to the question of Australian Fisheries, I am assured that the Fisheries Industry Research Council, and the trust account related thereto, are devoted to research and extension work. As Senator Archer will know, it is funded by both the State and the Commonwealth Government. It is the judgment of that organisation and, we understand, the fisheries organisation, that Australian Fisheries is a valuable publication, and one that they believe should be continued. When a charge is made, subscriptions go down. It is the judgment of the Government and of the industry that the publication should continue. As for the tuna fisheries, Senator Archer seemed to be concerned about the fact that there were two different minimum size limits, one for east and one for the west of Australia. This takes into account the fact that the industry in the west is involved in fishing for smaller fish and that any attempt to increase the limit size there would have a very detrimental effect on the western fisheries industry. If Senator Archer wants that to happen, I suggest that he should justify it to those involved in the fishery in the west. Senator Archer talked about three joint ventures. He mentioned one in the north , which I understand has been approved and announced. He also mentioned two squid fisheries in the south. The finalisation of those agreements is now in process between the companies and the authorities. I am led to understand that they will be finalsied in the near future. Those are all the questions that I can remember. If Senator Archer has not received answers to all of his questions , I shall seek the answers for him in the future. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.10) —Could we be advised as to the present position with respect to the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory? The interest and controversy that has arisen of late over the unsatisfactory situation with ANAHL needs some explanation. Can we be assured of its purposes? How much money will be spent on it? How will it be manned? On which areas of research will it concentrate? Is it to be used for local purposes only or for international purposes as well? Exactly what is it expected to do for Australian primary industry? Recently I have had several letters from overseas about it from people who are aware of what is being proposed here in Australia. I need to be able to give them some answers as to the use and purpose of the Laboratory and how it will operate. I would be obliged if the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Walsh) could provide me with those details. At the same time, in view of the fact that the Industries Assistance Commission report on the dairy industry is in the semi-final stage, I would like to know how the industry and the Government are shaping up to the preliminary report and how the production forecasts for 1983-84 and the existing level of underwriting are matching up with the increased costs that have come to the industry this year. I would also like to know how the Government sees the effect of the apparent overproduction in Australia, which is, I understand, rating at about 20 per cent more than the domestic market. What effect will this have on the price when the industry will be competing with the surplus stocks that are going on the market from both the European Economic Community and the United States of America, which have big jettison arrangements at present? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.12) — Administratively the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory is actually within the Department of Science and Technology rather than the Department of Primary Industry. I am advised that a ministerial committee is reviewing ANAHL. The committee has appointed an advisory committee chaired by Professor Frank Fenner to report on the extent to which ANAHL should undertake research work on endemic diseases and vaccine production, and act as an overseas reference centre . The future of ANAHL should not be clouded or confused by the emotional issues surrounding the importation of live foot and mouth virus. This matter has now been decided by the Government. It has been decided that the live virus will not be imported. The decision was made in response to opposition which surfaced about 1981 in the form of concern by some scientists and producers about aspects of the project. In 1982 the Australian Science and Technology Council and the Academy of Science reported to the Government on ANAHL and the use of live exotic viruses. As I recall it, there was very considerable concern about the importation of live foot and mouth virus which was officially expressed by the National Farmers Federation. The official farming organisations on balance, at least, came down against it. The Academy of Science and the Australian Science and Technology Council recommended against the importation of live foot and mouth disease virus and recommended a review in 1987. That recommendation has been accepted by the Government. Senator Archer also referred to dairy underwriting. The way in which he framed his question implied that the level of underwriting would be determined by costs , however costs are to be determined. That has not been the practice in the past . By a mechanism not formally established but, I think, related to reasonable market expectations for a number of years, a level of underwriting has been fixed. As far as I know, that general approach has been continued by this Government. The Industries Assistance Commission's report on the question has yet to be received. However, the Government will respond when that report is received. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.15) —I also asked about the likely effects of the oversupply sitution on price and the marketing of the Australian surplus overseas in competition with the European Economic Community and the United States of America, which are in a major dispersal phase at the moment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.16) —I have just sought comfirmation of my own assessment of the situation, which I do not monitor as closely as I once did. My expectations have been confirmed. In general, the overseas price of dairy products is lower than the domestic price. Therefore, the larger the proportion of total production which has to be exported, the lower will be the average return to Australian producers. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.17) —If the Minister cannot answer that question I will finish up with a couple of easy ones. I would like to know whether there has been any approach to the Government by the lamb producers in South Australia or other States asking for the development of a lamb marketing scheme. I understand that it has been discussed in some States. I understand that there has been a poll on the matter again in Western Australia, as there has been in New South Wales. In view of the various decisions that are coming through, I wondered whether there had been an approach to the Federal Government for it to be involved in any way or whether it would remain a State matter. The other matter I wish to raise is plant variety rights. I have been led to believe that the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on this subject will probably come down in the next week or so. Has the Government taken any stance on this matter in view of the great importance of breeders being able to obtain some of the new species from overseas, such as those in a variety of grasses, fruit, small fruit, pome fruit and decorative plants? Many of the plant breeders in Australia, of whom there are not too many, are also looking for some protection for their plant breeding programs with a view to being able to increase their export market. They are looking forward very anxiously to the protection that plant variety rights legislation will offer. Can the Minister advise us of the Government's likely attitude and how quickly we can get on with the appropriate legislation when the report comes through? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.19) — With respect to a lamb marketing scheme, I am not sure of the current status in Western Australia and whether the Western Australian Lamb Marketing Board will continue. A poll is to be held, or has been held- Senator Archer —It has been. Senator WALSH —It has been completed, has it? Senator Archer —They are going to retain it. Senator WALSH —Senator Archer tells me that the referendum was positive. I did not know that. I am advised that no formal request has been received for the Commonwealth to become involved in this question. At this stage it is a matter to be determined, as far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned, by the States. I am afraid that I am not able to respond to the question on plant variety rights at this time, but I will refer it to the Minister fo Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) who, I hope, will satisfy Senator Archer with a reply in writing some time in the not too distant future although, as Senator Archer probably knows, the Minister is currently overseas, and will be for some time into the future. Probably the definitive response to that question about PVR ought to be left until Mr Kerin returns to Australia and has time to attend to the matter. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.20) —I would like to ask some questions in relation to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd. I hope the Minister for Resources and Energy has someone here who can advise in relation to these matters. The annual report of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia for 1983 shows that loans to authorised dealers in the Australian short term money market totalled $14.275m and bills of exchange and other short term investments totalled $50.721m, a total of about $65m in round figures which is close enough to 10 per cent of the total investable funds-$657.696m-of the Primary Industry Bank. Is it policy that approxi- mately 10 per cent be invested in short term securities of various forms as opposed to investing it in primary industry. I understood that was the basic reason for the Bank's formation. If that is so, why is it the Bank's policy, when it can operate with the sort of guarantees which I imagine a lender of last resort has as well as the other sorts of facilities which might be available to it. I do want to ask other questions but it may be easier to take them one at a time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.22) —I am afraid I am not able to respond to that. I accept the facts as stated by Senator Rae; I am sure they are correct. Strictly speaking, I think the Primary Industry Bank of Australia is administered by the Treasury anyway, not the Department of Primary Industry. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.22) —I thought there was some liaison between the two departments. The questions I want to ask are really much more related to the Department of Primary Industry than they are to Treasury because the point I want to come to is this: Is it not a fact that the most expensive money a farmer can borrow in Australia today is through the Primary Industry Bank of Australia and, if that is the case, is it not failing in the primary purpose for which it was established? When I say it is the most expensive money, it is the most expensive other than money obtained through, for example, a hire purchase or leasing arrangement. I imagine it would be the most expensive first mortgage money that one could borrow. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.23) —I think it is correct that the current Primary Industry Bank of Australia interest rate is above that generally available from trading banks, certainly on mortgages below $100,000. The interest rate on pastoral finance is probably higher than that currently charged by PIBA. The finance companies to which Senator Rae referred are very likely to charge higher rates again. As far as I am aware-we do not have any advisers present who are specialists on this-PIBA has not yet followed the general downward trend in interest rates that has been going on in the banking system for the last six months. I will seek in explanation a response from the appropriate Minister, either the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), and I will also seek information on whether it is PIBA policy to invest about 10 per cent of its total funds in the short term money market and comparable securities. I am afraid I am just not able to respond to that definitively now. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.24) —I thank the Minister for his co-operative answer. I would like to add a bit more, and hope he will pick up in the same way when endeavouring to obtain this information at a later date. As I understand it , the new borrowing method to tap the smaller investors market which has been introduced by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia is what it calls its primary rate for investments of I think $1,000 or more. As of 4 November-the interest rate is notified daily-the current primary rate was 12.75 per cent for a four year term. However, the rate does fluctuate and that is part of the attraction for small investors. A significant part of the Bank's borrowings is Commonwealth money at, as is stated at page 4 of its annual report, 10.2 per cent and a significant further part of its borrowings is in Eurodollar certificates of deposit, totalling $38m. I will not go through the rest of the figures, but a significant amount is made up from international borrowings which certainly would not be at a higher interest rate than the 10.2 per cent for Commonwealth money. Bearing in mind those points, one wonders why it is that the interest rate is so extremely high in comparison with virtually any other rate, and has been up to I think 17.5 per cent, certainly 17.25 per cent, in the past six months, when a large part of the borrowings are at a very much lower rate and yet the profit declared for 30 June 1983 is a very modest one. There just seems to be something slightly peculiar in relation to it all. The sort of conclusion one reaches is that the Bank borrowed some money at an inordinately high rate of interest which is not disclosed in the annual report. If that is not the case, I do not understand it but perhaps the Minister might be able to find out. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.27) —I will ask the Minister or Ministers responsible whether they can provide a satisfactory explanation for the apparent incongruity to which Senator Rae has drawn attention. If I may add a personal reminiscence or observation, some years ago when the Primary Industry Bank of Australia was first established substantial reservations were expressed by the Australian Labor Party, then in opposition, as to whether the institution was necessary. However, nothing has been said along those lines for some years and I do not want to leave the impression that it is the policy of the Government to change the present arrangements. I will seek an explanation from the Minister or Ministers responsible of the apparent anomalies to which Senator Rae has drawn attention. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.28) —I address my remarks to division 490, subdivision 3, item 08, wine research. I draw the Committee's attention to the very considerable problems arising in South Australia as a result of the Government's decision to introduce a wine excise which is to be applied to spirit. People who know something of the industry in South Australia will understand how widespread this problem is and what kinds of difficulties it will cause for grape growers right throughout the State. It will have a particular regional effect in the Riverland area of South Australia. Of course it is not only in South Australia that this problem will manifest itself as you, Mr Temporary Chairman, would well know. It will affect the Riverina district and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area in New South Wales, the Rutherglen area of Victoria, the Barossa and Southern Vales regions of South Australia and other areas of Western Australia as well. Although the Government has denied that this is any kind of excise or tax on wine and has claimed that it is merely a tax on grape spirit, the fact is that it has a regional effect right across the board because the industry, in good times, does take in the surplus grapes from small grape growers, makes it into spirit and then stores it until it is used later. This has the effect of levelling out the effects of surplus and/or shortage between production from year to year. This is meant to provide-as has been evidenced very strongly by previous measures in respect of the brandy industry-a means by which the industry has been able to look after itself. The Government, by choosing to apply a tax on grape spirit in the way it has, has imposed a tax of $1.50 per litre of alcohol payable seven days after the time at which the grape spirit is blended with any other product. That means that the tax has to be paid perhaps seven to 15 years in advance of the final sales realisation of that product. In other words, there will be a very considerable time-maybe up to 15 years in the case of very good quality ports- before the cash that is outlayed seven days after the time of blending can be recovered and used by the company for a regeneration of its investment in the industry. Mr Temporary Chairman, as a Victorian, you would understand that this is a very significant problem, particularly in the Rutherglen area of your State . The point I want to make is that quite apart from the effects that this impost will have on the individual grape growers in the community, it will have a widespread regional effect on the suppliers and all those in the grape growing areas who rely upon the product for their income. I instance service machinery operators, motor suppliers and farm manufacturers in various areas, all of whom rely very greatly upon the income that will be realised from the sale of the grape product. It is pretty clear that the Government has no interest at all in this matter. Honourable senators opposite are content to laugh the matter off even though they know it is so important. One of the things that is most disconcerting about this whole approach on the part of the Government is that it is prepared to levy a tax on an industry that is otherwise self-sufficient. Obviously people will be put out of work. I see Senator Foreman, who is from South Australia, giggling. Apparently he has absolutely no interest in the concerns of his own State. In the Riverland area of South Australia grape growers are being forced off their properties. Senator Elstob is attempting to chime in. At least he acknowledges the problem. It is a very significant problem which will force more people on to the social security benefit which is payable by this Government. It makes absolutely no sense to levy a tax in the way in which this Government has chosen to do, turning an industry into one that will rely on support from the Government in the future. For sure, more people will be drawing on the unemployment benefit. The social security budget will rise in such a way that it will cost this Government more money. I wonder whether, in the same way as the Government has failed to address itself to other problems of this kind-as has already been acknowledged by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Sentor Walsh, in regard to the fuel excise and the mining industry-it ever thought through the effects of its Budget decisions on other parts of the Australian economy. Obviously the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, will not attempt to answer these questions, simply because he does not understand the industry at all. Clearly, the Government has made a major blunder in this area, as has already been acknowledged. It has sought to cover its mistake by reducing the excise from $2. 60 a litre of alcohol to $1.50 a litre. Clearly, the future of the industry is in doubt. It is clearly a problem which this Government will have to face up to in the future. The main point that I want to make in regard to this matter is quite different. The industry has been unable to determine, from those who will administer this new tax regime, how it will operate. Clearly the industry is most concerned about the way in which records will be kept, they way in which it will have to keep very faithful records to determine to what extent claims can be made against the revenue when export sales are made and where redistillation of the product occurs in any one year. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on the detailed situation in the various departments that are administering this scheme as to how they can get this detail into the hands of industry as quickly as possible. All the inquiries that are coming from industry to the Government about this matter reveal that as yet no basic system has been outlined and no attempt has been made on the part of the Government to satisfy industry queries. Yet we are well into a situation in which this tax is required to be paid. The industry is going ahead with its arrangements about redistilling product throughout the year and processing it in the normal way, yet no basic administrative framework has been established. What kind of government would introduce that kind of measure without thinking through those kinds of implications? It is quite possible, as a result of the review of those complications and difficulties which the industry is facing, that the Government may well have to rethink altogether the whole basis of the proposition. Clearly the industry is most disturbed about this matter. It is prepared to co-operate but the problem stems directly from the administrative difficulties introduced by this Government in its offhand announcement in the August Budget. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us with some advice about this matter. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.38) —If people are bothering to listen to the broadcast of these proceedings they will probably be astounded to know that in the 10 minute harangue we have just heard from Senator Messner matters were raised under the pretext of wine research which is an item in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84. They would be equally amazed to know that an excise on fortified spirit was applied for at least a couple of decades until 1970. They would be amazed to know that the levying of an excise on fortified spirit is not something that appeared without precedent on 22 August this year. I will give a quantative analysis of the excise which existed right up until 1970 and that which applies now. In 1970 the excise was $2 a litre of alcohol; it is currently $1.50. Some $2 in 1970 is equal, in present day values, to between $7 and $8. The excise which currently applies is very much less; it is less by a factor of about five or 20 per cent of the level of excise in real terms which applied in 1970. The administration of the excise is a matter for the Australian Customs Service or the Department of Industry and Commerce, not a matter for the Department of Primary Industry. It is a reasonable assumption that if it was possible to administer an excise in 1970 it is still possible to administer an excise in 1983. A sense of deja vu swept over me, at least when Senator Messner gave us his harangue about his question, because I have heard it at least twice before in the chamber and nothing has changed much. Of course, no industry likes to have a tax imposed on it when no tax existed previously or have an existing tax increased. There have been complaints from the industry because an excise, presently standing at $1.50 per litre of alcohol, on fortifying spirit applies. To translate that into terms which are probably more commonly understood, if we assume that 10 per cent of fortifying spirit by volume is added to port or sherry-which is about the normal amount of fortifying spirit added-the effect of the excise is less than 15c per 750 millimetre bottle. Senator Messner referred to the cash flow position of the producers. I would expect that the cost of the excise would be added on to the selling price or existing stocks held by producers. Some people may have been misled by Senator Messner's harangue into believing that all was well with the wine and the grape producing industries until suddenly this fairly insignificant tax of $1.50 per litre of alcohol appeared. That, of course, is very far from the truth. Way back in 1976 I sat on a Senate committee which looked at the wine industry and the same sorts of problems to which attention is drawn today were identified and talked about then and much the same sorts of complaints were made. In fact, of course-I am sure that if Senator Messner were not playing politics tonight he would readily acknowledge this-the real problem of the wine industry, particularly in the Riverland, are very much deeper than the existence of a relatively small excise charge on fortifying spirit, and those problems will not be redressed or overcome by changes in or the abolition of a relatively small excise charge such as that. I know that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, has been holding some discussions and has a longer term plan for the restructuring of the industry in a way which will not involve band-aid solutions which at best excise changes could be regarded as, but a solution to the industry's problems which will be of a much more enduring and fundamental kind. However, the industry, particularly in the Riverland, at least since 1976 when I first became directly aware of the problem, has been in a state of less than complete health. Regardless of excise charges, the industry is likely to continue to have very serious problems until the sort of fundamental restructuring which Mr Kerin is seeking is actually achieved. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.43) —The Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) has now drawn our attention to a new approach. He mentions a restructuring of the industry. He mentions the name of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in that regard. I think that that is something of a new move . It is not something that has been put forward in such a forthright manner by the Government before now. Therefore, I ask the Minister when the Minister for Primary Industry will be in a position to make a public announcement that can be relied upon in this regard? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.44) —I cannot put a date on that. I just know that the Minister for Primary Industry ( Mr Kerin) has been holding some discussions on this question for, I understand, two or three months. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.45) —I hope that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) appreciates that that is a most significant statement which he has made. It is something which ought at least to be clarified as soon as possible in the minds of the public who are interested in this industry. This relates to an initiative which the people in general have not been aware of for some time. I hope that he will urge the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to take all speed in making some public statement about it. Clearly this matter goes to the root of the problem, and I believe that his statement tonight will draw the industry's attention to this with a great deal of concern, and the sooner it is clarified the better. I wish to mention just one other point, and that is that the Minister did say, rightly, that this area of taxation is administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is not administered by the Department of Primary Industry. I ask him whether he will ensure that proper liaison is being undertaken between that Department and the industry generally in order to establish the answers to the questions which I have raised. Although he can wave his hand at the problem and assure us that although this applied before 1970 it will be easily introduced now, the fact is that we are well into the time when this tax is to apply. Consequently, I believe that the preparation phase for the industry has not been properly regarded by the Government. Certainly the Government has not taken the kind of interest which demands detailed thinking and which ought to be sorted out between the industry and the Department at very close levels. For that reason, I ask the Minister to refer that matter to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and to ensure that proper measures are undertaken to establish a proper liaison between the Government and the industry . Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.47) —I expect that the sort of co-ordination which Senator Messner seeks already takes place, but I am sure that the honourable senator's suggestion will be taken on board by the Ministers concerned, if my assumption is wrong. I want to make one very brief comment, since Senator Messner has sought further illumination on restructuring. I am surprised that he is at all surprised that this should be referred to. What the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, and this Government are seeking is not illusory pseudo solutions to a problem, but solutions which will endure. In particular, if the honourable senator really knows anything about the Riverland area and other particular wine producing areas in Australia he ought to know that one of the problems is that a very substantial portion of the area currently planted to grapes is planted for varieties for which the commercial demand is at best limited or, at the margin, probably non-existent. One of the solutions-indeed, I thought this was an objective of the previous Government, even with its record of negligence and inertia-is to encourage the replanting of grape varieties which had become unfashionable, and for which at least at the margin there is little or no commercial demand, with grape varieties for which there is a strong and probably expanding commercial demand. That is an important element of the type of restructuring which the Minister has in mind. As for the honourable senator's other request that the Minister make a formal statement on this matter, I will pass it on to the Minister when he returns to the country. As far as I know, he has no intention of doing so, in the very near future anyway. I understand he has been holding some preliminary discussions on this question aimed at achieving, probably among other things, the sort of specifics to which I referred, and that is replacing obsolete or inappropriate grape varieties with those for which there is a commercial demand. I would have thought that that is an objective which wine producers, grape growers and even the Opposition would have supported. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.49) —I rise to thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) for his comments and to say that in his first remarks on this matter he indicated a somewhat broader restructuring. I thank him for drawing our attention to the kind of things he had in mind. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $59,287,000. Advance to the Minister for Finance Proposed expenditure, $150,000,000. Minister for Finance-Special Funds Proposed expenditure $53,000,000. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(9.50) —My questions in regard to the Department of Finance I relate to the special funds under Division 312. I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) whether he is able to advise how much has been expended from this fund to date. Is he able to advise how much of the $53m will relate to the new Public Service arrangements which will introduce staff from outside the Public Service? If that information is not readily available, I would be interested to receive it from the Minister when it is made available. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.51) — Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's specific question was: How much has already been spent under Division 312? I am advised that the answer to that question is nothing because it cannot be spent until the Appropriation Bill has been passed. Her secondary question was: How much has been spent or is likely to be spent in the area of Public Service re-arrangements? I cannot answer that question either . I will refer it to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and seek from him an estimate as to how much of Division 312 it is anticipated at this stage will be spent in that area during the remainder of the financial year. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.51) —In respect of the Department of Finance , I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) what estimates the Department has made of the numbers of recipients of unemployment benefit, month by month, through this current financial year and whether he will give us the anticipated number of recipients as at 30 June 1984. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.52) —My belief about the matter, which I have just had confirmed, is that the Department of Finance does not contribute estimates of unemployment benefit recipients. It is primarily, if not entirely, an estimate made by the Department of Social Security. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —And Treasury, not Finance. Senator WALSH —I said primarily, if not entirely. The possibility remains that the Department of the Treasury is involved. Even though it is not strictly my responsibility as Minister responsible for Estimates Committee C, I will refer Senator Messner's question to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) to see what information can be made available. Senator Messner —Would you also refer it to Mr Keating? Senator WALSH —Very well. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.53) —I have just one other question. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), during his earlier remarks in respect of the estimates of the Department of Resources and Energy, spoke of the excise payable under the new arrangements in respect of fuel and in particular, under questioning from Senator Chaney, referred to the problems of the resources industry in meeting the extra tax. He referred also to the error made in the Budget of some $69m in estimating that amount. I think the Minister was generous enough in his remarks to acknowledge that these things are very frustrating when they occur at Cabinet level, where estimates are made in all good faith by public servants of the Department of Finance or the Department of the Treasury, or whoever, and one has to administer the particular department for whom those estimates are being made quite separately. I rise therefore to ask this question : How does that sort of error occur? In his experience, how much inconvenience does it cause to his Department and to other departments? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.55) —I am unable to understand what relevance the honourable senator's question has to the estimates for the Department of Finance. Notwithstanding that, I will respond to the honourable senator. I do not believe I could or should add anything to what I said earlier today. It is in accordance with convention that the detailed proceedings of what happens in Cabinet or Cabinet committee meetings are not normally publicly revealed, although I suppose the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), if he chooses, to some degree has special dispensation in this area. I said this afternoon that a submission was presented by Treasury in retrospect. A decision was made in haste although, under the circumstances, it was inevitable that a decision would be made in haste because of the time constraints which then applied and, in retrospect, inadequate consultation had taken place. In saying that earlier today I accepted, at a personal level, some portion of the blame for the error of judgment which the Government had made at that time. I did have-although I did not recollect it at the time-sufficient factual knowledge about the effect of an excise of 9c a litre on the Greenvale project to have questioned the proposition which was before the Revenue committee at that time and I ought to have done so. But I do not think it would be proper for me to divulge any more details of that incident than I already have. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.57) —My question to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) relates to the $10m part payment of compensation to Tasmania promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) following his decision to stop construction of the dam in the South West. On 1 July the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of my State. I quote part of that letter which states: At this stage-- Honourable senators should remember that this was in the early stages following the Prime Minister's decision to stop the dam- the prime concern of both governments must undoubtedly be the livelihood of those persons who have been directly employed on the project. The Commonwealth is therefore prepared to reimburse the State, for a period of one month from cessation of work, in respect of payments made to persons presently engaged in the project area for wages and other award costs attributable to their continued employment. Payments to individuals under this element of the Commonwealth's proposals would of course cease as soon as they had been placed in alternative employment. Many other aspects of compensation were to be taken into account. But the Prime Minister indicated to the Premier of Tasmania that he would be prepared immediately to start paying out some money. The Premier's reply, dated 21 July, states in part: The State will have to reimburse the Hydro-Electric Commission almost immediately and, as it is beyond our ability to do this for more than a few weeks, early reimbursement by the Commonwealth is essential. The letter goes on: Based on the Hydro-Electric Commission's current expenditure on the Crotty Road -- This was, of course, the area in which the Prime Minister suggested works should go on- . . . an appropriate advance for the month of July would be $4m and I hereby claim this amount on behalf of the State. Back in July the Premier of my State claimed $4m for that month in response to the Prime Minister's decision that the Commonwealth would be responsible for the payment of compensation. I find it very difficult to understand then why payment of the $10m has been delayed. Senator Walsh —It is because Gray would not sign the agreement. Senator WALTERS —I thought the Minister would answer me when I finished, not halfway through my speech. I would appreciate it if he listens to the question before he tries to answer it. If he does he may be able to grasp in full the question I am asking him. As I indicated, the Prime Minister said on 1 July that he expected to be making interim payments. On 21 July Mr Gray replied asking for $4m. No money was paid at that stage. The request was not even answered. The interim agreement was signed by Mr Gray on 7 October. Mr Hawke, in his letter to the Premier, indicated that as soon as an interim agreement was signed-this was part of the agreement that was sent to Mr Gray for his signature-payments would start flowing. That agreement was signed on 7 October. No payments were made on 7 October or following that date. The final agreement-do not forget that at this stage Mr Hawke had promised that as soon as the interim agreement was signed money would start flowing-was signed on 20 October by both the Prime Minister and the Premier. Still no money was made available. It was not until 1 November that Mr Dawkins made that shocking announcement that he could no longer stand idly by and watch the Tasmanian Government jeopardise the lives and well being of thousands of ordinary Tasmanians and, ultimately, the economic health of the State. Senator Tate —Ken Wriedt had to get it. Senator WALTERS —Of course, in the interim, a very large advertisement was placed in the newspaper pointing out to the Tasmanian people that an interim agreement had been signed, that a request for $4m had been made and that the final agreement had been signed on 20 October. But still no money was forthcoming from the Commonwealth. It was because of this pressure finally put on the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, that money came across. It had nothing to do with Mr Wriedt asking for it. Senator Tate —Of course it did. Senator WALTERS —If Senator Tate is going to interject he had better sit in his place. It is about time Senator Tate started looking after his State. At the moment he would not have a chance of getting back in if another election were held, not a chance in the world. He would not get in even if he were placed at the No. 1 position on the ballot paper. He has deserted his State completely and the people of Tasmania recognise that. The Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, claimed that he had been waiting for a request from Mr Gray before making payment and that he had finally responded to a request from the State Leader of the Opposition, Mr Wriedt. That is absolutely untrue. I have just read to the Senate part of a letter of 21 July from the Premier to the Prime Minister requesting $4m. That was the first request. No payment was forthcoming. Mr Dawkins was not telling the truth when he said he was waiting for a request. As I have already stated, the interim agreement was signed on 7 October. Again no payment was made. Again Mr Dawkins was not telling the truth. The final agreement was made on 20 October and still no money was forthcoming. The first request was made well back in July. I wonder whether the Minister could let me know what caused the delay. Was it complete incompetence on the part of Mr Dawkins, as has been suggested by the editorial in the Mercury? It stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, would do well to remove the area of compensation payments from Mr Dawkins' responsibility and take complete charge of the matter himself. It appears to me to be complete incompetence on the part of the Minister for Finance and his Department. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.06) —Yes, I can certainly answer that question. I would have thought that even Senator Walters would know or even the editorial writer of the Mercury would know that moneys can be paid by the Commonwealth only for lawful purposes. In this context that means that moneys can be paid only after an agreement has been signed between the Commonwealth and the State. On 31 August the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) handed directly to the Premier of Tasmania a draft agreement which would have lawfully authorised the payment of moneys to which the Commonwealth had committed itself and for which an appropriation of $30m in total had been made in this Budget. This is an example of the great haste or the speed with which the Premier of Tasmania responds to these matters. Five weeks later, on 7 October, the Premier of Tasmania signed that agreement, with some conditional alterations. Thirteen days later, after seeking legal advice on those alterations which the Premier of Tasmania had inserted, the Prime Minister also signed the agreement. Note the very much shorter time span. Still no formal request pursuant to that agreement for finance was received from the Premier of Tasmania by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins). On 29 October, if not gratuitously then certainly generously and following an approach from the State Leader of the Opposition, Mr Wriedt, who is clearly much more on the ball on these matters than the Premier, the Minister for Finance authorised an interim payment of $10m to Tasmania pursuant to the agreement which was, as from 20 October, authorised by law. If Senator Walters wants a bit more of the history of this matter, I draw her attention to the fact that from the middle of May the Commonwealth had sought discussions with the Government of Tasmania in regard to alternative employment and, related to that, compensation should the High Court of Australia rule that the Commonwealth legislation was constitutionally valid. For six weeks the Premier of Tasmania did nothing, until he finally got the message towards the end of June that he was going to lose the High Court case. Then very belatedly, because of that tardiness, and to the disadvantage of his own citizens and electors, he commenced discussions with the Commonwealth. He then poured out a series of statements in Hobart and in other places alleging it was because of Commonwealth negligence that no funds had actually been paid to Tasmania. That statement, of course, was the reverse of the truth. The negligence was entirely on his side, and it continued to be until the end of last month. The essential proposition which the Premier of Tasmania was putting forward was that he wanted $500m in used $50 notes in a brown paper bag with no strings attached and no legal infrastructure enabling the payment of that money. This Government does not do business in that way. This Government pays money only according to law, and moneys could not be paid according to law until the interim agreement was finally signed, initially by the Premier of Tasmania on 7 October and then by the Prime Minister on 20 October. I have no doubt that Senator Walters will babble on for as long as she is allowed to babble on on this question. I have absolutely no intention of replying to her again. I have put the facts on the record, and the facts speak for themselves. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.10) —Mr Chairman, the Minister has just said that the Premier wanted $500m delivered in a paper bag in used-what was it? Senator Walsh —In used $50 notes. Essentially that was his proposition. Senator WALTERS —In used $50 notes. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I draw attention to the fact that this is a reflection on a member in another Parliament. I should not have to rise in my place to remind the Committee that a standing order exists concerning this and it should be enforced. If other standing orders are being enforced it should have been enforced by now. The CHAIRMAN —Standing order 418 prohibits reflections of improper motives on members of State Parliament on this Parliament. The Minister should withdraw that remark. Senator Walsh —If Senator Sir John Carrick or you, Mr Chairman, have ruled that that is a breach of standing order 418 I am quite happy to withdraw it. The CHAIRMAN —That is all, Senator Walsh. Do not qualify the withdrawal. Senator WALTERS —I was just saying that Senator Walsh stated that my Premier wanted $500m in used $50 notes in a brown paper bag and he said that his Government does not do business that way. But his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had $4,600 in American and Australian dollars and American travellers cheques stolen from his person-$4,600. Was he a bag man that he was carrying that sort of money around? Senator Tate —You are asking for a bit of the same, you silly woman. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Tate, do not interject in that manner. Senator Ryan —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Walters's remarks about the Prime Minister are totally out of order. They have nothing to do with the Estimates Committee consultation and are grossly offensive. The CHAIRMAN —They come under the same standing order 418. Senator Walters, you should withdraw those remarks about the Prime Minister. Senator WALTERS —I withdraw the remark 'bag man'. I have no idea why the Prime Minister was carrying such large sums of money about. This is only in response to Senator Walsh's statements. Senator Ryan —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. As you will have observed, Senator Walters continued her insulting implications after you accepted the point of order. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters's withdrawal was adequate, in my opinion, but I ask Senator Walters to come back to the estimates, please. Senator WALTERS —Well, it ill becomes the Minister, Mr Chairman. Part of the agreement that was signed by the Premier states: The Minister may, at such times and in such amounts as he thinks fit, make advances on account of an amount of financial assistance that may become payable to the State in accordance with this Agreement. That was where the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), if he were not prepared to give an interim payment on a request in July, could have and indeed should have- the day the agreement was signed-made the payment of the $10m. The fact that he did not is still to me quite unanswered by the Government. It has not obviously got an answer. As Senator Walsh has already indicated he has no intention of answering the questions put to him. I put questions to him this evening, both of which he has arrogantly refused to acknowledge. The people of Tasmania do understand the situation and the fact that the Minister will now not come across with an answer only underlines the incompetence of the Minister for Finance. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP D Department of Education and Youth Affairs Proposed expenditure, $730,303,000. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.14) —I have a number of matters I wish to raise. Most of them have arisen or have been brought to my attention since the Estimates or they are matters upon which responses have not been received to representations which I had made on behalf of people. I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) again about the school to work transition program and its place in the participation and equity program. During the Estimates Committee examination I asked the Minister whether any part of the school to work transition would not be suitable for funding under the new guidelines. I said to the Minister that if it would all be suitable that was fine. The Minister said: 'That is not the answer'. The Hansard for the Estimates Committee hearing suggests that all the parts of the school to work transition program would not be suitable for continued funding. In order to be able to advise my constituents, I need to know which parts are not suitable for continued funding. The answer that was supplied to Estimates Committee D did not really help me very much. The answer was: 'There is not sufficient information on each transition program'. I accept that. But if the Minister was able to say that not all of them would be suitable for funding, I ask: Which ones would not be suitable? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.16) —A complete response to Senator Baume's interest in this matter will be available shortly. As I have told him, and as I have told the Senate, the transition program-not in its entirety, but aspects of it-will be subsumed within the participation and equity program. I have just received today the report from the Commonwealth Schools Commission after consultation with the States and non-government schools authorities about the implementation of the participation and equity program and, of course, those parts of the transition program which will be subsumed. As soon as possible I will table that report and it will provide a comprehensive answer to Senator Baume's question. The matter of which transition programs will continue and which will not continue will essentially be a matter for the States via the new State advisory committees. As Senator Baume will be aware, the transition program was a decentralised program operated by States. They were given money to pursue the objectives of the program, and States determined which programs were funded and which programs were not. Similarly, the participation and equity program will be decentralised and the question of which particular programs will continue will be a matter for determintion by the States via their State advisory coucils. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.17) —I thank the Minister. Does that mean that if the State advisory committees recommended that all components of the school to work transition programs should continue to be funded-that that was the advice from each State-would they continue to be funded? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.17) —Essentially that would be the case, since the Commonwealth will not be directing or determining programs unilaterally, but only in consultation with the State committees. I expect that we will accept the advice of the committees. If they choose in their State to fund all existing transition programs, I see no reason why that advice would not be accepted. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.18) —I want to comment upon and ask some questions on that part of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84 relating to the Commonwealth Schools Commission. I had made mention previously that a study of the recommendations of the Schools Commission to the Government and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) shows that it received a very cavalier response from the Minister and the Government. Some 57 recommendations were made. Against the background of the months and years in which the Australian Labor Party when in opposition lectured the Fraser Government that it was the duty of the Government to accept the recommendations of the Schools Commission, one wonders why nine of the 57 recommendations were rejected. There was no response to 12 of the recommendations, not even the courtesy of a Government acceptance, rejection or modification. Two were reviewed for the future, three were deferred and 11 were modified. So 37 of 57 recommendations received a dusty answer. Only 20 recommendations were clearly accepted. I repeat that in this place we have been subjected over the years to lectures from the Labor Party and its spokesmen that the Schools Commission, being an expert body, must be taken notice of and its recommendations endorsed. That is a pretty dusty matter. I want to comment upon the change in the policy of the Government in terms of its funding of different categories of schools. I want to underline the effect, the impact, of this upon the community. I have been looking at the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission and at other statistics and doing some calculations. I have taken as a basis a parent who has a child in a government school from year one to year 11-the normal situation. On average costs at the moment, if a parent were to have one child in a government school, $18,405 of taxpayers' money would be paid over 11 years. Given the average family, of course, of two children, the figure would be $36,810, that being taxpayers' money recycled. On the other hand, if we look at the case of children in independent schools, including, very significantly, those in categories 2 and 3- those that the Government says it is aiming at-we find the following situation. We shall take as a basis a parent with two children-that is easier because that is the average family-at an independent category one school. The Government will pay $13,462 and the parent will pay $23,350. In other words, that parent, paying the same taxes as any parent with children in a government school, has a means test applied to him. Parents with children in government schools have no means test applied at all; there is no decision as to whether the government school is a category one, category 2 or category 3 school. We should bear in mind, of course, that the report of the Karmel Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission showed that the quality of government schools far exceeded that of independent schools. In fact, government schools reached and passed their targets ahead of time. A parent with two children in a category 2 school would receive a $16,800 subsidy and pay $20,000 out of his own pocket. Are these category 2 schools supposed to be wealthy? A parent with two children in a category 3 school would get $19,500 by way of subsidies and pay $17,300. We are now dealing with 90 per cent of people, the people whom the Minister says are the needy, those who are in the disadvantaged class. They, in fact, will pay $17,300. The Minister revealed in her speeches recently that she thought she had discovered the concept of needs support. I want to point out that the Fraser Government was strong in its insistence that there should be support for the needy. The simple fact of the matter is that it is not a question of the people in government schools subsidising, as taxpayers, the people in independent schools. There is an enormous benefit to the government schools by the payment of fees in the way they are paid in the independent schools. My calculation is that if, indeed, one were to have to pay the full, average amount for a child in an independent school, the cost to the Commonwealth and State Governments in any year by way of taxation would be in the order of $630m. That is the freedom from expenditure available to State and Commonwealth governments that occurs within the independent system, whether it involves the parent of a child at a category one, category 2 or category 3 school. Indeed, the Government has a good argument to put, which is that if one does not apply a means test or a wealth test to government schools or to category one , 2 or 3 schools, if one does not, in fact, insist when one passes one's money out from the Commonwealth that one will put a differential insistence to the States that the money should go preferentially to the others, quite apart from the disadvantaged schools program, where is the logic? Where is the logic in saying that a government school can have the highest possible category? Being the product of a government school and having served on parents and citizens associations for years, I am all for the highest standards for government schools. But where is the logic in saying: 'Any parent, wealthy or otherwise, can choose any government school and any government school can have any standard it wants. We will not differentiate when we pass the money back but we will make punitive arrangements with regard to independent schools'? Bearing in mind that there is no test by which one can measure these things, the Minister has said that the test is not on assets but on fees-the money coming to the schools. How does one measure the wealth of a family when it can be demonstrated time and again that the only way in which the parents of children attending category one schools can pay the fees is by the wife deliberately going to work and using the whole of her income for that purpose? I looked in the report of the Schools Commission and in speeches by the Minister to find whether some kind of survey had been done as to the number of one spouse or two spouse working families with children attending such schools, because when the Government decides to penalise schools it is arbitrarily, with a scatter gun, shooting at parents irrespective of their capacity to pay. That is a most astonishing situation. I have not entered this debate in the past. There is nothing more punitive, more irrational, than the argument the Minister has put up. Senator Colston —Yours is not much good either. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I thank the honourable senator for listening. The fact is that my arguments are based entirely on facts. The Labor Party is fond of pointing to the fact that it will observe the United Nations conventions when it suits it with respect to Sex Discrimination Bills or the Franklin Dam. Under the United Nations Charter it is the right of every child within the community to full freedom of choice in education. That freedom of choice should be available to the poor as well as to those who are not poor and the distribution of funds should be absolutely fair. If we are consistent we should look at that. I simply wish to make two points. The Labor Party in opposition was good at giving sermons about following what the Schools Commission recommended. Its record in following this course is disastrous. In fact, it has been contemptuous and ignored most of the Commission's recommendations. The burden upon parents whose children attend schools in categories one, 2 and 3 is enormous, with no test at all as to whether parents whose children attend schools in categories one or 2 are the parents who struggle most in the community. The schools are able to tell us that many parents send their children to such schools with the maximum sacrifice to themselves. I find it odious that there should be such a distinction. With the abolition of the basic grant and the breaking of the percentage link between the average cost of a State school and an independent school, there is no way in which any independent school, whether in category 3 or any other category, can be sure more than one year ahead that it will have funds. Once that link is broken, no matter how many nods, winks and promises are given, there is no certainty of funding for a school. Now the Minister and her Government have put fear into the hearts of parents and students at all schools. It is wrong for the Minister to be so contemptuous that she talks of the 5,000 people who turned up in Sydney as being rich parents. The fact is that those people will be irate because they represent schools in poor areas. I invite the Minister to go and tell Mrs Monica Turner, who is the president of her group and who was one of the leading speakers at that meeting, that she or any of the parents in her group are rich and send their children to rich schools. I cannot think of anything that is more savage or wrong than to try to suggest that a gathering of 5,000 people is a gathering of the elite. I know some of the organisers from those schools. As a former Minister for Education I dealt with them. They are people on average to low incomes. They attend the meeting for two reasons: The first is that they knew that the breaking of the percentage link is putting all schools in jeopardy; the other is that even if there were a toffee apple for them in the immediate future it would be a bad thing, an odious thing, if funding for other schools were cut in order that more funds could be granted to their schools. I want to make it perfectly clear that that meeting comprised many thousands of parents who themselves make great sacrifices. They would find the Minister's remarks utterly insulting. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.31) —I will make a brief response to Senator Sir John Carrick's comments. It would be clear to Senator Carrick that the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission were formulated prior to the change of government. When we came to government we had made priorities and commitments which we had to address, as well as the recommendations of the Commission. We gave higher priority to some commitments that we had made as an opposition seeking government than we did some of the recommendations of the Schools Commission. There were recommendations of the Schools Commission that I and the Government would very much have liked to have adopted but, because of the $9 1/2 billion deficit that the Fraser Administration bequeathed to us, it was not possible to-- Senator Sir John Carrick —Come on! Even Senator Walsh has deserted that one. Senator RYAN —Senator Sir John Carrick, having been a Minister in the former Government, does not like to be reminded of the $9 1/2 billion deficit which was the outcome of seven years of Liberal rule in this country. That is a fact and because of it we were not able to accept all of the recommendations of the Schools Commission, as indeed we were not able to implement immediately all of our own commitments. However, we implemented as many of the Schools Commission recommendations as we were able to implement responsibly within the fiscal limitations imposed on us by the dreadful deficit we had inherited. Other recommendations, of course, will be met as budgetary conditions improve. Senator Sir John Carrick has done some calculations on figures that he has derived from some source or another. I do not know what he is talking about when he talks about the contribution of parents as a fact because the range of fees charged in non-government schools is enormously wide. Even within a particular school there is a range of fees. Some private schools, to my knowledge-this is practice which I very much commend and encourage-have a range of fees to meet the capacity to pay of parents whose children attend those schools. I do not really know how he has derived a figure which he can claim is a factual account of parents' contributions. He has made his point about that. I think that I will leave that matter there. I simply say though, in response to Senator Sir John Carrick's comments that we do not differentiate in our funding of the government school sector, that that claim is quite wrong. The disadvantaged schools program directs funds and resources specifically to the poorer government and also, of course, to the poorer non-government schools. A portion of the capital increase that I have made available to the government school sector-the first increase in capital expenditure in a number of years-has been earmarked for the neediest government schools, as indeed a portion of the money has been earmarked for schools serving predominantly Aboriginal communities. I will not go on at length, but it is quite clear that of course we recognise that some government schools are needier than others and make appropriate funding arrangements. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.35) —I wish to raise a matter brought to me by some male higher school certificate pupils in the Australian Capital Territory who feel that they are being discriminated against by Senator Ryan on the grounds of sex. Senator Ryan has made a decision to mark girls up this year in the final Year 12 assessment. I have received complaints from some of the boys that they fear that this will have an adverse effect upon their performance and their chances. They say that their marks will go down simply on the basis that they are males. They believe that it is a case of sex discrimination and they are very concerned about the action that Senator Ryan has taken. To be fair to Senator Ryan, I inform the Committee that Senator Ryan has received advice on this matter. I will outline the problem. I just think the response has been premature, and this is my concern. The situation-Senator Ryan is aware of this but I will just set it out briefly-is that for some years the final result at the end of Year 12, because of the Australian scholastic aptitude test, has been different for boys and girls. The boys have been scoring higher marks. I simply ask: Why is this happening? Is it due to some factor within the assessment system which is acting to the detriment of women? I think it is quite correct that Senator Ryan has taken action to investigate these matters. We know already that one of the factors which has emerged to explain this is the fact that there is greater retentivity for girls, and probably some less able girl students are retained. I believe that the committee that Senator Ryan appointed has attributed all of it to that factor. It suggests two other factors. Perhaps different subjects are studied by males and females and perhaps there may be some bias in the test. But it has not found any other factors such as bias. It has not found that the difference is due to different curriculum factors. The committee has recommended to Senator Ryan, properly, that the matter be investigated further. I think the decision that has been taken-Senator Ryan will correct me if I am wrong-is that one-third of the observed difference will be written in so that girls' marks will be increased across the board by that amount. At the margin, at the borderline for entry into higher education, that adjustment, while it could advantage some girls, could displace some boys. I thought the correction might be of the order of 2.8 points. I did not realise just how significant that might be until I asked the student who called on me, concerned about where it may leave him, what the range of marks was with which we were dealing. He said that the ASAT mark is out of 100 and is then standardised to give an average of 65. If all girls marks are to be increased by, say, 2.8 marks where the average is 65, something like a 3 or 4 per cent advantage will be given. That mark is then used to moderate the marks the students gained in their subjects. I understand that the students take for their tertiary education tests three major subjects, each of which is worth 100 marks, and one minor subject which is worth 60 marks, and that the mark they obtain out of those subjects is moderated by the ASAT score as between schools. Several aspects concern me. The first is that I have no argument with the procedure that Senator Ryan has followed in setting up the committee and no argument with the finding of the committee that further study needs to be done. What I cannot see is the justification for action at this stage, because the committee has not been able to identify a factor of bias. The findings in the report which has been submitted do not enable one to say that there is a bias in the test, or that it is due to different curriculum patterns. We do not know what it is due to; further work must be done. Secondly, some consultations took place after the material came in, and it was reported that these included consultations with some non-government schools. But my correspondents tell me that no boys schools were included. That is fine if the only non-government schools that were consulted were girls schools, but this will introduce its own systematic bias into marking in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister may shake her head, but if we are to mark boys down or mark girls up, we will be introducing a systematic change in the examination marks. It is premature to take that very serious step. I have no objection to the Minister investigating this matter with all the resources that she wishes, but until she has an answer which shows where the bias lies or what the factor is, to mark up all girls' scores is something which many people have complained about to me. As I say, a number of male students have complained to me that they think that they will be disadvantaged in a systematic way in the Australian Capital Territory in the name of equal treatment between the sexes. They think that it is unequal treatment. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.42) —As one small addition to Senator Peter Baume's analysis of this problem, I would add that the matriculation students of the Australian Capital Territory are all in danger of having their results undervalued by people in other States if confidence is lost in the objective criteria, the integrity, of the matriculation marking system, the higher school certificate, or whatever it may now be called, in the Australian Capital Territory. If girls' scores are to be given extra amounts to overcome some alleged bias, and if this is seen to be lacking in integrity by assessors, whether they be employers or those who govern entrance standards to higher education in other States, all students graduating from the Australian Capital Territory will be looked at more carefully when they go along to seek employment or higher education entry. The assessors will say, 'But your matriculation results have been manipulated behind the scenes. We shall need to discount your results'. Some of the students who otherwise would have been highly regarded for employment or higher education entry in other States may unfairly, inappropriately, suffer as a result of the general view that employers and others will take of the assessment system in the Australian Capital Territory. I add further to Senator Peter Baume's remarks only by saying that it is imperative that the Minister ensure that there be, throughout the whole of Australia, an assessment of the Australian Capital Territory assessment system as having integrity, or else all students in the Australian Capital Territory will suffer. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.44) —Senator Peter Baume has offered an interpretation of the problems that have been identified with the application of the Australian scholastic aptitude test in the Australian Capital Territory. I should correct him on a couple of matters that he has raised. First, he referred to ASAT as being a part of the higher school certificate. It is not. It is part of the tertiary entrance assessment. The HSC is done in the Australian Capital Territory by one school, the Canberra Boys Grammar School. But all other students in the Australian Capital Territory have a tertiary entrance score of which the ASAT is a part. The Schools Authority, which is responsible for assessment of students, set up an outside committee following the discovery by the Australian Council for Educational Research that a bias existed. It is not correct for Senator Baume to say that it does not know whether there is a bias. It has established that there is a bias. What it has not established precisely is how the bias has come about, although it has suggested the matters that Senator Baume has referred to, such as the wider ability ranges of girls who are staying on to the end of secondary schooling and subject choice. If much higher scores are attributed to one set of subjects compared with another set and if there is a gender division between the choice of those subjects, I believe that can contribute to the bias which has been established. However, such is the expertise of the people who advise the authority on this matter that they have concluded that it was not fair to female students in the Australian Capital Territory to leave them susceptible to the bias which has been established so they have taken what all experts in this area agree is a very conservative step of adjusting the scores of girl students by one-third of the difference. I do not believe that that will constitute any bias in reverse towards girls. Male students who have expressed their concern to Senator Baume can be reassured that in such a conservative response there will be no disadvantage to them. Of course, the adjustment of girls scores does not mean that boys scores will be reduced. It certainly means that more students will achieve a certain level of scores and that may or may not mean competition at a certain point for certain places. But once the bias had been established I believe the Schools Authority acted responsibility. It was a decision of the Authority; it was not a decision of mine, but, nonetheless, I am confident in the expertise and responsibility of the authority in this matter. As far as Senator Teague's interjection is concerned-- Senator Teague —It was not an interjection. Senator RYAN —I apologise to Senator Teague; I refer to his comment. The acceptance of the Australian Capital Territory accreditation by tertiary institutions throughout Australia has been very successfully established and I am quite sure that the adjustment that is being made will in no way undermine that acceptance. Indeed, we will see even more Australian Capital Territory students because more girls will be qualifying and gaining acceptance in a wide range of higher education institutions throughout Australia. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.48) —I thank the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). This is a very serious subject so I will return to it and say that I have in front of me the report of the Australian scholastic aptitude test review panel. As the honourable senator knows, it was compiled by Dr Beryl Rawson, Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the Australian National University, Ms Helen Williams, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, Professor Don Spearritt, member of the New South Wales Board of Senior School Studies and Mr Ian Knight, Assistant Principal of Narrabundah College. I think Dr Keeves of the Australian Council for Educational Research was also involved. I have the report in front of me and I do not believe it establishes bias. I have just been reading it again and I think the Minister is wrong in fact, I would be grateful for her to show me in the report where that conclusion is reached. I quote from the conclusions in paragraph 9 which state: As mentioned in paragraph 1 above, the panel has not been able to conduct an extensive study in the time and with the resources available. It has, however, concluded that there is a gender difference not related to retentivity which should be dealt with on an interim basis in 1983. It does not say what it is due to. It continues: As further work is required in this area, its recommendations for 1983 are conservative. We can go back to preceding paragraphs to try to see where a bias was established. For example, paragraph 5 states: In a preliminary and more detailed study of 'Sex Differences in ASAT and Retentivity', the ACER has estimated that one-third of the differences in male/ female mean scores could be attributed to differences in the retention rates of males and females in Year 12, and two-thirds to other factors. It goes on to say in paragraph 6: In view of the evidence that a male/female difference in the mean ASAT total scores persists after differences in retention rates of female and male students are taken into account, and given the need for a more thorough study of gender differences on ASAT, the Panel believes that an interim adjustment should be applied . . . The panel did not establish that there was any bias. It simply said that there is a difference which it cannot explain. The fact that there is a difference does not establish that there is a bias. Unless the Schools Authority has established that bias is present, no case exists for this adjustment to be made. I say to the Minister that I cannot see from the report of the review panel how she could possibly reach the conclusion that bias can be demonstrated. It is on that basis that I have raised the concern of students who have come to me and who are worried about the detriment that might flow to them from the action the Minister has taken. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.51) —I want to raise the same subject. I have had constituents raise this matter with me. Some of them are parents who have both sons and daughters. To an extent their confidence in the system has been undermined. From the information the Minister gave me previously , I could not find an adequate explanation to point out the bias to constituents . I cannot say: 'Your daughters will be better off under this and your sons will not be disadvantaged from the position they were in previously'. The Minister referred to one set of subjects as having a certain value and another set of subjects that more girls seem to do which has a different value. What happens to boys who do that other set of subjects which has the lower value? What happens to boys who are in co-educational classes? Will they finish up in a typing pool simply because of this? It seems to me very clear indeed that any boy in a co- educational situation doing the subjects of lower value must be seriously disadvantaged from the position he was in previously. The situation, as it appears to me, is that a school looks at a child and if it is decided that that child ought to be doing medicine, the child is given a mark that will get him or her into a medical faculty. If the school decides that a child ought to be in the Commonwealth Public Service typing pool, that child will be given a mark that will put him or her there. I have serious reservations about the whole system and I have had them for some time. But after this fiasco, as I would call it, I think all parents are very right to be concerned about what is happening to their children and what chance they have of finishing up in the right place. What guarantee is there that any child who perhaps is not particularly liked, particularly popular or regarded as particularly co- operative or the like will finish up with a mark that really represents that child's ability, male or female? I think that the community is entitled to be concerned. Without an adequate explanation of the bias there is quite a lot of trouble and concern in the community. If there is an explanation that makes sense, I think we should hear about it. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.54) —Both Senator Peter Baume and Senator Reid have challenged the report done by those expert people who have made the recommendation. The Schools Authority-- Senator Reid —A point of order, Mr Chairman. We have not challenged the report; we are asking for an explanation. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —There is no point of order. Senator Peter Baume —We have not chal- lenged the report, Minister. Senator RYAN —Senator Baume has said that he does not believe that the report has established the existence of bias, and he cannot understand why an interim adjustment has been recommended. Obviously, the Committee has recommended the interim adjustment to accommodate the existence of bias. There would be no other reason for its doing it. If the honourable senators have a view that is different from the people who made that report, they are entitled to it. The Schools Authority has accepted the report that I have accepted the assessment of the Schools Authority. On Senator Reid's very strange suggestion that individual children in individual classes will be penalised, I remind her that the ASAT score is used to moderate class scores. It is used to moderate a whole class; it does not pick out individual students. So, if it is a co-educational class there will not be any effect on individual students. The whole class, made up of boys and girls, will have its scores moderated by the ASAT and not individual students. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.55) —In that case, where is the benefit to the girls in the class? At what point does that occur? That answer does not make sense, according to what is apparently happening. I have not said that I have a different view. I am merely seeking an explanation of where the bias is so that it can be explained simply to parents who are concerned. I am not asserting a view of my own on this matter. I merely want in words what the bias is so that people can understand it. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.55) —Girls in single sex classes and single sex schools will get the benefit of the adjustment to the moderating score. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.56) —In fact, a girl has to be in a single sex school before she can get the benefit of the adjustment to the moderating score. Is that the Minister's answer? I want an assurance that that is correct. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.56) —I am advised that the technical complexity of the way in which a score is applied does not allow me to provide a yes or no answer to that question. I refer Senator Reid to the report of the Committee. Senator TEAGUE(Tasmania)(10.57) —At this point we are asking questions of the Minister and we expect to hear a logical and coherent answer for any proposal the Minister is endorsing, even if it has gained some acceptance by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. I suspect that all of us, not only those on the Opposition benches but also representatives in the chamber from Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria, feel that there is no logic in the Minister's answers and explanations in the last 20 minutes. We are not convinced . How can the public be convinced by these half-baked explanations? I urge the Minister to have the whole proposal deferred completely until a paper is presented by her or even by the Schools Authority so that there is an explanation which has some logic to it, which establishes some primary concern and which suggests some remedies that are legitimate. I hope that that explanation takes into account all of the alternative reasons that could lead to an outcome in which girls have different end of school results to boys. I say to the Minister that it is not sufficient to give a series of sentences that add up to some self-justifying circular argument about some proposal that has something to do with bias between boys and girls in the Australian Capital Territory. The explanation needs to have substance and logic to it. I ask the Minister whether the whole proposal can be completely deferred until a proper, logical explanation can be given to the Committee and to the public. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.59) —The whole proposal will not be deferred. However, because the operation of the Australian scholastic aptitude test is a very complex and technical matter I have asked officers of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority to have available for tabling by lunch time tomorrow a complete explanation of how it works. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.59) —I would like to advise Senator Ryan that I think she has been wrong in an answer she has given. This matter relates to Senator Reid's question about what happens in co-educational classes. I will read the recommendation, which states: An adjustment should be made to the ASAT total scores of all female students to reduce the size of any difference- The panel goes on further: The Panel also considered the possible application of an adjustment to the Girls' Schools only. This would ignore the problems in co-educational schools . . . It seems that the Minister was incorrect. In fact, the recommendation is that the adjustment be made to the scores of all girl students if, in fact, the recommendations are accepted. I am grateful to the Minister for offering to make more information available to us. This matter is a mess, and a decision is premature. I would prefer the Minister to wait until she has the results of her further study and we know what is going on. We know that there was, in fact, a case of bias which warranted this interference with the grading system in the Australian Capital Territory. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! It being 11 p.m., under sessional order 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- The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 11 p.m., under sessional order I put the question : That the Senate do now adjourn. Senate adjourned at 11 p.m. The following paper was presented: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 299 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Has cell therapy been successful in assisting the development of brain- damaged children. (2) Are there any dangers or side effects associated with this form of treatment. (3) Is cell therapy practised in Australia; if so, where and by whom. (4) Is the importation of sterile animal cells into Australia for purposes of cell therapy prohibited; if so, why. (5) Has the Department of Health, or the National Health and Medical Research Council, or any other body undertaken investigations into the effectiveness of cell therapy; if so, where and when were the results published. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No evidence from properly controlled scientific studies has been presented to my Department which shows that cell therapy has been successful in assisting the development of brain-damaged children. (2) In the absence of properly controlled studies and patient monitoring or even a full knowledge of the composition and manufacturing processes of these products it is not possible to state whether there are any dangers or side effects associated with this form of therapy. Some adverse effects have however been reported in the literature. (3) No, not to my knowledge; although I am aware of one doctor in particular who is endeavouring to promote this form of treatment. (4) Yes. These products are regarded as new therapeutic substances and as such their importation into Australia may not be permitted until such time as data have been presented to my Department for evaluation which establishes the quality, safety and efficacy of the goods in question. (5) All available (published) references to this form of treatment were obtained by my Department and evaluated. These reports were then referred to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee-ADEC-for its comment in 1981. This Committee which is independent of my Department was established to ensure the availability of expert practical advice from a panel whose members have a distinguished reputation in medical research and clinical practice. The ADEC found the available information quite inadequate to allow clinical use of these products in Australia. This view was endorsed by the National Health and Medical Research Council-NH and MRC-following its investigation into the use of these products and also by a independent expert working with Down's syndrome children. In 1982 departmental officers met with Professor Schmid, the West German promoter of cell therapy treatment. Following these discussions I have written personally to Professor Schmid and to the West German health authorities seeking their co-operation in providing the necessary data for evaluation. This they are endeavouring to do. In its report of the 91st session held in Brisbane in 1981 the NH and MRC made the following statement regarding foetal cell therapy for Down's syndrome: Following consultation with the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, the Council concluded that this method of therapy has no beneficial effect. The Council stressed that appropriate and optimal management of Down's syndrome includes early and continuing educational, psychological and medical support for the children and their families. Question No. 389 Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Is the Australian Radiation Laboratory responsible for monitoring general levels of radioactivity arising from weapons test fallout. (2) Where is this monitoring carried out. (3) Are the results published; if so, will the Minister for Health make the results of these monitorings available. (4) Does the Australian Radiation Laboratory compare the results of their monitoring with the findings of monitoring studies carried out by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment at Lucas Heights. (5) Does the Australian Radiation Laboratory carry out monitoring of all radiation emissions within Australia, including those from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment at Lucas Heights. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, the Australian Radiation Laboratory is responsible for monitoring general levels of radioactivity arising from weapons test fallout. (2) The monitoring is carried out at a number of sites around Australia. Filters from large volume air samplers in six major cities (weekly), milk samples from all State capital cities (monthly) and resin columns which concentrate impurities from rain water in eight major cities (quarterly) are provided to the Australian Radiation Laboratory where they are processed for subsequent analysis for radioactivity. Current levels of long-lived fallout products strontium-90 and caesium-137 are extremely low and in many cases are below the limits of detection. (3) The data, which have been published widely in Australia, are also summarised and published in collated form by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation and the United States Environmental Measurements Laboratory. A list of publications relating specifically to nuclear fallout is provided in Appendix (1). (4) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission does not carry out monitoring studies of this type. (5) The Australian Radiation Laboratory carries out general monitoring of all radiation emissions within Australia whenever circumstances warrant it. A representative list of monitoring studies covering nuclear fallout, nuclear test sites, visiting nuclear powered warships, uranium, sand mining operations, X- rays in medicine, radio frequency radiation in industry and emissions from video display terminals is provided in Appendix (2). With respect to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission research establishment at Lucas Heights, the Australian Radiation Laboratory analyses soil, water and effluent samples provided by the Commission and reports its findings both to the Commission and the New South Wales Health Commission. Appendix 1 List of Publications on Measurements of Radioactive Fallout in Australia 1. Fresh Fission Products in Global Fallout 'Search for Fallout in Australia from the Christmas Island Tests'. L. J. Dwyer, D. W. Keam, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 20, 39 41 ( 1957) August-September. 'Global Fallout in Australia During the Period 26 November 1956 to 31 December 1957'. D. W. Keam, L. J. Dwyer, J. H. Martin, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 21, 8 9 (1958) July. 'Global Fallout in Australia During 1958'. D. W. Keam, L. J. Dwyer, J. H. Martin and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 22, 51 54(1959) August. 'Global Fallout in Australia During 1959'. J. R. Blake; L. J. Dwyer, J. H. Martin and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 23, 69 71 (1960) September. 'Global Fallout in Australia During 1960-61'. J. R. Blake, L. J. Dwyer, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 24, 467 470 (1962 ) June. 'Global Fallout in Australia During 1962'. R. J. L. Alsop, J. R. Moroney, R. O. Nunn, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 25, 426 429 (1963) April. 'Iodine-131 Levels in Milk in Australia During the Period May-November 1962'. J . Bonnyman and D. W. Keam. Australian J. Sci. 26, 74-76 (1963) September. 'Total Beta Activity in Global Fallout in Australia During 1963'. R. J. L. Alsop, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 26, 342 345 (1964) May. 'Fallout Over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France During July 1966' . W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Nature 212, 1562-1564 (1966) December 31. 'Fallout Over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia from July to October 1966'. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 29, 407-416 (1967) May. 'Iodine-131 Levels in Milk in Australia During the Period July-December 1966'. J. Bonnyman and J. C. Duggleby. Australian J. Sci. 29, 402-406 (1967) May. 'Fallout Over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia During June and July 1967'. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 30, 217 222 (1967) December. 'Iodine-131 Concentrations in Australian Milk Resulting from the 1967 French Nuclear Weapons Tests in Polynesia'. J. Bonnyman and J. C. Duggleby. Australian J. Sci. 30, 223-226 (1967) December. 'The Concentrations of Radioactive Isotopes in the Australian Surface Air During the Period May 1965-December 1967'. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby and J. Molina-Ramos. Australian Radiation Laboratory Technical Report CXRL/9 (1968) October. 'Fallout Over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia from July to September 1968'. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 31, 383 388 (1969) May. 'Iodine-131 Concentrations in Australian Milk Resulting from the 1968 French Nuclear Weapons Tests in Polynesia'. J. Bonnyman and J. C. Duggleby. Australian J. Sci. 31, 389 392 (1969) May. Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in polynesia from May to August 1970 Chap. 1 The Fallout Monitoring Operation and Radiation Doses to the Australian Population. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Chap. 2. Measurements on Total Beta Activity in the fallout. B. A. Devlin, J. R . Moroney, R. O. Nunn and F. M. Stewart. Chap. 3. Measurements on Iodine-131 in Milk supplies. J. Bonnyman and J. C. Duggleby. Defence Standards Laboratory Report AWTSC No. 1 (1971) February. Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia from June to August 1971 Chap. 1. Radiation Doses to the Australian Population from Fresh Fission Products in Fallout. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Chap. 2. Measurements of Total Beta Activity in the Fallout. L. H. Kotler, R. O . Nunn, F. M. Stewart, R. D. Thompson and K. N. Wise. Chap. 3. Measurements of Iodine-131 in Milk Supplies. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 3 (1971) December. Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia During June and July 1972 Chap. 1. Radiation Doses to the Australian Population from Fresh Fission Products in Fallout. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Chap. 2. Measurements of Total Beta Activity in the Fallout. J. C. Johannessen, L. H. Kotler, F. M. Stewart, and M. J. Wilks. Chap. 3. Measurements of Iodine-131 in Milk Supplies. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, J. C. Johannessen and C. E. King. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 5 (1972) October. Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia during July and August 1973 Chap. 1. Radiation Doses to the Australian Population from Fresh Fission Products in Fallout. J. R. Moroney, and D. J. Stevens. Chap. 2. The Monitoring Program. J. C. Johannessen and F. M. Stewart. Chap. 3. Measurements of Artificial Radionuclides Present in Ground-Level Air. J. Peggie, D. H. Sofer and K. N. Wise. Chap. 4. Measurements of Total Beta Activity in the Fallout. J. C. Duggleby, J. C. Johannessen, L. H. Kotler, and F. M. Stewart. Chap. 5. Measurements of Iodine-131 in Milk Supplies. J. C. Duggleby, L. H. Kotler, M. J. Wilks and K. N. Wise. Australian Radiation Laboratory Technical Report. Part 2 of AIRAC No. 1 (1974) May. Fallout over Australia from nuclear tests. Chap. 1. Radiation Doses to the Australian Population from Fallout. J. R. Moroney and D. J. Stevens. Chap. 3. Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia from June to September 1974. G. E. Bullock, J. C. Duggleby, R. O. Nunn and K. N. Wise. Australian Radiation Laboratory Technical Report. Part 2 of AIRAC No. 2 (1975) October. 2. Strontium-90 in the Environment 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment, 1957-58', F. J. Bryant, L. J. Dwyer, J. H. Martin and E. W. Titterton, Nature 184, 755-760 (1959) September 12 . 'Strontium-90 in Fallout and in Man in Australia, January 1959-June 1960', F. J . Bryant, L. J. Dwyer, D. J. Stevens, E. W. Titterton and J. R. Moroney, Nature 190, 754-757 (1961) May 27. 'Measurements of Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment up to December 1960 ', F. J. Bryant, L. J. Dwyer, D. J. Stevens, E. W. Titterton and J. R. Moroney, Nature 193, 188-189 (1962) January 13. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment, 1957-1960', F. J. Bryant, L. J. Dwyer, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton, Australian J. Sci 24, 397-409 (1962) April. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1961', F. J. Bryant, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton, Australian J. Sci 26, 69-74 (1963) September. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1962' F. J. Bryant, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton, Australian J. Sci 27.1. 6 (1964) July. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1963', F. J. Bryant, W. J. Gibbs J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton, Australian J. Sci 24, 27 , 222 226(1965) February. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment, 1961 to 1963', W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens, E. W. Titterton and G. U. Wilson. Australian J. Sci. 28, 44 59 (1965) August. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1964', W. Fletcher, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 28, 417 424 (1966) May. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1965', W. Fletcher, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 29, 319 325 (1967) March. 'Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in some Australian Drinking Water Supplies 1961 to 1965', J. Bonnyman and J. Molina-Ramos. Australian J. Sci. 30, 171 172 (1967) November. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1966', W. Fletcher, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 30, 307 313 (1968) February. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1967', W. Fletcher, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 31, 174 179 (1968) November. 'Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1968', W. J. Gibbs, W. K. Matthews, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 32, 238 244 (1969) December. Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in the Australian Environment During 1969. Chap. 1. Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 Monitoring and Radiation Doses to the Australian Population. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Chap. 2. Measurements of Strontium-90. J. Bonnyman, J. H. Harley, W. K. Matthews and J. R. Moroney. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 2 (1971) May. Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in the Australian Environment during 1970. Chap. 1. Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 Monitoring and Radiation doses to the Australian Population. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Chap. 2. Measurements of Strontium-90. J. Bonnyman, J. H. Harley and J. R. Moroney. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 4 (1972) September. Fallout over Australia from nuclear tests Chap. 1. Radiation doses to the Australian Population from Fallout. J. R. Moroney and D. J. Stevens. Chap. 2. Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in the Australian Environment during 1971 , 1972 and 1973. G. E. Bullock, J. C. Duggleby, L. H. Kotler and K. N. Wise. Australian Radiation Laboratory Technical Report. Part 2 of AIRAC No. 2 (1975) October. 3. Caesium-137 in milk and water 'Concentration of Caesium-137 in Australian Milk During 1963', R. J. L. Alsop, J. Bonnyman, D. W. Keam and J. Molina-Ramos. Australian J. Sci. 27, 219 222 ( 1965) February. 'Concentration of Caesium-137 in Australian Milk during 1964', R. J. L. Alsop, J. Bonnyman, D. W. Keam and J. Molina-Ramos. Australian J. Sci. 28, 69 71 (1965) August. 'Concentration of Caesium-137 in Australian Milk During 1965', J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and D. K. B. Sewell, Australian J. Sci. 28, 411 412 (1966) May. 'Concentration of Caesium-137 in Australian Rainwater During 1964 and 1965', R. J. L. Alsop, J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and D. K. B. Sewell, Australian J. Sci. 28, 413 417 (1966) May. 'Concentrations of Caesium-137 in Rainwater and Milk in Australia During 1966', J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and I. C. Paterson. Australian J. Sci. 30, 313, 316 (1968) February. 'Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in Some Australian Drinking Water Supplies 1961 to 1965'. J. Bonnyman and J. Molina-Ramos Australian J. Set. 30, 171 172 (1967) November. 'Concentrations of Caesium-137 in Rainwater and Milk in Australia During 1967'. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and I. C. Paterson. Australian J. Sci. 31, 180 183 (1968) November. 'Concentrations of Caesium-137 in Rainwater and Milk in Australia During 1968'. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and I. C. Paterson. Australian J. Sci. 32, 244 248 (1969) December. 'Concentrations of Caesium-137 in Rainwater and Milk in Australia During 1969'. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and I. C. Paterson. Search 1, 160 163 (1970) October. Strontium-90 and caesium-137 in the Australian Environment During 1969 Chap. 1. Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 Monitoring and Radiation Doses to the Australian Population. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Chap. 3. Measurements of caesium-137. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby and J. Molina -Ramos. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 2 (1971) May. Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in the Australian Environment During 1970 Chap. 1. Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 Monitoring and Radiation Doses to the Australian Population. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Chap. 3. Measurements of Caesium-137. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, L. H. Kotler and J. Molina-Ramos. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 4 (1972) September. Fallout over Australia from nuclear tests Chap. 1. Radiation Doses to the Australian Population from Fallout. J. R. Moroney and D. J. Stevens. Chap. 2. Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in the Australian Environment during 1971 , 1972 and 1973. G. E. Bullock, J. C. Duggleby, L. H. Kotler and K. N. Wise. Australian Radiation Laboratory Technical Report, Part 2 of AIRAC No. 2 (1975) October. 4. Fallout from nuclear weapons tests in Australia 'Radioactive Fallout in Australia from Operation ''Mosaic'' '. W. A. S. Butement, L. J. Dwyer, C. E. Eddy, L. H. Martin and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 20, 125 135 (1957) December. 'Radioactive Fallout in Australia from Operation ''Buffalo'' ', W. A. S. Butement, L. J. Dwyer, L. H. Martin, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 21, 63 78 (1958) October. 'Radioactive Fallout in Australia from Operation ''Antler'' ', L. J. Dwyer, L. H. Martin, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 22, 97 106 ( 1959) September. 'Experiments on the ''Sticky Paper'' Method of Radioactive Fallout Sampling', D . W. Keam, L. J. Dwyer, J. H. Martin, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 21, 99 104 (1958) November. 5. Overseas publications Environmental Health Monitoring: Data on Environmental Radioactivity: 1st Quarter 1980: Report No. 36. Published by International Reference Centre for Radioactivity, Le Vesinet, France for the World Health Organisation, 1980. Series of Quarterly Reports successively numbered up to and including Report No . 48 for the 1st quarter of 1983. Final Tabulation of Monthly Strontium-90 Fallout Data: 1954-1976. Report No. HASL-329. Published by Health and Safety Laboratory, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, New York (October 1977). Worldwide Deposition of Strontium-90 through 1981. Report No. EML-415. Published by Environmental Measurements Laboratory, Department of Energy, New York (June 1983). Notes 1. Data for radioactivity in ground level air monitored by the Australian Radiation Laboratory are published in the series of quarterly reports published by the International Reference Centre for Radioactivity beginning with Report No . 36. 2. Data for radioactivity in deposition monitored by the Australian Radiation Laboratory during the period 1958-1976 are published in Report No. HASL-329 and during the period 1976-1981 are published in Report No. EML-415. These reports are available from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia, 22161. Appendix 2 Publications relating to General Radiation Monitoring: Australian Radiation Laboratory 'Residual radioactive contamination of the Maralinga Range form nuclear weapons tests conducted in 1956 and 1957'. by M. B. Cooper, J. C. Duggleby, L. H. Kotler and K. N. Wise. Report No. ARL/TR05 (1978). 'Thyroid measurements of 125I workers' by P. A. Burns and J. R. Peggie. Australian Physical Sciences in Medicine 2, 259 (1979) and Report No. ARL/TR08 ( 1979). 'Residual radioactive contamination of the test site at Emu from nuclear weapons tests conducted in 1953'. by D. Maclagan, M. B. Cooper and J. C. Duggleby. Report No. ARL/TR012 (1979) and in AIRAC No. 7, Australian Government Publishing Service (1980). 'Radioactive fallout in the Southern hemisphere from nuclear weapons tests' by J. R. Moroney Report No. ARL/TR013 (1979). 'The contributions to the genetic and mean bone marrow doses of the Australian population from radiological procedures'. by T. W. Swindon, N. D. Morris and S. B. Solomon. Report No. ARL/TR017 (1980). 'The measurement of patient doses from diagnostic X-rays'. by N. D. Morris and S. B. Solomon. Report No. ARL/TR018 (1980). 'Patient doses from medical use of X-rays'. by N. D. Morris, S. B. Solomon and T. N. Swindon. The Radio- grapher 28, 9 (1981). 'Personal monitoring and assessment of doses received by radiation workers'. by T. N. Swindon and N. D. Morris. Report No. ARL/TR035 (1981). 'Natural radioactivity in bottled mineral water available in Australia'. by M. B. Cooper, B. J. Ralph and M. J. Wilks. Report No. ARL/TR036 (1981). 'Natural radioactivity in the production of titanium dioxide pigment: a study of the La Porte plant and environment behaviour of radio-nuclides at Bunbury, W. A.' by M. B. Cooper, J. R. Statham and G. A. Williams. Report No. ARL/TR037 ( 1981). 'Measurement of radiation parameters in open cut mining situations'. by V. A. Leach, K. H. Lokan, L. J. Martin, K. N. Wise, S. B. Solomon and R. S. O'Brien. Proceedings of International Conference on Radiation Hazards in Mining: Control Measure and Medical Aspects, Colorado U.S.A. (1981). 'A study of radon emanation from waste rock at N.T. uranium mines', by G. C. Mason, G. Elliott and T. H. Gan. Report No. ARL/TR044 (1982). 'Environmental radiation at the Monte Bello Islands from nuclear weapons tests conducted in 1952 and 1956'. by J. R. Moroney and M. B. Cooper. Report No. ARL/ TR049 (1982). 'An examination of the distribution of patient doses from diagnostic X-ray procedures'. by N. D. Morris. Report No. ARL/TR051 (1982). 'A study of radiation parameters in an open-pit mine'. by V. A. Leach, K. H. Lokan and L. J. Martin. Health Physics 43, 363 (1982) and Report No. ARL/TR028 ( 1981). 'RF dielectric heaters. Survey results and guidelines for limiting occupational exposure to radiofrequency radiation'. by K. H. Joyner and M. J. Bangay. Report No. ARL/TR052 (1983). 'Measurement of Electromagnetic radiation emitted from visual display terminals (VDTs)'. by C. R. Roy, K. H. Joyner, H. P. Gies, M. J. Bangay and W. A. Cornelius. Report No. ARL/TR053 (1983). 'Visits by Nuclear Powered Warships to Australian Ports'. Report on Radiation Monitoring-1980, 1981, 1982. Published by Department of Home Affairs and Environment in April 1981, April 1982 and May 1983 respectively. Senator Walsh —On 15 September 1983 (Hansard, page 733) Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, the following question without notice: Is it a fact as reported in today's Australian Financial Review that a consultant retained by the Department of Trade was endeavouring to encourage Australian manufacturers to 'close their operations in Australia and go to Singapore'? Has any inquiry been made to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the claim made by the secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation, Mr Thompson, that he has documentary proof of the situation? If it is a fact, how does that square with the stance on protection that has been adopted by the Minister for Trade? I refer in particular to Mr Lionel Bowen's rejection of public statements advocating freer trade which were made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs at a book launching on Monday. Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Trade is acting in a way which was advocated by Mr Thompson, and how does that square with the position of the responsible Minister? The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government recognises that investment overseas is a natural and often necessary commercial step for Australian companies in order to expand, or even maintain, their existing overseas markets. Australian direct investment overseas is quite significant. It is generating substantial foreign exchange earnings for Australia and jobs in Australia for Australians. Nevertheless, some investment can have detrimental effects on Australian industry and employment and it is obviously not this Government's intention to encourage such investments. The Department of Trade offers an information service to Australian investors, just as it does for Australian exporters, to assist businessmen in ensuring that their commercial decisions are as well-founded and fully informed as possible. The Department of Trade also administers some aspects of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau's program which is aimed at assisting the social and economic development of countries in our immediate region. Under this program, the Department facilitates exchanges of information between Australian businessmen and those of neighbouring countries, on mutually beneficial opportunities for trade and investment. Consultants are engaged from time to time, under this program, to assist in the identification of such opportunities. In the case in question, a consultant has been engaged to examine whether opportunities exist for mutually beneficial joint ventures in Singapore. Insofar as the protection issue is concerned, it is the Government's clear and determined policy intention to ensure that Australian industry receives adequate and effective assistance to enable it to survive and to grow and develop on a sound footing. Our approach must take into account the realities of world trade and the advantages enjoyed by many of our competitors. Some restructuring of manufacturing industry is inevitable and desirable but there must be recognition of what the community can be expected to cope with against a backdrop of economic recession. The Government is responsive to the needs of industry either when it is experiencing difficulties from imports or, within budgetary constraints, when it requires assistance to increase investment, stimulate innovation, promote exports and so on. In this way, Australia can move to the development of a healthy manufacturing sector which provides increased permanent job opportunities.