Thursday, 10 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: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983, in context with the U.N. Convention, especially Articles 4 and 10, is going to break down traditional family life and reduce the choice of women to be homemakers. Your petitioners therefore pray that you do not support the Sex Discrimination Bill, or if passed, it be rescinded together with the United Nations Convention. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Grimes (from 215 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: Should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Grimes (from 39 citizens), Jones (from 184 citizens), Lajovic (from 196 citizens), Reid (from 45 citizens) and Sibraa (from 44 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 freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine- (a) the implications of the U. N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U. N. Convention. The terms of reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the effect of sliding scale income and fee assessment applied in subsidised child care centres causes financial hardship and emotional stress for many families in moderate to middle income brackets. Your servants humbly request that consideration be given to reviewing the present guidelines for determining fees, in particular examining the range of allowable deductions, and the upper limit for fee relief. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Grimes (from 62 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned students and staff of the Armidale C.A.E. respectfully showeth that we are concerned at the consequences for residential students, at this College of the reduction by 25 per cent in the current Federal Government subsidy to Halls of Residence. Being a regional centre, nearly all the 500 internal significant number of students (who are enrolled) at the Armidale C.A.E. are reliant upon residential accommodation, 200 live at Smith House. The reduction in subsidy will lead to an increase in changes have the effect of forcing a number of students to terminate their studies and also restrict access to higher education in the Northern Tableland and North Coast region. In particular we would call upon the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and all members of the Senate to take action to ensure that the full subsidy ( pre 1983-84 Budget) be reinstated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will support the above claim. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever humbly pray. by Senator Jones (from 173 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia are concerned at the termination of the tax exemption on Defence Force Reserve pay. We are convinced that unequal relativities in pay will occur and the Reserve Force will lose a large number of dedicated trained servicemen and women which will make it impossible for the Reserve to meet it's commitments to the defence of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will act to form a Senate Select Committee to inquire into and report on the effect of the removal of the tax exemption prior to the implementation of Government policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-selection commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 25 citizens). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendments) Ordinance 1983 contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 51 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 be disallowed. The PRESIDENT —I wish to inform the Senate of two significant developments, relating to the information systems and services for the Parliament, which have occurred during 1983. The first of these developments concerns planning for the new Parliament House. It was essential that the Parliament House Construction Authority be advised of senators' and members' possible information systems requirements so that provision could be made in the new building for the development of such facilities. It was agreed to engage a specialist consultant to assist with the preparation of a brief and the tender was awarded to Logica Pty Ltd, a firm which has had considerable experience in both the information technology area and the requirements of the Parliament. Logica began its work on 9 May 1983 and presented its report on 21 June 1983. Parliamentary staff worked with the consultants, and questionnaires were issued to senators and members. In addition a number were interviewed personally. This report formed the basis of the statement of user requirements which has now been forwarded to the Parliament House Construction Authority. I now table the report by Logica Pty Ltd, which includes an information systems review and a user requirements statement for the information systems and services for the new Parliament House. I must add that, at this stage, there is no commitment to all or any of the systems described in the report and that senators will shortly be given the opportunity to comment on the report. Due to the size of the report, a limited number of copies have been printed and these are available to senators from the Senate Records Office. The second development relates to a pilot study now being undertaken by the parliamentary departments into the applicability of computer-based information storage and retrieval systems to the information needs of the Parliament. Following a lengthy planning period and a tender and selection process which has extended from November 1982, a contract was signed with International Computers (Australia) Pty Ltd on 17 October 1983 for the provision of a rented service for a pilot study. It is proposed that the pilot study continue until May 1984 and that Senate and House of Representatives Hansard, Journals of the Senate, Votes and Proceedings, Australian Senate Practice, and House of Representatives Practice will be mounted on the service to enable effective evaluation of computer-based information storage and retrieval in the Parliament. After the pilot study has been evaluated by the parliamentary departments. Mr Speaker and I will decide whether the project will proceed further. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council-Report No. 6. 1982-83-Review on Radioactive Waste Management 2. National Standards Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 19C of the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960 3. Australian Bicentennial Authority-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 25 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980 4. A National Crimes Commission?-a policy discussion paper 5. National Crimes Commission Conference-Record of Proceedings, Parliament House, Canberra, 28-29 July 1983 6. Special Prosecutor's Office-First Annual Report by R. V. Gyles, QC, Special Prosecutor-pursuant to section 20 of the Special Prosecutors Act, 1982: together with a statement by the Attorney-General Report Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Because the report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council needs study, which I have not had time to do, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In doing so I comment briefly that I believe one of the significant aspects of the report of the National Standards Commission is the comments it makes in relation to measurements in trade and commerce. We are all only too painfully aware of the way in which standards can be misused as a form of protection, as an alternative to tariffs, to serve purposes entirely different from those which they are intended to serve. I think that Australia's record in this area is good . I believe the report supports that view. I note that further matters will be discussed in relation to this report. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.09) —I was very interested to receive the report of the National Standards Commission. I was interested that such effort should be devoted to trying to arrive at uniform standards. However, the line which I was particularly struck by-it is an extraordinary statement in the foreword-which I feel would benefit all honourable senators, if not amuse them, to hear reads: It is of great importance that measurements made throughout Australia, and indeed throughout the world, be uniform in the sense that they can be intercompared meaningfully. I simply suggest that a report which resorts to language such as that in its foreword probably needs to be examined somewhat seriously. I am not sure what the word 'intercompared' means when the word 'compared' would have done beautifully. I am not sure about the term 'intercompared meaningfully' either. But that is probably a flippant comment about the foreword. I think it is terribly important that we try to arrive at some kind of national standards. I also think it is quite remarkable that so many serious and earnest people sit together for so long and still seem to achieve very slowly any kind of uniformity of standards. However, I am pleased that we actually are proceeding with the task. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Bicentennial Authority, which I know is supported by all members of the Senate, has presented a report which we should welcome. I think that the Authority has done an excellent job in reaching out to the community. First of all, it has found out what the community wanted in the way of the bicentennial celebrations and, having determined that, has indicated a method of progressing and of advertising the activities by the Authority and for the bicentenary. After doing that very careful ground work, the Authority has reached the stage where there have been some announcements of grants and we are moving towards looking at what shape the special activites for the bicentenary will take. There is not a great deal more to be said about the Authority. It has presented a report which gives a review of its operations and indicates what is happening in some of the States. I think it is excellent that the bicentenary committees are involving so many people. They are involving all levels of government and community organisations. That, to some extent, has been reflected in the recommendations that have been made so far for expenditure of money under the auspices of the Authority. I just want to make a brief comment in relation to the grant that has been made to Queensland. One of the projects that has received approval is an Australian air museum which, according to a newspaper report, has been earmarked for land near the Dreamworld concept at Coomera. This project is to get $760,000 under the recommendations. An organisation in Queensland has been working for quite a number of years towards establishing an air museum in Queensland. This organisation, called the Queensland Air Museum, is run by a group of absolutely dedicated amateurs-I suppose I have to call them that because they are working for nothing-who have worked very hard to obtain aircraft for an air museum and to undertake some restoration of those aircraft. They have had no funding. They have been able to use some land only as a result of some generosity of the Commonwealth Government. However they have no security as to their future. They have had no money with which to purchase available planes. They have missed out on these planes or they have been purchased by others. Time and again they have lamented the fact that important aircraft, which they could possibly put on display in their air museum, have been lost to them. I do not know anything about this project at Coomera. It is a new one to me. I read about it only when the bicentenary grants were announced. I do not know what resources this group has for purchasing aircraft. I am sure that it will abe able to use part of the grant for restoring aircraft. However, I want to point out that fact that the Queensland Air Museum was not supported and the alternative project, which very few people had heard about, was supported and was a matter of some public comment. One newspaper report stated: The Queensland Australian Bicentennial Authority chairman, Mr Ian Russell, said , there was no question of political influence on the choice of selected recipients. I accept Mr Russell's word for that- Asked why the Queensland Air Museum's long standing campaign to establish an aviation museum had lost out to the Coomera proposal, which was within the Albert electorate of National Party member Mr Ivan Gibbs, Mr Russell said: 'I can't comment about that. 'My understanding is that Coomera is a better site and the State Government has land down there.' That is quite a reasonable explanation. One of the problems that the Queensland Air Museum has is getting a site because it does not have the money to purchase land. Local government, State government and the Commonwealth Government have not been prepared to grant the group a site. I welcome the fact that the State Government has made a site available. I am not putting in any sort of plea for the overturning of the Bicentennial Authority's recommendations. The plea I enter is that the work that the people associated with the Queensland Air Museum have done and the items that they have acquired be taken into account in this project at Coomera. I hope that we will not have any controversy over this but that, instead, those who have the grant for the project that has been approved will take the opportunity to contact the Queensland Air Museum and if possible, will amalgamate the efforts of the two projects. Through its years of hard work, the Queensland Air Museum has attracted to it people who have some expertise on restoring aircraft and certainly a lot of expertise on Australia's aircraft. I hope that my suggestions will be taken note of and that there will be no acrimony in Queensland about this particular grant from the Bicentennial Authority. Question resolved in the affirmative. Policy Discussion Paper Record of Proceedings First Annual Report Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.16) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I was privileged, and I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the then Special Minister of State (Mr Young), to be granted delegate status at the National Crimes Summit Conference held in July in this chamber. I was pleased to receive this excellent discussion paper, 'A National Crimes Commission?' prepared by Senator Gareth Evans and Mr Mick Young. I am pleased to take this opportunity again of congratulating the Government on the progress it has made on the Special Prosecutor's Office and the appointment of that excellent young man, Mr Redlich, as Special Prosecutor. I congratulate him on the work that he is doing. I still remain disturbed. As I have mentioned before, organised crime in this country is growing. In my estimate, it is now receiving profits of $750m per year. I am persuaded that the mechanisms that we have at the moment, such as State police forces, excellent though some of them are, are not capable of curing this problem. That is not just Senator Chipp giving that as an opinion. As the Attorney-General will testify, Mr Justice Moffitt, Mr Justice Woodward, Mr Justice Williams, Mr Costigan and Mr Justice Stewart, five distinguished royal commissioners, came into this chamber in July and were unanimous in their advocacy of a national crimes commission along the lines of the Fraser-Durack model, which I have publicly commended and which I think, in his heart, the present Attorney-General commends also. At that meeting we met a sickening display by State politicians which equalled, in its dimensions, the display of State politicians at the Constitutional Convention in Adelaide. It seemed that the attitude of State politicians was: 'Well, if organised crime has to flourish , so be it, but under no circumstances will we stand by and see States' rights trampled on'. That is the sort of cry I have heard from State politicians right throughout my 23 years in Parliament. In fact one person at the Conference, a Queenslander, Mr Doumany, who thankfully now is out of the ranks of parliamentarians, said that, essentially, organised crime was a figment of the imagination of the media. The Fraser-Durack model was virtually killed at that Conference. I have great sympathy for the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, who has tried desperately to create something effective in this line. The State Attorneys- General and police Ministers have said virtually 'We will not co-operate'. Senator Gareth Evans cannot now bring in the Fraser-Durack model, as the Opposition is advocating, because his left wing has now turned against him-again I feel sorry for him for that-for probably good reasons. I remain dissatisfied with the present state of affairs. One has got to look at the lack of progress made about allegations on the Jackson tapes to know that we need something else. In this short time I cannot do the matters justice. The Australian Democrats are seriously looking, as I understand the Liberal Party is seriously looking, at the creation of some other vehicle, even a creature of the Senate, to hear the kinds of allegations being made by people who will not testify at a State instituted inquiry but will only testify, for reasons of their own safety, at a Federal inquiry. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.21) —I would like to speak briefly to this motion. I hope that we adjourn it to next Thursday, perhaps, to have a fuller debate. It will, of course, be very relevant to the discussion of the Bill that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is about to introduce. The policy discussion paper which has now been tabled together with the record of the National Crimes Commission Conference will be particularly relevant to that debate. I understand that the motion also incorporates a noting and enabling discussion of the report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Gyles. Unfortunately that has not been available in time to be considered at this stage. I am sure that it will be a report that will be most worthy of discussion in this chamber. We should have time to consider it before we embark upon those discussions. I do not want to say anything about that today. I would like to say, however, that the policy discussion paper on a national crimes commission is a most worthwhile document. It provided a very useful basis , indeed, for the National Crimes Commission Conference. The paper was produced as a result of a great deal of work done by the Attorney-General's Department and particularly by Mr Menzies of that Department during the whole of last year when the development of the National Crimes Commission Act was being undertaken and, of course, followed with the new directions from the present Government. I share the great disappointment mentioned by Senator Chipp with the Crimes Commission Conference because I do not believe that, by and large, those who participated in that conference really addressed the basic issue that was before us and will be before us; that is, how do we adequately reconcile the clear need , as exemplified by those royal commissioners mentioned by Senator Chipp, for a national initiative and an independent body which will be able to take initiatives of a worthwhile investigative kind of its own in regard to organised and sophisticated crime. That need has to be addressed as does the protection of civil liberties. It astounded me that at the Conference a number of people got up and said that the national crimes commission proposal of the Fraser Government ignored civil liberties, was a threat to civil liberties and so on. Nothing could be further from the truth. The National Crimes Commission Act passed by this Parliament preserved the privilege about self-incrimination. There may be some strong arguments, as Mr Costigan advanced, that it should not do so. That was, in fact, recognised by the Fraser Government's legislation and it is recognised and accepted by the Opposition today. But so much legislation, such as the Sex Discrimination Bill, the national companies and securities legislation for inquiries being undertaken in the companies area and numerous other measures, comes into this chamber regularly which completely removes the right and privilege of self-incrimination. But that crimes commission proposal preserved that right and privilege and contained quite a number of other safeguards almost all of which, I understand, although we have not yet seen the legislation, will be repeated in the legislation which is going to be introduced by the Attorney- General. So I say in general terms that I believe there was almost an obsession expressed by a number of participants in that Conference, particularly those from my own profession, the legal profession. They simply lost sight of the urgency and necessity of having what Mr Redlich has called a robust, independent authority at a national level which is going to be effective in the fight against organised and sophisticated crime. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Senator Chipp —As I understand the mood of the Senate, it would be its wish to adjourn this matter until next Thursday, in which case I would now seek leave to move that, pursuant to sessional order, the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for next Thursday. Leave granted. Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: That, pursuant to sessional order, the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for Thursday, 17 November 1983. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I present the 211th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —by leave-The 211th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 184th report which was a discussion paper on internal audit in the Australian Public Service. The Department of Finance minute is the formal documentation of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations as contained in the 184th report which was tabled in the Parliament on 11 February 1981. The Committee regards internal audit as an essential tool through which management can monitor the effectiveness of its controls and keep informed about the reliability and suitablity of the systems and procedures it employs. The inquiry did not result from a specific reference, but rather it was a discussion paper arising from the Committee's long-standing interest in management and the quality of administration within the Public Service. The discussion paper was based on the collective experience of the Committee over many years as well as discussions with government departments, academics, professional accounting and auditing bodies and leading organisations in the private sector. The paper looked at some of the problems of internal audit, ranging from an historical perspective to the work being undertaken to increase the effectiveness of internal audit groups. The Committee hoped that the report would stimulate further consideration of the broader dimension of the problem and suggestions for the development of a balanced approach towards achieving a solution. Previous attempts to improve internal audit in the Australian Public Service had been generally unsuccessful. It is clear that those failures resulted from insufficient interest on the part of permanent and statutory heads and a lack of support for internal audit by senior management; a situation exacerbated by the low standard of internal audit capability. The findings of the 1977 Public Service Board review of internal audit focused attention on the dismal state of internal audit in the public service and stimulated renewed efforts to bring about improvements. The Public Service Board has now initiated action designed to upgrade internal audit. Its success will depend entirely on the support given by individual departments and authorities. The Committee regards it is as essential that the heads of departments and authorities cultivate a genuine interest in internal audit and learn to use it effectively. The tendency for many permanent heads to concentrate on policy matters and ignore administrative and financial affairs cannot be condoned. In addition, the Committee believes that officers who are motivated, qualified, experienced and capable must be encouraged to enter internal audit so that it can attain its full potential. The joint impact of the 1977 joint management review of internal audit and this Committee's report has now been observed within the public sector. This Finance minute details the main policy developments which have resulted. These are as follows: Establishment of the Joint Implementation Committee on Internal Audit (JIC) to assist the Public Service Board and departments in implementing the follow-up action arising from the joint management review; establishment of the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Internal Audit-IDAC; twenty departments and authorities now have internal audit committees consisting of Second Division officers and chaired by permanent heads, deputy secretaries or first assistant secretaries; progress has been made in the area of automatic data processing auditing-this has been encouraged through an IDAC paper circulated in June 1981 entitled 'The Development of Departmental Arrangements for ADP Auditing'; the Public Service Board has issued, in volume 4 of its personnel management manual, seven sets of guidelines for departments on different aspects of computer-based systems-these provide a starting point for the planning of ADP audits; classification of the chief internal auditor position has been raised in 24 organisations-in six departments this position is in the Second Division and in most others it is at the top of the Third Division; most departments have reorganised their internal audit positions so that there has been an overall trend of upward movement in their classification; in all organisations surveyed in 1982 the control of in- audit functions had been centralised. Nevertheless, the Public Accounts Committee is concerned that considerable effort is still necessary to ensure that internal audit capability in the Public Service is established and maintained at an appropriate level. The Committee is committed to ensuring the necessary improvements in internal audit are brought about. The Committee will therefore use every opportunity to check progress within departments and test the commitment of permanent and statutory heads and management towards effective internal audit. I commend this report to honourable senators. Introduction Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.33) —I 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. In doing so, I indicate to the Senate that as a result of a printing hiccup the introduction of these Bills will not proceed until a later hour this day. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 9 November 1983. GROUP D Department of Education and Youth Affairs Proposed expenditure, $730,303,000. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.35) —Last night a number of honourable senators put questions to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) concerning behind the scenes adjustments to higher school certificate results in respect of girls in the Australian Capital Territory. It is said that an alleged bias against those girls might be corrected in this way. The Minister was not able to give a substantial explanation in relation to the questions we put. I wonder whether the Minister has received more information overnight which would help to explain the reason for this alleged bias, the facts which led her to believe that this bias exists and the justice that she thinks might be achieved through this type of correction. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.36) —I remind Senator Teague that I undertook last night to get from the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, which is entirely responsible for this matter, a detailed account of its response to the committee inquiring into the bias in the Australian Scholastic Aptitude Test. I am assured by officers that that paper will be available shortly after 12 o'clock. I will then have it incorporated into the proceedings of this Committee. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.38) —Senator Peter Baume cannot be present in the chamber this morning. On his behalf I raise a matter which he referred to during the adjournment debate on 14 September. That matter concerns Mr Jim Coates, who sought promotion within the Public Service but did not receive the promotion in the way that was outlined by Senator Peter Baume in his speech during the adjournment debate on 14 September. Senator Peter Baume spoke at considerable length about this matter. In brief, it appears that Mr Coates has been blocked from gaining the promotion he was seeking because of a conscientious stance he has taken with regard to the Australian Teachers Federation and his not subscribing to that union. The details of his case have already been put to the Senate in Senator Peter Baume's speech on the adjournment a month and a half ago. We expect the Minister to respond on this matter. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.38) —Following Senator Peter Baume's raising of this matter in the adjournment debate I asked the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority for a full inquiry and report on the concerns expressed by Senator Peter Baume. I now read for the benefit of Senator Teague the advice which has just been handed to me from the Schools Authority. First of all, the assessment in question was not an assessment for a promotion. It was an assessment for eligibility for promotion. The Chief Education Officer advises me that assessment for promotion eligibility is a peer process. The panel did not reach consensus in support of the particular officer. In line with agreed procedures this decision was reviewed by an independent panel of expert teachers. This panel confirmed the decision. There is no evidence that the officer was in any way discriminated against or that any membrs of the panel were biased against him. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.40) —I raise a separate matter that relates to the 41 schools which have been denied the basic grant of earlier years. The formula has now been described by the Minister. It relates to an assessment of the private recurrent means, non-government recurrent means, of schools. If they are greater than 95 per cent of the average cost of a government school place, those schools will incur the 25 per cent reduction. It is clear that that assessment of whether they have independent recurrent means of 95 per cent of the cost of a government school place, is based on 1981 costs. May I be assured that the cost of a government school place was assessed in 1981 costs so that we are not applying to the formula a 1983 average government school place cost and yet, with regard to the independent schools, 1981 independent means? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.41) —First, I should correct an inaccuracy in the terms in which Senator Teague asked his question. The 41 schools which have had their Commonwealth recurrent grants reduced by 25 per cent have not been denied a basic right. After the reduction of 25 per cent, they are still receiving $254 per primary school pupil and $402 per secondary school pupil. It is wildly misleading to suggest that they have been denied a basic right. They have a basic right in accordance with the amounts I have just described. The honourable senator questioned the use of 1981-82 expenditure data by the Schools Commission in arriving at its formula. Senator Teague has been told by me before that this was the most recent data available to the Commission. It was indexed to take account of cost increases since 1981, but in the formulation of a needs-based method of determining funding for non-government schools in the next Budget, the community standard will, as I have said on many occasions, take into account all available data, and the Schools Commission is currently engaged in an exercise in gathering that data for that purpose. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.42) —I acknowledge that these schools are receiving basic grants. I said that they have had a cut in their basic grants. I acknowledge the figures that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) has given. I am reassured that there has been a retrospective indexing to ensure that like money amounts are being compared with like money amounts with respect to 1981. I thank the Minister for that assurance. How can the Minister put to the Senate, even if these are the most recent available figures that can be used for this assessment, that the 1981 circumstances of schools will always be relevant to an assessment for 1984? Let us suppose that amongst, say, just the 41 schools that have suffered this cut, there were particular special circumstances in 1981, such as a decline in enrolments, such that the average of the resources privately available to those schools may in 1981 have been unusually high on the test that the Minister is applying for this purpose. In 1984, three years later, that back-dated material, even if it is the most recent available, would apply. Should there not be a possibility for an independent school so penalised by that 25 per cent cut in its basic grant to be able to show the inappropriateness of a 1981 set of figures that the Minister is using to make decisions in respect of 1984? Should there not be provision for a school to be able to put the comparison of figures, substantiated and authenticated, with regard to 1982, 1983, and 1984, or to give whatever context, if it claims that 1981 was an unusual and inappropriate year, and that it is unfortunate that the Minister is using that year as the basis for her test. Should there not be provision for a school to be able to claim compensation, some waiving of the cut in its basic grant, when it can show that 1981 was a special and unusual case? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.45) — The education guidelines which I published contained a provision which enabled schools which have had a drastic change of circumstances since 1981 to make an appeal to the Schools Commission on that basis. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $43,600,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Science and Technology Proposed expenditure, $521,304,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Home Affairs and Environment Proposed expenditure, $152,989,000. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.47) —I will speak briefly to the votes for the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Senator Ryan): In view of the fact that Koongarra and Jabiluka, as we are very well aware, are not to proceed, what is the future of the surrounding area and the lease for Jabiluka from an environmental point of view. I speak of the area known as Kakadu II which, as I understand it, is not yet committed. I am interested, as are the people of the Northern Territory, to a quite considerable degree in knowing whether the Government will declare the Kakadu II area in its entirety 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 of not more than 50 per cent be declared for a predetermined period of a year to allow a stocktake of resources in the area? This issue has been quite controversial. The area was put aside originally so that a land claim could be heard in regard to the matter. If I remember rightly, as a result of the Aboriginal land claim some 7 per cent of the area was recognised as being Aboriginal land. This area has now been left in abeyance. A considerable number of mineral surveys have taken place. It has been acknowledged that this is a very highly mineralised area, not only in uranium, but also in copper, gold and other minerals. There has been some effort by people interested in the mining industry to have an actual stocktake of this area so that the minerals there are recognised. Of course, there has also been the move to bring about the area's incorporation in Kakadu National Park. The Northern Territory Government has requested this conservation zone, but there is the fear that the Federal Government will take precipitate action which will once and for all make Kakadu II part of the National Park, an action which would cancel out those various moves to recognise the minerals in the ground in this area. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.54) —In that case, Mr Temporary Chairman, I suppose I had better put the questions formally on the record because the Committee may wish to pass the estimates now. The Minister can provide the answers later. I will go through the questions; they are in a lot of detail but I will be as brief as I can. I have been cast somewhat in the role of an enemy of the National Library because of my campaign for a proper role for the National Film Archive. I would like to make it clear at the outset that I respect and admire what the Library does and the valuable work it has done for the Film Archive in the past. The question is, though, whether the future of the Film Archive lies with the Library or with independence, and whether the Library is in fact capable of running the Film Archive satisfactorily. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Senator Hamer, you mentioned that you would like to put these questions on the record, and that is what you are about to do. Are they in a form in which they could be incorporated? Senator HAMER —I am prepared to incorporate them. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.55) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point. I have not seen this list of questions but obviously the National Film Archive will be raised in Estimates committees. I would like Senator Hamer to make a judgment as to whether it might be an idea for all of us who want to ask questions on this matter to be acquainted with the questions. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —That is quite satisfactory. Perhaps it might be better not to incorporate them. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.56) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I will read out the questions and be as brief as I can. The first question is: The departmental witness at the Estimates committee informed the committee that the amount allocated to the National Film Archive for 1983-84 was $315,000, which represented a percentage increase of 31 per cent over the previous year. It was stated at the Estimates committee on 16 September that this represented a greater increase in recent years than other sections, such as the sound recording section, the pictorial section, the national film lending collection or the general book collection. Two days later, one of the witnesses said in a Press statement: A disproportionate amount of recent increases in the Library's total budget is being spent on the NFA in preference to other sections of the Library. In fact, the written answer provided on 6 October indicated that the sound recording section had received a 35 per cent increase and the manuscript section had received a 36 per cent increase-that is, they were both ahead of the Film Archive in percentage terms. So what I would like to do is ask for some elaboration on the adequacy of the budget for the National Film Archive over the last five years. How does the increase in funding for the NFA over the last five years compare with the inflationary pressures on it? For instance, has the Budget increase taken into account the increasing costs of film copying and of film stock? In short, over the last five years what has been the real increase in the purchasing power available to the National Film Archive? The second line of questioning is about the number of requests made to the NFA and whether they were or were not met by the existing staff. At the Estimates committee hearings witnesses were asked about the capability of the National Film Archive to deal adequately with these requests. In the written response on 6 October they listed the number of requests made since 1980 but did not indicate how many of these requests were dealt with adequately. A brief addendum to the figures indicated that between May and August of 1983, 60 per cent of requests were satisfied. I remark first that the Department did not provide all the information requested at the Estimates committee. What I would like, therefore, is the exact number of requests fulfilled in each year, which was asked for at the Estimates committee. With regard to the 60 per cent of requests satisfied over that brief period, what does that actually mean? Does it mean that 40 per cent of the requests were rejected, not satisfied or are still to be dealt with? And what does the 60 per cent satisfied mean? Does it mean the customers are entirely satisfied? I would like finally to ask in that area what proportion of the Archive staff time is devoted to handling these requests. The next line of questioning is whether the staff of the National Film Archive were consulted before the Press release of 21 October which announced the lifting of certain access restrictions to use the NFA. Were the staff informed before or after the Press release? What is the number of full time staff at the present time? The figure of 10 as at June 1983, was given to the Estimates committee. Have additional staff been provided to handle the extra work load which will result from the lifting of restrictions, bearing in mind that the restrictions were imposed in the first place because of a shortage of staff? If the Archive does not have that extra staff, how will the present number of staff deal adequately with the increased access? Will the Minister explain to the Committee why the restrictions were imposed in the first place? In what way have conditions in the National Film Archive changed to make possible now, at a very dramatic moment, the lifting of restrictions? On 16 September the departmental witnesses indicated that recommendations from the National Film Archive Advisory Committee, an organisation set up to advise the Council of the National Library on the development of the National Film Archive and to assist in liaison with the film industry and Archive users, had not been implemented, nor had they been rejected. I would first like to ask: are the recommendations in the 6 October answer a summary or a paraphrasing of what the Committee said and, if so, do they accurately convey the Committee's point of view? Did the Advisory Committee subsequently make further recommendations to the National Library and the National Library Council, especially on the question of the autonomy of the National Film Archive? If so, can copies of any of these recommendations be supplied to the Parliament? Does the written answer of 6 October accurately report the Committee's views as known to the Library at that time? Did the Advisory Committee submit a report to the Library Council for its meeting of 7 October on the Nicholas Clark inquiry? Can the Minister give any indication of the substance of that report of the National Library Council? Is the Minister aware of the recent resignation of distinguished film maker, Mrs Pat Lovell, from the Advisory Committee? Has the Library given the Minister a report on the allegations made by Mrs Lovell that the Advisory Committee was not being heeded by the Library Council, that none of its advice relating to the National Film Archive was accepted by the Library Council and that it was useless to serve on a committee which was not able to perform its brief to give advice to the Library Council on the development of the NFA? If the Library has not passed on a report on the resignation of Mrs Lovell, will the Minister seek a report on the matter and look into her allegations? What is the cost of the National Film Archive Advisory Committee to date? Can the Minister indicate whether any recommendations of the Advisory Committee have been accepted or implemented? I have a number of other detailed questions on the National Film Archive. To save the time of the Committee, as the questions are not of as much general interest as the earlier ones, I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The questions read as follows- 1. The Departmental witnesses at the Estimates Committee informed the Committee that the amount allocated to the National Film Archive (NFA) for 1983/84 was $ 315,000 which represented a percentage increase of 31% over the previous year. It was stated on 16 September by the Departmental witness that this represented a greater increase in recent years than other sections, such as the sound recording section, the pictorial section, the national film lending collection or the general book collection. Two days later, one of the witnesses said in a Press statement: 'A disproportionate amount of recent increases in the Library's total budget is being spent on the NFA in preference to other sections of the Library'. In fact, the written answers which were provided on 6 October indicated that Sound Recording had received a 35% increase and the Manuscript Section had received a 36% increase, i.e. both ahead of the Film Archive in percentage terms. I would now like to ask for some elaboration of the adequacy of the budget for the National Film Archive over the last five years. How does the increase in funding for the National Film Archive over the last five years compare with inflationary pressures on it? For instance, has the Budget increases taken into account the increasing costs of film copying? The increasing costs of film stock? In short, over the last five years what has been the real increase in the purchasing power available to the National Film Archive? 2. On 16 September the Departmental witnesses were asked about the number of requests by the film industry to the National Film Archive and the capacity of the Archive to deal adequately with those requests. The written response on 6 October listed the number of requests made since 1980, but did not indicate the number of requests which were dealt with adequately. A brief addendum to the figures only indicated that between May and August of 1983 60% of requests were satisfied. I first of all remark that the Department did not supply all the information required. I would therefore request that the exact number of requests fulfilled in each year might be supplied. Further, I would like to comment on the figure of 60% of requests satisfied. What does that mean? Does it mean that 40% of the requests were rejected, not satisfied, or still to be dealt with in the future? Were the 60% of the requests 'satisfied' dealt with in full? How many of the 60 % of requests obtained everything they asked for or reasonably required in the request? What proportion of the Archive's staff time is devoted to the handling of these requests? 3. The Departmental witnesses indicated on 16 September that recommendations from the National Film Archive Advisory Committee, an organisation set up to advise the Council of the National Library on the development of the National Film Archive and to assist in liaison with the film industry and the users, had not actually been implemented, nor had any of its recommendations been rejected. The written response of 6 October includes recommendations made to the National Library Council in March 1983. (This is included in 6 October answers.) I would first like to ask: Are the recommendations in the 6 October answer a summary or paraphrasing of what the Committee said, and if so, do they accurately convey the Committee's point of view? Were these recommendations in March submitted in document form? If so, can a copy of the document be supplied to the Senate? Has the Advisory Committee subsequently made further recommendations to the National Library and the National Library Council-especially on the question of autonomy for the National Film Archive? If so, can any copies of these recommendations be supplied to the Parliament? Does the written answer of 6 October accurately report the Committee's views as known to the Library at that time? Did the Advisory Committee submit a report to the Library Council for its meeting of 7 October on the Nicholas Clark inquiry? Can the Minister give any indiction of the substance of that report to the Library Council? Is the Minister aware of the recent resignation of Ms Patricia Lovell from the Advisory Committee? Has the Library given the Minister a report on the allegations made by Ms Lovell that the Advisory Committee was not being heeded by the Library Council, that none of its advice relating to the National Film Archive had been accepted by the Library Council, and that it was useless to serve on a Committee which was not able to perform its brief to give advice to the Library Council on the development of the National Film Archive? If the Library has not passed on a report on the resignation of Ms Lovell, will the Minister seek a report on this matter and look into the allegations of Ms Lovell concerning the role of the National Advisory Committee? What is the cost of the National Advisory Committee to date? Can the Minister indicate whether any recommendations of the Advisory Committee have now been accepted or implemented, i.e. since the Library Council meeting of 7 October? 4. The Estimates Committee requested the National Library to provide a list of organisations which were able to give submissions to the Nicholas Clark inquiry and the Library undertook to do so. No list was forthcoming and no reasons were given for the failure to provide the list of organisations invited to complete the questionnaire, or the list of organisations interviewed by telephone. In the written answer of 6 October, two organisations were cited by name, the Australian Film Institute and the Australian Screen Studies Association. Will the Minister ask his Department to provide a list of those organisations which responded to the questionnaire and a list of those organisations interviewed by telephone? Will the Minister provide the Parliament with a copy of the questionnaire which is claimed to cover a wide range of issues relating to film archive preservation , storage and access? Will the Minister also provide the Senate with a sample of the telephone interviews, since there has been no information provided so far on the nature of the telephone interview with the 56 organisations? Will the Minister also provide a list of the 'persons with special expertise and experience in film archiving' which were consulted by Nicholas Clark? Can the Minister explain why a submission from the Australian Screen Studies Association was considered to be inappropriate 'at that time'? Was this organisation contacted at a later stage for their views or recommendations? If not, why not, when this body is widely representative of film teachers and academics and has made its own public statements-the future of the NFA? Will the Minister explain the following statement by the Library: 'Since the consultants were not undertaking a public inquiry the question of soliciting or rejection of submissions does not arise'. What does it mean? Did the Library consider written submissions inappropriate to the inquiry, and if so, why? The consultants assured the National Library that they were aware of and considered fully the widely published views of many organisations with an interest in film studies. Will the Minister supply a list of these organisations and a resume of the views referred to? i.e. the widely published views. 5. I refer to a recent National Library Kit which was circulated to all Members of Parliament and Senators. The covering letter from the Director-General of the National Library makes reference to the promotion of 'sectional interests' in regard to the separation of the National Film Archive from the National Library. First, was the Minister informed of the circulation of this kit, before it took place? Will the Minister identify the 'sectional interests' for the Senate? Who are the people referred to in the letter? In what way are they seeking to promote their own interest? What evidence exists to support this? Can the Library provide a second information Kit which contains more concrete evidence than its own press releases and an editorial from the Canberra Times- since editorials cannot be attributed to parlicular people or identified with ' sectional interests'? 6. In this same kit is the Minister aware that the National Library claimed that its current role is defined as 'custodian of the total record of Australian culture and development as expressed not only through books but through diverse collections of manuscripts, pictures, maps, sound recordings and films'? Does the Minister agree that this is the current role of the National Library of Australia? If so, why does the Library not control the National Gallery of Australia, the Australian War Memorial, the Australian Archives, the Parliamentary Library, the Museum of Australia, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, and other similar organisations which house the records of Australian culture and development? 7. Were the staff in the National Film Archive consulted before the press release of 21 October which announced the lifting of certain access restrictions to users of the National Film Archive? Were the staff informed after the press release? If so, when were they informed ? What is the number of full-time staff at the present time? The figure of 10 given to the Estimates Committee was for June 1983. Has additional staff been provided to handle the extra workload that will result from the lifting of restrictions? If not, how will the present number of staff deal adequately with the increased access? Will the Minister inform the Senate why the restrictions were imposed in the first place? In what way have conditions in the National Film Archive changed to allow this relaxation now? 8. The same press release of 21 October also indicates that access restrictions to television companies were claimed to have been lifted in September 1982. According to the Library's own Information Leaflet issued on 13 September 1982, television producers were informed that viewing prints in the Film Archive were accessible for all television programmes. Will the Minister inform the Senate if other restrictions have been subsequently lifted also for television clients? If so, what other restrictions have been lifted and what restrictions still apply to television clients? 9. What was the cost to the National Library of the Nicholas Clark Enquiry? Was the Enquiry paid for before or after assessment of the Report by the National Film Archive, the National Advisory Committee and the National Library Council? I note that the Report on the Enquiry by Nicholas Clark has been made available to the public, will the Minister inform the Senate of the response from the National Library to the Report? 10. I note with interest a recent National Library statement that over 2 million feet of film has been found by the National Film Archive in the course of The Last Film Search. This important project-regrettably of great urgency and even desperation because so much of our important early film production has been lost-deserves the support of all Australians and its success so far is very gratifying. The Search was conceived by staff members of the National Film Archive and has been made possible by the support of an impressive list of sponsors, most from within the film industry. I would like to ask the Minister: How much of the footage discovered in the Search has been copied and is accessible to Film Archive users? How much of the footage is still to be copied? How much of the remaining footage can be copied under the present budget limitations before the nitrate stock decomposes and the film is lost? Is The Last Film Search operating on a large enough scale to ensure recovery of what is left of Australia's nitrate film? What is the present state of progress with the preservation and copying of the Corrick collection from Tasmania? The Library's statement of accounts in its 1981/82 annual report indicates that $58,000 was placed into The Last Film Search trust account during that year comprising sponsors' donations and instalments. Unlike the other trust accounts shown in the same report The Last Film Search funds appear to have earned no interest. Can this anomaly be explained? Has the Library or the Government made any specific financial contribution to the Search over and above the money from sponsors? 11. Mr Hawke said on 26 September that the Government would give the National Film Archive 'some autonomy so that it can concentrate on what is a distinctly important task'. He also said that he did not think that a lot of money was involved because there is a certain allocation there now which has been operated through the Library and perhaps not as efficiently as it might be . . . We'll build more effectively on what is there'. Will the Minister inform the Senate what Mr Hawke meant by 'some autonomy'? Will the Minister also indicate what is meant by building more effectively on what is there? Does that mean more money and more staff for the National Film Archive? Is the Government in a position to allocate more money to the National Library and indicate specific areas in which that money is to be spent? 12. The National Library witnesses at the Senate Estimates Committee informed the Committee that they were aware of the resolutions concerning the National Film Archive passed at the Australian Film Institute's 'summit' on the Archive on 12 September. As Senators may know, these resolutions-which call for the separation of the National Film Archive from the National Library and make recommendations about the future structure, nature and funding of the Archive- have the support of a wide spectrum of film and television bodies and are at the centre of present public debate on the future of the Archive. At the Estimates Committee on 16 September, Senator Baume stressed the importance of Parliament receiving the Library's response to these recommendations. 'The resolutions are an important input into the public debate . . . and the response of the Library will be an equally important response'. Acting Director General, Mr Yates, confirmed acceptance of the need for the Library to make a public response. I ask the Minister: Has the Library responded to this request and made its views on the Australian Film Institute recommendations known to Parliament? Has the Library made any public response to these recommendations? 13. The National Library announced on 7 October, following a meeting of the National Library Council, that the Nicholas Clark Report was now a public document. As such it joins the several earlier reports which have been done on the National Film Archive: I am thinking specifically of the Roger Easton report on video developments for the National Film Archive (last year), the Clyde Jeavons report (also last year), and earlier the Australian Film Commission Working Party report of 1980 and the Edmondson report of 1974. I understand that the Easton report is still not a public document although the others are. I ask the Minister: Will the Library make the Easton report public? What is the Library's public position on the recommendations of the other three earlier reports? Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.02) —In speaking on the subject of the National Film Archive I pay very particular tribute to the dogged work that Senator Hamer has been doing on this subject over a number of years. In recent years quite a number of questions have been raised at Estimates committee hearings in relation to it. This occurred well prior to the prominence that the National Film Archive now receives in the Press. I raise the matter of the resignation of Mrs Pat Lovell from the National Film Archive Advisory Committee. The issue that concerned me greatly was that in the statement on her resignation she said that the 18 months she had spent on the Committee had been a waste of her time as the National Library of Australia had ignored the Committee's advice and the Library 's governing Council never once met with members of the Committee. I have not met with the members of the governing Council of the National Library and, whilst I may have met with members of the Advisory Committee, I have not met them in that capacity. Very clearly, the subject of the National Film Archive cannot be pushed aside much longer. I freely admit to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) that one of the problems over a number of years has been one of financial neglect. However, what has never been clear to me in the inquiries I have made is just who shares in the responsibility for this financial neglect. For example, I have never been clear on what responsibility the National Library shares in that. It has been suggested that the Library did not see the Archive as a priority, did not push very hard for it and did not treat it as a priority. I think that some of the material Senator Hamer has covered this morning indicates that and I will not recanvass it. I will say only this: In the interest that I have taken in the Archive in the last three or four years I have not had any communication from the National Library on the subject, apart from as a result of questions that have been asked at Estimates committee hearings. Now that the pressure has really built up on the subject of the National Film Archive-there is a suggestion that some alternative arrangement may be reached other than the Archive being administered by the National Library-all of a sudden there is a flurry of activity. The National Library has embarked on a campaign of persuading members of parliament that the Film Archive ought to be left with the National Library. Again, I do not want to recanvass or reiterate many of the points which were covered by Senator Hamer this morning. I merely say that I agree with him. There have been a number of suggestions of alternatives as to what might happen with the Film Archive. One is that it should become an independent statutory authority. Another is that it remain part of the National Library, that it be relocated in another city and separately administered but that it come under the overall administration of the National Library. Another suggestion is that it might become part of the Australian Archives. It has also been suggested that the Archive be transferred to the Australian Film Commission. One suggestion that seems very popular with a number of people is that it be set up as an independent statutory authority. From my discussions with people in the industry-a variety of views have been put to me-I discern that the issue of the shift from Canberra is not a major issue, although some people would like to make it one. They claim that most activity in the film industry takes place in Sydney and Melbourne and that there are problems, for example, in producers continually having to come to Canberra to get access to the film archives in support of their filming projects. But I gather that that is not a major issue. I would prefer not to get into the argument about whether the Archive should go to Sydney or Melbourne, as I am sure the Government would prefer not to get into the argument, if there is general satisfaction with its staying in Canberra. However, the matter of relocation, if that is the decision-I think it is propably a decision which the Government will have to come to-is another question. There has been some opposition, on the basis of cost, to the Archives being a separate statutory authority. I am sure that in the options that are available that matter of cost will be investigated. There is some opposition also to the Film Archive being relocated with the Australian Film Commission. Some people see that the Film Commission's objectives are not the same as those other members of the film industry. There is some rivalry and jealousy there. However, what I think is very clear is that the Archive does have to come out of the National Library. In saying that I do not sweep the Library aside. Along with Senator Hamer, I agree that the National Library is an excellent institution. However, its record on the subject of film archives is not good. I do not see the logic of the case that the National Film Archive must remain with the National Library. There is a case for the Archives to be with the National Library, but that case is not overwhelming. In conclusion, I say to the Minister that I understand advice on this matter has now gone to Cabinet. Over the last couple of months the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have made a number of statements holding out hope to the film industry that there will be some action on the subject of the National Film Archive. There have been promises that by this month those who have an interest in the subject will be told the outcome. Can the Minister confirm whether this matter is currently under Cabinet consideration? If so, when can we expect an announcement of the Cabinet's decision? Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.08) —I want to make a few comments concerning the subject that was raised, I think initially by Senator Hamer, and supported by Senator Martin. As a member of the National Library of Australia Council I certainly endorse the need for more finance to be provided to ensure that the National Film Archive is kept in a proper and appropriate state at all times. However, I disagree entirely with the concept of establishing another statutory authority. In Australia now we have too many statutory authorities requiring too much finance and too many people to man them efficiently and effectively. I endorse the need for more money to be provided to the National Library so that it can do the job more effectively. The National Library Council believes it is important that collections of films and other collections be under the umbrella of the National Library. There are very good reasons why those collections should come under that umbrella. I am certainly not disparaging the interest displayed by Senator Hamer and Senator Martin in this matter. However, I think the National Library needs a greater financial capacity if it is to do its job more effectively than perhaps it has been able to do because of economic difficulties. I do not believe that we should seek to proliferate the number of statutory authorities in Australia. I think the National Film Archive ought to be in the national capital. It is most important that it remain here because of its national interest to the people of Australia. With those words, I support the concern expressed by my colleagues. However, I certainly do not support the way in which they would like to give effect to their concern so that appropriate care can be taken of this important matter. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.11) —I would like to comment very briefly on this subject. Senator Jessop came into the chamber during the debate. He may well have heard most of it but he may not have heard the comments that I made about cost. Perhaps Senator Jessop one of these days can indicate to us how he feels about the independent administration of the National Library and its governing council, of which he is a member and whether there might be a better administrative arrangement for the Library, other than an independent authority, which might save money. I am not an advocate, right, left and centre, of other authorities. What I said was that undoubtedly the Minister will get advice on what the additional cost would be and that will be a consideration in any decision that is made. I am not seriously suggesting that the National Library ought to be administered by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. I accept that there is a good reason for it being administered the way it is. There are occasions on which there are good reasons for such an arrangement. Therefore, I would not want the measured consideration of whether an independent authority might administer the Film Archive to be swept aside on the grounds that we have too many authorities. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.12) —I want to refer again briefly to the environmental aspect of Kakadu and to make a brief statement. As I was saying a few minutes ago, the future ownership of Kakadu II and the various mining leases is a vexed question. There is concern that, now that Jabiluka and Koongarra are not to go ahead, there will be moves by the Federal Government to ensure that once and for all these areas will never come into production. As I understand it, some of the Jabiluka land is owned by the Northern Territory. Therefore, it would be difficult for the Government to proclaim it as a national park. The lease would still exist even if the site were proclaimed. It would be easier to incorporate Koongarra into Kakadu I as there is no Northern Territory land involved. However a proclamation would be needed to change the original park boundaries and have that area included. Mining of the area would not be negated if both projects were incorporated in the park. When the plans for the park were first drawn up it was agreed that mining would be allowed within the park. We must take into consideration the views of the owners of the land. The traditional Aboriginal people would not react favourably to a government which negated their wishes. This view has been stated very plainly over the last few months and has been re-stated by the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Gularrwuy Yunupingu, who has just been elected, and the previous Chairman, Gerry Blitner. It appears that the Federal Government hopes that by including Jabiluka and Koongarra in the proclamation of a national park it will be more difficult for mining to be undertaken. I would not think that this would be necessarily so . I am merely pointing out once again that the claims of the Aboriginal people in respect of Jabiluka and Koongarra must be recognised. I hope that this point of view is taken into consideration in the action that obviously the Federal Government is now considering. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.14) —Can I ask Senator Kilgariff to comment on what area of the national park-- Senator Ryan —Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. I do not wish to interfere with the rights of honourable senators to question items before the Committee. However, debates between members of the Opposition seem to me a little inappropriate at this stage. Senator JESSOP —They are generally more intelligent, Mr Temporary Chairman. However, I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) a question which arises out of what was said by Senator Kilgariff. What area of the total Kakadu National Park is represented by the lease areas that have been granted to the various mining companies? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.15) —Senator Jessop was not here earlier when Senator Kilgariff asked a number of detailed questions in respect of which I have undertaken to get answers. I can amplify a little what I told Senator Kilgariff earlier in regard to the Government's intentions for declaring stage II of Kakadu National Park. The Cabinet submission relating to this matter is lodged and awaiting consideration. Obviously, until it has been considered by Cabinet and a decision taken, a detailed response will not be forthcoming. Senator Martin's comments about the National Film Archive have been taken on board. She will be aware that the matter will involve a policy decision by the Government and, again, that is expected shortly. The Minister responsible, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), will visit the National Library tomorrow specifically to see the National Film Archive for himself and to inform himself on the pros and cons of the case. So I think we can expect a government decision on the future of the National Film Archive, which has been guaranteed by the Government in one place or another, in the near future. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.16) —I would like to thank the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) for agreeing to provide at some future time information in regard to the area involved in mining leases in the park area. I think she will find it is probably less than 2 per cent-probably a little bit more than 1 per cent-of the total area. This will give the Committee an idea that the area is not very great. However, I look forward to confirmation of that. While I am on my feet I would like to comment on the statement made by Senator Martin in respect of the National Film Archive. I suggest that there is some lack of communication between the National Library Council and people interested in this important subject. Senator Ryan —Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. I would really like your clarification as to whether this debate between two members of the Opposition is an appropriate way to pursue the Committee consideration at this stage. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Collard) —The Chair gives some latitude in appropriation debates, which range far and wide. There is no point of order. Senator Ryan —Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. Will you rule whether it is appropriate for members of the Opposition to direct questions to each other rather than to the Minister involved in the proceedings? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I understood that it was not a question, that Senator Jessop was commenting on something that had been said. That practice has been followed in previous debates. Senator JESSOP —I just want to suggest to anyone interested, including the Minister at the table, that it would be quite in order for an invitation to be extended to anybody interested to come along to a future meeting of the National Library Council to determine whether proper lines of communication are established with respect to this subject. I notice that a fellow member of the National Library Council is sitting on the Minister's left. I am sure that he would agree that all members of the Council, including the Director-General, would welcome an opportunity to explain the difficulties and the problems associated with this subject. I am sure that everyone would be more enlightened. Probably this would assist in providing the National Library with more funds so that we can make certain that the National Film Archive is looked after in an appropriate manner. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.18) —To save the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs time I simply indicate to her that I will explain to Senator Jessop just what was my complaint about the National Library's governing council. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.19) —I want to make a comment on this matter. I think we should not lose sight of the fact that the National Library started the film collection, without which we might not have anything to talk about today. I must say that in a sense I think I have a personal deeper interest in the sound tapes and record section. I hope that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) will see that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) visits that section as well when he is there tomorrow. There are certainly some very interesting things in it. It seems to me that we need to make sure that money is identified for these collections so that they can be looked after properly. I think we need to be careful that we do not take a decision that means that more money is spent on the administrative arrangements when in fact it is needed for the actual preservation of records. I guess that means that the Library should keep the general overall control, but the collections need to be in separate departments of the Library. I want to see them in a separate building. I understand that this is possible, that there are long term plans for two more annexes in front of the Library. I hope that one of them, at least, on the ground floor, will be for the film and sound sections so that they can have a real shop front for tourists, and display things that ought to be on display for visitors to see. I would like to see a section where people can buy copies of old records and speeches and things of that nature and see the exhibits that can be displayed there. That perhaps is a little further into the future. But the buildings are identified on National Capital Development Commission maps and it is certainly my hope that at least one of them will house, at ground floor level, the best of these things to be seen by the public. There can be absolutely no doubt that if there is any discussion whatever about where these collections should be, the national capital must be their home. That is the very reason for our existence. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.21) —I want to ask some specific questions about the National Film Archive. They relate to the Corrick collection of films, an historically unique and culturally significant collection, acknowledged by successive governments to fall into that category. It dates from as early as 1903. It was the subject of an agreement between the present owner, Mr John Corrick of Launceston and his family, and the Government. That agreement dates back to 1977. There was an agreement for the copying of the collection onto acetate stock for preservation but, as has been acknowledged by the present Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) that work has ground to a halt. I quote from his letter: The Corrick Collection is a group of over 100 nitrate films unique in Australia because it is the surviving 'stock in trade' of a travelling entertainment troupe from the early years of this century and is a time capsule of the films widely shown to Australia audiences at the time. Indeed, no other similar collections are known to exist in any other country. The arrangement whereby the Corrick Collection was to be progressively acquired by the National Film Archive, copied for preservation onto acetate stock and a proportion of the footage returned to Mr Corrick in the form of 16 mm prints, was begun in 1977. It gradually slowed to a halt because of the increasingly heavy demands on the Archive's small preservation staff, which has a huge backlog of urgent nitrate copying to cope with. He goes on to say: Copying of the Corrick Collection will be resumed in the near future. That letter was written on 11 August. I ask the Minister whether he can indicate anything further in relation to steps being taken to provide in particular for the preservation of what is acknowledged, I think by everybody, to be a unique collection, in urgent need of preservation. The present custodian, Mr Corrick, is extremely concerned about the rate of deterioration. I hope that the resumption of the copying will be undertaken in the very near future and that the Minister will have some encouraging information in relation to that matter. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.23) —I do not have any specific information in relation to this matter, only to say that the Corrick collection is not the only collection of old nitrate film awaiting copying. Of course, the problems of the Corrick collection are problems of inadequate funding, as is the whole problem of the National Film Archive to date. I will make sure that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is made aware of Senator Rae's concern about this collection. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.23) — Could the Minister obtain from the Minister she represents some specific response to the question? There has been correspondence. I wanted to take the matter a little further. Senator Ryan —Certainly. Senator PETER RAE —The Minister indicates yes. I thank her very much. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.25) —I rise to speak on the appropriations for the Australia Council. The disbursement of the appropriation to the Australia Council has become an issue of controversy in recent days. Yesterday in the Senate I asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) a question relating to this matter. In reply she said that she had not seen certain reports and allegations to which I referred in my question. I appreciate that the Minister has been overseas and that the issue arose in the latter days of her time overseas but perhaps by now she has acquainted herself with a number of these reports and allegations. The first one to which I refer comes from a report printed in the National Times dated 4-10 November under the headline ' '' Climate of doubt'' clouds Australia Council's future'. There is reference to a number of issues in that item. There is also reference to the manner in which the Australia Council received some pressure in the allocation of the arts grant that is under its power of disbursement for this year. A number of issues are raised in this article and a number of things indicated. On 8 November, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment received a question in the House of Representatives in relation to Australia Council funding and some other matters and he made some statements. I will refer to that again in a minute. The allegations which are made in the article in the National Times, named certain people, a Mr Sergio Sergi, who is on the Minister's staff, and a Mr Galvin, who is a member of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, as having expressed certain views, said certain things and done certain things. Whilst the Minister took the opportunity to make some denials in his response to the question in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, there has not to my knowledge been any denial of the substance of this article in relation to these other people. One of the issues is whether the Australia Council will continue in its present role. A study group is due to report to a meeting of State and Federal Ministers shortly on the subjects of arts funding in Australia. It is known, and it is acknowledged in this article, that a proposal is being promoted by the Victorian Minister for the Arts, Mr Race Mathews on this subject. The article states: Cohen was not available for comment this week but his adviser, Sergio Sergi, said that administrative changes in arts funding 'could well be put through Cabinet before the next budget'. He indicated-- that is, Mr Sergi, a member of the Minister's staff- approval for a proposal by the Victorian Minister for the Arts, Race Mathews, that less money should be given to the Australia Council and more in direct grants to the States. There has been no suggestion, before or since, that Mr Sergi did this on behalf of the Minister, but, as I have said, I am unaware of any denial or disclaimer. Therefore one takes it that the Minister supports the proposal by the Victorian Minister for the Arts that the method of disbursement of money spent on the arts by the Commonwealth Government be changed, so that more money goes directly to the States. A further assertion in this article relates to the independence of the Australia Council and feelings that the Minister is alleged to have on this matter. I believe the Minister's statements before and since this article bear out the allegation. I will refer to them later. The article states: From the start Cohen admitted that he had few developed ideas on arts policy but in a recent speech he declared that he was uneasy about large sums of money being spent without the involvement of the minister responsible to the Parliament. That, of course, raises the whole issue of the role of the Australia Council and the role it has played and has been expected to play on the subject of the disbursement of its allocation in the Budget each year. I referred, in my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment yesterday, to a letter written by the Minister. I believe she indicated that she was unaware of this letter. She might have had time to check on it since. The article continues: In September the council met to allocate Budget funds. The Government increased the council funds by 14 per cent but, in a letter to the council, Cohen stressed the importance of distributing the money in a way which would reflect the ALP's policy on community arts. Further on the article continues: Galvin- that is Mr Pat Galvin- and the other ministerial appointee,- that is, appointee to the Australia Council- the new Chairman of the Public Service Board, Peter Wilenski, argued strongly against the recommendation- that is of the Australia Council- Throughout a two-day meeting, Galvin stressed Cohen's letter and Government policy. In the end, the Community Arts Board was voted a larger increase than intended. There was resentment among some council members who saw Galvin's role as Government interference. Whether or not one chooses to use the word 'interference' it was certainly Government influence on the Australia Council. Having previously determined a recommendation, the Australia Council changed its mind clearly under representations from Mr Galvin, a Government appointee to the Australia Council. Further, the article claims that Mr Galvin was: . . . promoting a change in the Australia Council Act in which the minister would have more control over the council. At the end of the article there is an indication of why the Minister might like to have more control over the Council. It states: At the AFI awards,- that is, the Australian Film Institute Awards- Cohen approached a group, including John Hawke and said that he was embarrassed the Community Arts Board had failed to fund a NSW Trades and Labour Council project which had been rejected because insufficient had been done in previous years. The journalist then makes the comment: It must be frustrating for Cohen not to be able to fund his own pet projects. Last week he flew a kite. He may find that his choice lies between having the power to fund those projects and having the support of the arts community. Subsequently, Dr Timothy Pascoe, the Chairman of the Australia Council, resigned from the Chairmanship of the joint Commonwealth-State study group in order, as he said, to put the views of the Australia Council independently. Apparently he found some conflict of interest in being Chairman of the Australia Council and Chairman of the study group. He issued a statement in which he said: I have resigned in order to be free to advocate publicly and actively the principles enshrined in the Australia Council Act. In his statement he enunciated the principles of distribution or funding of the arts at the Commonwealth level. They are, he said: First absolute statutory independence from political influence or involvement in grant decisions. Second, program policy in grant decisions made by peer groups of artists and other community representatives. Third, the need for policy formulation to flow from grant-giving experience and equally the need for a capacity to implement policy through funding. At the end of his statement he referred to those artists who expressed dismay at the prospect of diminished Australia Council independence. He states: The Council is approaching the Minister urgently seeking the Government's reaffirmation of these principles. I do not raise the subject to canvass the issue of Dr Pascoe's resignation from that position. He made his position clear that he felt it was necessary, as Chairman of the Australia Council, to do that. I raise, instead, the general issues of the Government's intentions. The Government's intention, as indicated and not denied-in fact it has clearly been borne out by some statements of the Minister-is to funnel more money to the States and less money through the Australia Council, and to give the Australia Council certain instructions. We have debated the issue of funding of the arts under Estimates here for the last few years. We debated the matter of whether the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet should come under the Australia Council. Now because of a decision of this Government, they do. We have debated whether, if the Government has special projects, it ought to give special money for them. I instance a debate that took place in the Senate a couple of years ago about a grant from the Fraser Government to the Commonwealth Arts Festival which was held to coincide with the Commonwealth Games in 1982. It is always open to the Government to make decisions to spend money in particular areas and to allocate certain funds additional to the money given to the Australia Council for a specific purpose as was the case with the Commonwealth Arts Festival. It is open to this Government, if it does not like the recommendations and decisions of the Australia Council, to put additional money into its own pet project areas. If the Minister wants more money given to the community arts, then it is open to the Government to decide the amount of money to be allocated for the Australia Council and then to say 'Here is an additional amount of money for community arts funding'. The Government could perhaps ask the Australia Council for advice on distribution of the additional money, it could decline to ask the Australia Council for advice and just fund its pet projects. I give a caution to the Government. It would be, I believe, a great pity indeed if the Commonwealth Government were ever to depart from those principles enunciated by Dr Pascoe in his statement of resignation from the study group. The State governments now, largely as a response to Commonwealth Government initiatives in setting up the Australia Council, also put a substantial amount of money into the arts. It approximately equals the amount of money that the Commonwealth Government spends. A lot of that money is very well and wisely spent. But nobody could deny that some arts funding under the State Governments is a pork barrelling exercise. Grants are given and projects are undertaken which are clearly political pork barrelling. The reference given in the National Times article to some pet project of the New South Wales Trades and Labor Council would come into that category. It may be a very worthwhile one. However, a peer group assessment looking at all the applications for funds, Australia- wide in this case, decided that it was not superior to the other applications for funding. To turn around then and to give money to it is to do it a favour. That is not to accept the advice of the specialist group. I say to the Government: 'Do that if you want to but do not do it out of Australia Council funds'. I implore the Government not to pursue one line that has been suggested, that all the money that is given to the Australia Council be enough for the so-called flagship companies such as the Opera, the Ballet and the Elizabethan Theatre Trust and a few other major companies and that all the real decision making in the detailed applications and the many grants that are given each year be made by State governments. Without a doubt, the Australia Council has set a very high standard of objectivity and independence. One may not agree with every last decision, but it has set a high standard of objectivity and independence. It has very strong support from the arts community in Australia. I believe it would be a tragedy for the arts if funding were changed so that only major companies were to be funded through the Australia Council, or else by Government giving specific instructions to the Australia Council on its regular recurring grant as to how that grant was to be spent. The recent actions of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs who represents the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment are without procedural parallel in the last 10 years. It is not surprising that the arts community is more than disturbed; it is extremely upset. Frankly it is of a piece with some other Government actions on policy. The Minister, Senator Ryan, was shadow Minister for the arts when the present Government was in Opposition. She showed a keen concern for the arts. I am sure she still has the best wishes of the arts at heart. I hope that whatever role she can play in this it will be to keep the arts as independent as possible. As shadow Minister she stated that the then Opposition wanted to see money go to community arts and so on. Perhaps she could take the policy that she announced through to Cabinet and allow for special funding providing for those special areas that the Minister rates so highly. I am interested in Senator Ryan's response on the Government's policy attitudes towards the Australia Council. Perhaps now she may be able to answer some of the specifics that I raised both in Question Time yesterday and today in the Estimates debate. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.41) —To the extent that Senator Martin's remarks constituted her views on how the Australia Council should be operated, I have no comment to make . However, with regard to her suggestion based on a National Times article that there has been a change in government policy with regard to funding and administration of the Australia Council, that is quite wrong. There has been no change, and any inference that Senator Martin has drawn from the National Times article to that effect is wrong. There has been no change in government policy. If there were to be a change in government policy that would come about as a result of a Cabinet deliberation and a Caucus deliberation and the various other procedures that this Government goes through before changing a policy, and it would be announced then, after those procedures had been gone through by the Minister. It certainly would not be announced by any staff person or take the form of a report in a newspaper of a comment that a staff person is alleged to have made. So I think Senator Martin can be reassured that there has been no change in the Government's approach to the administration of funding of the Australia Council. As to allegations of pressure being put on the Australia Council to make a particular funding, I am informed by officers that such allegations are unfounded, if it is implied that they came from the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). It is a fact that Mr Pat Galvin, a member of the Council, exercised his right to advise the Australia Council of the Government's policies in relation to the funding of community arts, and in due course, having taken that advice into account along with the other matters that the Council would take into account on these occasions, the Council has made its decision. The other specific comment I have to make concerns the arts funding study group, about which Senator Martin has expressed an interest. There is to be a meeting of cultural Ministers here in Canberra on 18 November, next Friday, to consider, inter alia, the report of the arts funding study group, at which stage, of course, the Federal Minister will make, I am sure, a public statement with regard to the Government's response to that study group. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.43) — Facts are facts and people can draw their own conclusions. Yesterday and again today I referred to a letter which the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) wrote, which was referred to in the National Times article but which Senator Ryan has not mentioned in response. I reiterate: . . . in a letter to the council, Cohen stressed the importance of distributing the money in a way which would reflect the ALP's policy on community arts. People will decide whether that is pressure or not. It is pretty clearly an indication from the Minister of what he expects the Council to do. That is one matter at issue, one that I raised yesterday and again today, to which Senator Ryan has not responded. I can accept one version of the claim that the Government has not changed its policy because I searched through the Government' s policy statements on the arts and nowhere did I find the words that the present role of the Australia Council would remain intact or continue unchanged or that its independence would be guaranteed. Those words are not there. That might just be coincidental, but if these words are deliberately left out, the Minister is saying that the independence of the Australia Council is not assured . The point I make is that there has been a tradition built up, which was stated by Dr Pascoe in his resignation and by me here earlier today in debate, on the role of the Australia Council. There are three principles. The first is: Statutory independence from political influence or involvement in grant decisions. Senator Ryan should address her comments on the subject to Mr Cohen's letter. The second is: Program policy and grant decisions made by peer groups of artists and other community representatives. Now the funding of the favourite projects of politicians does not come into that category. The third is: Policy formulation to flow from grant giving experience. The Australia Council has built up an experience which it uses in applying the funds. It is quite possible that as a result of its experience some recommendations might be made about different types of funding and presumably this study group is searching that out . But that is an important principle. I draw the Minister's attention to the words of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment when he says: When we became the Government I made it clear that I saw the role of the Australia Council as being to implement the guidelines of the Government's policy which were specifically to have greater access for the community and greater participation. There is a little more about that. He continues: As well . . . we wanted an extension of the community crafts program-- The Government is quite entitled to want those things. The Minister said: . . . I am sure honourable members will accept the fact that it is its responsibility-- that is the Australia Council- to undertake to follow the guidelines set down by the Government and not to go its own way. Now going its own way, according to Dr Pascoe, is applying those three principles which have applied to arts funding in Australia for some time, but apparently not giving a priority that pleases the Minister to community arts out of its total allocation is going its own way. There is a conflict arising in the public arena between what has been and what is perceived to be the Australia Council's role, and the words of the Minister and the intentions of the Minister . I say to the Minister representing: It is entirely within my right and the right of any honourable senator to question her about future directions of government policy. Here today we are looking at the vote for the Australia Council and the vote for the arts. The Australia Council has had the right as an independent statutory body to disburse under certain headings: Literature, theatre, whatever. That has been its right. What is clearly coming out in the last few days is an indication that it will no longer have that right. If that is so, it is an issue of public debate and it is quite proper that it be debated here and that it be debated in the context of the Australia Council's estimates. I am just not going to accept the brush off from the Minister representing that I will be told when the Government has made its decision. Is the rest of the world going to be told when the Government has made its decision and told to get lost in the meantime; the Government will not make any comment? People within the Parliament and outside it have a right to know. I point out to the Minister, because she may not be aware of this, the words of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment in a speech at a community theatre conference in Adelaide last Friday: I believe that the elected government in the Parliament should not be denied its say on issues affecting cultural life and, in the end, the right to set the priorities. Now Mr Cohen is entitled to believe that. The Government is entitled to implement it, but I point out that if it does, that is a change of policy in relation to the Australia Council. It is a change, and people are entitled to know. The Minister is indicating that his opinion is in favour of a change, a change to set the priorities for the Australia Council. The Minister representing him cannot deny that. We seek an indication here under the matter of the funding of the Australia Council for the next year of whether the Government has intentions to change the statutory authority and independence of the Australia Council. I shall read again some words that I read earlier, and I hope the Minister will take note of them. Mr Sergi is quoted as stating that administrative changes in arts funding 'could well be put through Cabinet before the next budget'. I am not prepared to wait until the date of the next Budget to find out just whether that is the direction we are moving in, whether a curtain is apparently lifted on Budget night and all is revealed-as Senator Gareth Evans is fond of saying in answer to questions here. We are entitled to know, and the Government, one would think, would be interested to know people's opinions so that it can formulate wise policy. If it is not interested in people's opinions on how the arts in Australia should be funded it is a very ominous sign indeed for its intention towards whether the arts will be funded on merit or according to the Government' s personal preferences, whatever they are. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.50) —I am not satisfied that the Minister is treating the debate in the Committee seriously. I can say only that the Opposition will continue to raise the questions that Senator Martin has raised to ensure that we get adequate answers in the Committee on matters that are rightly the concern of the Committee. Whilst it is not the policy of the Opposition to block Appropriation Bills, the Government should not feel that it is let off the hook when it does not give adequate answers. The Government will hear more of this until there is a proper explanation of the matters that Senator Martin has raised. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.51) —I thank Senator Teague for his support. Mr Temporary Chairman, last night in the Senate the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, when dealing with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84, adopted a particular tactic. Some questions had been addressed to him by Senator Walters. When she had finished asking those questions the Minister for Resources and Energy sat mum. When Senator Walters attempted to rise to her feet to ask the Minister whether he was going to answer the questions-and it is without precedent that Ministers just sit in silence and treat questions that way- Senator Walsh raised a point of order. He said that since Senator Walters had sat down after finishing her question she had finished her speech and could not speak again. By sitting silently the Minister attempted to avoid answering the question. He then had the cheek to attempt to stop Senator Walters asking him whether he was going to answer the question. If she had not sat down he would have used the fact that she was still on her feet as an excuse not to answer the question. I have addressed a number of questions in two contributions to this debate. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) gave some answer to some of the questions in her first response. I reiterated a number of questions that she did not answer in her first response. The Minister is now pursuing the same tactic as Senator Walsh did last night-she sits mum. If it had not been for the fact that Senator Teague intervened in support of what I had said, the Minister could have continued to sit mum, and, the Government would like to suggest, I would not have had the right to speak again on this issue. That is not good enough. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I think the situation is clarified by the Standing Orders. An honourable senator has a right to a second speech if no one else rises at the end of the first speech. I did not hear the point of order put to the Chair last night-I was not in the chair at the time-but I believe that it had no basis. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (11.53) —Mr Chairman, I am not unwilling to respond on behalf of the Government to questions that are asked. But I interpreted Senator Martin's contribution as a speech about her views on the Australia Council. I do not accept her interpretation of the fact that Mr Cohen wrote to the Australia Council informing it of the Government's policies in the area of cultural affairs as being pressure. I am informed that it has been the practice of successive Ministers to inform the Council of the policies of the government on cultural affairs. It is entirely proper that Mr Cohen should do so. Senator Martin repeats the National Times report that Mr Sergio Sergi said this or that. I have told Senator Martin that government policy is not announced in a National Times report attributing remarks to a particular staff member. There has been no change of policy. There has been no moving away from the view that the Australia Council ought to be independent. If there were to be a change of policy I have advised Senator Martin in the Senate of how the Opposition would be informed of that. But there has been no such change of policy. I have also pointed out to Senator Martin that the meeting of cultural Ministers on 18 November will, I expect, be followed by a comprehensive statement by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). There is simply no factual information to give in response to Senator Martin's interpretations of a number of events. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.56) -I raise the matter of the Australian Opera and the lack of Federal grants to State opera companies. I think the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) will confirm that at this stage last year careful and sharp questions were raised about the Australian Opera's performances being excluded from Western Australia and South Australia, concentrated as they are in Sydney. It is further the case that some proportion of Federal Government money granted to the Australia Council does not go to State opera companies. For example, I have a letter dated 25 October from one constituent complaining about this situation and stating: As a supporter of the State Opera, that is, the South Australian State Opera- I am disturbed to learn that for the year 1983/84, no portion of funds granted by the Federal Government to the Australia Council's Music Board will be allocated to the State Opera of South Australia. I understand that funds will be allocated to the Australian Opera, but as that Company does not visit South Australia, little benefit accrues to the people of this State. This means that the funding of opera in South Australia is borne by the local company and the South Australian Government. This situation I consider unfair, as all taxpayers contribute to Federal taxes, and accordingly, some portion of the funds made available for opera should be allocated to State companies. Another constituent wrote to me on 3 November quite independently. He raises the same point but adds a contention that I have raised in the past during Estimate committee hearings and in this chamber; that is, that perhaps we are coming to a situation where the titles 'Australian Opera' and 'Australian Ballet' are misnomers and that they might more correctly be called the 'Sydney Opera' and the 'Melbourne Ballet'. I am not fundamentally opposed to there being excellence in a particular place in Australia-in Sydney or, in the case of ballet, in Melbourne. But let us understand what we are doing in terms of the distribution of Federal moneys which are raised alike from all States. The second constituent writes: I've just been to the Magic Flute (done by the State Opera Co.) and thoroughly enjoyed it; we'll probably subscribe next year. In the programme they had an indignant note to the effect that the Federal Government grant to the Australian Opera Co. had just been raised, although 'Australian' is a misnomer since they don't visit every state, whereas the State Opera Co. gets only local support. I imagine that this situation may be an accidental carry-over from the days when the Australian Opera Co. travelled more widely . . . Without wishing to seem too parochial, it does seem to me that the Federal aid to opera companies should be split up in proportion to services rendered, so that if we have 10% of the population and/or taxation revenue (or whatever the correct figures are) and the State Opera provides 100% of our opera (as they do), they should get 10% of the Federal Government aid to opera. A year ago, on 7 September, during an Estimates committee hearing Senator Ryan, then in opposition and a member of that Estimates Committee, Senator Martin, Senator Haines and I closely examined these kinds of questions. Mr Veitch, the General Manager of the Australian Opera, was present, as was the Minister then representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Senator Peter Baume. He gave a number of answers, to which I will briefly refer. At the conclusion of our discussion, our questions answers, in the Estimates Committee hearing, I said: . . . my concluding comment would be that members of the Parliament would protest to the Board of the Australian Opera about this. I was referring to the concentration of the opera in Sydney and to some extent Melbourne, Canberra and Brisbane. I further stated: However constrained, the decision was to deny a State access to a national institution of such importance as the Australian Opera. Whether or not that leads to further debate in the Senate is to be seen. This is the further debate that I foreshadowed then. I note that for South Australians to gain from the Federal grants to the Australian Opera they need to go to Sydney. Mr Veitch indicated that for 1983 there were 163 performances in Sydney, 36 in Melbourne, 13 in Brisbane and nine in Canberra. No local contribution was made by Canberra towards those performances. The costs were borne entirely by the Australian Council, whereas State contributions were made by Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales, I understand, with regard to performances in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. Mr Veitch explained-he gave a vary rational explanation and I do not in any way criticise his bona fides in speaking on behalf of the Australian Opera-that the Opera has a limited budget and needs to use it in a rational and intelligent way. He said: The Opera Board remains committed to performing in capitals other than Sydney to the extent that it is financially responsible, but we cannot take actions that add to that accumlated deficit. He was referring to the then current deficit of $1.3m. He continued: The incremental cost of touring to Adelaide in the current year-we did the figures-was $181,000 deficit. That's just the incrementals costs of income and expenses. We had asked for half of that as assistance from the State but it was not able to provide it. In the earlier period the State Government had provided $85,000 towards the Australian Opera's costs. For the year 1983 such money was not forthcoming from the State. I understand that that is something of an argument for discontinuation of performances in Adelaide. It still does not meet the point that a trend is emerging for performances of the Australian Opera to be concentrated all the more in Sydney. South Australia is missing out, as the protests of constituents which I have mentioned have indicated. Senator Tate —I am with you. I am with you all the way. Senator TEAGUE —Senator Tate interjects that Tasmania also is missing out. Western Australia too is missing out. We have a situation in which taxpayers in the smaller States are becoming increasingly dissatisfied. We contribute alike to the Australia Council, an important Australian performing arts body, but no benefit is being derived by the smaller States. We have several options. One is to increase the money that goes from the Federal Government to the Australian Opera so that it can be assured of being able to go to the smaller States. Another option is to face the fact of the trends in recent years and say: 'We will rename the Australian Opera, which is based in Sydney and call it the Sydney opera company. We will make compensating payments to the State opera in South Australia'. It would then be comparable to the Sydney opera company based at the Sydney Opera House. There is some substance in the point raised by the General Manager of the Australian Opera, Mr Veitch, that there has been a lack of State subsidies for the Australia Council in the last decade, but the decision of the States ought to be taken into account. The States prefer to give support to their own State opera companies. We should be able to expect that the money granted to the Australia Council will be more fairly distributed so that existing State opera companies will receive appropriate and proportional financial support through that council. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.04) —On the question raised by Senator Teague the point can be made, of course, that at worst he is talking in a parochial manner. However, he examined the broad aspects of the need for the Australian Opera Company to be accessible to people wherever they live in Australia. That is not a concept with which the Government has any quarrel. In fact, not only the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) but also the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have on many occasions said that our opera, culture and art generally should be accessible to all people throughout the Commonwealth. I am sure that Senator Teague appreciates that Australia is a very large continent. We have a commitment to meet that objective. Obviously it can be done only on the basis of additional funding and more planning. Accessibility is a dominant factor in the way in which these organisations operate. I am sure Senator Teague will appreciate that the Australia Council is an independent body. It makes its own decisions, independently of government. All the Government can do is to provide it with resources that are essential for it to carry out that wider function that we all support. To that extent, of course, some States may be able to assist in that process more than can other States. It is clear that people who live in popular centres like Sydney are able to have access to a lot of these important cultural pursuits-more so than people living in outlying areas or even the smaller States. I think the best we can do is to take on board the comments made by the honourable senator. In its broadest context, it is a view that we all share. However, it can only be referred to the Council itself for consideration. I hope that in due course, given the resources necessary, the wishes of Senator Teague and, I am sure, of the Government will be realised in the wider context of extending what is an important part of our cultural life to an ever- increasing number of Australian citizens. Even if one accepts the criticism that the Australian Opera Company, in Sydney gets a larger share of funds than it should, people at Broken Hill, Tumbarumba, Casino and in the rest of New South Wales are disadvantaged to that extent. Let me assure the Senate that the Government is committed, in a philosophical sense-to the extent that funds become available-to realising in a purposeful way the objectives that have been suggested. I do not think the Government would disagree substantially with the views that have been expressed by Senator Teague other than to say it hopes that the comments he has made will be taken into consideration by the Australia Council, an independent body, when it is in a position in subsequent years to plan a more extensive itinerary for the Australian Opera. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(12.09) —I appreciate the response of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) to Senator Teague. I simply want to supplement it by referring to a particular case which I think is helpful, as Senator Teague's example was. I refer to the Sydney City Ballet which, over a period of two weeks recently in Tasmania, performed in many towns and cities around the State to full houses. It gave tremendous pleasure and created an awareness of that particular form of dance and an appreciation of it right throughout the Tasmanian community. It was extremely well received. But over a period of two or three years it has failed to receive any grant from the Australia Council. This is despite the fact that it is a very significant company. It employs 16 to 18 full time dancers, which is about 10 per cent of those employed in that form of dance in Australia. It is a classical ballet company which tours constantly throughout New South Wales, and gives not only school performances but also performances for post-school adult audiences of the normal kind. So this is classical ballet being brought to a very wide range of Australians, in this case throughout New South Wales and, by invitation, to a State such as Tasmania. Not only that, its training facilities, through dint of the hard work of the artistic directors and the whole company, have created an environment in which the most prestigious ballet scholarship available in Australia-I am referring to the 1983 Peter Stuyvesant cultural scholarship-was won by that ballet school, and the runner-up was also a product of the school. The Australia Council has to become aware that it must make a very real choice between the stimulation of an appreciation and even a basic awareness of the various forms of art throughout Australia, as opposed to ensuring the survival or the assurance of financial support for one national company in a particular field of artistic activity, thus ensuring that one very excellent expression of that art form is to be found in Australia's cultural life. I do not say that those two aims are necessarily mutually exclusive, but in fact, as Senator Teague has rightly pointed out, they turn out to be so, because the major national company in this particular form of artistic activity does not undertake the touring, even to all capital cities throughout Australia, which ought to be the case if an awareness or an appreciation of that form of art is to be enhanced in the community. Certainly it does not visit the country towns and provincial centres and provide performances for school children which can awaken an insight and interest and give an awareness and appreciation of that art form. I do not think that my remarks require any further response. I appreciate the previous response from the Minister. But I wish to reinforce that choice which the Australia Council faces, and I indicate to it that on both sides of this chamber there is a very real concern that the true object of Federal funding, from all Australians paid into the Federal Treasury, is not being fulfilled as many senators would wish. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(12.13) —In a brief continuing statement, I too, acknowledge the good intentions of the Minister and the Government in this matter. Similar statements were made by those now in Opposition. When we were in government we noted this problem, we certainly acknowledged the independence of the Australia Council, and we noted that it would be taking on board the comments made in the Estimates Committee, as it will our remarks here in the chamber on behalf of the people of Australia. But let me go further. It is not enough just for these comments to be taken on board. After some years of debating and questioning along these lines, we are looking for an outcome which gives a financial advantage to companies such as the one that Senator Tate mentioned; not the leading or the biggest funded ballet and dance group in Australia, but a very important one, nevertheless. The example I raise is the South Australian State Opera which is not the biggest funded. These groups should receive moneys through the Australia Council in lieu of the greater touring commitment of national performing arts bodies in earlier decades. So I am not happy that this Government, like the previous Government, is just taking on board the debate. I accept the Minister's genuine commitment, but I am looking for action. At this stage of the processes of the Parliament next year, when we consider the decision of the Australia Council and the Australian Government with regard to funding for the arts, those in South Australia will be very carefully looking to see whether in the distribution of funds for the performing arts an appropriate proportion comes to the South Australian State Opera. I notice that the Deputy President and Chairman of Committees, Senator Hamer, is now in the chair. We have spoken over many years about the two flagships of the Australian performing arts, the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet. This year, for the first time, one of our goals has been realised. They no longer have separate line budgets. What had been separate allocations to the Australia Council, the Australian Ballet and the Australian Opera are now put under one line. For the first time, all funds for the arts go to the Australia Council. The Australia Council makes the decisions, rather than the Government or the Parliament, as to the proportion that will go to those two flagship performing arts companies. That comparison of the two big flagships with all the other craft, all the other activities of the performing arts, has been reflected in the change in the way in which the Budget is presented in this matter. It is an illustration that in Australia we can encourage elite, excellent performance by a few, or we can go towards the other end of the spectrum and encourage not quite as excellent performers but much greater participation by the many. We make the same comparisons in sport. We ask whether we in Australia should encourage highly proficient, highly skilled and highly professional, expensive, elite forms of football, which tens of thousands of Australians may attend only as spectators, or whether we should put our money for encouraging sport into many smaller activities that will have the gain of participation. There must be a balance in these things. I still maintain that the balance is too far towards an elite form of opera and ballet in Australia that excludes appropriate encouragements for participation by others and appropriate support for other opera and ballet companies. Therefore, I thank the Minister for his response but say that we are looking for action by this time next year in the decisions of the Australia Council. In particular, I shall be watching most carefully to see that there is financial support for the South Australian State Opera. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $185,775,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP E Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $208,671,000. Senator Grimes —The Attorney-General is on his way. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.20) —I am glad to hear that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) is on his way, because it seemed rather surprising that we should embark upon consideration of the estimates for his Department in his absence. Perhaps matters of a routine kind could be dealt with by the Minister representing him. Nevertheless, the matters I want to raise are ones that only the Attorney-General himself can deal with. Earlier this year, prior even to the election result, the Attorney-General reputedly gave to the Attorney-General's Department a list of matters to which he attached a series of priorities. I do not know that this particular document was ever actually published by the Attorney-General. It is unlike him not to publish widely the views he has on every subject under the sun, but at all events, this document found its way into the April edition of a publication known as Justinian. The various priorities were given categories such as 1A, 1B and so forth. Category 1A represented those matters requiring immediate attention the autumn session of Parliament which was completed in June this year. Matters in the 1B category were to be completed by the Budget session. Matters in the 1C category were to be completed by the end of the year. Matters in category 2 were of lower priority and I will set them aside for the present moment. My attention has been particularly drawn to and my interest has been particularly engaged in the items to which the Attorney-General gave a priority for achieving before the end of this year. As that time approaches, I raise on this occasion the question of the extent to which those matters have been achieved, and ask what has happened about those matters which do not appear to have been achieved. When is it likely that they will be achieved and what sort of delays have occurred? I am glad that we now have the attention of the Attorney-General to this matter . I would like to refer generally to the much vaunted claims of the Attorney- General as being a law reformer and custodian of civil liberties. I do not think that it is necessary to say very much about the latter attribute, because it has become very tarnished and widely questioned as a result of many of the actions that he has taken in his role of Attorney-General. I perhaps would express a little more sympathy for him in that respect, because of the difficulties of his office which, as I well know, require him to act in an independent and fearless manner on many occasions, which does upset people. Nevertheless, as I have said, the Attorney would have found that those demands on his office and his judgments do not enable him to achieve all the proposals for the advancement of civil liberties about which he used to speak so much when he was in opposition, and on which he lectured this chamber on a number of occasions. During this consideration of the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department, I wish particularly to address myself to his claims to have achieved a great number of law reforms in a very tight frame. Generally speaking, it seems that most of the matters with which he has succeeded over the last eight months were ones that were well and truly developed and virtually ready to proceed at the time that he became Attorney-General. I instance, in particular, the one item to which he gave great priority, namely the re-introduction of the Family Law Amendment Bill and the establishment of a matrimonial property inquiry. That Bill, of course, had been lying on the table for some time and had been the subject of a great deal of comment; amendments that had been drafted and were ready were proposed and the legislation has now gone through the Parliament. But, as I said, the work on it had very substantially been done and it was ready for parliamentary debate when Senator Evans became Attorney-General . The other Bill which has been processed and to which he gave priority under category 1A was the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. It is interesting to read what he said would be achieved in that Bill, namely, that it would incorporate the amendments moved unsuccessfully in the original debate reflecting the Senate Committee's recommendations. Once again, the work for the Bill that he had introduced had already been done; indeed, he had done much of it himself when in opposition. But it did not include two of the major matters which had been the subject of great debate in this chamber, namely, the abolition of conclusive certificates and an additional role for the Ombudsman. Only by Opposition amendments did it include provision for the latter. Another area in which the Attorney has introduced legislation is that of constitutional reform. We know that his great aim in this regard was for the Constitution Alteration (Fixed Term Parliaments) Bill to become law and for a referendum to be held on this matter. We know the sad history, from the Attorney's point of view, of that legislation. It was introduced in this Parliament and was abandoned because the Government saw the dangers of that legislation and completely reversed the policies which the Attorney-General had been advocating so strongly. Broadly speaking, therefore, that legislation which the Attorney-General has put forward in the legislative and law reform areas seems to be Bills which were already virtually in the pipeline ready for passage by this Parliament, or Bills which have failed to achieve the purpose he set out and those priorities which he gave in Justinian. As far as the constitution reform matter is concerned, the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill which I mentioned was, in fact, replaced by a proposal for constitutional reform identical with that put forward by the Fraser Government with regard to four year terms and simultaneous elections. The only matter to which the Attorney-General gave priority and in which he has succeeded was the South West Tasmanian dam legislation and his persuasion of the High Court to an interpretation of the external affairs power of the Constitution. Certainly I must concede that that was an achievement by him, but one at what cost? It was an achievement at the cost of confrontation not only with Tasmania, but also with the other States; it was at the cost of achieving an interpretation of the external affairs power of the Constitution which will be a constant source of deep concern not only to the States, but also to the Opposition and large numbers of people in this country. We are concerned that we are now heading for a completely centralist system of government, not a Federal system of government. The more that that interpretation that the Attorney-General achieved in having adopted is tested and applied, the deeper will be the concerns about the future of our Federal system. So that may be claimed as an achievement, but it is an achievement of what kind, for what purpose and at what cost? I want to raise some matters, which perhaps the Attorney-General can comment upon, which do not seem to have been processed in accordance with these priorities. I think 44 priorities were to be achieved by the end of this year and on my reckoning, it is not particularly apparent what has been achieved by 10 to 20 of them. I mention, in particular, priority No. 6 which is to secure implementation of the Premiers Conference residual links exercise. All that has been said by the Attorney-General on that issue seems to leave it virtually where it was back in 1982 when the Premiers agreed to it. It is most disappointing that progress in that matter has not been achieved in accordance with the intentions as expressed by the present Attorney-General. It seems to me that it has got bogged down, with the States trying to establish some access to the Queen, using the Commonwealth Government as just a post office box. But even that does not seem to have progressed very far. Because of that particular action all the benefits obtained by the Premiers Conference agreement back in June 1982, 18 months ago, have not been achieved and perhaps are in danger of being lost. That is a matter about which I would like to hear from the Attorney- General. There are some other matters of considerable interest in this document. I noticed the Attorney gave a high priority to the review of the consitutional feasibility of re-establishing Commonwealth sovereignty over off-shore resources ; in other words, this Government's intention presumably would be to dismantle the off-shore consitutional settlement which was, I believe, one of the major achievements of the Fraser Government and one of the major examples of co- operative federalism that we have ever seen. Does this mean-we do not yet have any information about this-that the Attorney-General has embarked upon this review? What will happen? What will the Government do about this matter? The Attorney-General also gave a very high priority to corporate affairs. He gave a category 1A priority to reviewing the constitutional basis for the unilateral Commonwealth companies and securities legislation and identified necessary references and/or referendum proposals. The Attorney has introduced legislation on that subject which we may debate shortly but again that only largely gives effect to the work done on that particular company law reform before this Government was formed. What is the Attorney-General doing there? What is his object with that review? Will he or the Government move to dismantle that other great example of co-operative federalism; namely, the co-operative arrangements in this area? I notice that the Government-I give the Attorney-General credit for this-has now established the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee, although only a chairman has been appointed. Again, that is a matter which had been decided during the time of the previous Government. It had been agreed to by the Ministerial Council, in November last year, and it seems to me that there has been an extraordinary delay in getting that committee established even though it does look as though the timetable that the Attorney gave himself will be met. However, as I said, as far as I am aware only a chairman has been appointed at this stage and there has been, when one considers that the agreement to establish the Committee was reached a year ago, a very considerable delay. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.35) —I have always thought of Senator Durack as wearing in this Parliament the mantle if not of a fully fledged statesman then at least of a potential one and it really does not sit well with that statesman-like aspiration for us to have to listen to the churlish, petty-minded and trivial diatribe that has just fallen from our putative statesman's lips. He has wobbled uncertainly about between on the one hand attacking me for not doing what he thinks I said I would do, and on the other hand, directing various barbs at me for doing many of those things that I said I would. All in all, it was a rather unsatisfactory and feeble performance from the shadow Attorney-General. I think it would be most charitable of me to put it down to a kind of touching wistfulness on the part of Senator Durack that he himself would have wished to be able to achieve as much in the long, dark years he occupied this particular portfolio. It is, of course, quite unfair of the honourable senator to place the reliance he did on the document which I, in the interests of free discussion, dialogue and information, circulated to a number of people, in particular my proposed new department at the time of the last election. The priority list of target projects and programs for this year and on to next year was designed to generate a response as to what the art of the possible might be. Of course there have been a number of adjustments to that as the year has worn on and as the pressures and constraints of the parliamentary timetable have imposed themselves on the aspirations of even the most energetic Minister. As to the level of energy that has been involved in the conduct of my portfolio I should perhaps put into the record at the outset some rather interesting statistics as to the comparative rate at which submissions have hit my desk in the last six months and the amount of correspondence which has been received from the public compared with the average rate over the last year or so for the previous Attorney-General. The short fact of the matter is that Senator Durack received an average of 327 submissions a month, and 470 pieces of correspondence a month, whereas for the whole of this year those figures have been more than doubled. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a small table demonstrating that small indication as to the degree of industry with which this particular portfolio has been conducted. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Average per month May June July Aug Sept Oct Senator Durack Sub/s to Minister 715 642 740 840 815 715 327 Corresp. Rec'd 1,167 1,015 973 1 ,104 766 866 470 Ack'ments Sent 491 455 491 615 534 428 Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me focus more substantially on what some of those achievements over the last six or seven months have been. I will list them very briefly: constitutional reform was, I think, first on the list at the beginning of the year in terms of aspirations, and five Bills have been introduced into and passed by this Parliament-with the support, I readily acknowledge of the Opposition, although I fear that support is becoming somewhat muted now as we get closer to the barrier. Those matters will be put to the electorate next February. They are very substantial and they will amount to the most far reaching attempts to streamline and modernise the machinery of constitutional government in this country since Federation if they are in fact passed, as I believe they will be and indeed must be. As to South West Tasmania, as Senator Durack rather gracelessly acknowledged we set out to achieve and in fact did achieve exactly what we set out to do; that is, pass legislation and within an extraordinarily short space of time have it both enacted and upheld by the High Court. So far as the establishment of a national crime body is concerned, today legislation will be introduced into this Parliament which will honour that commitment and do so in a far more satisfactory way than the half-baked proposal for which Senator Durack's Government was responsible. That proposal had no support from the States and would simply have been unworkable as well as being indefensible in principle in a number of crucial respects. So far as family law is concerned, we have now passed the crucial family law amending legislation, which certainly owed its content very much to the endeavours of the previous Government, but for nearly three and a half years that legislation sat around in the previous Government without its having the energy, the drive and the will behind it to actually get it through this Parliament. No credit at all can be claimed by my predecessor for his performance in that respect. We have set in train a major exercise on maintenance enforcement and collection to establish a national scheme. That had not even occurred to the previous Government. Hopefully, that scheme will come to fruition, on target around the middle of next year. As to the matrimonial property inquiry, true it is that that inquiry was initiated by the previous Government, but like so many initiatives it came to naught because of the utter inability, so often, to translate aspiration into any kind of achievement. The amount of mucking around that was associated with the establishment of that inquiry could be the subject of a substantial novella. It was not until we came to office that the inquiry was, in fact, established, put in train and resources devoted to it. We have a reasonable expectation of results next year. In the human rights area, right on target we are doing exactly what we proposed to do; that is, we have set in train a major re-examination of the Human Rights Commission, and the Racial Discrimination Act. Associated with that, we have set in train the enactment of an Australian Bill of rights. There will be introduced -I hope before the Parliament recesses, but it may have to wait until the first week after it resumes-draft legislation, for exposure purposes, establishing an Australian Bill of rights. We are working on quite fundamental changes in the way in which rights and liberties are recognised and protected in this country. In the space of 10 days from the problem arising, we have enacted a major amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 to overcome a High Court decision and, in the process, to preserve the operation of State anti- discrimination laws and machinery. That is something which, if the ideologues on the other side were to be believed, would be entirely outside our range of comprehension or likely aspiration. We did it because we do accept and are totally committed to the effective operation, on a Commonwealth and State basis, of human rights and anti-discrimination legislation in this country. We have introduced, as we said we would, the Sex Discrimination Bill. The Bill is now before this Parliament. Still in the human rights area, we have fundamentally changed the ground rules governing the conduct of film festivals, overcoming anomalies that were the bane of the life of the Chief Censor of the Film Censorship Board, Janet Strickland, in respect of which she could not get any movement at all out of the previous incumbent of my office, notwithstanding the years he spent sitting there twiddling whatever it was he twiddled. All censorship restrictions on imported films and recognised film festivals have been lifted. We have come to grips, in a way that seemed utterly beyond the powers or capacity of our predecessors, with the explosive problem of videotape sales and hiring and the necessity to get some rationality into the censorship process as it affected that. We have negotiated an effective Commonwealth-States agreement. The pieces in that agreement are now being legislated in every jurisdiction in this country. We have responded to the challenges imposed and revealed by a series of court cases this year to the area of contempt of court, both in the courts and tribunals and before royal commissions, by giving a major, a very important reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission. In the area of business law, which Senator Durack touched on but lightly-that was understandable given the lightness of his achievement in that area-we have established, as he said, the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee, which was no more than a gleam in my predecessor's eye. We are in the process of appointing-the appointment will be made within the next week or two-a chairman of the Accounting Standards Review Board. We will have that Board on foot this financial year. We have taken further the process inititated by the ministerial council, in the last 18 months by enacting in this Parliament this year the first major piece of reforming legislation in the companies and securities law area, the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. We are about to introduce cheques legislation which has been hanging around this Parliament for 20-odd years without getting to first base. We are about to introduce an insurance contracts Bill which will implement another major recommendation of the Law Reform Commission in the commercial area. We have passed legislation on freedom of information. We have initiated, in other law reform matters, the establishment of a branch office for the ALRC in Canberra. We have achieved more hard actual law reform in Canberra over the last seven months than the previous Government did in the last seven years. The clock being what it is I will interrupt this litany of achievement for the moment, but will come back to it, I hasten to assure my predecessor, as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows me to do so. Consideration interrupted. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 3 November 1983, on motion by Senator Chipp: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(12.46) —Today, in this debate on the Customs ( Nuclear Materials and Hardware) Prohibition Bill, I want to address Australia's responsibility, not in an international sense, but to its own population. Since the 1940s uranium has been mined in Australia for atomic weapons and for nuclear power production. It was Australian uranium which supplied the British nuclear weapons program during the 1950s. Woomera, Maralinga and Monte Bello were familiar place names during that decade, being the Australian sites at which atomic test bombs were detonated. There were few misgivings among Australians in those days. We knew that large areas of inland Australia were supposed to have been suitable for such tests because of the virtual absence of population. We were assured that Aborigines in those areas were few and far between and had, in any case, been moved out of harm's way. There is now, 30 years later, much concern as the facts emerge about totally inadequate protection of personnel and the Aboriginal population, and of contamination. The United Kingdom Government has been compelled to accept some of its responsibility for what now can only be described as criminal negligence in the light of what is understood about the effects of even low levels of radiation. To the extent that they were informed, which was not very well, Australian workers accepted the necessity to assist the British. This, of course, was the era of the Cold War. The dangers of mining uranium were not widely known. Like their counterparts in the asbestos industry, uranium miners were exposed to hazards which would certainly kill some of them in the next 20 to 30 years, but they were never told of these hazards. They accepted official assurances that they were adequately protected or were exposed to only a negligible risk. All of us have heard ad infinitum, ad nauseam, about how much radiation we receive from our bedside clocks. We now know that, including Olympic Dam or Roxby Downs, Australia's desposits comprise possibly 30 per cent of the world's reserves. The once uncontroversial business of mining and exporting uranium has come to be recognised by masses of thinking Australians, not necessarily the ones who were polled by the Bulletin, for what it is, that is, unsafe at the least, deadly at the worst. No one has yet proven otherwise. July 1976 saw the first demonstrations in Adelaide against uranium mining. At the time of the presentation of the Fox report, the report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, in October 1976, it was becoming an important public issue. The first of the unions to place a ban on handling uranium was the Australian Railways Union which has continued to take a highly principled stand on this issue. At that stage the Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive was not prepared to confront the then Government on the issue. By November 1976 there had been a national consultation of anti-uranium forces and they were asking at that time a 5-year moratorium, which seems to be a very reasonable request. The Fraser Government, unfortunately, managed to pre-empt the second Fox report and to award licences for the export of uranium. By 19 November 1976 3,000 to 4,000 anti-uranium demonstrators were prepared to march in Melbourne. By April 1977 the numbers had grown and 20,000 took part in a nation-wide demonstration all over Australia. By the late 1970s public opinion, as recorded by polls, was showing a clear majority opposed to uranium mining but by then Australian uranium was being regularly exported despite the best efforts of some of the trade unions. By then , too, the Aborigines of the Northern Territory had been bullied into submission by a government whose Prime Minister told them effectively to sit down and shut up. According to the book We All Live on Three Mile Island by Greg Adamson, Fraser, as Prime Minister, had told the Northern Land Council Chairman, Galarrwuy Yunupingu: I have the power to block any law in the Northern Territory; I'm the number one man in Australia. We're not going to negotiate. Shut up and sit down. We're going to dig that hole anyway. It doesn't matter if you don't want it. We're still going to do it. If this agreement is not signed you will lose the Northern Land Council. I will take it off you . . . you won't have anything. Since 1976 Australia has exported over 12,000 tonnes of uranium to seven different countries and existing contracts, not counting those reported very recently as having been signed, will not expire until 1996. Even the best 'phase out' policy, which I would like to see as eventually leading to the same end as the one sought by Senator Macklin's Bill, cannot stop exports as of now. Therefore, Australia's responsibility is undeniable. Australia's uranium has been used and continues to be used for power generation and probably for the manufacture of weapons and is being reduced to waste. That waste is part of the extraordinarily difficult problem of waste management and goodness knows whether that waste has already been disposed of and, if so, how much, by dumping in the ocean or in holes in unstable geological formations. Professor Ringwood's work on Synroc seems to show promise but he certainly does not claim to be on the verge of going into production or even that he is in a position to say that he has, or will have, the answer. I suggest that Australia does not need to continue exporting uranium indefinitely in order to remain a significant force in international forums. If our scientists remain in the forefront of this crucial work on waste disposal, we reserve our right to be consulted and when we have terminated our role-I hope sincerely that that will be on some day not too far in the distant future-as dealers in this ugly trade our position will be unimpeachable. I question, further, the argument about leverage and that Australia can influence international opinion only by remaining within the trade. That argument has never been used to justify Australia's inclusion in deliberations of the United Nations and conventions which study and in fact ban, biological and chemical warfare. As far as I am aware, Australia is not bound actually to manufacture these agents in order to be consulted. Death and destruction associated with other forms of energy generation are acknowledged, and have been for generations. A society which has tolerated such occupational mayhem is one which places profits ahead of the health of workers. I am afraid that in many respects this describes the history of Australian industry. A phenomenon very familiar to those of us who have industrial experience is that profits are all pervasive and the health of workers is accorded a very low priority. There are generations of neglect to rectify- neglect which successive coalition governments have managed to ignore. Some people continue to insist that because workers have been maimed or killed in coal mining and power generation and because of the ghastly 'greenhouse' effect from the combustion of fossil fuels, there is relative safety in nuclear power industry. This is as specious an argument as the defence of smoking tobacco on the grounds that alcohol kills more people-which, incidentally, it does not-and therefore the smoking of tobacco need not be attacked on every ground. Those who battle against vested interests in order to make the work place healthy and safe would welcome some support from those such as Senator Peter Rae who spoke earlier in this debate and who deplored, very sincerely I believe, the dangers of mining and processing coal. I, for one, was not at all cheered to hear Hugh Morgan of the Western Mining Corporation assuring us all on an A.M. program earlier this week that his company gave the health and safety of its workers a high priority. It is no coincidence, I believe, that the young and aware mining employees of the Pilbara and their families are amongst the most vocal in support of our phase-out policy. They know how mining companies operate and have no faith in such assurances. In relation to the development in South Australia of the Olympic Dam reserve, there are matters of grave concern when it comes to the health and safety of workers. At the time the indenture was signed by the Liberal Government of South Australia with the joint venturers, the health and safety codes for the protection of workers within the industry were already superceded in terms of international standards. Those codes were outdated at the time and the then South Australian Labor Party Opposition attempted to improve the standards. I have been assured that if the South Australian Government subsequently attempts to legislate to improve those standards or to upgrade them even moderately that could be used as a justification for the cancellation of the indenture altogether. I think that many of us would see that as no bad thing. Clearly, however, further consideration of the protection of workers by proper health and safety codes needs to occur. During the Roxby Downs blockade a deputation went to the administration of the Roxby Management Services seeking answers to six questions of concern. One of these questions concerned the monitoring of workers' health. When the question was put the answer received was that they gave workers two X-rays a year and that further monitoring was claimed to be too expensive. It was added that to ask such a question was like asking when a person will stop beating his wife. Obviously, Western Mining at that stage-and that was a very short time ago-was not taking the issue very seriously at all. I also believe that mining companies are not required to keep medical records of the health of their workers. Such a lack of records helps to conceal the true health facts of uranium mining. The fate of workers in the asbestos industry, one would have felt, was an object lesson in the indifference of mining and industrial companies towards their workers' health. Miners, generally speaking, have accepted that their work is dangerous, that work underground is arduous, unpleasant and hazardous, that some of them will die at a young age and others will be invalids living on workers compensation on account of injuries or disease such as silicosis by the time they are in their early fifties. This fatalism, I believe, accounts for the willingness of workers to undertake such hazardous work as mining uranium, to accept the well paid jobs being offered, contrary to the policy of the ACTU and, in some cases, contrary to the policy of their own unions. I believe that most of us in this chamber and in the other place this week would have received from officials of a number of unions a message of support for the phase-out policy of the Labor Party. Those unions include the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia, the Seamen's Union of Australia, the Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia, the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, the Food Preservers Union of Australia, the Victorian branch of the Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association, the Victorian Teachers Union, the Australian Tramways and Motor Omnibus Employees Association, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association, the Amalgamated Metals Foundary and Shipwrights Union, the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia, the National Australian Railways Union, the Victorian branch of the Australian Railways Union, the Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia and the Federated Confectioners Association of Australia. Some awareness of the dreadful effects of radiation must, however, be slowly developing. Employees at the Ranger mine have recently been on strike for seven days in order to have the water supply properly cleansed from contamination by yellowcake. I wonder whether these miners yet realise that a common effect of low level radiation is sterility. In uranium producing countries concerned for the size of their future populations, mining has been greatly curtailed because of the drastically diminished birth rate. I have previously drawn to the attention of honourable senators in this place the fact that there is evidence of the early aging effect of quite low levels of radiation and the distinct probability that no level of radiation is safe. I was born and brought up in South Australia. I lived there until the early 1950s, at which time I went to Western Australia to do my midwifery training; and I have lived there ever since . Atomic tests commenced at Woomera and Maralinga in the early 50's. Over the years there have been thoroughly docu- mented incidents of clouds of contaminated dust being carried by the prevailing winds over the city of Adelaide and its suburbs. When I go home, as I still call it, to South Australia three or four times a year and talk to my contemporaries, I find that I am being told of the premature death or disease of people of my own age, people who, I believe, have been exposed to this contaminated dust in a way that I was never exposed to it and in a way in which my contemporaries in Western Australia were never exposed to it. Of course this is anecdotal, but should give South Australians great cause for concern. I believe there is urgent need for investigation of what I see as a phenomenon which cannot be ignored. Michael Denborough, Professorial Fellow at the Australian National University, with impressive medical qualifications, being a Doctor of Medicine, a Doctor of Science, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and a Fellow of the Royal Australian College of Physicians has written to us all pointing out that there are no adequate safeguards for uranium mining. The willingness, of South Australians to have their State exposed to further contamination was given considerable weight in the course of the redefinition of Labor Party policy this week. Apparently South Australians are prepared to ignore the lessons of Radium Hill, which also have been clearly documented over the last few years. Among those workers who were employed at Radium Hill in the 1950s and early 1960s and who have already died, something like three times the normal expected deaths by cancer have occurred. Disposal of waste in foreign countries or in the oceans of the world may seem remote and academic problems to many Australians. But the waste in tailing stamps is with us already from earlier mining, presenting a threat in times of heavy rain and also in dry times when contaminated solids have been dispersed widely. We in the Labor Party do not have the luxury of being able to contemplate the immediate cessation of the export of uranium. Supporting the Bill before us would be a tempting but futile gesture, with more than a hint of hyprocrisy, not to mention expediency. I have today restated the reservations of thinking Australians. My Party, according to its policy, in 1977 and 1982 placed stringent qualifications on any expansion of the uranium industry in Australia. As far as I am aware, those qualifications still stand. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(1.07) —I rise to speak on the Customs (Nuclear Weapons and Hardware Prohibition) Bill that has been proposed by the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp). Its provisions will endanger about 14 mining projects in Australia which will benefit not only the economy of Australia, which seems to be overemphasised, but, more importantly, will provide job opportunities for people in this country who want to work. Many of those people happen to be members of the trade union movement. Significant numbers of Australian Workers Union members have come to me and said: 'For heaven's sake, do all you can to start mining uranium. We need to work, we need the job opportunities which will be generated as a result of the subsidiary industries which will develop. Here we are contemplating a non-development Bill put forward by Senator Chipp in an emotive way and based on total ignorance of the whole subject. I seek leave to have a table incorporated in Hansard. It demonstrates the mining projects contemplated, their worth to Australia, and the job opportunities that are presented. Leave granted. The table read as follows- URANIUM PROJECTS-WHAT THEY COULD BE WORTH TO AUSTRALIA Estimated Potential Money Planned recoverable annual Potential Operator Project spent investment reserves production employment South Australia WMC Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) $100m $2,000m 1.2m tonnes (in place) 3,000 tonnes 18,600* 5,700-8,300* CSR Honeymoon $11m $24m 3,420 tonnes 450 tonnes 50* approx. 20* Western Nuclear Australia Ltd Beverley $10m $50m 13,600 tonnes 1,000 tonnes n/a* 100* Northern Territory Pancon Mining Jabiluka $50m $500m 207,000 tonnes 3,300 tonnes 1285* 487* Denison Mines Koongara $100m $120m 13,000 tonnes - 500* 110* ERA Ranger $320m - 125,835 tonnes 3,000 tonnes - 400* Qld Mines Ltd Nabarlek $90m - 12,000 tonnes (stockpiled) 1,000-1,400 tonnes - 113* Western Australia WMC Yeelirrie $35m $300m 52,500 tonnes 2,500 tonnes n/a* n/a* Delhi Lake Way $5m $46m 3,673 tonnes 450 tonnes 120* approx. 50* Queensland Total Ben Lomond $15m $100m 4,100 tonnes 500 tonnes 420* 300* Qld Mines Ltd Westmoreland n/a n/a 4,745 tonnes n/a n/a* n/a* Queensland Mines Ltd Valhalla Skal n/a n/a 11,357 tonnes n/a n/a* n/a* Anderson's Lode * During construction. * When operational. Senator JESSOP —It is not uncommon in this place to listen to emotive speeches from members of the Australian Democrats, as well as the left wing supporters of the Australian Labor Party. Last week I listened with interest to the emotive speech made by Senator Mason. At page 2213 of Hansard it is recorded that he talked about the amount of plutonium that is produced and he referred to the loss of some of that plutonium. In his speech he suggested that the total nuclear power production capacity for 1980 would have produced 80,000 kilograms of PU-239. The figure is incorrect, being much too high. The total capacity of the 294 licensed commercial nuclear power plants as at 1 January 1983 was 173, 000 megawatts. Assuming that 70 per cent of this capacity was available throughout 1982, then the total production of all isotopes of plutonium in 1982 would have been approximately, dealing with light water reactors, 36,000 kilograms; Candu reactors, 3,000 kilograms; Magnox reactors, 2,500 kilograms; giving a total of 41,500 kilograms, not 80,000. That is typical of the way in which opponents of the nuclear industry exaggerate. Senator Mason went on to talk about the mutagenic effects that radiation has on human birth. The truth of mutagenic effects is that, in the Hiroshima-Nagasaki area, more than 75,000 children of irradiated parents from the two bombs were studied and surprisingly enough, no increase in genetic problems was associated with those children. They demonstrated the usual 3 per cent birth deformity rate which is the epidemiological expectation throughout the community. That report was done in 1975. It was known as the Bier report. The Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council's publication No. 3 also made reference to that. It stated: There are no data with direct relevance to radiation mutagenesis in man. It is possible to set upper limits to the magnitude of the possible genetic effects of radiation in man by argument from the existence of natural background radiation or from the apparent absene of induced genetic effects in children of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Senator Mason, in an emotive speech on the debate on 3 November is recorded at page 2214 of Hansard as saying: Let us examine the latest report from the United Press International only yesterday, relating to the Windscale area in the United Kingdom. The headline is 'Child cancer levels jump near nuclear plant'. He went on to talk about alarming levels of leukemia and cancer being found in children living in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant in north west England. This report was on a television documentary. He also went on to suggest that the reason that there were deformed limbs on calves and that calves were born without tongues and ears was that the cows had been grazing in the area near that nuclear power station. I have visited England to study the subject. I have been impressed with the way the health physicists monitor the environmental radiation background regularly to ensure that the normal background radiation level is not exceeded. They monitor out from a radius of, I think, about 18 kilometres from each station. This is done regularly because, if there is any departure-there has not been since 1956 when the nuclear industry commenced in England-they would certainly be anxious to determine the cause. I suggest that the television program in England from which the Press statements appeared in Australia was unfair because British Nuclear Fuels Ltd suggested that the television company should have produced some comment from its company at the same time. I would like to read some comments that have been made . I asked for some information about the program. The telex in reply states: The Yorkshire television documentary to which you referred in your telex was transmitted last night (Tuesday, 1 November). BNFL had been in negotiation with the programme makers for over 12 months about this project and had co-operated by providing a great deal of information, special briefings and filming facilities at Sellafield. We agreed to respond to the claims made in the programme in an interview to be recorded just before transmission. This was done yesterday afternoon by our Director of Health and Safety, Peter Mummery, and the programme as transmitted and seen as a whole was reasonably fair in that at least an opportunity was given to make our position on the main charges quite clear. However, we were insensed that YTV choose to release details of their film to the press last week well before transmission and before even we had recorded our response. The result was a great deal of one-sided press publicity a version of which has obviously reached Australia. That is typical. We get one-sided presentations. It would be different if we could have a balanced presentation. People would then be in a position to make a judgment on the facts presented by both sides of the argument. The telex continued: Our position is clear. We accept that YTV appear to have discovered clusters of cancer cases including leukaemia in children in two small communities close to the Sellafield works and that these represent rates well above national averages . We reject, however, the idea that these can be attributed to radioactivity from Sellafield. This view has been supported on the programme by Cumbria County Council's own radiological adviser, Professor John Fremlin of Birmingham University, who considers a virus to be a more likely explanation of these clusters as well as other clusters to be found elsewhere in the country well away from any nuclear installation. That is true. We have to examine the whole thing in a sensible, unemotional way. We will find throughout England and throughout any community clusters of people who have some abnormality or other. I listened to Senator Giles talk about the incidence of cancer amongst the employees in the nuclear industry. This has been studied very carefully. I have seen surveys on many nuclear workers in the industry in America and other places. The epidemiological evidence is that the incidence of cancer amongst those people is less than in other parts of the community. Look at the workers in the coal mining industry. Let us face it, coal mining is a carcinogenic hazard. There is carbon in the environment in which the coal miners work that contributes to emphysema and lung cancer. If we look at that industry we see that there is reason for great concern about the health of workers in the coal mining area. I always try to keep my feet on the ground with respect to this subject. I have gone out of my way to become informed on the medical, scientific and engineering problems associated with it. I do not claim to be an expert on it, but, I think I am, at least as informed as most people in this Parliament can be. I took the trouble before I went into this subject in great detail to go to Lucas Heights with the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment to be informed on the technology associated with uranium enrichment, with the storage of nuclear waste and with the way radio isotopes are used to make assessments of mining productive capacity and so on. I was impressed by the scientific information that was presented on that occasion. I was told that the scientists at Lucas Heights had done a background environmental study in the Kakadu National Park area eight years before mining in that area commenced. They did biopsies on the livers of fish, feral buffalo and birds and discovered that, in the dry season before mining commenced, there was a tremendous amount of heavy metal pollution in the livers of those animals and birds, so much so that one would think they would die. But in the wet season when the dilution of the waters occurred, those animals returned to normal. I was impressed with the infinite care with which the Lucas Heights scientists went about that work. Of course, I visited the area before mining commenced. I visited there after the Nabarlek mining was completed, before processing commenced and after processing was completed. I have been in a position to exercise some sort of surveillance over the environmental care that is taken up there. Certainly slight accidents occur. There was a spillage-an insignificant spillage as it turned out-which was blown out of all proportion in the Press. When it was investigated there was found to be no problem or hint of a problem with respect to the health of the people working up there. I am sure that the people who are working in the Ranger uranium mine area or who are contemplating working with Pancontinental Mining Ltd would be suitably unimpressed by the attitude of some members of the Australian Labor Party who threaten to stop the industry altogether and deprive the workers of their jobs and deprive many of their fellow workers of the opportunity of future employment. Mr Deputy President, I do not want to overly burden the Hansard but in the interests of time I would like to incorporate in Hansard-I have told the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) about this-a Press statement from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd on the Yorkshire television program. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- BNFL PRESS STATEMENT ON YORKSHIRE TV PROGRAMME British Nuclear Fuels limited emphatically rejects claims made in a Yorkshire Television programme to be shown on Tuesday that operations at the Company's Sellafield site (formerly Windscale) may have caused cancer in children on the Cumbrian coast. The Company also deplores the fact that YTV have released details of these alarmist claims before it has completed the programme by interviewing BNFL's nominated spokesman, Mr Peter Mummery, Director of Health and Safety. A formal complaint will be made to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. ''YTV bases its accusations on its own unvalidated findings that the incidence of cancer among children in three villages near Sellafield is higher than the national average'' Mr Mummery said today. In small areas variations from the national average, both upward and downward may be expected. It is well known to experts in cancer statistics that sometimes unusally high numbers can be found in relation to the size of the community. These are described as ''clusters''. A quick examination of some available cancer incidence statistics by BNFL has already identified a town in Cumbria some 30 miles from the coastline where a cancer cluster exists. ''The incomplete programme discussed by YTV with journalists at the weekend, ignores the studies carried out by BNFL itself on the number of deaths from cancer among those people who have worked at Windscale since nuclear operations began.'' ''This major epidemiological survey was discused with the YTV programme's producer in considerable depth.'' ''It covers some 11,500 workers and ex workers at Sellafield. It shows that there is no greater number of deaths from cancer among the people who actually work or have worked with radioactive materials at the plant than in the population at large.'' ''Indeed, the total number of deaths from cancer (293) is lower than might be expected (337) among such a group on the basis of the national figures. The number of deaths from leaukaemia to which YTV pay particular attention is eight with an expectation of nine. The average radiation exposure to those workers arising from operations at Sellafield is 100 times greater than it is to the general public in Cumbria.'' ''BNFL also intends to deal with claims made in the programme relating to the environmental effects of discharges of radioactive materials from Windscale provided that YTV uphold the promise they gave us seven months ago that we would be given a reasonable opportunity within the programme to answer any serious criticisms made against us.'' ''Nearly all the allegations relating to the environment raised in the programme were thoroughly discussed at the 100 day Windscale Inquiry held in 1977 and refuted'' Mr Mummery said. ''We have continued to monitor environmental effects and published data on them regularly, discussing it with local area representatives on the Sellafield Local Liaison Committee.'' We particularly object to the statement in the programme that there is a hazard to children playing and walking in the Sellafield area. ''Assuming the highest figures quoted in the programme for levels of radioactivity to be correct, children would have to eat 20 lbs of dust in a year or sit in one tiny spot on a muddy estuary for 500 hours in a year (if such a spot could still be found each time the tide has turned) before permitted limits would be reached.'' ''Discharges of radioactive materials from Sellafield are within the limits set by Government appointed regulatory bodies which have access to the best available scientific advice from the National Radiological Protection Board, the International Commission for Radiological Protection and a number of advisory bodies.'' ''Finally the programme implies that the accumulation of plutonium along the coast and in particular at Ravenglass has been taking place at an increasing rate in recent years. The reverse is the case. The amount has been decreasing reflecting the decreasing plutonium discharges. The YTV film refers to the plutonium getting into people via the lung-that is via the air they breath. Measurements made regularly and published over many years show that the level of plutonium in the air in the Ravenglass area for example, has always been tiny by comparison with the permitted limit and is currently 1/1000th of that limit.'' ''In no way can the situation be described as one in which the levels are dangerous.'' Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate. I think this subject is extremely important to the future of Australia. I am surprised that Senator Chipp does not recognise the job opportunities that would be created, the potential for the generation of industry in Australia. I regret that he has become emotionally tied up with people whose support he naturally wants to gain in Parliament. I suggest that the vast majority of Australian people-I think the last Morgan gallup poll suggested 79 per cent of the community-are in favour of the expansion of the nuclear industry in this country. If the referendum on 25 February were to include this issue along with the constitutional matters that we are going to be dealing with, I believe we would find that the majority of people in Australia would encourage the development of the uranium industry in this country. I suggest it is very important to recognise the comments of Sir Mark Oliphant on this subject. I quote from an article in the Australian of 13 October by Leslie Kemeny, which states: On the sensitive subjects of bombs and proliferation, which arouse so much emotion in both government circles and among the Australian public, the recently published comments of one of the 'elder statesman' of Australian science, Sir Mark Oliphant, bear repeating: 'Withholding Australian uranium would not prevent the erection of a single reactor or the production of one nuclear weapon in a world where 50,000 to 60, 000 such weapons already exist . . . 'I am convinced that Australia would be foolish not to mine, use and sell uranium.' We must remember-this is another thing that is overlooked-that the plutonium which is being used to furnish those countries with the nuclear weapons that they possess comes from sources other than domestic nuclear power sources. This was made clear, I thought, in what I regarded as a good answer given yesterday by Senator Walsh, when he made the point that special treatment needs to be carried out and special processes and technology have to be used. Of course, we are all interested in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We would all like to see the Russians, the Americans-all those who possess these weapons- destroy them so that we need have no concern about them any longer. But that still would not necessarily mean that Australia would not become the target for some of the communist countries which may be looking at our national resources with greed and envy. Senator Chipp —Come on now. Who? Name one. Senator JESSOP —Japan. Senator Chipp —Is that communist? Senator JESSOP —South Korea. Right, okay, let us look at the countries that need energy and we will find that plenty of left wing socialist countries are in that category. Senator Chipp —Name one country that has the logistic capability of invading and occupying Australia, other than the United States and the Soviet Union. Senator JESSOP —I think that Senator Chipp is the high priest-- Senator Chipp —Name one. Senator JESSOP —All right, I am suggesting to Senator Chipp that there could be several. Senator Chipp —Name one. Senator JESSOP —We named them the other day. There is a country in Europe, in the Eastern bloc, without sufficient uranium for its own use. I believe it would be very anxious to acquire uranium from any source at all. Senator Chipp —But name one that is capable of invading and occupying Australia. That is what I am asking. Senator JESSOP —Let me proceed and reply to the high priest, I think they called him, of the uranium trade. The countries that would be anxious to acquire uranium from Australia I suggest would be China, which has an inadequate supply, and Vietnam, which has none. They are countries that I think are militarily anxious to acquire uranium for their purposes. They are a couple of examples. I share Senator Chipp's views that nuclear weapons are bad, but if a country wanted to attack the North West Cape, for example, it could do it with conventional weapons. Countries have satellite weapons now and laser technology which is going to present problems. So I think the Australian Democrats should really strut the international stage. They should talk to the people in Moscow and tell them that they believe the Russions should get rid of their nuclear weapons. I think that would be a very commendable thing to do for the future of mankind. If the proposition were that we should agree that all these countries should phase out their nuclear weapons, I would support that entirely. I do believe that with the way in which technology is improving, with the advances that are being made, all our worries about the storage of highly radioactive waste should be gradually subsiding. Technology is becoming more satisfactory. The infinitesimally small amount of residue that is left after nuclear power generation presents far fewer problems than the massive toxic wastes that are left when we burn coal. I have made the point time and time again that for every tonne of coal we burn 2.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide is produced, together with all the other oxides of sulphur and nitrogen that could damage the ozone layer in the long term. How do we dispose of the mercury, cadmium and other toxic wastes that are left in mammoth quantities throughout the world? Since the advent of nuclear power the accumulation of waste throughout the world would cover the Phillip Oval here in Canberra or the Adelaide Oval in South Australia to a depth of one metre. The total accumulation of radioactive waste in England since 1956 would cover an ordinary two-bedroomed suburban home. We are looking at waste of that magnitude. If we in Australia provided 15 million people with nuclear power for 12 months we would be looking at a residue of radioactive waste which would fill a room 10 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet. Senator Mason —That is high level waste, is it not? Senator JESSOP —Three cubic metres of high level waste, yes, but waste which is easily disposed of in the glassification process. I wish that Senator Mason would check his facts before coming in here and talking about mutagenesis. I wish he would study the subject a little more carefully in the future. I wish he would get the facts with respect to the amount of plutonium that is being produced in the world today. I hope when he reads the facts that I have presented he will revise his thinking on this subject. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(1.30) —I oppose the Customs (Nuclear Weapons and Hardware Prohibition) Bill 1983 although I find many characteristics of the Bill attractive. The Bill, of course, is for an Act to prohibit the export of nuclear materials and the importation of nuclear hardware and for purposes connected therewith. The Bill is superficially attractive because it refers to the exclusion of various nuclear hardware in the interpretation section of the Bill. However it goes further and in clause 4 reference is made to natural uranium, yellowcake. Of course, the Bill would have the effect of attempting forthwith to prevent the export of uranium. That position is not supported by the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party's position is to phase out uranium mining and indeed, in paragraph 63C of the Australian Labor Party platform it is stated that the Australian Labor Party's minimum position is a total unequivocal commitment to phase out Australia's involvement in the uranium industry. That is something that I completely support. I refer to the Labor Party platform which encompasses the principles that we in the Labor Party have adopted, having given a great deal of consideration to the many problems that exist in the uranium industry. In relation to that industry, the Labor Party's platform states: Recognising that the provision of Australian uranium to the world nuclear fuel cycle creates problems relevant to Australian sovereignty, the environment, the economic welfare of our people and the rights and well being of the Aboriginal people; believing that, having regard to the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power, and in particular- a to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and Further, we believe: b the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated; Last night I was reading the Guardian, from the United Kingdom, in the Parliamentary Library. It stated that the British Government, in seeking to use a particular dump for the disposal of nuclear waste, found that containers that were used a number of years previously were unsafe because dampness around the mine areas had caused the corrosion of the containers. What is so frightening is that throughout the world the problem of waste has not been solved. We face the problem that governments throughout the world are trying to solve their problems with the nuclear industry when there are no proven ways of being able to secure safely waste products over a period. Of course, even those products that have been tested have, relative to the dangers of radioactive waste, a very long life before anybody can be certain that they will be safe at all. The Labor Party platform takes the position, to put it colloquially, that the uranium industry in every facet that I have just described is suspect. It has to be shown that it is not guilty of being a dangerous industry. It has to be shown that the mining processes are not dangerous. Many potential dangers exist in relation to the mining of uranium, especially deeply mined uranium. Nevertheless , we believe that we must take special steps. We have indicated that we inherited a situation when we came to government whereby the Fraser Government had made treaties and authorised contracts to supply uranium to a growing number of countries which make little effort to impose controls and conditions on its supply. The incoming Labor Government was committed to repudiating all existing commitments. The Labor platform states: In adopting our repudiation commitment an Australian Labour Party government has neither a moral, legal, or political obligation to compensate the industry as such; (c) Understanding the difficulties which could be encountered in the implementation of that commitment our minimum position would be a total unequivocal commitment to phase out Australia's involvement in the uranium industry and that certain conditions as outlined will and must be applied to those mines . . . Of course, we were referring to mines in production in July 1982. The ALP platform continues. (d) as an ALP government we give total commitment to preventing any new mines from being developed during our period of office. That is the platform of the Australian Labor Party, to which I particularly subscribe. I commend it to honourable senators. There is another aspect of Senator Chipp's second reading speech with which I completely agree. He referred to the general question of nuclear arms proliferation. I feel that it is the main problem we face today. The danger of nuclear war is the greatest problem we face. I think this moment in history is perhaps one of the worst the world has faced. I am pleased that the Labor Party platform on disarmament and arms control very clearly states that a Labor goverment will: Oppose the development, proliferation, possession and use of nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and other techniques of mass destruction. The platform continues: Work to apply and strengthen international conventions to secure universal prohibition of nuclear, chemical, and bacteriological and biological warfare. In relation to nuclear weapons, Labor will- a urge achievement of major qualitative restraints and quantitative reductions in Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and in regional arrangements; I mention this because the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) has referred to it. I believe that the situations we face now in Lebanon and the Middle East, with Iran and Iraq locked in a very vicious war, and the recent developments in Central America and the Carribean mean that we have every reason to worry. We have two super-powers, two nuclear powers. It is impossible to separate uranium and its supply from the nuclear weapons issue because they are interlocked. It is bad enough that we have in the world today the development of conventional arms and a tremendous buildup towards war. The wars I have just mentioned are the most obvious ones. There are many places where the world powers are supplying conventional arms and there is the threat, in the long term , that additional powers will obtain nuclear arms. In 1981 world military spending totalled $625 billion. This is at least $110 for every man, woman and child on earth. Fifty million people are directly or indirectly engaged in military activities. In a world in which energy resources are supposed to be in scarce supply, 6 per cent of petrol consumption is used for military purposes. For those who argue that we should extend the uranium industry surely one practical way of reducing the ordinary call on the petroleum industry would be to reduce the arms race itself. One quarter of all research funds go to military research and development. Here again, if one examines how little has been spent, relatively speaking, on alternative sources of energy one can see that we are not sensibly allocating responsibilities in the world. For example, so little is spent on solar power and other forms of safe energy, but so much is spent on conventional weapons. The international trade in conventional arms is staggering. It amounts to $26 billion a year. The trade in arms by both developed and developing countries, particularly the Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil and Israel is of great concern. Those matters of conventional arms are serious enough, but we are reminded of nuclear weapons technology, the frightening proportions that it has reached, and the nuclear overkill mentioned by Senator Chipp when he referred to the fact that 50,000 nuclear weapons are now deployed. Their combined explosive power is one million times grater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. When one considers that, one realises that an error by any country which possesses nuclear weapons could lead to the final solution concerning the world's population. The problem is that not enough money is going towards solving the world's problems in a positive, human and life-force way because we have so much money in the area of destruction. There is no way that one can differentiate, as we are going down hill in the danger of nuclear war, between the ordinary use of uranium for power generation and, finally, one way or another, the danger of yellowcake, in a processed form, getting into various hands in the form of nuclear weapons. I accept that there are people who genuinely believe that by exporting their uranium they might have some say in the final situation concerning weapons. I reject that view. I do not believe that it is sensible. All the examples that have been given of the expropriation of uranium in transit show that it is possible at any point for a nation state or terrorists to gain sufficient to be able to endanger the world in a situation in which there is a proliferation of reactors and the wherewithal to establish at least dirty nuclear weapons, as they are called. We are doing all this when the United Nations has pointed out that 8 per cent of the world's total output is spent on the arms race, when one child in four suffers from malnutrition, when four out of five children in rural areas do not have adequate water or sanitation, when two out of five children aged 6 to 11 years do not attend school, and when four out of five children have no modern health care. The world's military spend the equivalent of the annual budget of the United Nations Children's Fund every four hours. When we look at the other aspect, we see that just one strategic bomber which costs $US100m is the equivalent of the spending by the World Health Organisation to wipe out smallpox . These are the choices that we have. Senator Susan Ryan, in a speech at an international symposium in Canberra earlier this year, pointed out that our own nation spends $4 billion on defence when our homelessness, unemployment and proverty are still matters of concern. I noted that Senator Jessop, who is a sincere supporter of uranium mining, referred to communist countries invading and occupying Australia to get our uranium. When he was challenged, that was found to be just another of the frightening statements that people such as Senator Jessop are making. He was not able to nominate one country that could be in the position of doing that. But later I shall draw attention to the fact that , unfortunately, this is a world situation in which tensions are increasing. Irresponsible statements such as that made by Senator Jessop today are the sort of things that are multiplying in the world and that make the consideration of this private member's Bill something about which we should be concerned, because the threat is a genuine threat of world war in our time. It is very hard for people as egotistical and as narcissistic as politicians tend to be to face up to the fact that there will be nothing left if there is a nuclear war. For them to consider the Bill, they must consider that it relates critically to what we are to do to prevent this almost inevitable war. If it is thought that I am exaggerating, I should refer to a recent issue of the International Herald Tribune, of 31 October this year, I think. This is a prominent American and international journal and it reflects a very balanced and conservative view of world affairs. This issue contains an article headed: 'Kremlin Preparing Soviet Population For a Deterioration in Ties with U.S.' Dusko Doder writes from Moscow: The Soviet leadership has begun a broad effort to mobilize the population for an anticipated crisis in its relations with the United States. Well-informed sources said Communist Party members are being told in closed meetings that there is no chance of reaching an agreement at the Geneva arms talks and that the country and its economy must be prepared to meet all challenges imposed by the situation. According to participants in the meetings, a Central Committee letter to the party's 18 million members gives a gloomier assessment of East-West relations than publicly stated by President Yuri V. Andropov. The letter reportedly asserts that Moscow should not expect an improvement in relations with Washington for several years, and the wording suggests that it expects a deterioration of relations during that time. This is a letter from an American correspondent describing the tension that now exists in the Soviet Union. The correspondent goes on to say: The letter is said to emphasize the need for greater internal discipline, vigilance and sacrifice, and it puts particular emphasis on stopping loose talk by citizens who know state secrets . . . There has been an unusually strong emphasis on the importance of the KGB, the Soviet secret police. The Communist Party newspaper Pravda recently carried laudatory remarks about the KGB that have not been heard in public for decades. It quotes a Soviet citizen as thanking 'the fighters on the secret front.' A documentary film that premiered on national television Saturday night portrayed the United States as a dangerous 'militaristic' power bent on world domination. The 45-minute film, prepared by the Defence Ministry, contrasted shots of U.S. nuclear explosions and various U.S. missiles with scenes of war victims, Soviet war memorials and words of Moscow's peaceful intentions. A series of public meetings held throughout the country Saturday also emphasised the threat to the Soviet Union posed by the scheduled deployment in December of new U.S. nuclear missiles in Europe and Mr. Reagan's foreign policy. I refer to that article because I think it indicates the paranoia that obviously exists and is even, perhaps, being encouraged by the Soviet Government. It occurs at a time when within three weeks the deployment of Cruise and Pershing 2 missiles begins in Western Europe. Relations between the United States and the Soviet Union are at an all time low. We know that the Soviet Union is threatening to walk out of the intermediate nuclear force negotiations as a reaction to the deployment of the missiles in Europe. The Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, START, which convened in Geneva earlier this month, have become the 'STOP' talks. We cannot emphasise enough the it is only a matter of time before progress in super- power dialogue stops. It is sad that this dialogue is lacking because President Reagan, in his address to the Thirty-Eighth Session of the United Nations General Assembly, stated: . . . progress in weapons technology has far outstripped the progress towards peace. In order to get the balance of the views of the two super-powers I state my position. There is a very real danger in the very near future of deteriorating relationships between the Soviet Union and the United States. This deterioration could create the situation that could cause war in any of the trouble spots in the world or war could occur simply because of the usual probability that we have with nuclear weapons, that is, a malfunction of the techniques of nuclear weapons. I would also like to draw the Senate's attention to an article entitled 'When Talks Undercuts Arms Talks', also from the International Herald Tribune, dated 4 October 1983 in which Anthony Lewis stated: The Reagan policy for dealing with the Soviet Union-bristling words and an all- out arms race-is flourishing as never before. He went on in that article to say: If meaningful communication breaks down, the consequences could be immediate and severe on the question of medium-range missiles in Europe. The United States is to begin flying Pershing-2 missiles to West Germany in about six weeks. Of course, this deadline is now about three weeks away. He continued: Many Europeans have been hoping for last-minute progress in Soviet-U.S. arms talks that would forestall the deployment. But the Andropov statement turns that possibility from remote to just about nonexistent. Once the deployment of Pershings and cruise missiles begins, the Russians may take some threatening action in response. They might deploy missiles in East Germany, or move nuclear-armed submarines closer to the American East Coast. The article concluded by saying: A perception of such danger seems suddenly to have struck the Reagan Administration. Secretary of State George Shultz has reportedly told colleagues that the strident and prolonged criticism of the Soviets over the downing of the airliner may have had unintended consequences. But only someone grossly uninformed about the Soviet Union could have failed to appreciate how the Russians might react to the words used by this administration -and not just since the incident. For two and a half years Mr Reagan has directed the harshest language at Soviet leaders, really denying their legitimacy, and they do care morbidly about attacks of that kind. That quote from an American correspondent of the International Herald Tribune draws attention in its very criticism of the strident and, I think, destructive statements that have been made by leading personalities in President Reagan's Administration, statements that just fuel the mutual paranoia of the two super- powers that I think both those quotations establish. For those of us who strongly oppose the development of the whole nuclear weapons cycle, we have the United Nations, we have a world-wide movement for a nuclear freeze, we have a movement which was reflected in the United Nations devoting time in 1978 to discussing disarmament and in 1982 the United Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament was convened. A feature of this session was the strong march for nuclear disarmament and the million people who went to New York to indicate their concern about what is going on. Of course, in Australia we have the same sort of movement of people across political barriers and people who are concerned about nuclear weapons. When considering a private member's Bill such as that which we are debating today, we must consider every aspect. It is not as simple as dismissing our responsibility. It is my belief that the Australian Labor Party's platform of phasing down uranium mining is a very serious contribution to establishing our position as one of having severe doubt about the suitability of the uranium mining industry and of nuclear power as such, and of the dangers that exist with nuclear power wherever it is in the world. I believe there are so many reported problems with nuclear power stations that we cannot be certain that once again within our immediate lifetime there will not be an accident in a nuclear power station that will cause a meltdown or some other crisis that will only throw back even further the uranium mining industry. I am reminded of a recent article I saw regarding South Korea, which has been heralded by some people as a place to which we should look. In South Korea it was recently reported that the South Koreans are a bit concerned because pressures have come from government and other sources of administration to skimp on safety measures. There is a serious review taking place in South Korea at the moment to try to rectify what appear to be major faults in their reactors which have been overlooked by authorities. Now, in retrospect, they are trying to solve that problem. I think that one illustration indicates that the nuclear power industry is a dangerous one. Unfortunately, it is the nature of the industry that although other figures might be quoted, the industry has to make only one major error, has to have only one major catastrophe like Three Mile Island almost was, and that is it. In view of everything else I have said, the proper expression for me to use might be that it is like playing Russian roulette; it is a very dangerous gamble as far as the safety of the world is concerned. It is one in which we in Australia should play our part in making sure that people do not participate. Although I oppose this private member's Bill, I sympathise with many of the aspects incorporated in the Bill by Senator Chipp. But I believe that, under all the circumstances, the Australian Labor Party platform is the appropriate charter for the phasing down of uranium mining in this country. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(1.59) —I note the fact that it is almost 2 o'clock, but I rise very briefly to open my speech on a private member' s Bill, the Customs (Nuclear Materials and Hardware Prohibition) Bill, the aim of which is to remove any possibility of the movement of nuclear materials, including fissile materials, to or from Australia. The Bill itself is supported by those who argue that by so doing, by the prevention of such movement, there would be a signifcant contribution by Australia towards the lowering of the threat of nuclear war, the lowering of the threat of producing fissile material for wartime purposes. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 2 p.m. under sessional order I call on questions without notice. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, I inform the Senate that Senator Ryan will be absent from the chamber this afternoon. Any questions which normally would be directed to Senator Ryan in relation to her portfolio or the portfolios of Ministers she represents should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is there any difference between official Australian Labor Party policy and the policy of the parliamentary Labor Party on uranium? If he believes them to be one and the same thing, is he concerned at the statement by Senator Ruth Coleman on this morning's AM program which draws a clear distinction between the two? Does he believe that the obvious refusal of some Labor parliamentarians to accept Monday's Caucus decision and their determination to campaign publicly against it in the lead up to next year's national conference will revive the uncertainty which has dogged the Government's uranium policy for so long to the detriment of business and investor confidence generally? Senator BUTTON —The Government announced its policy in relation to uranium mining and associated issues some 10 days ago and, in accordance with the normal procedures adopted by the parliamentary Labor Party, that decision was submitted to the membership of the Party on Monday of this week. The decision of the Government was confirmed by that meeting. I think it is common ground that there are differences of emphasis and interpretation in relation to the national platform of the Australian Labor Party on uranium, adopted at the 1982 conference. Nonetheless, the decision of the Government is quite clear. The decision of the Government remains, and I am not in any position to speculate about what particular members might do in the foreseeable future, in pursuit of their individual rights as members of the Australian Labor Party as suggested in Senator Chaney's question. I was also asked whether I was concerned about statements made by Senator Coleman on the AM program this morning. Yes, I am. I believe Senator Coleman's statements are not correct in their totality and, as the honourable senator asked this question, I also believe that, on any interpretation at all of the national platform of the Labor Party, the Bill introduced in the Senate by the Australian Democrats is contrary to the policy of the Australian Labor Party. Apart from that, I just confirm the Government's position. There will be no uncertainty engendered by the decision of the Government. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I observe that I agree with the last part of the answer about the inconsistency between the Bill and the Labor Party's policy. I remind the Leader of the Government that I asked him whether, in his view, there is any difference between official ALP policy and the policy which has now been adopted by the Government and endorsed by the parliamentary Labor Party's Caucus. Senator BUTTON —In my view there is no inconsistency between the view expressed by the Government and the national platform of the Australian Labor Party. I qualify that only by saying that the national platform of the Labor Party did not have applied to it the drafting skills which have been applied to the Government's decision, which will remain the decision of this Government and be implemented. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware that there appear to be some doubts about the way in which initial community employment program projects have been selected in Queensland? Can the Minister investigate why initial allocations appear to have been granted on a random basis and do not appear to represent high unemployment areas? Can the Minister give an assurance that the CEP selection will be based on priorities determined by levels of unemployment in that State and that the $41m allocated to Queensland will be targeted to areas of high unemployment? Furthermore, can the Minister reassure Queensland women that, as set down in the community employment program guidelines, they will in fact be entitled to equal access to those jobs created? Senator BUTTON —I am in a position to give Senator Reynolds the assurances which she seeks. I am informed that of the 18 projects recommended for approval under the community employment program 17 are in areas where the highest rates of unemployment are found in the State of Queensland; that is, the rates of unemployment in those 17 areas are higher than the State average. The eighteenth project is in an area with an unemployment level only marginally below the State average. A number of other applications have been received and they are receiving more detailed assessment at this stage. I am not in a position to say anything about them. I should inform the honourable senator that the consultative committee which has the function of selecting these programs will be meeting again on Friday of this week and will recommend projects from various other areas of Queensland. But it will do so according to the same criteria which it has adopted in respect of the existing programs and which are, as it were, standard requirements for the program. I am also informed that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations expects to be in a position in the next few days to release a joint statement with the Premier of Queensland announcing a wide range of projects approved under the CEP in Queensland. I think Senator Reynolds will be aware that the CEP guidelines contain special provisions relating to the employment of women, and in respect of Queensland those special provisions have been taken into account along with the other criteria to which I have referred. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Is the Government concerned about the deterioration in Australian's relationship with the Association of South East Asian Nations which has been developing since the Government took office and which has suddenly worsened in recent days? What does the Prime Minister propose to do to repair the damage which has already been done to this long-standing and important relationship? Will the Prime Minister instruct the Foreign Minister to cease making provocative statements in the current climate? Senator BUTTON —The first thing to deal with in answer to that question is the implication that there is some difference of view about this matter between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is not. Every statement which has been made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and every consultation he has had with ASEAN governments has been on the basis of prior consultation and agreement with the Prime Minister. Senator Durack —Did he clear his speeches? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether it goes that far, but there is agreement. Whilst the Opposition parties, when they were in government, may have had the Prime Minister vetting speeches-they certainly sounded like that-the Foreign Minister in the present Government does not have the Prime Minister vetting his speeches, but they are written consistent with the views agreed between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I might say that the attitude of the Australian Government has been explained on a number of occasions to ASEAN countries in relation to the initiative which the Australian Government took on Kampuchea. We do not see it as any long term deterioration of our relationship with ASEAN, and this week the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been having a series of consultations with ASEAN ambassadors about this matter. The Prime Minister will be visiting Thailand-I am not quite sure when, but in the immediately foreseeable future. Senator Kilgariff —What about Mr Hayden? Senator BUTTON —What about Mr Hayden? The Prime Minister will be visiting Thailand and the views he expresses there will be consistent with the views which have been put by the Australian Government through its Foreign Minister and, where necessary, through the Prime Minister. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It concerns the level of the unemployment benefit for under-18-year-olds. The Minister is no doubt well aware of my continuing interest in this matter and the questions I have raised on it in the Senate over the last six months. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the 16-year-old hunger striker in Melbourne who has claimed that she will maintain her strike until she receives a positive response from the Government? When will the Government make a decision on income support assistance for under-18-year-olds? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I do know of Senator Foreman's continuing interest in the level of the unemployment benefit for under-18-year-olds, which was this week increased to $45 a week from the $40 a week it was previously. I remind honourable senators that for a long period, from 1975 on, that figure remained at $36. I do not for one minute pretend that that is necessarily a satisfactory level of unemployment benefit, but the decision to increase it by $5 was an election promise made by this Government. The promise was made in the light of the economic climate and the difficulties that we faced. Of course, we want to do more. As I have said before, Senator Ryan, Mr Willis and I are looking at the whole problem of the unemployment benefit for the young people in this age group . Australia's retention rate for young people in the education system and in training schemes is much below that of other countries. We are looking at consolidating the various forms of income support for young people into a more rational system, a system which will better serve them and this country. I am aware of the young lady who is on a hunger strike in Melbourne. Neither I nor the Government had any approach from this young woman before she started her hunger strike. I have sent an officer of the Department of Social Security to talk to her. I hope that in the next couple of days one of my colleagues will talk to her, as I am unable to be in Melbourne. I appreciate the strength of her feelings which have led her to take this action, but at the same time I do not think it assists the situation for her to do this. I wish that she would use other methods. Certainly, I wish that she had approached the Government and me before she decided to take this action. We are developing new policies. We have no immediate plans to increase the unemployment benefit for the under-18-year- olds as we have just done so in the Budget. However, we will keep the matter under close observation. As I said, Senator Ryan, Mr Willis and I are continuing to work towards a more rational policy in the future. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question. He will know that the Soviet Union and the United States of America possess between them something like 50,000 nuclear warheads, 20,000 of them presently able to be instantly deployed against people. Is the Minister aware that this arsenal has a destructive capability equivalent to 1 1/2 million Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs? While my question is not recommending unilateral disarmament for the United States, is it not a fact that as a strong indication of good will the United States could reduce its nuclear arsenal by, say, 25 per cent without reducing its capacity to totally destroy all major Soviet cities? Has the Australian Government considered these facts? Will the Government use its good offices with the United States to suggest that such a course of action could result in a meaningful and real move towards nuclear disarmament? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not in a position to confirm or deny the accuracy of Senator Chipp's precise figures. Certainly, the destructive power of the world's nuclear arsenals is enormous, horrifying and, indeed, such as to defy the imagination. It is a fundamental element of the Government's disarmament policy that these arsenals should be reduced and, of course, ultimately eliminated. The Government has noted statements by United States Government spokesmen that the United States has, since the 1960s, reduced the number of nuclear weapons in its stockpile and their total megatonnage. For example, in his report to Congress for fiscal year 1984, Defense Secretary Weinberger stated that the number of nuclear weapons in the United States stockpile was one-third higher in 1967 than in 1980, and that the total number of megatonnes in the stockpile was four times as high in 1960 as it was in 1980. Senator Chipp —But they have replaced them with new weapons which are more dangerous. Senator GARETH EVANS —That may be so, but let me indicate the answer to the question in the terms in which Senator Chipp put it. Since 1979 the United States, with the agreement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, has unilaterally withdrawn 1,000 nuclear weapons from stockpiles in Europe. On 27 October NATO's Nuclear Planning Group announced its decision to withdraw a further 1,400 nuclear warheads over the next few years. NATO spokesmen have said that by the time this decision is implemented NATO's nuclear stockpiles will be at their lowest levels in over 20 years. The Government takes the view that it has so far seen no evidence that the Soviet Union regards these actions as any indication of good will on the part of the United States. The Australian Government can see value in good-will gestures of the kind that Senator Chipp proposed when these serve practical purposes, but our objective remains that of securing sound and reliable agreements. Our position has been to urge that agreements should be reached between the super-powers which will lead to both qualitative restraints and quantitative reductions in nuclear forces. Such agreements have to be balanced and appropriately verifiable. Australia has presented its views on disarmament to the United States and to other governments and makes use of our position as an ally of the United States to pursue these objectives. Accordingly the Government does not see it as constructive in present circumstances to propose a 25 per cent unilateral reduction in nuclear armaments by the United States. Senator CROWLEY —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether he is aware of recent television programs on child pornography and child prostitution which have featured comments by the Pedophile Support Group and others claiming, among other things, that the children consented and, therefore, there was no need to worry. Can the Minister comment on the exploitation of these young children and on any actions the Government is taking to protect their interests? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware of the publicity and controversy involving child pornography in groups such as the Pedophile Support Group. Last night I saw an item on the program Nationwide concerning this subject. During that program I noted that one spokesman for an organisation said that because consent was involved it was of no concern to him or the community. He made the comment also that one of the reasons this exploitation occurs is that social support for children of this age group is inadequate. I was surprised at that approach, an approach which suggests that because consent of those who are under the age of consent is involved things are all right. I thought that went contrary to the laws and the general views of people in this community. The Government is, of course, aware of the fact that in recent years we have had an increasing problem with child homelessness. In fact, a committee of the Senate of which I was a member reported on some of the problems of homeless youth. We are aware that more needs to be done not only in the way of providing refuges but also in providing long term accommodation for young people, and particularly in providing training in life skills. We intend to develop this in association with the States. I hope to negotiate with the States a more comprehensive program in this area in the near future. I make the point to the person who made the comment on the program last night that this sort of illegal behaviour is not confined to homeless children. The people who indulge in this sort of thing do not confine their activities to those who are homeless or those who are on the streets. To try to excuse this sort of behaviour on the ground that the children consent is, I believe, nonsensical. To try to suggest that we will solve this problem by just social security, or income support measures, is equally nonsensical. I hope the debate on this matter in the future will be more responsible than I believe it was last night. Senator PETER RAE —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I ask whether on 24 October 1983, at and after a Metal Trades Industry Association Inc. meeting chaired by Mr Justice Ludeke, the Minister, firstly, in his speech said: On-wage costs- then a little later in the sentence- is a significant cost impost which has to be addressed. Later in answer to a question by the Chairman seeking elaboration of those comments, the Minister said that he was referring to long service leave, holiday pay, workers compensation and payroll tax. Secondly, is it a fact that after the meeting the Minister held a Press conference? Thirdly, is it a fact that there he told journalists that he was referring to penalty rates amongst the on-wage costs and that he would not say they should be abandoned, and that he also said that on-wage costs 'must be addressed by government, industry and unions alike'? I now ask the Minister: If they are facts, is it not also a fact that to avoid the wrath of certain unions and Mr Wright, or for some other reason, the Minister attempted to mislead the Senate on 2 November when he attempted to quarantine his statement to those sections contained in the written speech only? Senator BUTTON —I really do not know where to begin because Senator Rae's version of what took place is the product of a mind cluttered with useless and incorrect information. However, let me try to pick my way through the debris which he threw into the Senate in the course of his question and tell him what did take place. I would have thought that before asking the question he would have adverted to the speech I made to the Metal Trades Industry Association because it is freely available, and I am sure that the honourable senator's source of information would have given him a copy of it which would have enabled him to quote more accurately from it. Senator Peter Rae —There it is Minister, and the parts I quoted are marked. Senator BUTTON —No, they are the parts which the honourable senator did not quote. The honourable senator did not quote the parts. He pushed them all together in one sentence and a useful paraphrase for his purpose, which had nothing to do with what I said. Let me say first of all that in the speech I referred to on-wage costs. In talking about on-wage costs I specifically referred to long service leave as something which we have in Australia which other countries do not have. I was making the point, which the honourable senator ignored, of course, that on-wage costs in Australia are not significantly different from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. I made that point. Then, subsequently, in the course of my answer to a question from Mr Justice Ludeke, who asked me who should address the problems of add-on costs, I said that governments had to address certain of those costs, including payroll tax, workers compensation premiums, and so on, and that unions and employers had to address some of the questions of on-wage costs. I subsequently had a Press conference where, for the first time, the question of penalty rates was raised. In the course of that Press conference, yes, I said that penalty rates, with other add-on costs, were questions which had to be addressed. I was then asked my view about penalty rates and I said in response: 'If you think I am going to discuss my views on penalty rates on television you are going to be disappointed'. Subsequently in the Senate I have been asked a number of questions about my views on penalty rates and I have indicated in answer to those questions that I in no way regard myself as an expert on that very complex and difficult topic. However, they have to be addressed in the context of all the other issues to which I have referred and they have to be addressed by the people I suggested ought to address them. I do not know whether I can add anything to that by way of explanation. However, that is what happened. If Senator Rae likes to try to turn that series of statements by me into an allegation of cowardice or something in terms of answers that I have given in the Senate, of course, that is typically desperately consistent with his whole performance as Opposition spokesman on industry and commerce in this Senate. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs been drawn to recent publicity concerning movements in the rate of exchange between the Australian and the New Zealand dollar and the consequent 'short changing' of departmental beneficiaries resident in New Zealand? Can the Minister give an assurance that beneficiaries residing in New Zealand are not at a disadvantage because of fluctuation in the exchange rate? Senator GIETZELT —There have been numerous changes in the exchange rate. In fact, in many cases we can recall the exchange rate being in a constant state of fluctuation, which has some effect on pension beneficiaries of not only the Department of Veterans' Affairs but also the Department of Social Security. The question is particularly relevant because the pension payments of several hundred veteran pensioners living in New Zealand have varied as a result of exchange rate variations. Naturally, a considerable number of other beneficiaries, who come under the jurisdiction of Senator Grimes, the Minister for Social Security, have also been affected. I am informed that under the agreement between my Department and the New Zealand Department of Social Welfare, which is the authority that pays the pensions of Australians who are resident in New Zealand, the predetermined rate of exchange for such payments is reviewed whenever the daily exchange rate varies five cents or more above or below that rate. Unfortunately, that trigger arrangement creates problems for us. Nevertheless, it is preferred to one under which daily rate fluctuations would cause a different rate to be applied every time a pension payment was made. We have a problem in getting some stability and constancy in those payments. However, this arrangement leads to confusion, inquiries and complaints. It has been suggested that somehow or other my Department is short changing veteran beneficiaries. That is not the position at all. Taking into account the criticism, the Department is setting about to computerise the payment of overseas pensions as part of the benefits processing system which will come into effect in 1984-85. I understand that the Department of Social Security is monitoring the exchange rate, perhaps more than it has done previously. It has now agreed to carry out this function on behalf of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. At the moment we pay $NZ1.33 to meet the adjustment problem. We will continue to do that until the new system comes into operation. I assure Senator Giles that the Department is mindful of its responsibilities in this area. We have set in train an arrangement under which these fluctuations will be taken into account. Senator HARRADINE —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware that a Soviet built vehicle named the Lada is being sold in Australia and that it is reported that component parts of this vehicle are manufactured in Soviet prison camps? How does this square with article 16 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation, which prevents the import of vehicles into Australia if they were made in whole or in part by prison labour? Will the Minister, consistent with his view and, I know, the view of the Prime Minister, take action to investigate the situation and prohibit the import of this non-union Gulag labour vehicle? Senator BUTTON —I am aware that a Russian light commercial vehicle is imported. I am aware of that because Senator Harradine told me at a quarter to two this afternoon. I was not previously aware of it. I am totally unable to offer any comment at this stage on Senator Harradine's unidentified reports that this vehicle is manufactured in Soviet labour camps by slave labour. If there is such a vehicle-as I believe on the basis of Senator Harradine's information-imported, and if it is manufactured by slave labour, as Senator Harradine suggests, then it is quite apparent that to import it would be inconsistent with the terms of the Customs regulations as read to us by Senator Harradine. I really have no information at this stage about any of the matters raised by Senator Harradine. I will make some inquiries and see whether I can give him an answer. Senator HARRADINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In respect of the last matter, would it be of concern to the Minister and to the Prime Minister if this were so? Senator BUTTON —With the greatest respect, I am not able to speak for the Prime Minister as to whether he would be concerned. All sorts of things about the Soviet Union are of concern to me and all sorts of things about motor cars are of concern to me. Whether I put them both together on my feet at Question Time in the Senate on this particular Thursday, Senator Harradine will have to wait and find out. I will not make hypothetical judgments about hypothetical information. If the information is available, I will make a judgment about the matter on the basis of that information. I am not prepared to do so now. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Has the Minister seen the editorial in today's Sydney Morning Herald on funding for the non-government schools? Does the editorial in fact support the Government's assertion that there has been an increase in funds and a redistribution of funds within the non-government schools sector? Senator BUTTON —This matter has been the subject of long and, if I might say, quite vehement debate. Listening last night to the debate on this question of funding of non-government schools, I heard speeches by Government spokesmen on the issue which I thought were relatively clear, but the burden of what was being argued seemed to elude the Opposition. The facts of the matter are that there has been, under the program announced by Senator Ryan, a one and a half per cent increase overall to non-government schools and a 3 per cent increase to the most needy non-government schools. A redistribution has taken place. There has been a redistribution of some $4m from 41 schools to the most needy in the non-government school group. I give those figures because they seem fairly simple to me and I should like them placed on the record for the benefit of the Opposition. Senator Zakharov asked me about the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning which referred to the rally held at the Sydney Town Hall which took place, I think, on Monday night of this week and which has been the subject of some discussion in the Senate. I refer the Senate to that editorial, which states: The non-government school lobby- Senator Chaney —You will read all of it? Senator BUTTON —I think perhaps I will just read the bits which are pertinent to the argument that I am putting and then I will have the rest incorporated in Hansard so that honourable senators on the opposite side of the chamber can go back to their rooms and pick over it over the next week or two with the hope of a more intelligent question than has been asked on this subject so far. The section of the editorial to which I wish to refer states: When there is such a discrepancy of views,- such as manifested at this meeting- we are clearly in the realm of perceptions, not facts. We have Scots College, Bellevue Hill, purchasing for $1.2 million a former bowling club to turn it into a recreation centre for its students. At the same time, the principal of Annandale North Public School has been forced to use a brochure to encourage parents to use the school. Lost within the uproar of the rhetoric are a number of home truths: people with a lot of money have a great deal more freedom of choice than those less well off ; some schools have extravagant facilities for their students; the resource-poor schools in both systems have tended to decline rather than improve; and the debate has increasingly neglected the purpose of the exercise, the education of children. Listening to the arguments brought forward on Monday night- I might interpolate there, last night in the Senate as well- it is difficult to remember that neither Mr Mulock nor Senator Ryan reduced the amount of money being given to non-government schools. What will happen is that the very well-off schools will get less money and needy schools will get more. The policy, so far, involves a redistribution of grants, not a reduction of them . I have given the figures. The writer of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald , as a paid journalist, is perhaps putting it more explicitly and more clearly for the benefit of the Opposition in the Senate than any of us have been able to do. But it could not be clearer than that in terms of the principles involved, and the figures which I gave could not be clearer than they are. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does he remain steadfast in his determination to impose a capital gains tax on the people of Australia and his intention to advocate it both publicly and within the Government at every opportunity, as he said he would on 21 September? Has he found an opportunity since then to press his views on the Government? If so, has he had any success? Will he continue his public advocacy of the tax or will he pursue a more subtle approach, better suited to his membership of that group of lurking ideologues about whom he spoke with such fondness in a recent Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview? Senator BUTTON —This is a very difficult question. I have not changed my mind. Insofar as the honourable senator has questioned me about my conduct, that is to say, have I taken every opportunity to advocate it, I may be a bit remiss. I do not talk about capital gains taxes all the time. I have a view about them which I have said in this chamber I will advocate at the appropriate time in the appropriate forums. I do not wish in any way to deny the honourable senator information which might be relevant to the pursuit of her political career, but I really cannot advance the cause any further than that. Insofar as an ABC program to which she referred is concerned, I do not know what she is talking about. If she wishes to pursue that, I will try to answer it. Senator COOK —Is the Attorney-General aware that the South Australian Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, Mr M. A. Noblett, defines the word gobbledegook as meaning 'pompous, official or professional jargon'? Is the Attorney aware that Mr Noblett, in his annual report tabled in the State Parliament on Tuesday, awarded the first annual gobbledegook award for mind boggling incomprehensibility in consumer contracts to the South Australian Commissioner for Highways for a contract in which there is a clause that contains 438 words in two sentences, and that the Housing Industry Association came second because of a consumer contract with a 214 word sentence? Can the Attorney-General say whether the Commonwealth deplores this sort of gobbledegook ? If this Government ran a similar competition, would there be found similar indulgent and verbose legalisms? Does not gobbledegook often deny people their legal rights by confusing them or daunting them with fine print? Finally, when will lawyers stop perambulating down the corridors of florid, flowery phrases and start using plain, simple, clear and precise English? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I am feeling a bit sensitive in the light of that question. The PRESIDENT —Do you seek the protection of the Chair? Senator GARETH EVANS —I know there are no untoward intimations underlying Senator Cook's question so far as the conduct of my own portfolio is concerned. I, of course, have never been guilty of the pomposity to which he refers. I do acknowledge that it is an endemic problem in both the legal profession and indeed public administration. It is a problem of which the Government is indeed conscious and which we are endeavouring, within the best of our linguistic and intellectual capabilities, to do something about. In fact, I think it has to be said that the drafting of Commonwealth legislation is among the clearest and most succinct, with the conspicuous exception of taxation legislation, of any probably in the British Commonwealth as a function of very dedicated efforts made by successive draftsmen over the years in my Department and Senator Durack' s previous Department. Anyone who doubts that suggestion ought only to read a page or two of United States legislation or, for that matter, Westminster legislation or, again, legislation in most of the Australian States. As incomprehensible as it may appear to most laymen, there is, of course, often a very good reason for the complexity of legal language because it is designed to achieve precision which is so often necessary in that situation. I say to Senator Cook that all we can do is our best. We will try hard and perhaps we will commence by the shortness of our answers in Question Time. I appreciate that and with that thought in mind I will sit down duly encouraged by the flavour of Senator Cook's question. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Given the Australian Labor Party Government's new policy in favour of uranium exports, can the Minister confirm that the International Atomic Energy Agency, the authority charged with monitoring safeguards, has only 138 inspectors to cover 774 facilities? Firstly, is it not the case that inspections take place, at the most, three times a year? Secondly, is it not the case that inspectors often have to rely on interpreters provided by the country in which the reactor is sited? Thirdly, is it a fact that facilities must be notified well in advance of an inspection? Fourthly, is it a fact that countries can reject inspectors because of nationality? For example, Iraq will accept only Soviet or Hungarian inspectors. Does this not suggest that the safeguards treaties are mere documents of convenience and that a large number of signatories do so precisely because they are not restricted and because such treaties do not impinge on national desires and needs? Senator WALSH —I am not able, off the top of my head, to give an answer to a question which seeks the sort of precise detail that this question seeks; for example, if I got the figures down correctly, 138 inspectors for 774 power stations or something like that. I will seek an answer in terms of the precise details for which Senator Macklin has asked. I can confirm that nuclear power stations are not under continuous observation by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors but there is, as I pointed out yesterday, a back-up system designed to trace significant amounts of plutonium that have not been accounted for in addition to the actual inspections which occur, I think Senator Macklin said, about three times a year. I think that is broadly correct. I cannot give more precise details than that. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. My question refers to the explosive situation in the Middle East and, in particular, the conflict between rival Palestinian factions in Tripoli. As many Lebanese living in Australia have relatives in the region, does the Government have any information on the current situation there? Senator GARETH EVANS —The best I can do is repeat the fact that the Government has heard reports that a ceasefire agreement has been reached in the bitter fighting between rival Palestinian factions around Tripoli in northern Lebanon. The Government can do no more than hope that that ceasefire which has been worked out by a high level Arab delegation in Damascus will hold and that differences can be resolved through negotiations. Too much blood has already been spilt in Lebanon. The Government hopes the ceasefire will help to alleviate the suffering of innocent people, many of whom are, as Senator Sibraa said, relatives of Australians and people now living in Australia and have been caught up in that cycle of violence and destruction. As to the situation in the area generally, the Government has noted reports that Syria has mobilised additional troops and that Israel is preparing for a previously announced call up exercise. Taken together with the strengthening of American naval forces in the Mediterranean, these reports are undoubtedly worrying. However, the Government has noted also that the new Israeli Prime Minister has reportedly tried to calm anxiety during a previously arranged visit to Israeli positions in Lebanon and is reported as saying that he does not see any reason for special concern because of the Syrian mobilisation and that Israel has no interest in waging war on anybody, including Syria. The Australian Government welcomes this type of assurance and hopes that all parties will refrain from any further actions which could add further to tension in the area. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. It relates to an article appearing in the Weekend Australian of 5 November concerning the latest warning by Dr Robert Endean, a reader in zoology at the University of Queensland and a recognised marine expert, that, because of a crown of thorns starfish infestation, the Great Barrier Reef faces destruction over the next 10 years. I ask the Minister: First, what action is being taken by the Government or government agencies to help arrest and control population outbreaks of the starfish on the reef in view of the past failures of State governments and other authorities to do so? Secondly, how will the Commonwealth Government ensure that the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service which will now have responsibility for the day to day management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will take action to contol the activities of tourist spearfishermen and professional fishermen who are greatly reducing the number of giant triton, groper and other natural predators of the starfish on the reef? Thirdly, will urgent consideration be given by the Government to employing a coastguard service to police the reef as one way of controlling fishing activities? Finally, will consideration also be given by the Government to Dr Endean's suggestion to put into practice a bounty system similar to that used successfully by other nations to wipe out the threat posed by the starfish? Senator BUTTON —I did see the article in the Weekend Australian to which Senator Missen refers. I must say that I was alarmed by it, not having realised the seriousness of the situation or thinking that the situation had improved. Senator Georges —You were told five years ago. Senator BUTTON —I understand that, but I thought there was some more optimism about it than the article in the Weekend Australian revealed. Senator Missen asked me four specific questions which I was going to refer to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment but as a result of information which has just been passed to me I might be able to help him now. I am informed that there are large populations of these starfish on some reefs between Lizard Island and Townsville . There is still no generally accepted scientific explanation of the phenomenon. There is no effective method of widespread control because the infestations are far more complex in their occurrence than the impression given by the Press articles. Research is continuing and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority will consider supporting well-founded projects investigating the infestations. It invites reports of occurrences of starfish so that as complete a record as possible can be obtained. The Authority will survey where appropriate reefs on which infestations have been reported. That information might be of some help to Senator Missen. But his question is far more specific than the answer which I was able to give. I will direct the specific points which are, in a sense, constructive ones to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and try to obtain a response. Senator COLSTON —Can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs confirm or deny the report in today's Australian referring to a document, prepared by his Department , which details 121 cases over the last two months of persons with very considerable assets receiving service pensions, often at the maximum rate? If so , can the Minister say whether these persons are receiving these pensions simply because they have artificially arranged their affairs so as to bypass the present income test on service pensions or are they, in some instances, in genuine need? Can the Minister provide the Senate with an indication of the range of liquid assets which these 121 persons hold? Finally, can the Minister indicate his best estimate of what percentage of service pensioners will be affected by the foreshadowed assets test? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, I can confirm that my Department has done another survey in respect of the problems associated with the service pension area and the intention of the Government to establish an assets test in relation to such service pension applicants. To do that of course it has examined a number of cases that have been processed through the Department. As Senator Colston has suggested, 121 such cases have been examined. Of the 30 New South Wales cases, 27 include details of substantial sums of money, ranging from $65,000 to $227, 000 and averaging about $120,000, held in non-interest bearing accounts, mainly cheque accounts. Because they have been placed in non-interest bearing cheque accounts, people have deprived themselves of income. On that basis they are able to apply for, and be granted in the overwhelming majority of cases, the full service pension. That is a clear case of income deprivation, and is one which, of course, circumvents the income test in respect of age and service pension. Those cases also list extensive holdings in bonds, debentures, shares, life insurance policies, annuities, trusts and friendly societies. In all these cases the persons are wealthy, and in some cases they can only be described as very wealthy. I would estimate that those people would fall within the top 5 to 10 per cent wealth range in our community. There is no question that any of those people I have referred to, whose cases form part of this report, are in genuine need. Most of these people, by such contrivances and arrangements of their affairs, have been able, on reaching 60 years of age, to get the age pension five years early and to qualify for full service pension payments. As to the second part of the honourable senator's question, the Department has estimated, to assist the Government in its consideration of assets test legislation, that of all of those approximate 350,000 people who currently receive the service pension 60 per cent will be unaffected because they are people with modest incomes and assets, 17 per cent will get increased pensions as a result of the 10 per cent notional charge that will be placed on assets, 20 per cent will get reduced pensions and 3 per cent will have their pensions cancelled because they come within the wealthy designation. Senator COLLARD —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I notice from the House of Representatives Hansard of Tuesday, 8 November that in answer to a question the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed concern about the detention without trial or proper processes of law in South Africa of one Miss Catherine Hunter. Can the Attorney-General explain the attitude of the Australian Government to the detention of Bishop Muzorewa in Zimbabwe? Senator GARETH EVANS —Bishop Muzorewa was detained on 31 October by the Zimbabwe Government under a detention order made under the emergency powers regulations alleging that he had made certain derogatory statements about the Zimbabwe Government during a recent visit to Israel. I understand that the original detention order was invalid. A second detention order has been issued under a different section of the emergency powers regulations, and Muzorewa is being held at the Goromonzi detention centre and is reported to be on a hunger strike. The Government has seen reports also that the Bishop's son, Mr Philemon Muzorewa , was detained for several days by people he believed were associated with Zimbabwe security authorities. We understand that the Zimbabwe Minister of State Security has denied that this was the case. There have been numerous detentions without trial in Zimbabwe as well as instances of re-detention after acquittal by the courts on politically related charges, and these have involved both blacks and whites. The Australian Government's response to these events can be summarised as follows: We of course have an interest in the application of internationally accepted standards of judicial and human rights in Zimbabwe, as anywhere else. The Government will wish to see that the due processes of law are observed in this matter. The Australian Government remains very concerned by the Zimbabwe Government's continued recourse to emergency powers regulations carried over from the Smith regime which provide, among other things, for detention without trial. The High Commissioner in Harare is keeping the Minister for Foreign Affairs informed of developments. No doubt the Government will be considering further what position it might be appropriate for us to take to try to advance the condition of liberty a little further in that country than it seems to be at the moment. Senator MAGUIRE —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer encouraged by the fall in unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis in October? How long is it since the unemployment rate has fallen by 0.5 per cent in a single month? Does the fall in the unemployment rate to single digit levels give hope to the many Australians currently without work? Senator WALSH —The fall in the unemployment rate from the last month to the most recent, that is October-depending whether we take the seasonally adjusted figure or the raw figure-is of the order of 0.5 per cent. There is a slight variation between one and the other. That I understand is the biggest decline in a single month since the current series commenced in February 1978. Naturally that is a very encouraging sign that the economic recovery is continuing and that the macroeconomic policies of this Government are working. I think we ought however to add one cautionary caveat to that in that the change in the unemployment rate reflects quite substantially the very large fall in the participation rate. Indeed, in seasonally adjusted terms, the number of people employed increased by only 3,000 during that month, but that figure is 71,000 above the April trough. That shows that over this six-month period employment growth of the magnitude anticipated by the Government and the growth rate which is the Government's objective are in fact being achieved. But there have been some very marked fluctuations in recent months in month to month figures of the same indicator-variations of such size that it is difficult to give a rational account of them because, I understand, the samples upon which all these figures are based are turned over during an eight-month period. In other words, in any particular month seven-eighths of the respondents to the sample were in the sample during the previous month. Given that that is the basis upon which the sample is taken, it is very difficult to understand why the figures should have fluctuated on a month to month basis as much as they have. However, looking beyond the very large and seemingly inexplicable month to month fluctuations, the trend line is quite clear. The trend line is that the employment situation is improving to much the same degree that the Government had anticipated and planned for, and it is a clear sign that the Government's macroeconomic policies are succeeding in achieving their objective. Senator MESSNER —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the meeting he and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations had with representatives of the Transport Workers Union on 21 October to discuss proceedings taken by the Trade Practices Commission against the union. Is it a fact that the Attorney agreed at that meeting to halt the Commission's action and pay the union's $10,000 legal costs? Did the Attorney instruct the Trade Practices Commission to cease proceedings against the union? On what grounds does the Attorney interfere with the workings of an independent authority carrying out its duties as specified by law? Is this another example of the Government's policy of corporatism which seeks to protect the interests of monopoly, labour and capital and which can only work against the interests of average Australian workers, consumers and small businesses? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no foundation in the suggestion that the Trade Practices Commission was instructed or directed to withdraw the proceedings in that particular matter. I do have a statutory power to do that should the occasion arise but it was certainly not necessary to deploy it in this instance nor was there any question of deploying it because that was the result reached by mutual agreement between the Government and the Trade Practices Commission as being the most appropriate course to follow in all the circumstances and in the national interest, something to which Senator Messner apparently finds it difficult to relate. The truth of the matter is that the agreements between the Transport Workers Union and the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association, which had triggered the Trade Practices Commission action in the period since May, had been agreed to be withdrawn by the two bodies in question. There was, accordingly, no further foundation for the litigation to proceed on the basis on which it was originally constructed. As to the circumstances of the Government agreeing to pay the costs incurred by the trade union in its defence of the matter, that agreement was reached pursuant to the appropriate provision in the Trade Practices Act which requires the Government to have regard to a number of criteria, including hardship for the body in question and more particularly reasonableness, having regard to the totality of the situation. In my consideration of the application of those criteria I decided a proper and sensible case could be made out for giving the union the relief it sought in that instance. I notice that a series of other applications have been made by bodies including the oil companies which are rather better equipped to handle the rigours of expensive litigation. But it will be a matter for further determination and consideration by me as to whether it is appropriate for legal aid, in effect, to be awarded in those cases as well . Senator BUTTON —Earlier at Question Time I referred to an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald in answer to a question from Senator Zakharov. I was asked to incorporate the whole of the editorial in Hansard. I seek leave to have it incorporated. Leave granted. The editorial read as follows- NEWTON AND THE TOWN HALL RALLY If Sir Isaac Newton had been a political scientist he might have put forward a law along these lines; for every political action there will be an equal and opposite political reaction. This law partly explains the extraordinary meeting on Monday night which saw the Sydney Town Hall and its environs packed with a crowd of about 7,000 people. The stated purpose of the rally was to protest against the cuts made by the Federal and State Governments to the funding of 15 top private schools in N.S.W. In fact, the meeting was an attempt to match the N .S.W. Teachers' Federation. The federation has been twisting the State Government's left arm; the supporters of the non-government schools have now determined to twist its right arm. The rally had overtones of the passions aroused by the state aid issue during the 1950s and 1960s. This revival of sectarianism, after it has been dormant for a decade, has worrying implications for social divisiveness. One of the major achievements of the Whitlam Government was to defuse the political and social explosiveness of state aid. A complicating factor in the current dispute is the Federal Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. She has not explained her policies adequately. And she appears unwilling to do so. To her opponents, she represents the unacceptable face of modern womanhood-assertive, single, and threatening to the old ways. Both she and the State Minister for Education, Mr Mulock, a favourite target of the Teachers' Federation, were strongly criticised at the meeting. What this indicates is that the purposes of education are being submerged by all the contending groups to the interests of politics. Mr Mulock's sin, as far as the federation is concerned, is that he has been too generous to non-government schools. The non-government school lobby believes he is not generous enough to their schools. When there is such a discrepancy of views, we are clearly in the realm of perceptions, not facts. We have Scots College, Bellevue Hill, purchasing for $1. 2 million a former bowling club to turn it into a recreation centre for its students. At the same time, the principal of Annandale North Public School has been forced to use a brochure to encourage parents to use the school. Lost within the uproar of the rhetoric are a number of home truths; people with a lot of money have a great deal more freedom of choice than those less well off ; some schools have extravagant facilities for their students; the resource-poor schools in both systems have tended to decline rather than improve; and the debate has increasingly neglected the purpose of the exercise, the education of children. Listening to the arguments brought forward on Monday night, it is difficult to remember that neither Mr Mulock nor Senator Ryan reduced the amount of money being given to non-government schools. What will happen is that the very well- off schools will get less money and needy schools will get more. The policy, so far, involves a redistribution of grants, not a reduction of them. The fear, from the non-government school lobby, is that once the precedent has been created of reducing grants to elite schools, other less elite schools will be made to suffer later. This fear is a response to the unrelenting campaign by the Teachers' Federation against any Government funding of non-government schools. Watching all this, Newton the political scientist might have proposed a second and third law: political opponents need and grow on each other; their growth rate is unrelated to the needs of the world around them. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —I thank the Senate. In answer to a question I asked earlier the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) claimed that I had misquoted a speech of his and that I had no substantiation for other parts of the question which I asked. To put the matter beyond any doubt I seek leave to table page 8 of the speech which Senator Button made on 24 October 1983, as distributed by him, the middle paragraph of which indicates that the quotation I made was absolutely and abundantly accurate. I also seek leave to table Press reports from the Australian of 25 October 1983, the Sydney Morning Herald of the same date and the Age of the same date, all of which report the meeting and Senator Button's statements. They were also drawn upon for the purpose of asking the question. Leave granted. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.04) —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- Until very recently few people in Australia were aware of the existence and spread of organised crime in this country. Today, however, warned by a succession of reports by royal commissions and other inquiries, the great majority of Australians are conscious of the threat that organised crime represents to the economy, the amount of revenue available for spending on necessary and desirable forms of community activity and indeed to our whole way of life. At the same time these Australians are conscious of the need, if a new institution is to be established to deal with this threat, for the new institution itself not to endanger the rights and liberties of individuals. For these reasons most Australians will welcome the establishment of the National Crime Authority. Designed to effectively coordinate and lead on a national basis the attack against organised crime, the Authority will nonetheless be constructed in such a way, and with such checks and balances and limitations on its powers that prejudice to the rights and liberties of individuals will be avoided. The Authority will be established by Commonwealth legislation, but with provision for extensive State participation in its operations. When the present Government assumed office in March, it set about immediately reviewing the National Crimes Commission Act enacted last year under the previous Government. This Act has aroused considerable disquiet and concern in many sections of the community and any form of participation had been rejected by the States. The reasons were obvious: It gave no role to and lacked the support of the States; had ill-defined functions; had insufficiently defined and limited powers; and lacked overriding safeguards like oversight by the Ombudsman and regular judicial audits. In the course of that review, the Government published a Green Paper prepared by the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) and myself which raised and discussed the very serious issues involved in a proposal to establish a body of this nature. On 28 and 29 July in this chamber a national conference was held, attended by more than 100 representatives of Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, police, the legal profession, civil liberties organisations, royal commissioners and other highly qualified and interested individuals. The conference was remarkable for the informed, lively and constructive debate which occurred. While many diverse views were expressed, and while I would not suggest that complete unanimity was reached-or ever could be reached in an area as sensitive as this-there was evident by the end of the conference broadly-based support for the establishment of some kind of national crime authority provided that it remedied the deficiencies perceived in both the traditional royal commission model, and the 1982 National Crimes Commission Act. Copies of the Green Paper and the record of the conference discussion have been tabled in the Senate today. Subsequently a series of discussions were held with the States and the Northern Territory culminating in a meeting of Attorneys-General and Police Ministers in Melbourne on 9 September. This meeting reached substantial agreement on a model for the Crime Authority which is now embodied in the present Bill. 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, viz: The need to avoid the fragmentation of effort in the previous series of ad hoc royal commissions, and to ensure co- ordination and continuity in the fight against organised crime; the need to maintain intact the resources, and expertise of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and to ensure the continuation of its work; the need to take account of the many fears and concerns expressed about a permanent criminal investigation body with unlimited terms of reference and uncontrolled investigative powers; and the need to secure the active involvement and co-operation of the States. The question that is most frequently asked in relation to the proposal is why is there a need for a new body and how will its operation differ from police investigations as they are now conducted. Police investigations are concerned essentially with particular offences known or reasonably believed to have been committed, with the starting point usually being the complaint of a victim or discovery by the police of the results of a crime. By and large, the police forces of Australia do an excellent job and there is no question of the Crime Authority supplanting those organisations. However, it is of the nature of organised and sophisticated crime that particular manifestations of that crime-particularly in the areas of drug importation, corporate fraud and tax evasion-may not come to the attention of the police forces. Activities of this kind may be so intricately interwoven, may involve so many jurisdictions and may be so well camouflaged under apparently legitimate ways of doing business that they may well not cause any one police force to take notice. The Costigan Royal Commission has shown that, by following a series of financial leads in a determined exploratory fashion, widespread and serious conspiracies can be uncovered. The techniques involved, and the need for them to be deployed by a national authority specially designed for the purpose, have been clearly described by Mr Costigan in a passage of his Sir John Barry Memorial Lecture delivered on 13 October 1983: The first thing to remember is that the organisation of crime is directed towards the accumulation of money and with it power. The possession of the power that flows with great wealth is to some people an important matter in itself, but this is secondary to the prime aim of accumulating money. Two conclusions flow from this fact. The first is that the most successful method of identifying and ultimately convicting major organised criminals is to follow the money trail. The second is that once you have identified and convicted them you take away their money; that is, the money which is the product of their criminal activities. Both these conclusions have now been accepted in both the United States and the United Kingdom and other western countries. Tracing the flow of money, of course, is the first step. Once this is recognised as the appropriate course it is necessary to identify the techniques necessary to enable an investigator to follow this trail. Bear in mind that the amounts involved are large and the frequency of transactions great. Accordingly, in most cases use is made by the criminals of the existing facilities of the community. The banking system is used, as are solicitors' trust accounts, building societies and merchant banks, monies are transmitted overseas, property is bought and sold, shares are acquired, investments are made, credit cards are used, joint ventures are entered into, passports are applied for, immigration cards are filled in at every port of entry and exit, telephone calls are made, hotel bills are paid and so on. All these transactions are to be found recorded in public and private documents or on computer tapes. The ultimate dilemma facing the criminal who wishes to acquire wealth so that he can enjoy the pleasures and facilities provided by our society is that the enjoyment of those pleasures and facilities results in a recording of his activities. No matter how careful he may believe himself to be in covering or disguising his tracks, the tracks are there to be found and followed. But the tracking can be done successfully only if the person making it is equipped with the appropriate powers. There are many bodies in this community which have been given power by Government in their own discrete area; examples can be found under the companies legislation, Income Tax Assessment Act, Immigration Act, Customs Act and so forth. Some of these powers are far greater than I would wish invested in a permanent investigative agency. But because these bodies are limited to the area of their particular interest, they cannot see the whole picture. The Reserve Bank is concerned with possible breaches of its regulations relating to the movement of money in and out of the country, but is not concerned with breaches of law within the boundaries of Australia. The Customs Department is concerned with goods coming into and leaving Australia but is not concerned with domestic transactions. A State police force is concerned with the activities of a person within the State boundaries but has no jurisdiction over any activities in another State or Territory. The Treasury is concerned with monitoring the activities of the banking industry and the insurance industry but cannot look at solicitors' trust accounts. State legal authorities are concerned with solicitors' trust accounts but not with banking transactions outside their State. In the result, those who wish to do so can hide their activities from any concerted investigation by adopting techniques well known to white collar crime and which are on the whole very successful. My experience over the last three years has left me in no dount that the problem of organised crime cannot be tackled unless you vest in the one body, with all suitable protections, the power to monitor the activities I have described and to follow in detail all the steps taken.'' One of the most difficult policy questions with which the Government has had to wrestle is whether it is necessary or desirable for the kind of body to which Mr Costigan refers to be established with full traditional royal commission powers. After considering carefully the contrary viewpoints, the Government has taken the position-as did the Fraser Government before it with the National Crimes Commission Act 1982-that there are basic differences between the role of a royal commission and that of an on-going crime authority, and that this should be reflected in the makeup of the Authority. The basic task of a royal commission is and has been to establish publicly the truth of a particular matter given to it to investigate and report upon: a royal commission is frequently called upon to clear the air where there is apparent public scandal or considerable public disquiet. On the other hand, the basic role of the proposed Crime Authority-although there are others as well-will be to operate as another arm of the criminal investigation process, gathering and assembling evidence for transmission to other law enforcement agencies and for use ultimately in conducting prosecutions. To this end it needs to be a standing rather than ad hoc body, accumulating expertise and becoming the repository of necessary skills and knowledge and the technical equipment to go with them. Because of their different roles, the powers appropriate to be given to a standing crime authority differ from those appropriate for a royal commission. Given the traditional 'expose true facts' role of the royal commission, it has always been thought justifiable to deny the excuse of self-incrimination to witnesses before a royal commission, provided that this denial is balanced by a provision making the evidence inadmissible in proceedings other than for perjury . But where the gathering of admissible evidence is essential, as is the case with the proposed Crime Authority, it would be wrong in principle for this to be extracted over claims of self-incrimination. A different kind of balance between powers and limitations on power is required, because what is involved is a very different kind of investigative body. A number of deficiencies in the 1982 Act that have come to notice in the course of this year's review have been made good in the present Bill. In the first place, there is now satisfactory provision for participation by the States and the Northern Territory. The National Crime Authority will consist of a Chairman, and two other members selected respectively by the unanimous decision of the Attorneys-General and Police Ministers of the Commonwealth and participating States. An input by the States in the selection of members of the Authority is thus clearly provided for. There is further provision for an inter- governmental committee to generally monitor the work of the Authority. Each State and the Northern Territory as well as the Commowealth will be able to be represented on this committee, which should give the States a clear window into its operations. Secondly, the concern-widely expressed in relation to the proposed 1982 Crimes Commission-that the body would be able to roam at will over the whole field of its jurisdiction, without having to justify its investigations to those politically accountable, has been specifically addressed by the requirement in the present Bill that the Authority only exercise coercive investigative powers in the context of specific references initiated by the appropriate government and approved by the inter-governmental committee. There is further provision for the Committee to request the Authority to provide information as to specific matters relating to an investigation or as to the general conduct of operations of the Authority. Thirdly, the 1982 Act lacked a precise statement as to the outer limits of the Commission's jurisdiction, giving it a general jurisdiction to inquire into, of its own initiative or at the request of the Attorney-General, any circumstance suggesting that an offence had been committed against any law of the Commonwealth or a Territory. The outer limits of the National Crime Authority's jurisdiction are now precisely defined by the description of 'relevant criminal activity' and 'relevant offence' in clause 4 of the Bill. The combination of the precisely limited jurisdiction and the requirement for a specific reference or references will ensure that the area of lawful inquiry by the Authority in any one case is readily ascertainable. If the Authority should stray beyond that area, it can be restrained by judicial order. A fourth perceived defect in the 1982 legislation was the absence of clear or precise ministerial responsibility in respect of the body. There should be a clear and unmistakable line of responsibility to, and control by, one Commonwealth Minister. Divided or shared control means no control. The present Bill does provide a clear line of responsibility for and control of the Authority. Thus, under clause 16, the Commonwealth Minister may give directions or guidelines to the Authority with respect to the performance of its functions-directions or guidelines with respect to the performance of State functions will require the agreement of the relevant State Minister. Under clause 46, the Authority is required to keep the Minister informed of the general conduct of its operations in respect of references and its more general functions under clause 10. Further, the Minister may request the Authority to furnish information concerning a specific matter relating to its operations under a Commonwealth reference. A proper balance is thus maintained between the need for a clear line of responsibility to and control by the Commonwealth Minister generally and the proper interests of participating States in the operations of the Authority, particularly under references given by State governments. Fifthly, under the 1982 Act, excessively wide powers were given to the Commission to deal with alleged contempt of the Commission. These have been pared in the present Bill-clause 21-to what is really necessary and justifiable having regard to the special role of the Crime Authority. Similarly, the draconian powers intended to be given to the Crimes Commission to deal with witnesses who decline to attend or answer questions have been reduced to what is strictly necessary and justifiable for the purposes of the Authority. Sixthly, the present Government has decided-unlike its predecessor-that the Authority should be specifically made subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, and clause 44 so provides. Seventhly, a further appropriate requirement-lacking in the 1982 Act-is provision for examinations at regular intervals by a judge of a superior court of the operations of the Authority with a view to determining whether the Authority has, during the relevant period, effectively performed its functions and whether it has done anything contrary to the law or trespassed unduly upon the rights and liberties of individuals. This is the effect of clause 47 of the Bill. Eighthly, there are much stronger provisions in the present Bill, contained in clause 21, to ensure that individual reputations will not suffer as a result of damaging but possibly unsubstantiated allegations made during the course of Authority hearings. Whereas the 1982 Bill vested only a discretion in the Commission to order hearings to be held in private, or the publication of evidence to be prohibited, the present Bill creates a positive obligation on the Authority to so direct in circumstances where, among others, the reputation of a person would be prejudiced. Furthermore, there will be no protection in defamation law for any report of Authority hearings, except in so far as the publisher is prepared to rely on the defence of justification. These various measures, though quite inapproprite in the context of court hearings, reflect the role of the Authority as an investigative agency, and should ensure that the publication of hearsay and scuttlebutt does not become a feature of the Authority's operation. Finally, the present Bill contains in clause 46 an additional layer of protection, quite lacking in the 1982 Act, in the requirement that any report made by the Authority that sets out a finding that an offence has been committed , or makes any recommendation for prosecution, is not to be made public unless the finding or recommendation in question is expressed to be based on admissible evidence. Mr President, as a result of the extensive recasting of the legislation following the Government's review, we have, I believe, a much better Bill. We have legislation that will ensure that States will participate and play a proper and effective role having regard to their legitimate interests, legislation that will remove any vagueness as to the limits of jurisdiction of the Authority and will spell out a clear and unmistakable line of ministerial responsibility and control, legislation moreover that will give the Authority a proper balance of power, adequate, but no more than adequate, for its functions and responsibilities. The Bill will, I repeat, enable the Authority to discharge effectively its role in dealing with organised crime offences within its jurisdiction, but without prejudicing the rights and liberties of individuals. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incoporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- To be fully effective, the National Crime Authority to be established by the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 which I have introduced today will require access, in appropriate circumstances and subject to necessary safeguards, to information held by the Australian Taxation Office and royal commissions. To this end the present Bill will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Royal Commissions Act 1902. The Bill first amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to allow a royal commission which has received taxation information under amendments to the Act made last year, to communicate that information to the National Crime Authority where relevant to an investigation being carried out by that Authority. Next, by way of variation of the general rule that information held by the Australian Taxation Office may not be divulged, provision is made for the Crime Authority to apply to a Federal judge for an order authorising the Commissioner of Taxation to disclose to the Authority particular information. The Judge must be satisfied that the information in question is relevant to an investigation being conducted by the Authority and that it is not readily obtainable by the Authority from a source other than the Commissioner. While the Authority will be permitted to use the tax information as part of its store of information it will not be permitted to divulge the information to outsiders nor may the information be used as evidence in court proceedings. Finally, the Bill will amend the Royal Commissions Act to permit a royal commission to communicate to the National Crime Authority information or evidence in the possession of the Commission relevant to an investigation being conducted by the Authority. Mr President, the amendments to be made by this Bill will make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the National Crime Authority but at the same time appropriate safeguards are provided against misuse and unjustifiable intrusion upon the privacy of individuals. The amendments permitting royal commissions to communicate to the National Crime Authority information previously obtained by them from the Taxation Office as well as from other sources will assist in the smooth transition from the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority, a matter to which the Government attaches much importance. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill now before the Senate represents an important and historic development in the law and practice governing the prosecution of offences against Commonwealth law. The Bill establishes an Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions with the main functions of conducting Commonwealth prosecutions and exercising discretions in relation to prosecutions. Similar offices of Director of Public Prosecutions have existed in the United Kingdom since 1879 and in the State of Victoria since 1982. The experience of recent years, particularly the revelations of unacceptable delay and other deficiencies in the administration of the Commonwealth criminal law contained in the reports of royal commissions conducted by Mr F. X. Costigan Q.C. and Mr Justice Stewart, has made clear the need to revitalise and re-organise Commonwealth prosecution processes. The establishment of an Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, which was foreshadowed in the Government's pre-election statement on law and justice, is an important step in this regard. It will interlock with the setting up of the National Crime Authority under the National Crime Authority Bill which I have also introduced today. Moreover it is a step recommended by Mr Justice Stewart and Special Prosecutor Redlich. The establishment of the office will proceed concurrently with the review of the Attorney-General's Department which is well advanced. The circumstances relating to Commonwealth prosecutions are significantly different from those relating to United Kingdom and Victoria prosecutions and consequently the Commonwealth legislation will necessarily differ from the legislation enacted in those jurisdictions. At present, all prosecutions for Commonwealth offences, apart from very routine prosecutions conducted by a small number of Departments, are conducted by officers of the Crown Solicitor's Division of the Attorney-General's Department. These officers belong to the Deputy Crown Solicitor's offices in the six states and the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory. The number of persons in each of these offices engaged on prosecution work varies considerably from about 33 in Sydney to less than three in Hobart. In consequence, it is necessary to allow considerable flexibility to the Director when first appointed as to how he will discharge his functions in the various States and Territories. In the large States, I would expect that he will establish his own offices at an early date. In the smaller States, he may well wish to exercise the option given to hm by clause 32 to enter for an initial period into an arrangement with the Crown Solicitor for the Crown Solicitor to perform the Director's functions in the smaller States subject to agred conditions and restrictions. As part of the review of the Department it is proposed to establish an Australian Government Solicitor in place of the Crown Solicitor, but in the meantime references in legislation must be to the Crown Solicitor. However, whatever arrangements are in fact made by the Director for performances of his functions in the States, the Director appointed under the Act will provide leadership, guidance and direction to, and will set high professional standards for, all persons engaged in the prosecution work of the Commonwealth. Role of the Attorney-General The Attorney-General, as First Law Officer, has always borne the ultimate responsibility for prosecution decisions and the legislation enacted in England did not alter this position. This, in my view, is as it should be and, by clause 11 of the present Bill, the Director, in the performance of his functions, is made subject to directions and guidelines by the Attorney-General. These must however be published. Day to day prosecution decisions will ordinarily be made by the Director or his officials. It will indeed be very unusual for the Attorney-General to give a direction in a particular case. The possibility must however be provided for so that the Attorney-General may discharge his ultimate responsibility to Parliament and to the people for the conduct of the prosecution process. Functions and Powers of the Director The Director will be empowered to institute, carry on or take over proceedings for the summary conviction of persons in respect of Commonwealth offences, committal proceedings for Commonwealth offences and prosecutions on indictment for Commonwealth indictable offences. In relation to matters or classes of matters specified by the Attorney-General, the Director will also be empowered to take civil remedies in respect of matters connected with or arising out of prosecutions instituted or carried on by the Director or institute proceedings for recovery of pecuniary penalties or co- ordinate or supervise the taking of such proceedings. Experience gained under the Special Prosecutors Act 1982 has demonstrated the value of such a power. Under sub-clause 9 (6) of the Bill the Director will be empowered to give, where appropriate, undertakings to prospective witnesses that evidence given by them in prosecutions conducted by the Director will not be used against them in proceedings other than a prosecution for perjury. Several recent Royal Commissions have recognised the need to provide such undertakings in appropriate circumstances. The Director is further empowered by clause 11 to give directions or furnish guidelines with respect to the prosecution of Commonwealth offences to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, the Crown Solicitor or any other person conducting criminal investigations or instituting or conducting prosecutions for Commonwealth offences. The Bill does not change existing law under which, except in relation to a limited number of offences, any person may institute proceedings for Commonwealth offences. It does however enable the Director to carry on, or take over, any such proceedings except proceedings instituted by the Attorney-General or a Special Prosecutor. Mr President, the Bill is a carefully considered and positive response by the Government to the national awakening to the need to upgrade and improve the system of prosecution of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. Moreover, it meets the special circumstances and difficulties that apply in relation to Commonwealth prosecutions. Establishment of the Office of Director will meet a pressing need to place existing prosecution arrangements on a more effective basis. It will also, I believe, restore public confidence in Commonwealth criminal law enforcement. The present Bill, taken together with the National Crime Authority Bill and the Special Prosecutors Act (which will remain in force) will be the means by which administration of the Commonwealth criminal law, particularly in relation to organised crime and coruption, will be rendered effective, expeditious and just. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.09) —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- This Bill makes amendments to fourteen Acts of the Parliament in consequence of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill. The amendments can be placed in several categories. The first category represents amendments to Acts which vest in the Attorney-General an exclusive right to commence or conduct prosecutions or prosecutions of a particular kind. A like right will be given by the amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This category comprises amendments to the following provisions: Geneva Conventions Act 1957, section 7 Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, section 21 Royal Commissions Act 1902, section 10 Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, sub-section 7 (7). The second category comprises amendments to Acts which require the consent of the Attorney-General or an official to prosecutions. The proposed amendment will extend this function to the Director but preserves the Attorney-General's function. The provisions in question are: Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946, section 15 Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971, sections 11 and 23. The third category consists of amendments to various procedural provisions which refer to the Attorney-General or an official. The proposed amendments will add references to the Director. The provisions in question are: Crimes Act 1914, sections 20AA and 21AA Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963, section 24 Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972, section 22 Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1973, section 19. A fourth category comprises amendments to Acts to remove doubt as to the operation of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill and certain Acts. The provisions in question are: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act, section 53 Judiciary Act 1903, sections 69 and 71 Special Prosecutors Act 1982, section 8. Two amendments remain for mention. The first amends the Schedule to the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 to add a number of provisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to the provisions referred to in the Schedule, being provisions that do not apply when, in effect, arrangements have been made with a State for the prosecution of offences under applied State laws committed in Commonwealth places. The amendment to be finally mentioned is that made by clause 29 to section 6P of the Royal Commissions Act to add the Director of Public Prosecutions to the list of persons and authorities to whom a royal commission may communicate information. Mr President, this Bill is a necessary complement to the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill and will enable the Director to discharge effectively the functions given to him by that Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Debate resumed. (Quorum formed) Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.11) —Before the interruption of this debate, I had commenced to indicate that this is a private member's Bill, the aim of which is to prohibit the movement of nuclear materials to or from Australia. I had added that the proponents of the Bill had argued that this would in some way reduce the threat of the use of fissile material for nuclear weapons throughout the world. Indeed, if that were to be so, then, of course, everyone would support the Bill. It would be, beyond any doubt, highly desirable . Certainly everyone on the Opposition side of the chamber is opposed to nuclear armament and is implacably keen to produce nuclear disarmament and to reduce the threat of nuclear war. The real question is whether this proposed legislation would do any such thing. In the course of debate on this proposed legislation, a considerable number of statements have been directed towards what is alleged to be nuclear escalation and, therefore, by implication, the need of the great nuclear powers for more fissile material. Basically, I want to repeat that if there were any suggestion that an action by Australia to cease to produce or to export uranium would help significantly to bring about nuclear disarmament, we would all be very keen to support that. The facts are totally opposed to that situation. The facts are that the nuclear weapons in existence today were produced well before nuclear reactors were built to generate electricity. The argument being made is that the uranium exported from Australia for nuclear power generation for peace time purposes would somehow go to produce nuclear weapons. I have to say that the great powers of this world have far more fissile material, far more plutonium, available to them now than they would need, beyond anyone's most insane dreams of the multiplication and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Anyone who has any information on this subject knows that the great powers do not need any more fissile material. The illusion that is created is twofold: First, that more nuclear weapons are being produced; secondly, that more fissile material is used for their production. I want to put into Hansard a statement made recently by Mr Richard Perle, who was in Australia recently. I was able to listen to him and to have some discussion with him. He is the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the United States of America. He said these things: It is thought practically around the world that the United States and the Soviet Union have been engaged for years in an arms race that is most commonly described as an ever upward spiral of nuclear weapons. We stand accused, to use a phrase that one hears commonly, of piling weapons upon weapons. And yet, the fact is really quite different. This is important; I repeat his words: Since the late 1960s the United States has been steadily reducing the number of nuclear warheads deployed in its inventory-to the point where we have today some 8,000 fewer nuclear weapons deployed worldwide than we had in the late 1960s. And the megatonnage of those weapons-the destructive power of those weapons-is today barely one-fourth of what it was in the late 1960s. So there has been a reduction of 8,000 nuclear weapons. Senator Chipp —It is still about half a million times more than the Hiroshima bomb, is it not? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If Senator Chipp had listened, he would know that I have deplored nuclear weapons totally, as I always will, and I have said that there are more weapons than are necessary to destroy the whole world, and that that is an evil thing and is wrong. What I was saying was that many people argue that they need more fissile material to build more weapons because there are more weapons, whereas this shows that the United States has been substantially reducing the number of weapons and the megatonnage and, indeed, the fissile material. Senator Georges —But other nations have the same ambitions. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I appreciate and share the sincerity of Senator Georges. If he had listened to Mr Richard Perle, he would know that when Mr Perle was asked 'What happens with regard to fissile material for new weapons when obsolescent weapons are scrapped?', he said that there is a total recycling and not a drawing upon new fissile material. I make that point quite clear. The megatonnage is considerably lower and the fissile material is considerably lower , and the number of weapons is lower. Our aim should be to reduce the number of weapons enormously. The nations making nuclear weapons, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, and so on, have an abundance of uranium and of plutonium. No contribution of extra uranium from Australia could affect that one iota. What is more, if tomorrow Australia stopped exporting uranium, there would be an abundance of it around the world for other people to use. There would be no shortage at all. Perhaps there would be, as the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has indicated, a mild upsurge of price. There is at present a very significant number of nuclear reactors for the peaceful generation of electricity around the world. They are growing in number. The estimate is that by the mid-1990s, 20 per cent of the electricity of the main countries will be produced by nuclear energy. It is estimated that the demand for uranium will double in the 1990s. One cannot turn away from the simple fact that uranium will be used, that there will be an abundance of it, and that the possibility of anyone with evil intent seeking it from those who do not monitor it is very much there. So that does not help one little bit. It is useless to say: 'Let us take away our uranium from the world'. By doing that we shall not have added in any way to the reduction of people's ability to make nuclear weapons. That is arrant nonsense. They do not need it. They can get it on their own. In any case, they have more. But the important point is that not only does that not reduce the risk but it can, either marginally or substantially, increase the risk of nuclear weapons, because if Australia produces and exports uranium to the world, Australia will exercise its own safeguards through its own safeguards office, through its membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and through its own responsibilities under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In doing so, it will monitor the use of Australian uranium through the whole of its cycle, thereby ensuring that it is used for peacetime purposes and not for nuclear weapons. If one accepts the fact that there is an abundance of uranium in the world and that there is a need for the world to use uranium for nuclear reactors, one accepts that the best way for us to work towards peace if for us to supply uranium to the world and monitor it as strictly as it is humanly possible. By denying access to our uranium we direct others to places with fewer monitoring requirements and fewer controls with the accompanying danger of safeguards being broken. Some mention was made today of the fact that if one restricts the flow of energy to the world, it could be perilous in terms of world destabilisation. I repeat an important point which everyone must start from in debating this subject. The International Energy Agency which is composed of 23 of the main nations of the world, encompassing the whole range of political faiths, has indicated that there is not only a necessity, but also a growing and very substantially growing need for the use of uranium to generate electricity in the years and decades ahead. Honourable senators have heard me repeat what the Agency has said, namely, that all the conservation measures adopted, however strong, all the use of renewable energy sources and all the use of coal, gas or any of the alternatives, will not be sufficient to maintain the living standards of the world. Indeed, the growing world population-some 4,000 million now, and likely to be 6,000 million by the end of the century-will put such pressure on demand for energy that if we deny it the one significant substantial extra source, that is uranium, there will be a very substantial lowering of living standards. Senator Coleman —Rubbish! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Coleman says 'rubbish' to a statement put out by 23 of the main nations of the world of all political beliefs. I always look with surprise-I should say astonishment-at any honourable senator who professes to know more than the collective wisdom of the 23 nations that unanimously made such a statement. The honourable senator is entitled to her view. If that is the situation, I can only call on the old saying: 'I would like to buy her at my price and sell her at hers'. It puts a very unreal value on statements of the IEA. My comment was made with all the kindness on earth. I repeat that the fundamental source for the statement is information from those countries. It represents their beliefs. They believe that the world faces destabilisation, first in its living standards and, secondly, in the possible political implications. I remind Senator Chipp and others who today have asked about the dangers of political destabilisation, of what the historians have written about the intervention of Japan in World War II. It was said that it was allegedly resources diplomacy that aided that tragic action. Therefore, we do not want to go into resources diplomacy. Quite apart from our position on uranium, weapons will be made and the best way of monitoring the position is by ensuring that it is Australian uranium that is moved around the world and not that from other countries which do not monitor its use as heavily. Senator Georges —That is an odd position to take. How your intellect can sustain it, I do not know. I would have thought that you could see the weakness in that argument. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I would be very happy to accept, and as always I do accept, the genuine sincerity of Senator Georges in his attitude, as I accept the attitude of anyone participating in this nuclear debate. I am trying to put the facts as I understand them. Like everyone else here I have a family. I want the generations ahead to live free from all war, including nuclear war. I have as much interest as anyone in that. The logic of it is clear. Let me put into the record a number of other facts. The Minister, amongst others, has mentioned the effects upon humanity of the continued burning of coal and oil. Indeed, I think that Senator Georges said that that is trivial compared with the use of uranium. I have asked leave of the Minister for the incorporation in Hansard of three tables. The Minister has looked at them and agreed to their incorporation. The first table is headed 'Radiation doses (Man-rem/year) due to airborne radioactive releases from a 1000-MWe power station, integrated over a radius of 88.5 km'. It compares the effect upon the various organs of the body and the whole body of coal stations with chimney heights of different measurements and nuclear power stations. It concludes overwhelmingly that the radiation effects of coal stations are immensely more dangerous than those of nuclear power stations. Senator Georges —That is in the emissions? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is the ordinary radioactivity of phosphorescent rock dropped on the world. Senator Georges —There is a simple way of correcting that. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —So far nobody has corrected that. The second situation is this. Senator Georges —There is a way of correcting it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, you are interjecting too frequently. Senator Sir John Carrick has the call. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Nobody so far has put up an argument to stop the radioactive spread from coal-fired power stations. Nobody so far has put forward any palliative to the acid rain which oil and coal power stations have been causing. Throughout the world it is killing people in thousands, it is damaging the health of thousands and it is destroying ecologies. Why is it that those who look towards the effects of uranium will not look towards the effects of acid rain? Senator Coleman may reject the proposition, but the IEA has repeatedly put out statements pointing out the terrible and permanent damage to the world ecology from acid rain. I point to the fact that some thousands of lakes have been destroyed permanently in Canada and that some thousands more have been destroyed in Scandinavia. The flora and fauna of this world are being damaged and tens of thousands of people each year die and many more become ill because of acid rain. Yet what do we do? When have we heard a debate here, except the other day by the Minister, on the greenhouse effect of the overheating of the stratosphere? The effect of acid rain creates enormous damage, both practical and potential. I want also to incorporate in Hansard a table presented in the House of Commons showing the death rates per thousand employees over the period 1967 to 1976 in the United Kingdom for various fuel industries such as deep mines, gas, offshore oil and gas, oil refining and nuclear. Of course, the table shows overwhelmingly that the safest industry is nuclear. The third table shows the cost of power generation by nuclear, coal and oil fired stations in 1979-80. It shows that nuclear stations are considerably cheaper than coal or oil fired stations. I seek leave to have these three tables incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- RADIATION DOSES (MAN-REM/YEAR) DUE TO AIRBORNE RADIOACTIVE RELEASES FROM A 1000- MWe POWER STATION, INTEGRATED OVER A RADIUS OF 88.5 km. Coal stations Chimney height Nuclear (metres) stations Organ 50 300 *BWR *PWR Whole body 23 18 13 13 Bone 249 180 21 20 Lungs 34 18 8 9 Thyroid 32 18 37 12 Kidneys 55 41 8 9 Liver 32 25 9 10 Spleen 37 29 8 8 *BWR: Boiling-Water Reactor; PWR: Pressurised-Water Reactor. DEATH RATES PER THOUSAND EMPLOYEES 1967-76, UK, FOR VARIOUS FUEL INDUSTRIES Deep mined coal 0.26 Gas 0.09 Offshore oil and gas 1.65 Oil Refining 0.06 Nuclear 0.014 COSTS OF POWER GENERATION BY NUCLEAR, COAL- AND OIL-FIRED STATIONS IN 1979-80, ACCORDING TO THE UK CENTRAL ELECTRICITY GENERATING BOARD (NATURE, 1980 Nuclear Coal- Oil- (Magnox) fired fired (p/kWh) (p/kWh) (p/kWh) Capital charges and provisions for decommissioning 0.34 0.09 0.14 Interest during construction 0.06 0.02 0.02 Inclusive fuel costs 0.60 1.29 1.61 Other costs of operation 0.26 0.14 0.14 Research 0.03 0.01 0.01 Training 0.01 0.01 0.01 Total 1.30 1.56 1.93 Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The proponents of this Bill argue that if we do not send the fissile material we will contribute to the reduction of the threat of nuclear weapons in the world. It has become quite clear that that argument falls to the ground. Whether or not Australia were to add uranium to the world, there is such a surplus of fissile material in the world that weapons can be made in infinitely greater numbers than before. I have demonstrated that we do not need more such material to make more weapons, as obsolescence overtakes present weapons and new ones are made. I have pointed out that the Minister for Resources and Energy has said in this chamber that if we deny uranium to the world it will have two likely effects: Firstly, the price will go up because of a shortage; and, secondly, and more importantly, marginally or otherwise the threat of nuclear war will increase because since we will not be monitoring the use of this material, as it will be obtained from other areas, the danger is that there will be no monitoring and therefore there will be real trouble indeed . Senator Chipp —Doesn't it worry you when you are on the same side as Peter Walsh ? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The honourable senator may have noticed that I commended him on the speech he made. Senator Chipp —It would be the first time in your life you have agreed with him. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, because undoubtedly he went to his Department and found from the speaker's notes that I had used many times when I was a Minister in his chair all those points on acid rain, the greenhouse effect and monitoring systems that I had made. Incidentally, when I made them the Australian Labor Party, then on this side of the chamber, rejected them. It was good to know that on the road to Damascus there had been some conversion of Saul to Paul. Who am I not to welcome that conversion of Saul to Paul because when the blindness falls off- Senator Chaney —He went from Peter to sweeter. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I thank Senator Chaney for that interjection. This is an enormously serious subject. The fact of the matter is that, demonstrably, no one is going to stop the building of nuclear power stations for peacetime generation. Contrary to the statements being made there is no turning away from those power stations except in the recessive situation in which there is a turning away from coal and oil as well. There are some 260 power stations in operation, many of which have operated for 25 to 30 years. An equal number is being built and about to be commissioned, and others are on the drawing board. So the real question is: What will we do if we stop this development. Incidentally, perhaps I have missed it in the Bill but I presume the proponents of such a Bill do not want the free movement throughout the world of medical and industrial isotopes. Therefore, we would need to have some kind of research reactors and we would have the same problem of control; we would have the same problem controlling fissile material. I take it that everyone agrees that more and more the world will need the use of scanning isotopes, both medical and industrial. It would be a nonsense situation if we could not produce them. After all, although we make them at Lucas Heights, we have repeatedly flown them to Australia in the wing tips of planes because we have not been able to meet the demand here. In any case, some countries need to make them because they use short life isotopes, with lives as short as 24 hours. That, in itself, is abundantly not clear. I understand the need to bring this debate to a quick end. I repeat the principles involved. Senator Georges —What is the need for that? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I think the Government wants to get onto general business; that is my understanding, my advice, in regard to the situation. The fact is that we have examined this issue and we all share the view that nuclear weapons should be absolutely eliminated if that can be done. I have pointed out that contrary to people's belief, America has done a great deal in the reduction of nuclear weapons in recent years. I have pointed out that in these times the making of nuclear weapons has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the operation of nuclear power stations. They are two entirely separate operations. If we want to monitor the movement around the world of fissile material, and in particular to have that movement carried out under the strongest safeguards there are, the sensible thing to do is to get the uranium from countries that have strong safeguards, and Australia has some of the strongest safeguards in the world. That would be a move towards the very goal that the proponents of the Bill seek; that is, if we want to have less risk of nuclear weapons, we should monitor as closely as we can the movement around the world of uranium which is purported to be for in the operation of nuclear power stations. If we think that the world can do without nuclear energy as a source of power, we are moving against the tide of unanimous opinion of virtually all countries of the free world. If people think that such a proposal is not posing the most enormous threat to the very survival of Third World countries and that extra 2, 000 million people who will join this cosmos of ours in the next 20 years, they had better get back to their drawing boards and look for another source of energy. Certainly in this temporary glut of oil we are using oil at a much faster rate than we are finding it. We are using and abusing the non-renewables- the oils, the gases and indeed the coal of this world. We will need to find another source of energy to bridge the gap for the next 30 years in the hope that nuclear fusion may then move off the scene. In the absence of that, I reject this Bill. I would welcome a debate in this Parliament, and would encourage such a debate, on nuclear disarmament. I believe it would be to the infinite betterment of this Senate if we were all to join together to discuss- Senator Georges —You cannot separate them. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I would be very interested to hear Senator Georges on this-to discuss the common goals of reducing the threat of nuclear war. I think we would find a bipartisan support in the Senate on this subject. But, if we are to talk about the export of uranium, let me simply say this: On Monday, the Australian Labor Party made it abundantly clear that it is willing to export uranium free, quite clearly in its mind, of any risks both in its production and in its milling in Australia or any risks of it adding to nuclear warfare as it journeys round the world. That is the implication of the Labor Party's policy. I believe it would be sensible not to get involved in resources diplomacy. I believe resources diplomacy has produced wars, instability and impoverishment and I, therefore, cannot find it in my heart or mind to support this Bill. Of course I totally support the concept of nuclear disarmament. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(3.38) —I am always intrigued and slightly astounded by the knowledge of members of the Opposition of the Australian Labor Party's platform. Let me first say there has been a lot of interpretion as to what I said on a particular current affairs program this morning. I do not want to denigrate the media in any way but I am always slightly alarmed to find that lead-ins to stories do not always match up to the stories themselves. The introduction by Red Harrison on the program AM, as reported in a transcript of the program which I have had made available, states: The Democrat Leader in the Senate is introducing a Bill to ban the export of uranium and Labor Senator Ruth Coleman told Pru Goward she will support the Bill . My very first sentence in that interview was: We're got Senator Chipp's Bill coming up which prohibits the export and import of radioactive materials. I will have to give serious consideration to the contents of the Bill as to how I vote. That is what I said. Later on in the interview I said I would vote in conformity with my Party's policy. I have always made that position quite clear to Senator Chipp and the Australian Democrats. My situation does not change at all now because, of all the people in the Parliament and in this chamber at this time who say they have given consideration to the Customs (Nuclear Materials and Hardware Prohibition) Bill, I would say that I have probably given it more serious consideration than the majority. I agree entirely with the sentiments of the Bill. I am sure it was put forward in this form in an endeavour to establish a completely non-nuclear society in this country. That is commendable. As I stated on the AM program this morning, the Bill would have to be in conformity with my Party's policy. It is not, and I cannot support it. A number of areas come into consideration. For instance, clause 7 of the Bill prohibits the importation of any nuclear hardware into Australia. Senator Sir John Carrick touched on this. I do not very often find myself in a situation of agreeing with much of what he says but I agree with him on the problem which we would face given that we do require medical isotopes to be imported or exported. It would mean also that there would be a prohibition of the importation of equipment which I might see as being necessary for the proper repair and maintenance of Lucas Heights. Mr Deputy President, as you would be aware, the manufacture of nuclear medicine does take place at Lucas Heights. It is a matter of fact. It is used. Society has learned to live with nuclear medicine. It is here to stay. Whilst I have a number of doubts about that establishment-I will go into those a little more in a moment-I consider it would be extremely dangerous if we were not to have proper care, repair and maintenance of that facility. I want to look at the matter in isolation because of my concern with all things nuclear. That is a situation of which Senator Chipp is well aware. I have to question the necessity and even the advisability of having a nuclear reactor in Australia which provides 80 per cent enrichment. I might add that that is a much higher level than that which normally applies to the majority of nuclear power stations. Because of my concern in the area of nuclear power generation and the accidents, incidents and failures which have occurred in those establishments, I have gone to a great deal of trouble over past years, as I am sure all members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and members of the community are well aware. I have compiled a book of newspaper reports and other reports of accidents and incidents. Quite recently we heard of the report from Seascale by a television documentary team about the higher cancer levels that apply there. On Tuesday in response to a question, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen, in the House of Representatives, indicated that a situation had occurred at Ranger where a uranium mine worker had received a radiation dose virtually at the annual limit after he and a fellow worker were knocked down by a tonne of yellowcake. Mr Cohen went on to say that this was the only significant infringement of environmental requirements at Ranger between April 1982 and June this year. The Minister said that Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd had also reported eight minor or potential infringements during that time which had no significant impact. We have heard reports of the situation at Lucas Heights and at Ranger over a number of years. I have gone to the bother of listing some of those, which I intend to read because they are important. When we consider the television documentary on Seascale, I think it is important too that we recognise that in the last few years there have been as many as 39 accidents or leaks with radioactive liquid from that facility. The point I want to make is that Lucas Heights and Windscale are about the same age. We have to anticipate that because of its age, if for nothing more, equipment is being used at Lucas Heights which will create problems in the very near future. I draw attention to the fact that as long ago as April 1979 the following report appeared in the Daily News in Western Australia: In the controversy by Harrisburg, a previously unpublished report has come to light. Two million gallons of radioactive cooling water from the reactor has been dumped into the local Woronora River every month for the past 19 years. I am sure that all honourable senators would be concerned to know that a water facility which is used by people in Australia is being subjected to two million gallons of radioactive cooling water being dumped there every month. The report went on to say: Unconfirmed reports suggest that there has been a higher than normal rate of birth defects in the local hospital. The reactor will be closed down in mid-September for repairs especially to two leaks which occurred in the primary cooling system in 1978. Workers have threatened to refuse to start the reactor as it is old, understaffed, and has inadequate monitoring devices. That was in 1979. The facility is now four years older. As far as I have been able to ascertain nothing has been done about it. Let us consider what has happened at Radium Hill. In July 1979 it was stated: A N.S.W. Government report on workers at Radium Hill, although not yet finalised, shows that since 1960 59% of those who worked underground at Radium Hill over a period of two years died of cancer; showing a death rate four and a half times the Australian average. Page 1218 of the Senate Hansard of 11 October 1979 records Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, then representing the Minister for Health, in response to a question by former Senator Cavanagh, as stating that, on the information she had available to her she was able to confirm that of the 3,000 employees at Radium Hill 600 had been traced, that 22 of those who had died had spent in excess of 12 months underground and that nine of those-that is, 40 per cent-had died from cancer. On 30 October 1979 the New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, criticised the Federal government for its lack of communication over a leak at the atomic energy plant at Lucas Heights. A newspaper stated: A radio news item reported a radioactive leak of tritium. The General Manager of the Commission said the leak had been isolated and the parts involved would be replaced. He said nothing had escaped from the reactor. One has to question what type of information was available to him on whether in actual fact there had been a release of any radioactive substance from the reactor. As I said earlier, the situation in regard to Windscale is quite horrific. When I compiled the book of Press reports I found that over a period of years a large amount of radioactivity has been released into the water supply , which has been used, in turn, by cows in the immediate vicinity. The milk from those cows has got into the food chain. There is a suspicion-it is only a suspicion, because the report has never been made public-that that has been responsible for the increase in the incidence of leukemia and cancer. I turn to a study undertaken by the Manchester University of the situation in England in 1979. The survey showed that cases of myeloid leukemia had doubled between the late 1960s and the early 1970s. A report stated: No chemical cause found but cause linked with increased radioactive pollution monitored off the North-West coast. Cover-up is suspected because: Public secrecy after radioactive releases when reactors were used for bomb production; Unexplained failure to publish leukemia statistics since 1970. Those results are in line with the studies in the United States of America where a two to three times increase in cancer, particular leukemia, can be found in the vicinity of nuclear plants. Despite that situation, and despite the study done by the Manchester University, the British Government had already determined that it would be relaxing controls on the dumping of low level wastes, preparing to raise objections to high level waste dumping and proposing to raise allowable radiation exposure levels to workers and the public in line with the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. As I see it if we are to have an ideal world in which to live, where energy is available to everybody, we have to consider that there are alternative forms of energy which perhaps do not have the inherent dangers which nuclear power appears to have. Of course, a number of these have been mentioned. I can remember some years ago-possibly as far back as 1977-when I was campaigning in Tasmania a proposal had already been put forward to look very seriously at providing land for the growing of sugarbeet to produce methane which was seen then as a method of replacing the liquid fuels about which Sir John Carrick spoke. I am always interested to note that Senator Sir John Carrick never gives consideration to that form of alternative energy. A report I saw in relation to the Tasmanian pilot plant estimated that something like 700 people would be provided with permanent employment. This source of energy would create less demand for liquid fuels and would contribute towards a better environmental situation which the honourable senator appears to advocate. Australia supposedly has a number of safety procedures, particularly procedures which safeguard our health. I am a little concerned to find that a number of reports point out that safety procedures are not always taken into account. That causes me a great deal of concern. There does not appear to be adequate monitoring of the safeguards situation. I am sure that this matter will be taken up very quickly. A lot of research has been carried out in Sweden into the causes of such things as cancer and increases in leukemia. One of the counties in that country is issuing iodine tablets to people living around the four nuclear reactors to help protect them from cancer of the thyroid gland. I would have thought that that in itself would have at least turned on the warning light to many people that perhaps we are overlooking the most obvious form of cancer. We are concerning ourselves only with those forms that are a little more sensational and dramatic, such as leukemia and cancer of the marrow, which seem to have been developing at a greater rate since we introduced such things as nuclear power stations and uranium mining. Let me refer to the Canadian situation. In 1980 deaths from lung cancer, which were probably caused by uranium mining operations in Ontario, were taking place almost monthly, according to a United Steelworkers of America employee. It is interesting to note that he states that 496 present or former Elliot Lake mine and surface workers were identified as having lung disabilities in whole or in part as the direct result of dust exposure in the uranium industry. He said: 'spills and breaks which spew contaminants in to the environment happen all too frequently . . . the affected Serpent River watershed remains destroyed'. One can go through this report and find frequent complaints that people have been made aware of these statistics but have done very little about them. The Korea and South East Asia Forces Association of Australia has been demanding compensation for the alleged cancer causing effects of radioactive water used in soft drinks supplied to Australian troops in Korea. I could go on in this way for any length of time. I commend the Australian Democrats for having the courage to introduce this legislation. As I have said, I will not support it because it is not in line with my Party's policy. If Senator Chipp wants further clarification of why it is not, I simply point to clause 6 which explicitly bans totally and immediately any exportation of yellowcake and hexaflourides. I am sure that Senator Chipp is aware of Australian Labor Party policy. He is aware that we have advocated a phasing out of the uranium industry. The 1978 and the 1980 Labor Party conferences reaffirmed that there would be inherent difficulties in endeavouring simply to close off an industry because of the employment problems that that would create and because of the difficulties that that would create for the economic survival of the company concerned and for any number of other reasons. That is not to say that the Party does not recognise the difficulties of uranium mining, nuclear power and nuclear proliferation. It is simply to say that because my Party has an unequivocal commitment to phase out Australia's uranium mining it is not possible for me to support the Bill. Perhaps at some future stage we will find ourselves in a situation where that position is not as clear cut as it is today. This is an ideal opportunity for me to touch briefly on other matters which concern me. One such matter is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. A number of senators in the chamber at the moment were at a parliamentary committee meeting on disarmament some weeks ago which was addressed by Mr Dan Smith who is co- author of a book called the War Atlas. Mr Smith spoke to us about what was happening in other parts of the world. His talk was frightening because we learned, or I certainly learned, for the first time that a situation is developing between the super powers which means that in actual fact there is no possibility that anybody who might even be anticipating pressing a button will have the opportunity to do so because of a delightful program called ' anticipatory retaliation'. I draw the attention of honourable senators to that phrase for which I would use another word. The only other word that is applicable is the word 'attack'. There is no way that one can anticipate retaliation; one can only anticipate that someone is going to take action which means that one has to retaliate. However, if one believes in anticipatory retaliation, and I am given to understand that the United States of America does at the moment, what one is saying is that a program is already in hand which will mean that the Americans are quite prepared to go ahead and attack if necessary. Senator Chipp —At best it is launch on warning. Senator COLEMAN —At best, which I understand gives us something like four minutes. That is also a very alarming situation. I want to touch briefly on the uranium situation itself. As everyone will be well aware, it is a matter on which I have spoken out many times both inside and outside this Parliament over the last nine and a half years since I have been in this place, and I will continue to do so. I want to say just this because it is most important to this debate: Twenty years ago we were saying that asbestos was quite safe. Twenty years before that industry knew it was not safe but governments did not introduce any safeguards to ensure that it was. We are now saying that uranium is safe although industry has known, and I am sure that governments have known, for the last 20 years that that is not so. Specific and particular attention needs to be given to safeguards. There is no way that one can simply rely on industry itself to adopt a fully safeguarded attitude. In this country kilograms of yellowcake have simply just disappeared. Admittedly, the material was found later. That is an indication of the lack of safeguard that we have in those areas where we should be applying a much more stringent attitude. I would suggest that perhaps now is the time for the Government to look at such things as non-proliferation treaties and treaties that we might be involved in throughout the world. It is certainly the time to be looking at the domestic situation and looking at safeguards, not only for uranium but also for all those other areas which create an unsafe working condition or an unsafe environment for the majority of the Australian people. As I have said, there has been a lot of interpretation of what I had to say on the AM program this morning. It was the subject of a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) earlier today. I have made it clear. The transcript of what I said on the AM program is here. I repeat that the introduction to it says: . . . Labor Senator Ruth Coleman told Pru Goward she will support the Bill. I had a lengthy interview with Pru Goward yesterday afternoon. What I said then and what I am reported as having said immediately following that statement by Red Harrison is this: I will have to give serious consideration to the contents of the Bill as to how I vote. I have now given serious consideration to the Bill. It is not in conformity with my Party's policy. I am not able to support it. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(4.01) —In this debate on the Customs (Nuclear Materials and Hardware Prohibition) Bill I follow a speech by Senator Coleman. I take the opportunity to express to her my appreciation of her strength and courage over the years in her fight against not only the oppression of civil liberties but also her fight against those things which would lead us to catastrophe and in particular those things which lead to the development of nuclear armament and to all of those things which would lead to our placing the world under threat. I refer to the mining of uranium and the spread of the use of uranium and all its products. Her courage has been an inspiration. She has been active in the recent demonstrations in Western Australia against the increased use of nuclear armaments in the Indian Ocean. We support her in that. Her opposition to uranium mining is well known. There have been massive demonstrations in Western Australia against the things that will bring us to risk. I say that and I understand her position. Today I would not want to do anything different from that which she has decided to do. But I know the difficulties which she faced in making her decision and the pressures which have been brought to influence that decision. Let me speak for myself. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in answer to a question put to him today, said that there is no relationship between the policy of the Australian Labor Party and the Bill before us, and that it could not be supported by members of the Labor Party. That is quite correct. There is no relationship between the Party policy as it now stands and the Bill that is before us. He failed to go on to say that within the labour movement and the Labor Party-there is a slight difference in that the labour movement is greater than the Labor Party-there is an opinion that the Bill before us is an advanced upon our policy. In fact it is the policy, as many members of the labour movement see it. It calls for a complete ban on the movement of uranium and its by-products, an absolute stand against the mining of uranium and its export, a complete support for a nuclear free zone in the Pacific and Indian oceans and in our region and that Australia should be a nuclear free zone. That is what the Australian Democrats have proposed, although they have gone too far. They did not indicate that there were certain measures in the Bill which would prevent research in Australia in the health area being undertaken. Nevertheless, the Bill as it stands places a complete ban on the mining, exporting and importing of uranium or any of its by-products or waste in or by this country. I thought that was the pure position of the labour movement. Perhaps that is in the past and there has been a slide away from the basic intentions of the party and its policy. That erosion commenced in 1982 at the National Conference and we thought at that stage that that was the end of the movement away from the basic position which many of us take as a matter of conscience. There was opposition to the mining of a material that threatens our existence, the mining of material that increases the radioactivity of this planet by a variety of means to the point that life of all species on this planet could become extinct. That slide went further. We find now that the policy which the Party adopts at this time and the policy of the Liberal Party as expressed by Senator Sir John Carrick, are fairly close together. If we examine them properly what they really mean is that every scrap of uranium that exists in this country will be mined and exploited. We cannot move away from that position because that is it exactly. Those of us who are now caught in that sort of situation or who are in a conscience position are now in a trap. I recognise my responsibilities to the Party and the loyalty which the Party demands. I accept that. Nevertheless, I feel that it is necessary to express my view. In spite of the disciplines which the Party imposes upon me, at this point I say that the Party expects far too much from me. Party loyalty demands-there are reasons for the strict discipline to the Party-that once Party policy is determined, once a decision is made, a member of the Party must adhere to that discipline, to that policy, or resign. Let me say this: The question arises as to whether policies determined by the Party this week in the parliamentary sense are the policies of the party itself. That is where the quandary exists. My interpretation of Party policy, as expressed in 1982, was that there would be no new contracts, and a phasing out of uranium mining. My interpretation of Party policy is that no matter how much I objected to the change at the time, the Party, by way of conference, determined that. There can be no change to Party policy except by conference, and that conference will take place next year. The bind which we face within the Party at the present time is that there has been a shift in policy. As I say, that shift in policy will mean the further exploitation of uranium within this country. That policy is in conflict with a series of other policies for which the Party stands. Why do I say that here? I say that here to make it clear that those who ignore the growing strength within the community against the mining and the export of uranium and all that that will lead to, will ignore it at their cost. The Democrats may have some ulterior motive for bringing this matter forward. Perhaps I ought not denigrate them in this way. Perhaps they do not have to accept the reponsibility for what they do. Nevertheless, if their motives are pure, their position is clear and their position is the purest in this place at the moment. The struggle within the labour movement will continue. Perhaps it rests in the hands of people at whom we look somewhat askance because, perhaps, they do not express themselves well or perhaps they do not behave themselves as we think they should. Perhaps we have allowed the main struggle to rest in the hands of a few who are prepared to put themselves and thier bodies on the line. There is a tendency to sneer at that but they are, strangely enough, the vanguard of the movement and the movement grows. I come back to the point that those who ignore the growing feeling against this madness which has developed and to which we give some sort of support at the present time, will ignore it at their political cost in time. I do not know how one can express the feelings of those who look beyond their own time. Each of us, I trust looks beyond his own time. When we procreate we go beyond our own time. We should give the future generations a thought. The thought is that they should be able to live and to continue to exist in peace. We should make certain that every decision that we make here protects their existence. There will be a vote here today. I could opt out and say to the Australian Democrats: 'You do not need my vote today because I think the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party will combine against the Australian Democrats on this Bill, with all its shortcomings; but nevertheless, as I have indicated, with all its worth'. But I will vote against the Bill because that is what I am required to do. There is one more thing that I will do. I will go back to the people who supported me in my endorsement from within the Party and within the movement, and I will ask them whether or not I am of any further use to them because what happens in this place on this very subject has become a matter of conscience. If it is accepted in this place that those who seek to protect life make that a matter of conscience then we should extend that conscience to the wider concept of protecting not only the unborn but those who are born and have to exist. If it is a matter of conscience in that regard, then it is about time that this matter concerning our very survival also became a matter of conscience. That is how I see it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.15) —By necessity I will be brief. As a result of that brevity I will refer only to that aspect of this Bill described as the Customs (Nuclear Materials and Hardware Prohibition) Bill 1983 in terms of the mining and export of uranium. Before I start I want to say that while it is not true of a great many who would seek to prevent the mining and exportation of uranium from Australia I have absolutely no doubt about the altruistic and sincere intentions of the Australian Democrats in this legislation. The critics of uranium mining in Australia have a variety of arguments which they draw upon, seemingly as the whim takes them. One argument relates to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the fear that Australian's uranium may be reprocessed into weapons grade material. That is an argument that would cast Australia in the role of world policeman, a role which clearly it does not have the capacity to perform. Australia's contribution to cumulative world uranium production to date is a mere 2 per cent. Even had Australia never produced a single pound of uranium, stocks of reprocessable material would have been virtually unaffected. A protest by Australia by refusing to mine uranium would be almost totally ineffective. It is argued that if the proposed developments go ahead Australia will become a much more significant uranium supplier. Certainly, that is the objective of the companies which have already spent several million dollars in exploration and development work to date. However, at best, Australia contains only 16.4 per cent of the Western world's reasonably assured low cost uranium resources. In terms of the proportion of the Western world's resources, Australia holds about the same reserves as Canada and slightly more than South Africa, both of which are actively developing uranium mines. More than a quarter of the low cost reasonably assured reserves are located within the United States of America. The only effect of Australia's withholding its supplies would be, perhaps, to increase slightly, in the long term only, the price at which uranium is traded. Even that is unimportant since the cost of the fuel is a very small part of the overall cost of nuclear powered generation. In other words, a total ban on the mining and export of Australia's uranium would be a pyrrhic gesture, at best, that would neither significantly reduce stocks of nuclear material nor slow down the further development of nuclear weapons. I recall that Senator Mason made the point in an AM interview that the majority of countries which now want to install nuclear capacity are doing so to produce material for nuclear weapons. Perhaps wittingly or unwittingly, that statement is illustrative of the fear tactics which the anti-uranium lobby is using to denigrate the uranium mining industry. Like all such arguments it is demonstrably false. Senator Mason referred to four countries seeking to build nuclear power stations-Argentina, Pakistan, possibly South Africa, and Israel. He went on to say that the motive of their doing so was not to produce electricity but to produce plutonium for small nuclear weapons. He does not know that. But he would well understand, as most people would, that such an argument is likely to create unnecessary fear in the Australian community. It is more likely to create that fear than it would be if he offered the most likely reasons for those countries' decisions to build nuclear power stations. They are , in fact, countries largely devoid of petroleum resources. The international position, which at least two of them find themselves in-I refer here of course to South Africa and Israel-is such that their future energy supplies are uncertain. Of course they are turning to other energy sources. In fact, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, in 10 developing countries- Argentina, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Mexico, Cuba and Yugoslavia-nuclear power stations are under construction or in operation at the present time. Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Thailand and Turkey are also planning some nuclear power generating capacity. Already 25 countries produce electricity from nuclear sources and 21 of these are planning or constructing further nuclear generating capacity. There are 294 operating nuclear power plants in the world today and a further 215 are under construction. Senator Mason and Senator Chipp and the rest of the Australian Democrats-and perhaps the Government for that matter in some respects-may rest assured that a building program of that magnitude is not going ahead on the assumption that Australia will develop its uranium resources. Even if we do not proceed, about 84 per cent of the Western world's low cost reasonably assured reserves will be available to fuel these stations. Our decisions not to develop will be by and large thoroughly irrelevant. Even the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) understands the absurdity of suggesting otherwise. I remind honourable senators of his comments at the conference of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in September 1979, when he attacked the anti-uranium lobby in no uncertain terms, telling that conference: They insult your intelligence by saying there are problems about proliferation; there are problems about nuclear waste disposal; there are problems about terrorism. They have told you all the problems but they have denied themselves the final responsibility of saying to you, having listed the problems, we now tell you how you can contribute to the solution of these problems by leaving the uranium in the ground. They didn't go to that. Not one speaker went to that because they knew that if every bit of Australian uranium was kept in the ground , it would be supplied from other sources. That is the present Prime Minister speaking in 1979 at the ACTU congress. The arguments being put forward against uranium mining in Australia on the grounds that Australia has some sort of moral responsibility in this matter cannot be sustained unless it can be demonstrated that we can make a meaningful contribution to addressing the problem, if indeed there is a problem, simply by not mining our own uranium resources. Yet that is the assumption underlying the Democrats' Bill today and frankly, to me, that assumption is quite absurd. Australia has been developing a uranium mining industry which is closely monitored and controlled to ensure that operations are carried out with the utmost safety. The Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry quite plainly stated that: The hazards of mining and milling uranium, if those activities are properly regulated and controlled, are not such as to justify a decision not to develop Australian uranium mines. Subsequent inquiries have made it clear that those regulations are being properly applied. The Ranger inquiry commissioners, in their first report, released in October 1976, made a very important observation which must be borne in mind. They said: In considering the evidence we have found that many wildly exaggerated statements are made about the risks and dangers of nuclear energy production by those opposed to it. Honourable senators will recall that those were the comments of a commission appointed by the Whitlam Government to investigate the Ranger uranium proposal. More recently, in the 1981-82 annual report, the Uranium Advisory Council advocated the dissemination of more information so that the Australian public can make its own judgments based on fact rather than on ignorance and misunderstanding. Several organisations are seeking to achieve that. The Council itself notes: The activities of both the A(ustralian) A(tomic) E(nergy) C(ommission) and the U(ranium) I(nformation) C(entre) are likely to be denigrated by those opposed to the use of uranium, but in the Council's opinion both are performing an important role in disseminating factual information. Unfortunately it is true that the level of debate on this issue is generally very poor and misinformed. The very good work which these organisations try to do has been attacked, in my view, most unfairly, Those attacks are coming from a number of sources. The ACTU, as the peak union council in Australia should in my view be acting with a great deal more responsibility, especially since some of its affiliated unions support the further development of Australia's uranium resources. The facts are that the uranium mining industry is one of the most regulated and closely monitored areas of economic activity in Australia today. A vast array of Commonwealth and State legislation controls all aspects of the industry, from the actual mining procedures to environmental aspects and the impact of the industry on Aboriginal communities. According to a 1981 report on uranium mining laws in the Northern Territory, eight different pieces of legislation impinge on the single matter of waste disposal alone. A similar situation exists in respect of the protection of the environment, employees' safety and the contact of the mining community with Aboriginal communities in the vicinity of uranium mines. These controls clearly bear out the conclusion of the inquiry into the Northern Territory legislation that: We have formed the view from our consideration of the laws applicable to uranium mining operations in the Northern Territory that those operations are ' properly regulated and controlled' in great detail in respect of all aspects. The inquiry went on further to comment: Although we have no way of accurately assessing the statement, we believe that it is likely that such operations are the most regulated and controlled mining operations within the country. From my observations I would concur with that view. With that in mind, the Bill before us today, if we were even to implement it, would only deny Australia the opportunity to develop new export markets and destroy employment opportunities in several States which currently exist in this industry and would cause the loss of many millions of dollars in investment capital which would otherwise flow through to the Australian community. In a State such as South Australia, which had the highest unemployment rate in Australia in July 1983, standing at 10.9 per cent, it is nonsense to prevent the completion of a project such as Roxby Downs which will involve $1,400m in investment and which will employ 2,400 people directly and up to 8,000 people indirectly during the initial construction phase and many more during the later parts of the construction phase, simply to appease a jaundiced view of Australia's supposed international moral responsibility. Even if such a responsibility existed-I do not believe it does-it is plainly understood on our side of the chamber, and even by the present Prime Minister, that it would be a responsibility which we could simply not discharge. Delaying the development of our resources is achieving nothing except to deny this country the benefits which uranium mining has to offer. There are several examples of where Australia has already lost opportunities. I will refer to one that seems particularly significant. It was reported in the Weekend Australian of 14 and 15 May last-some time ago-that a Korean utility, described as one of the most important potential customers for locally produced yellowcake, had joined a major Canadian company, a subsidiary of a west German company, in a major exploration venture into Canada's North-west Territory. The significant words here are 'exploration venture'. Because of concerns that the political situation in Australia could affect the reliability of supply, a major utility-a potential major user of our uranium-is looking for uranium in Canada while there are several proven deposits in Australia, potential mines, including Yeelirrie in Western Australia which the Australian Labor Party has already jeopardised. That project could have gone ahead and supplied all the uranium this utility needs. We have lost that opportunity because of the uncertainty which Bills such as this and others that the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party propose to introduce produce in the minds of potential customers. The repercussions of the decision not to grant licences to the Honeymoon partners and the standing threat, which has now manifested itself into reality, to withhold licences from such projects as Yeelirrie, Jabiluka and Koongarra are already being felt through decisions such as that taken by the Korean utility. A ban on mining will not prevent it from obtaining uranium. It will only determine the origin of the uranium and deny Australia substantial economic benefits in the process. At present, about 10 per cent of the world's electricity is nuclear generated. By 1985 it is anticipated it will be 17 per cent and by the beginning of the next century, 23 per cent. These projections are not contingent in any way upon Australia developing its uranium resources. Except in terms of the economic benefits which our own people can derive from a positive attitude to mining, decisions which we make are all but irrelevant. The sooner the Government, the Australian Democrats and the anti-uranium sections of the trade union movement understand that, the quicker Australia will once again be able to participate in this developing industry. It ought to be understood that the decision that the Australian Labor Party made recently in respect of Roxby Downs and the continuation of contracts already in place for two other mines in no way should properly be described as a pro-uranium decision. It is anything but that. In my view it is a slight variation from the ambiguity of the Australian Labor Party policy which has been set down. The ALP is simply saying that for expedient reasons which as yet have not been thoroughly disclosed by the Government, it has chosen Roxby Downs as some unique and special mine, allegedly because it has other minerals. The relevance of other minerals to the general arguments and the general philosophic thrust put forward by the ALP that there should not be uranium mining in Australia escapes me. A great cloud still hangs over what will ultimately be the decision of this Government on the future exploration of Australia's magnificent resource which can provide us with a great deal of wealth and employment. I conclude by saying that in a recent visit to Japan I raised the very question of what would be Japan's attitude if Australia reneged on its current uranium contracts and chose not to go ahead with Roxby Downs or any other source of Australian uranium. The Japanese Government in a very refreshing and, I thought, unique and frank way, said that if that were the case it would consider it in the gravest light. It said that a decision to abrogate international contracts to which Australia was morally and legally committed would make Australia a potentially unreliable supplier, not only of uranium but also of other commodities. As the Japanese Government said, it could proceed to get uranium from South Africa, Canada and the United States. Such a decision by Australia would not affect Japan immediately in terms of its capacity to acquire uranium but it would cast us in the light of being unreliable suppliers not only of uranium but also potentially of beef-we are having great difficulty at the present time maintaining our share of the beef market-iron ore, bauxite and many other of our exports which I think run in our favour at about five or six to one . Of course, at a time when the Japanese trade surplus with the United States is such that there is enormous pressure from the United States on Japan to increase its imports from the United States it would be very easy, not only for commercial reasons but also for political pragmatic reasons, to acquire some of those products which we now sell to Japan from the United States of America. While the Bill may be well-intentioned, I believe it is ill-informed. I do not believe it has any virtue. I will certainly be voting against it. I am sure that every responsible, wise thinking member of the Senate will do likewise. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.36) —It needs to be said from the outset that the Customs (Nuclear Materials and Hardware Prohibition) Bill 1983 does not raise for debate in the Senate today the general merits of the decision recently announced by the parliamentary Labor Party except in so far as that announcement permits existing mines at Nabarlek and Ranger to continue to export uranium contracted for and which is destined to move to export ports. This Bill would halt that movement overnight. The Bill-I will confine my remarks to it as much as possible-very starkly, very fairly and squarely, takes an absolute stance and calls for immediate cessation of import and export of nuclear-related materials here and now, as soon as it is passed into law, if it were to pass into law. Immediate barriers would be erected at the waterfront in law- Senator Macklin —That has been our policy for seven years. Senator TATE —There would be immediate abrogation of contracts. I acknowledge the interjection that the absolute immediate cessation of imports and exports is the policy of the Australian Democrats. I think it has to be understood by those who may question what is going on in this debate that that is indeed the central proposition, indeed, the only proposition in the Bill. The substance of the Bill is contained in two short sentences. Clause 6 reads: The exportation of any nuclear materials from Australia is prohibited absolutely. Clause 7 reads: The importation of any nuclear hardware into Australia is prohibited absolutely . I believe that the narrowest reading of ALP policy cannot support those clauses. The answer from this side of the chamber to the Bill is that it elevates a very legitimate concern into such an absolute principle with such an immediate effect that we cannot support it. We cannot support it today. We could not have supported it last Thursday had it come on for debate because of the devasting effect it would have on existing operations at Nabarlek and Ranger and the crippling effect it would have on the operations of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights which is concerned with research and with the production of various materials, including medical isotopes. We believe that certainly ought not to be jeopardised. We do not take the simplistic approach which, I believe, this Bill takes. We do not, thereby, accept the unfettered development subject only to market forces which underlies the Liberal and National parties' approach to these questions. The national platform of the Liberal Party does not even mention uranium. It does speak of market forces governing resource development. Our platform is both more complex and realistic than either alternative represented on the other side of the chamber. It is more complex because we have a very real concern with the risks of nuclear proliferation and, therefore, are strong advocates of adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. But within that Treaty itself the tension which is apparent in our policy is recognised. Article I of the Treaty reads: Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to trasnfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly, and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nucelar weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices. Article IV reads: Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. So there within the Treaty, which I believe holds out the only hope to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and thereby the increase in the possibility of a nuclear holocaust overwhelming the whole of mankind's history, the tension is present. It seems to me that the only rational way to resolve the tension in fulfilling Article IV is to have such stringent safeguards and conditions attached to the fulfillment of that Article that Article I is not put in jeopardy. The two are linked, but I believe that the Australian Democrats, in this Bill, forge such an absolute link between the export of Australian uranium, from the existing mines at Ranger and Nabarlek, and the threat of nuclear holocaust that they do a disservice to the peace movement, of which I count myself a member and in which I intend to continue. I know that in this matter Senator Chipp thinks that I am naive, perhaps, or even hypocritical. Senator Chipp —No, I withdraw that totally. I regret saying that. Senator TATE —Thank you. I certainly acknowledge that those who have brought this Bill into the chamber do so in good will, and I acknowledge the conscientious reservations of those on this side of the chamber, but I honestly believe that all those on this side of the chamber can in good faith repudiate this Bill. To explain why that can be done in good faith, I assert that there are two very down to earth, realistic reasons why support for the Bill cannot be given. Firstly, we came into office in March 1983, after seven years in the political wilderness, during which time, and certainly in the face of our policy, mines were established at Ranger and Nabarlek. To pass this Bill into law would be to immediately suspend or even destroy the livelihood of hundreds of Australian workers on the sites and in associated transport operations and would also place in jeopardy the Aboriginal communities which have negotiated certain settlements in relation to the use of their land. We will not be party to such an immediate crippling impact. To invite us to do so is to invite us to emulate the very worst practices of some of those in the private sector, and that is something which this Government will not do. The second reason-I plead with Senator Chipp; I really require an answer on this one-the second realistic, compassionate and utterly humane reason for rejecting the simplistic approach of this Bill lies in its proposal to raise an absolute barrier to the import of nuclear hardware, as it is defined. That cannot be supported by any Australian, because it could well disable the only nuclear reactor operating in Australia, at Lucas Heights in Sydney. It is a publicly funded facility, largely devoted to research, operated by a commission which reports annually to the Parliament. It is not a private organisation or firm or a profit-seeking enterprise being conducted simply for commercial gain in a manner outside the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. If one refers to the thirtieth annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which covers the year 1981-82, one finds there that the Commission, in supporting the continued operation of the HIFAR reactor, states: HIFAR is a unique national facility which provides a focus for an Australian nuclear research program. It is used by the Commission in its research programs, by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) for such services as neutron activation analysis and for irradiation studies. Neutron beams from HIFAR are used by some 70 scientists each year from the 17 Australian universities for advanced studies of the structure of matter. These latter studies are arranged through the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering (AINSE). I do not place so much weight on that, though I should have thought that the desire, often stated by Senator Macklin, to see Australia intellectual resources devoted full to understanding the whole range of matter, would have found something to which to respond in that paragraph. I quoted it only for completeness. The second paragraph is more important. It states: HIFAR is indispensable for the domestic production of most of the radioisotopes used in Australia in industry and medicine. Radiopharmaceuticals to an annual value of about $2 million are distributed to hospitals throughout Australia for use in nuclear medicine departments for the benefit of more than 150,000 patients annually. While many of these radioisotopes could be imported, a domestic production capability is considered highly desirable to ensure reliability of supply competitive prices and local research and development capability. The third paragraph states: HIFAR operations provide the means for maintaining practical experience in nuclear reactor technology and its regulation. I have spent some time on this because it more than adequately permits members of the Senate, in utter good faith and conscientiously, to reject the Bill. On page 52 of the annual report, the Commission goes on to say: The most intense neutron field in the HIFAR fuel core is located in the region of a number of hollow fuel element rigs. These rigs were used during the year mainly for the production of medical radioisotopes and the irradiation of SYNROC , a synthetic material under study for the long-term storage of radioactive waste products. There we have it, where the Commission explains that it supports the continuation of the HIFAR reactor because of the range of programs to which it is committed, including those to which we ought to give the gravest concern and devote much of our research resources and scarce dollars raised by the taxpayer- namely, in relation to devising a means to dispose of waste. Those experiments in relation to synroc hold out some hope for the future and the solving of that admittedly difficult problem in relation to the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle. Of course, in relation to the provision of radioisotopes, pharmaceutical medical isotopes, I believe that the 150,000 patients annually in Australia who make use of that provision ought to be considered. They certainly ought not to be put in jeopardy, because it is clear from the report that rather than buying a new reactor, the Government has decided to initiate a HIFAR refurbishing program at an estimated cost of $4.7m over five years. It is said in the report, for example: The present emergency core cooling system which is manual in operation will be converted to automatic and its layout, piping and testing will be upgraded. This will be supported by considerable analytical effort verifying that the required level of reliability has been met and that its performance will be adequate under accident conditions. That will certainly require the importation of some types of the nuclear hardware which this Bill would not permit to be imported and, therefore, the Bill would lead to a more dangerous situation in the operation of that facility needed within the Australian community. For those reasons, which should commend themselves to all honourable senators, I certainly cannot support the Bill. Looking at the Bill in relation to the actual impact, what it seeks to do by law, I believe that certainly my attitude is consonant with the very core of Australian Labor Party policy and certainly is able to be supported by any honourable senator in good faith. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.50) —One of the great thinkers of our time, the late Arthur Koestler, wrote these words: 'The self-induced extinction of all life on this planet is now approaching a statistical certainty'. I do not know that that statement can be sensibly challenged by any thinking or caring person. The reason for his statement was uranium. It is the basic reason why Koestler wrote those words. He did not write them because of the biological and chemical weapons that the human race now has at its disposal, terrible, shocking, terrifying though they are; he did not say it because of the nerve gases that both sides have created in our insanity to destroy. He said it because of uranium. That is what this debate is about-the banning, the mining, and the milling and exporting of uranium from Australia, and the banning of devices to assist the nuclear industry in Australia. As I stand here today, 50,000 nuclear devices are in existence. Thirty thousand of them are owned by the United States and 20,000 are owned by the Soviet Union. Of that 50,000 devices, 20,000 are pointed at human beings. Twelve thousand devices owned by the United States are pointed at targets in Russia and Europe and about 8,000 owned by the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc are pointed at Europe and the United States and, according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), one or two are, perchance, pointed at Australia. The magnitude of some of those devices passes beyond my comprehension. I humbly admit that my finite mind cannot comprehend the destructive power of the 50 megatonne weapon. As I understand it, it is much greater in its destructive power than the sum total of all the bombs and shells exploded during the Second World War over a six-year period. I cannot comprehend that, but is a fact. Even more chillingly, such a weapon would fit under the desk in front of me as I speak. The way in which some speakers today have spoken, particularly those on the Opposition side of the House, seemed to ignore the fact that every one of those 50,000 nuclear devices would not be there today and the world would not be on the brink of self -induced extinction if it were not for the element, uranium. I think that is a fair statement. I do not think it can be challenged in any logic. Without uranium there would not be this unspeakable, unthinkable danger to the human race. There would be no threat to children or, as Senator Georges said, there would be no threat to the unborn. Therefore, by contributing in any way to the construction of nuclear devices which threaten life on this planet, we are not committing an offence against logic; we are committing an offence against morality, as Senator Georges so passionately, eloquently and sincerely said. I agree with what he said, namely, that one of the most immoral things that you, Mr Deputy President, and I can do during our lifetimes on this planet is to commit an act of omission or commission that endangers the lives, the happiness and the health of the unborn. There is no more unspeakable sin-I use that word advisedly-against morality, against God, and against our whole existence than to do something or to allow something to be done that will endanger the unborn, or, for that matter, the children who can do nothing against the actions we undertake. I will come to the issue of disarmament in a moment. I wanted to put on the record at the beginning of this speech what uranium is. Uranium is not just another element. It does not provide just another means of warfare. It introduces a whole new concept into the contemplation of existence and survival because, as I understand it, for the first time in our history, we now have the capacity-one does not want to get too maudlin about it-almost to wipe out the human race. In a global nuclear war almost all of the human race would be demobilised within about six minutes. All of us would then take about five days to die. With the deployment of the Cruise missile which, again as I understand it, in some cases reaches its destination within five five or six minutes of its being launched, the day of consultation over the hotline is over. There is now an absurdity in the concept that once the Cruise missile with its atomic warhead or the SS20 is launched, Andropov and Reagan could pick up a telephone and try to talk to each other. The time is no longer there for consultation. We have now reached a stage which, to use the horrific jargon, is one of launch on warning. If the computer systems of the Soviet Union or the United States register a pre -emptive strike, there is no time for consultation. If the computer says that a country is having a pre-emptive strike, that country launches on that warning. The launching entails the letting-go of every nuclear device a country has towards every major city that the enemy has. How many times, Mr Deputy President , has the world been on red alert because of a computer error? As I understand it, a recent occurrence was in the late 1970s. In 1979 the world was on a three minutes red alert and counting. Computer errors have been caused by some idiot in Washington leaving a war game in a computer; then a series of freak circumstances occurred, circumstances as absurd as the registering of a flock of geese on a scanner in Alaska. That, compounded with other phenomena, put the computer on red alert and the world was counting. This is the sort of new situation in which we find ourselves. The point I am making today is that this Government in its decision to expand massively the uranium industry has been blind to many alternatives and blind to its own policies. I listened carefully to what Senator Tate had to say. I admired almost all speeches from the Labor side today. I remind Senator Tate of Labor Party policy. I confess that I will quote only a small section of Labor Party policy and I acknowledge that there are many qualifications to this particular section I will put into the record, particularly the qualifications known as the Hogg amendments. What I do read into the record from the ALP policy is: Our minimum position would be a total unequivocal commitment to phase out Australia's involvement in the uranium industry. There is nothing equivocal about that; there is nothing doubtful about its meaning in English. Even if we were to add the Hogg amendment which provides that certain projects might be continued where the mining of uranium is incidental to the mining of other metals, there are still many superlatives in that policy statement: 'Our minimum position'-superlative No. 1-'would be a total'-another superlative-'unequivocal'-another superlative-'commitment to phase out'-another superlative-'Australia's involvement in the uranium industry' . When one puts that next to the decision of last week to mine uranium from Roxby Downs-the largest single uranium mine in the world-one must ask the question: 'Is that decision not a betrayal of an election promise to phase out uranium mining in Australia?' I concede in passing the point raised by Senator Georges and Senator Tate that there is a defect in the simple Bill which I brought forward, namely, the provision for a total prohibition on the importation of nuclear gear. But that should not concern those honourable senators who want to vote to phase out uranium mining. A simple amendment in the Committee stage would take care of that. The reason for its insertion should be clear to Senator Tate, of all people, who happens to have some extraordinary people in his State, like Premier Robin Gray, who constantly talk about the erection of nuclear reactors in Tasmania. They are supported by Senator Peter Rae who, if I do not misrepresent him, wants to put one on some obscure island in Bass Strait. That sort of policy statement was so chilling, at least to me, that I believed that the insertion of that kind of total prohibition of nuclear gear was necessary. Let me mention the facts that the Government has ignored. Nuclear power, even if it supplied all of the world's electricity, would still provide no more than between 4 per cent and 8 per cent of the world's energy needs. From what Senator Sir John Carrick said, one would think that the world runs almost entirely on electicity. There is confustion about electricity and energy. I state now that electricity, to take the top figure, provides only 8 per cent of the world's total energy needs and, of all that electricity, nuclear power provides only about 10 per cent. Therefore, nuclear power today provides only 10 per cent of 8 per cent of the world's total energy needs. I never was a scholar in mathematics but I think that means that about 0.8 per cent of the world's total energy needs is provided by the processing of uranium. So we are not talking about a situation where, if we were to stop supplying the world with our uranium, the world would cese. That is an absurdity. Senator Crichton-Browne, who has just graced Japan with his presence, came back with a story that suggests that Japanese industry will grind to a halt if we do not supply it with uranium. Uranium supplies 0.8 per cent of the world's total energy needs. We wonder to what extent the underdeveloped countries of, say, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan would benefit from nuclear power even if it were developed in those countries. The Minister alleges-he constantly talks about this-that our withdrawal from the market would not affect the world consumption of uranium. I dispute that. Senator Walsh concedes that if we withheld our uranium the world price would rise. Of course it would. He concedes that but says it would rise a minimal amount. Senator Walsh —Marginal. Senator CHIPP —I am sorry; marginal. That is a concession for which we Democrats are grateful. We dispute his adjective; we believe it would rise to a significant extent because, if we did withdraw something like 25 per cent of the Western world's known supplies, surely the law of supply and demand would mean that the world's price would rise. As I understand it, and as Senator Macklin said in a magnificent contribution to this debate last week, producing electricity from uranium is now becoming non -viable. He gave the example of the United States, where no new reactor has been ordered since the late 1970s and the orders for several reactors have been cancelled. It is now becoming not economically viable to produce electricity from uranium. An increase in the world price of uranium puts additional pressure on those nations contemplating the substitution of a form of energy with electricity from uranium. Mr Deputy President, at this time the world quivers on the point of self- induced extinction because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I remind those speakers who said there is no connection between uranium and weapons that every nuclear weapon comes from uranium. President Ronald Reagan has stated that , in the next three or four years, he will create 11,000 more nuclear warheads. This is happening at a time when millions of ordinary human beings around the world are concerned about their future. What a magnificent example to the world it would be if, out of all the greed and commercial lust that abounds in our society, one country, Australia, stood up at this time and said: 'We are prepared to make a sacrifice for the sake of the safety of the human race; we are prepared even to allow our hip pocket nerve to be hurt by not getting cheap dollars from uranium mining, to make a sacrifice and accept perhaps a lower standard of living'. What a significant message would be sent around the world if one of the world's largest suppliers of uranium were, on a matter of principle, prepared to make a sacrifice. What sort of encouragement and inspiration would that be to the 70 per cent of West Germans who feel under seige because of the deployment of cruise missiles. One of the things I believe this world desperately needs is a sign from some entity that it is prepared to make the sacrifice. Australia, among all nations, small in population though we are, has this unique opportunity to give that example. The Government has not given enough consideration to alternative energy sources . It has ignored the fact that there are cheap, viable and renewable energy resources which are ready to be employed now. A wind energy project in San Francisco will provide electricity for 450,000 people at a real cost of 3.5c a kilowatt hour. One wonders why successive Ministers in this country, both Labor and Liberal, have not grasped the challenge of being able to create electricity through wind energy at what I believe to be a cheaper cost than even Mr Gray's precious hydro-electric schemes could provide it. Brazil's program to produce alcohol from sugar cane is saving $14m a year in oil imports. It provides domestic employment, saves oil and eases the country's balance of payments problems. The Sanyo corporation is about to manufacture photovoltaic cells as roof tiles. Covering one quarter of a house with the tiles provides enough electricity for day time needs. Each tile is now down to a cost of $10 each. These are the sorts of things that are happening in other parts of the world. Why do Australians and Australia's Ministers who are in charge of these matters not have a go at them also? Certainly we have the know how, we have the resources. This Government has wrongly concluded that the world must have our uranium. We challenge that. The Government has accepted the fait accompli of the world's 50, 000 nuclear warheads as a reason for continuing to sell uranium and runs the risk of fuelling the arms race. Of course, ending the nuclear industry will not make those 50,000 nuclear warheads disappear but, as Mr Justice Fox said, to continue the nuclear industry will produce more nuclear weapons. Closing down the nuclear industry tomorrow will help control and avert nuclear proliferation. I make that point very strongly. The Australian Democrats seem to be the only party in this Senate putting that point of view. Closing down the nuclear industry will control and avert nuclear proliferation. The nuclear industry currently provides a benign cover for developing bombs. Ending the civil nuclear industry would leave any remaining nuclear activity with an unmistakable military intent. Such blatant moves would then be very easily identified, be more politically repugnant and thus more easily opposed. As long as the nuclear industry continues it will provide a smokescreen for mushroom clouds. I ask the Senate to contemplate one thing that does send nervous shivers right through me. At present nuclear safeguards are acknowledged to be virtually useless. If one says that they are not useless, I ask: How in the name of God did India and Israel explode devices? They obtained plutonium and weapons grade fuel from uranium that was being mined for peaceful purposes. If that is not enough to worry honourable senators, let me list a few nations, headed by crazies, which are on the verge of getting the bomb: Argentina, the Philippines, Pakistan, India, Lybia, Syria, Korea, Iraq and Iran. What does it do for the peace of mind of honourable senators to think that some of those nations may soon have the bomb and that they will get the bomb only if they can get their hands on the products of uranium. For this reason the Australian Democrats are very proud to have been associated with introducing this Bill. We believe it is time to say to the world: Stop being crazy. Remember Koestler's words that our self-induced extinction of all life on this planet is now approaching a statistical certainty. We believe the first step to stop that-before we can even begin to be regarded as fair dinkum in our contribution to nuclear proliferation-is to stop exporting our uranium. What short of a reaction will our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or our public servants in the foreign diplomatic corps receive overseas when they talk about nuclear proliferation, when the people to whom they talk know that we are exporting uranium as fast as any ship can leave Australia fully loaded with it for a quick lousy buck? I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented, Mr Deputy President. I take it that the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, misunderstood or misheard what I said. I did not suggest that in the event of there being an immediate cessation of the exportation of uranium from Australia to Japan, Japan would no longer be able to fulfil its own requirements. What I said was that three weeks ago the Japanese Government make it quite clear that in the event of there being an abrogation of the contractual relationship, which is presently in place between Australia and Japan in respect of the sale of uranium, Japan would have to reconsider its position in respect of our integrity, our capacity as responsible suppliers and our future likelihood as a responsible trading partner. The Japanese were referring not only to uranium. They made the point that they can acquire their uranium needs from other countries. On the statistics, I think that in 1981 they were acquiring 3,000 tonnes; in 1990 the figure will be 5,000 and by the year 2000 it will be 11,000. That was not the problem. The problem was that Australia is a reliable supplier, not only of uranium but also of coal, beef and many other products which we presently sell. As I said, because of the enormous trade surplus in our favour, a surplus which is in favour of Japan as against the United States, Japan would look elsewhere for contracts in respect of many products that we presently supply and we could no longer be considered a reliable and responsible trading partner. I did not for a moment suggest that Japan's capacity to acquire uranium for its plants would diminish. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. K. Jessop, D. S. Boswell, R. L. D. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. Kilgariff, B. D. Carrick, Sir John Lajovic, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Lewis, A. W. R. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Colston, M. A. Missen, A. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterCrowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hearn, J. M. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Ryan, S. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Annual Report 1982-83 Consideration resumed from 8 November 1983, on motion by Senator Hamer: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Consideration resumed from 8 November 1983, on motion by Senator Mason: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Consideration resumed from 8 November 1983, on motion by Senator Hamer: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. GROUP E Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $208,671,000. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.28) —When this matter was being considered before luncheon I was in the course of replying briskly and succinctly to Senator Durack's untoward suggestions that we have been something less than energetic and effective as a law reform administration in the first seven months. May I just complete at least the partial litany of achievement by mentioning some other matters before I sit down. Defamation law, an exercise which again under the previous Administration's stewardship had been prolonged over some three years without visible signs of achievement, was brought to fruition through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General this year and a draft Bill is in the process of final discussion with the view to exposure either in the next few weeks or, at the latest, very early next year. In relation to audio visual copyright, a major review exercise has been drawn rapidly to conclusion. I will be making some announcements to morrow as to what the Government's likely position will be on some of those vexed and difficult matters. A major review of Part IV of the Trade Practices Act has been completed as promised and it is expected that before we rise again this year a major piece of legislation will be exposed to the community for comment, outlining what is proposed not only in relation to Part IV but also the Part V consumer protection provisions. Other matters have occupied the attention of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General with active leadership from the Commonwealth. I refer in particular to artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation procedures and the status of children born as a result thereof; the position of transsexuals, which is the subject of a major project in which the Commonwealth has been taking a leading role and in respect of which a discussion paper was recently circulated. At a Federal-State level we have been actively pursuing, as I indicated we would, the whole question of accident compensation and discussions are at an advanced stage, both within the Commonwealth and as between the Commonwealth and New South Wales, with a view to moving towards the first stage of a co-operative national accident compensation scheme. In the area of legal administration, we have brought to fruition something again on which the Government previously was dragging its feet for a long period, and that is the establishment of a national computerised legal information retrieval system with appropriate agreements being entered into by the Commonwealth and the States to ensure that legal data can be made available by this new technology. Within the Attorney-General's Department, a very major management review has been set in train, resulting in a draft report which has been submitted to me by a steering committee just a few weeks ago and which is now being finally shaped up for major organisational implementation next year, as has already been publicly announced. One of the key elements in that, as has been announced, will be the replacement of the Crown Solicitor's Division as traditionally constructed with an Australian Government Solicitor in corporate form. That will be the subject of implementing legislation and administrative action early next year. Another key aspect of it is the concept of establishing an Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in order to co-ordinate Commonwealth prosecutions right across the whole spectrum but including in particular taxation, fraud and other white collar crime in respect of which the previous Government was lax to the point of criminal negligence. In relation to that, of course today has also been the day, and Senator Durack is rather unlucky in his choice of occasion in this respect, when the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill has been introduced into the Parliament. It is a clear demonstration of where the Government is going in that respect. There are other matters to which I can refer, in particular legal aid, which has been the subject of very substantial increases in money terms this financial year, and in real terms, as well as being the subject of a very major review which was promised at the time we came into Government as to the best methods of delivery. Senator Durack himself, as I acknowledge has not been churlish in his acknowledgment of some of the steps forward that we have been able to make, particularly so far as getting a uniform fee scale for family law is concerned and moving towards the curtailing of what has been a quite undesirable explosion in the amount of money that has been spent in legal aid in recent years- undesirable given the proportion of return that has been achieved for that expenditure. We have doubled the expenditure on community legal centres by up to $1m and generally are advancing on a broad front towards the rationalisation of legal aid. I hope to have achieved, by the middle of next year, a final rationalisation of the national legal aid delivery system through the establishment, on the same basis as elsewhere, of a legal aid commission in New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. There are other matters in various degrees of progress at the moment in respect of which it is not appropriate to make any public announcement. I mention in that respect the review of the off-shore legislation which roused Senator Durack's particular indignation but in respect of which major activity has been going on behind the scenes. I simply summarise by saying that far from the Government having anything to be ashamed of so far as the content and rate of implementation of its pre-election promises in the law reform area is concerned, we have a great deal on the record and a great deal to be proud of. Of all the possible areas of public interest which Senator Durack might have chosen to launch his attack on today, I find it quite extraordinary and a measure of the degree to which the present Opposition is out of touch with reality, that he should have chosen to focus on alleged failings in the implementation of law reform promises. It has been a record of great energy and great achievement. I do not blame Senator Durack for being jealous of it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.35) —We have been treated simply to a repetition of claims by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for law reform initiatives which simply prove the point that I made, that those initiatives which he has achieved by and large are ones on which a vast amount of work had been done and which were virtually ready for implementation at the time he came into office. I readily acknowledged, of course, that one particular achievement he had was to establish the legislation under the external affairs power for South West Tasmania. I simply commented there that that so-called achievement from his own point of view was one which had created and will continue to create more problems for him, for the Government and for Australia than it has solved. I raised a number of matters from the point of view of his own priorities and I was interested to know what had happened to a number of them on which there did not appear to have been the same degree of success which he and his constant rhetoric claims for himself and for his law reform program. In the course of his reply, he has mentioned several matters which I think only prove my point, namely, the claim that somehow or other he has been responsible for the implementation of the legal information retrieval system. Of course, that claim is utter nonsense. The whole matter had been developed to the point where New South Wales and Victoria were about to enter into arrangements with an entrepreneur for these purposes and on that issue there was simply a difference of view between the previous Government and the present Government as to whether the Commonwealth would give those bodies an exclusive night licence or not. As to defamation, again the announcement that has been made-we have not yet seen the Bill-draws substantially on the work that had been done in the past and decisions which had been made at various meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Senator Gareth Evans —The problems have been with some of the stupid decisions you made. Senator DURACK —The other interesting aspect is that since Senator Evans announced this particular decision, for which he claims such credit, he has got himself into a mine-field of controversy which he will have to face. When the legislation is introduced there will be a great deal of controversy about it. It will not be the simple plain-sailing exercise which he seems to think it will be . The Attorney has been very coy in responding to several matters about which I was seeking information, namely, what is happening about this alleged review of the re-established Commonwealth sovereignty on off-shore areas. He is not really prepared, apparently, to tell us what the Government is planning in that area and yet that is of enormous significance. He has completely ignored my request to know what has happened about the implementation of the Premiers Conference agreement of 18 months ago relating to the removal of residual constitutional links. I also asked him what was the significance of and what is the Commonwealth's intention in relation to the item about the companies and securities legislation. If Senator Evans wants to be so coy about matters that he cannot list or even claim to have achieved at this stage, there are a number of other matters which I did not bother to mention or ask questions about because I did not have the time when I was speaking before in this debate. For instance, under the area of justice, I notice that priority 1A was given to review and reintroduce the criminal investigation Bill. On Senator Evans's own priorities that should have been reintroduced back in May, but it has not been. What is the Government doing or planning in respect of the review of the terms of Australia's ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a view to withdrawing reservations? Another item under the same heading refers to the establishment of a Federal sentencing council. That has been given priority 1B. As I understand it, that was to be achieved by the Budget session. What has happened about that? The Law Reform Commission's recommendations relating to sentencing and parole and uniformity of treatment of Federal offenders was to be implemented by the end of the year. I am interested to know what has happened about that. Senator Tate —But this is not the right place. Senator DURACK —It is entirely the right place to discuss it. Senator Tate —We are on the Estimates. Senator DURACK —Under the Estimates we can talk about what is happening in the department for which we are voting money. What a nonsense comment from Senator Tate. Nobody has ever suggested that we cannot, in an Estimates debate, ask questions about what is happening in aspects of departmental administration. If the Minister wants to ignore the questions that is his business. But that will be flying in the face of his responsibility to this Parliament. If that is the way he wants to behave and if that is the way Senator Tates wants to encourage him to behave, let them stand on that attitude to this Parliament and answer to the people in due course for their autocratic and arrogant behaviour. Of course, we see plenty of arrogant behaviour all the time from the Attorney-General. I am sorry to see him being aided and abetted in that by Senator Tate of whom I thought better. There are several other matters about which we have heard a lot of rhetoric from Senator Evans as to what he intends to do. I read a speech that he gave a few months ago about establishing a national law reform advisory council. Perhaps he might tell us what has happened with that. He was very keen on developing automatic parliamentary consideration of Law Reform Commission reports. That was another thing about which he spoke a great deal. I have not noticed that that has been achieved as yet. I do not think it can ever be achieved because it is such a nonsensical proposal that these things can be rubber stamped either by the Government or the Parliament. I do not propose to speak at great length on this program. I simply raise the matter because Senator Evans has raised it to the height that he has by his claims and rhetoric about his dedication and success as a law reformer. I have simply pointed out that most of the matters on which he can claim achievement are ones which were really in the pipeline when he became Attorney-General. I am interested to know what progress he has made in areas about which he has established his own priorities. Senator Evans was a great critic of the former Administration. He said things were not done when, of course, it was a question of whether the former Administration was implementing his policies and priorities. I do not expect Senator Evans to implement the Opposition's policies . I am interested to know how far the Government is going and what it has achieved in implementing Senator Evans's policies. That is why I raised some questions. I believe that a number of questions are justified and that Senator Evans should explain what position he has reached, particularly in view, as I said, of the priorities which he laid down for himself and for the Government. I think it is fair enough for the Parliament to find out whether Senator Evans is coming within cooee of meeting the deadlines on so many items that he has laid down. The answer that he has already given falls far short of answering the questions which were raised as a result of this document to which I am referring . When all is said and done, he has now been in office for eight months, not seven months, as he told us. He usually is inclined to exaggeration, but not in that direction. We are approaching the end of the parliamentary session and the end of the year. Obviously there is a good deal of slippage on the priorities which Senator Evans laid down. He has already said that the human rights legislation would be introduced by the end of the year. That was one of his priorities, I believe. That was to be introduced for the Budget session. He now says, quite understandably-I am not being critical-that probably that will be introduced next year. There are obviously a number of other areas where there has been some slippage. I and I am sure the Parliament would be interested to know what the revised program is for a number of matters that have been the subject of this timetable that Senator Evans laid down at the beginning of his administration. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.47) —Having heard a tiresome and sterile initial contribution from Senator Durack I did not think it would be possible to hear something even more tiresome and sterile. But such it was and as such, I suppose, it must be replied to, the conventions of this place being as they are. I make the point, as I made the point last time round, that the document to which Senator Durack refers with so much pleasure-it is not shared by any of his listeners on his own side because they are as bored as we are with it-is not a document that was ever made public nor did it ever represent a public or deliberate commitment by me to targets that I was committing myself or the Government to. It was simply a discussion document that was prepared in order to form the basis for discussions with the Department after we came into government as to what the art of the possible might be. It is thoroughly tendentious against that background, for Senator Durack to use in a thoroughly dishonest and misleading way what was a document prepared for a totally different purpose. The particular items on the list I do not resile from in any way. They do represent the areas of activity to which I wish to devote and still wish to devote priority attention to. But the actual date and order of priority associated with each of them was necessarily a matter of subsequent discussion and refinement. Such has proved to be the case. There is not a single claim that I have made, I think, which has been publicly shown to be false in this respect. I do not doubt that Senator Durack should get tetchy on the subject of targets and priorities because that was manifestly something to which he was utterly unable to address himself in his conduct of this portfolio as was evident in the spectacular maladministration that occurred under his stewardship. But he has raised eight particular matters that he wants me to comment further on so let be briefly deal with them. As to the first one, I do not propose to say anything more than I have already about the review of the re-establishment of Commonwealth sovereignty over the off-shore areas. That is a matter in respect of which I set myself the target internally of conducting a review. That has been done. The Government is now considering its position. The implementation of the Premiers Conference agreement concerning residual constitutional links has been the subject of a great deal of further activity and refinement and the development of legislative formulae. It has been the subject of extended discussions between myself, the British Government, Buckingham Palace and other relevant interests. Senator Durack —You only learnt what I learnt three years ago. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, we are a damn sight closer to a solution, I can assure Senator Durack. I am not in a position of being able to state exactly where the thing is at the moment. It will be further discussed at a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Melbourne on 15 December, and I remain optimistic that legislation will be forthcoming early next year, which was always part of our hoped for timetable. As to companies and securities legislation, the only suggestion in the document to which Senator Durack refers, was that there would be an internal review of the constitutional possibilities of unilateral legislation here in the event that we chose to follow that particular course. But I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we will not go down that adventurous and exploratory course as long as the continuing co-operative scheme with all its deficiencies continues to work reasonably satisfactorily; and it has shown itself, with certain limitations, to be operating in this way. Part of the proof of this is the major piece of reforming company legislation which we will be debating in this place next week. A criminal investigation Bill very much remains a priority target for the Government. Its implementation or introduction has been necessarily delayed by the difficulties that have been occurring with respect to the creation and establishment of the National Crime Authority. That was obviously a higher immediate priority in the area of the administration of criminal justice, but with that now out of the way, as I hope it will be in a few weeks' time, we will be able to devote all resources to bringing that major piece of reforming legislation to fruition next year. The exercise of removing the reservations and declarations that were so indefensibly entered into by this Government in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has been proceeding through the task force on human rights which has been working over the last two or three months. I have formulated my views on that and they are now being worked up in the form of a submission to go to government within a matter of days. As to the proposed Federal Sentencing Council, once again I have canvassed, as did the preceding Administration, the views of judges exercising Federal jurisdiction around the country, and have discovered, as did my predecessors, for reasons which continue to escape me I hasten to add, some resistence to the concept of establishing such a council. I believe that resistence is ill-founded and propose to proceed nonetheless with the establishment of something in the new year that will help to improve the sharing of experience in that area and to get some greater degree of uniformity into the sentencing process. I propose to make the vehicle for this purpose the Institute of Criminology, which is to assume a new life and vitality, I hope, with the coming to the office of directory early in the new year of Professor Richard Harding, who is keen to make the sentencing area a major priority. The law reform advisory council or commission concept has been worked up, formulated and is the subject of a major 80-page document-I do not know whether Senator Durack has any interest in seeing it but if he does and he can contribute constructively to the process of working something out here on a bipartisan basis, I would be only too happy to make it available to him. The recommendations arising out of that exercise were in fact approved by a national law reform agencies conference meeting in Brisbane just a few months ago and discussions are now continuing in the context of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to see what sort of institutional machinery we can agree on to implement that concept which does have a degree of acceptance in principle around the country. As to the final point about the implementation of the Australian Law Reform Commission reports, Senator Durack continues to caricature the position that I have constantly reiterated publicly, and that is not one of automatic implementation of everything that should happen to fall from the Commission; rather it is a question of applying to the Commission reports an intellectual process which says the onus is on he who would wish to not implement the terms of a report or recommendation given the amount of effort and energy and consultation that has gone into their formulation. We have adopted a different approach to the implementation of these reports, and that is now bearing very obvious fruit, particularly in the insurance area, where agents and brokers legislation will be introduced, I am told, before Parliament goes into recess. Insurance contracts legislation will be introduced, if not before we get up then very early in the new year. A whole series of other long-gathering dust reports are about to emerge into the light of day. I do not think that by the time we have spent another year in office there will be very much that Senator Durack can cavil at in this particular respect. Mr Chairman, I find this, as no doubt everyone else does, a rather empty debate . It is too early in the life of any government to be crowing about lists of achievements, and I did not seek to do so when I came into the chamber today, but I have been forced to address these matters and to give the Committee something like 25 minutes' worth of recitation of those achievements because of the churlish, tendentious, intellectually sterile and utterly qualitatively empty diatribe to which we have been subject by the previous Attorney-General, whose record was nothing to be proud of. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.56) —Mr Chairman, I know it is a terrible irritation for any Minister, particularly a Minister such as our present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), whose patience is somewhat short, to have to come into Parliament and answer questions about the administration of his own Department. I apologise to Senator Evans for the irritation that he is being caused by being subjected to a fairly light examination, in fact, of some aspects of his administration. But when he sets certain timetables and priorities, absurd and all as they were and are, which has been quite clearly revealed by his own answers to my questions today, I am sorry, but he will really just have to put up with it. Considering the length of time that all Ministers spend in this chamber on matters such as Estimates, I know it is a very irritating thing for a man such as the Attorney-General, with such remote intellectual capacities, to have to face up to this sort of examination. His patience is very short indeed. That was revealed, of course, in the other Estimates committee discussions which we had. The Attorney-General has all these things in which he has high faith and an academic belief that they can be achieved overnight. I know it must be testing his patience very much to realise that the real world does not operate in quite the same way as the construct that he has of it. I am sorry that he takes the view that he does, but we will certainly persist with our examination of his record. That leads me to a matter which I think is of very much more immediate concern to the Senate and one to which, perhaps, in the light of the attitude the Attorney-General has expressed, it is a pity we did not respond a little more actively than we did at the end of last week. Last week we saw an extraordinary performance in this chamber by the Attorney-General in relation to claims that he made about a certain matter which may in itself have been thrust upon him unwillingly. No doubt he had the same reaction to the task that he was given as he has exhibited here today in having to answer a number of questions about the timetable of certain aspects of his policy. But it happened, as we reminded him last week, that on 12 October this year he answered a question from Senator Chaney about a report from Mr Abbott, the New South Wales Police Commissioner, to Mr Wran concerning very serious allegations about the early release of prisoners and about the transcripts of tapes that has been the product of a warrant under the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act. In relation to a question about these matters from Senator Chaney Senator Gareth Evans answered in his usual form and manner. He now wants to repudiate what he said about that document earlier. He now says that it was not really meant to be a public document, despite the fact that it had been published in the journal known as Justinian which is well known in legal circles. Now the Attorney wants to repudiate that statement because it is embarrassing to him. We know that. In answer to a question from Senator Chaney about these matters, quite out of the blue-no one asked him whether he had read the particular transcripts-he said: I have also seen the transcripts of the tapes in question which set the initial hares running. So I am not relying solely on second hand information from police commissioners or anyone else in the answer I now give. He went on to give his answer. Later he said: But equally clearly the particular matters of criminal investigation that are involved in this case do not in any way, shape or fashion raise questions of possible breaches of Commonwealth law. That was a very important conclusion. It was made and reported to the Senate. Senator Evans said: I have looked very carefully at this aspect to satisfy myself personally that that is so, and I am satisfied. That was Senator Evans, as Attorney-General of the Commonwealth-the first law officer of the Commonwealth-telling the Senate, in answer to a question, that the Senate could rely entirely on his own personal judgment in this very important matter. He tried to give the Senate the very clear impression that we could rely on his personal judgment. That is a very high responsibility for anybody holding the office of Attorney-General to assume. It emerged in answers to questions last week-indeed it emerged to some extent, in the statement that Senator Evans made at the end of the previous sitting week when the whole matter blew up very strongly indeed-that Senator Evans had only in fact read what he said was six to 10 pages of the transcripts. He said he had read only those parts which were selected and drawn to his attention by the Commissioner of Police as being the ones which were relevant. Senator Evans relied on the selection made by the Commissioner of Police. He said he was entitled to rely on the selection of the Commissioner of Police. I can understand in these circumstances that that may well have been a reasonable thing for the Attorney-General to do although, in view of the very serious matters which were in question-they were so serious that tapes were being forwarded on the instruction of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Premier of a State because of the implications for one of the Ministers of that State-it may well be that the Attorney-General himself, if he were to become involved, should have given much more attention to them than he did. As emerged last week he spent about half an hour being briefed. He then spent about 20 minutes in reading the six to 10 pages and scanning-that is the word he used-the remainder of the 700 pages of the transcripts. He paid only cursory attention to the transcripts even though they were so important. That is not the point. Senator Evans never really saw the point, as far as I can understand, last week when answering questions. The point was that Senator Evans, in his answer to Senator Chaney on 12 October, made it clear that he was not relying on secondhand information. He said he was not relying on the police commissioners or anyone else in what he was saying about the content of the tapes or their relevance to breaches of Commonwealth law. He made it quite clear that we could rely on his examination of them and on his personal judgment. That is what he undertook to do. It is perfectly clear. It was perfectly clear last week in answer to the questions that we asked that he was relying on the selection of relevant material by the Commissioner of Police. We are not impugning the Commissioner of Police in any way. It was simply the view of the Commissioner of Police that certain sections out of all those pages were relevant to this question. As I said earlier, Senator Evans may have been quite justified in doing that. But that is not what he told the Senate. It was not the impression that he wanted the Senate to get. He wanted the Senate to believe that we could rely entirely on his own personal judgment of what he saw as the relevant parts of all this material. Yet, Senator Gareth Evans persisted all last week in maintaining that he did not in any way mislead the Senate or give a false impression. I want to make it quite clear to Senator Evans that in future he will not be let off the hook as easily as he was last week. If he maintains the sort of attitude that he maintained not only last week but also today in the Senate, in answer to very reasonable questions put to him as Attorney-General on the estimates of his own Department, he will not be given such lenient treatment as we gave him last week when we allowed him, perhaps, the benefit of the doubt as to how far he misled the Senate. When one looks again at the answer the Attorney-General gave to Senator Chaney, as we have done, it is perfectly clear that he did not give the Senate the true impression of the way in which he approached this problem. I believe that he should have recognised that last week when the matter blew up. He should have come clean then and explained the situation clearly. What he had done previously was perhaps perfectly reasonable. I am not challenging that it may have been perfectly reasonable although one would have expected that on such an important matter he would have had the relevant pages checked by someone in his Department . I am not suggesting that he should have been expected to read the whole of the transcripts. As I said, he made a real point in answer to Senator Chaney of saying that we could rely on his judgment in regard to this matter. Then we found out that we really have to rely virtually entirely on the judgment of the Commissioner of Police. I do not believe that is good enough for a person occupying the office of Attorney-General. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.09) —The Committee at the moment is addressing the appropriations for the Attorney-General's Department, the Department which supports the first law officer of the Commonwealth. That makes the debate on these appropriations of a slightly different character. Of course, in the first law officer of the Commonwealth we have a person filling a role which is, in part, not political. The role is one which is above the ruck. It is meant to be distinguishable from the other portfolios which are doled out by the prime ministers and caucuses. It is meant to involve some independence of judgment and some responsibilities as the guardian of the public interest. The matters which have been raised by Senator Durack, particularly the matters he has raised in his contribution in the Committee debate, are of a slightly different character from the matters which have been raised in other debate upon the appropriations. I think it would be fair to say that anyone reading the Hansard of the Committee debate so far on these appropriations would say that the Attorney-General has responded with his often assumed arrogance and bad manners. That is a very poor quality in a man who is supposed to be the guardian of the public interest, a man who is supposed to be there to prevent the Government, in its political enthusiasm, from trampling upon the public interest . There have been many people who have taken that responsibility very seriously. I was recently reminded of one of the Attorneys' predecessors, my ex-colleague Ellicott. When he felt that the politics of the situation intruded upon his independence, he resigned. I do not wish to go over all of the facts which have just been traversed by Senator Durack. But they are the facts which I intended to raise in this debate, because they raise very serious questions about the quality which this Attorney is bringing to his work and about the extent to which he is in fact living up to the responsibilities that he has assumed. The simple summary of the facts which have been outlined by Senator Durack, the simple stark fact that this Attorney has to face up to, is that he has had his attention directed to matters on which the Opposition has asked for his judgment as the guardian of the public interest , and he has refused to go back and read the transcripts. If that is an execution of his duty to protect the public interest in his view, I say that he has a very distorted view of what is the public interest. I have sat here and listened to a lot of sanctimonious sermons from the present Attorney. I have listened to them when he was in opposition and I have listened to them from him as Attorney. I believe that he would have been scathing had any of his predecessors indulged in the same sort of humbug. The simple fact of the matter is that the Opposition, quite specifically, directed the Attorney's attention to certain transcripts, transcripts which on his evidence he had scanned in a matter of a few minutes, and which he had not read. Those transcripts which he had read left him with significant doubts about whether there had been criminal behaviour by a Minister of the Crown, and he will not go back and check the transcripts. That is the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, the guardian of the public interest, a man of very great intellectual capacity, we are led to believe. If his intellect is as good as his arrogance, he certainly is a man of great intellectual capacity, but he will not perform that simple task to determine whether or not there is evidence of criminal activity in the hand of the Commonwealth. That is utterly inexcusable. All of the carry-on in the world, all of the arrogance and rudeness that we have come to accept as the standard behaviour from this Attorney, will not properly answer that charge. To remain in wilful ignorance of the facts is inexcusable. To refuse to go back and read another 10 or 12 pages of transcript is inexcusable. I believe that the Attorney-General, who, we are told, is about to take silk, ought to go away and read some of the theoretical works on his role and his duty as the guardian of the public interest and he ought to start living up to it. I for one will have no respect for an Attorney who will not even look at the facts. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.14) —I do not propose to put up with vulgar abuse from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) or from anyone else in this place. Senator Durack —You dish it out, but you cannot take it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will perfectly cheerfully take anything that the Opposition cares to throw at me. For the last three and a half weeks, since 12 October, I have answered-I have not added them up-about 25 to 30 questions in this place on the Jackson affair and matters arising out of it. I have been perfectly honest, perfectly candid and perfectly straightforward in the answers that I have given, and I have nothing to add today to any of those answers. Senator Chaney can fulminate and wallow in his own sanctimony, which seems to increase with leaps and bounds with each year of his own embittered failure to meet his own ambitions and aspirations to lead that Party of his. He becomes almost as tiresome in his middle age as Senator Durack is in the twilight of his career as a contributor to this place. There is nothing to be gained by continuing an exchange along these lines. It is not edifying for anyone in this place and it cannot be edifying for anyone listening in. Perhaps I might also suggest to you, Mr Temporary Chairman, that it is quite inappropriate for an exercise in relation to the departmental estimates of a kind that this is supposed to be. So far as I am aware, my own salary and my own worthiness to draw it are not matters that come within the realm of the Attorney-General's Department estimates at all. We are talking about the administration of the Department and the conduct, under my direction, of the officers of that Department. The matters which have attracted the enthusiastic indignation of Senator Durack and Senator Chaney have not involved members or officers of my Department at all. They have involved me in my personal ministerial capacity in ways in which I have quite openly and candidly described in this place. Without wishing in any way to inhibit such flow of further rhetorical nonsense as may be forthcoming, I suggest, Mr Temporary Chairman, that you might suggest, in turn, to the members of the Opposition that they direct themselves to what I understand this parliamentary exercise to be all about, and that they confine themselves to further sallies and forays in Question Time, or, if they believe I deserve it, a motion of censure or something of that kind. They have ample parliamentary forms at their disposal should they believe, as I doubt they do, that they are appropriate to utilise in this particular instance. Perhaps I might suggest that the time of this Committee not be further wasted with this kind of nonsense. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! The matter raised by the Attorney-General was quite correct. We should remember that we are considering the votes in Group E for the Attorney-General's Department. I would ask honourable senators who are making a contribution to keep that in mind. I call Senator Chaney. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.17) —In the Attorney-General's Department at present there are no doubt people beavering away on one of the propositions that our Attorney has recently put before the Parliament which relates to the establishment of an office related to prosecutions. I would ask the Attorney-General, in conformity with your direction or suggestion to the Committee, Mr Temporary Chairman, the extent to which he will be divorcing himself from the prosecuting role of the Commonwealth . I ask that question because of the reservations which I have about his ability to fill that role, but that is not a matter that we need canvass here. However, in asking him to answer on that matter, I draw his attention to the debate which exists in England on the extent to which it is possible, in the modern age, to have a political Attorney capable of filling these high functions. One of the Attorneys-General in England, Lord Rawlinson, expressed a view that the day of the political law officer should be coming to an end; that the public could not understand how the Attorney-General's essential independence of approach could possibly be reconciled with his character as a 'political animal'. That expression is in quotation marks because it is an expression used by another Attorney-General, the Rt Hon. S. C. Silkin, who used that expression to describe his own role when he appeared before the Court of Appeal. But to go back to that view, many of the public cannot understand how the Attorney-General's essential independence of approach could possibly be reconciled with his character as a political animal and with his role as a member of the Government. I believe that we should follow the example of some Commonwealth countries, such as India, in going over to non-political law officers, totally independent, like the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Government of the day. In the light of the refusal of the Attorney-General to examine the material which is available to him, and which it has been suggested in a number of places may contain evidence of criminal conduct, I should like the Attorney-General to advise the Committee on the extent to which, by the measures which he has just introduced into the Parliament, or by other measures which in his fertile mind he may be developing as part of his endless program of reform, he intends to remove from his own hands some of these questions of administration of law and, in particular, matters which might relate to prosecutions, over which there might be some political doubts about his ability to maintain his independence. I also ask the Attorney what access he has to professional help. I am aware that the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth at the moment has a quite impossible work load. I for one would support some reduction in the work load of the Attorney on grounds quite different from those that I have been canvassing. It seems to me that the Department has become far too much of a grab bag of functions and it has suffered accordingly. Many of those functions could be removed and that would no doubt make the job of the Attorney a more manageable one. In that context, bearing in mind the fact that the Attorney had only 20 minutes to address himself to 700 pages of transcript, I ask him what professional staff he has in his private office, what number, and whether he thinks that number is adequate. Should we be seeking more funds for that purpose? I ask him what number of professional officers he has access to in the Attorney-General's Department? By professional officers I mean qualified barristers and solicitors who might be entrusted with significant work such as examining transcripts to see whether they contain evidence of criminal behaviour. In a nutshell, I would like the Attorney to tell us the extent to which he has access to competent professional help to enable him to carry out the many tasks that he has to perform. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.22) —Might I suggest that some of the matters to which the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, wants me to address myself are better left for debate in the context of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill which is now before the Parliament. There is a legitimate area for argument as to the extent to which the prosecution function ought to be divested entirely to an independent statutory officer of that description or whether, rather, some residual powers should remain vested with the Attorney-General of the day. The particular model that we have opted for-which I do not understand to have attracted any particular indignation from Senator Durack when I discussed it with him-is one which gives the day to day conduct of prosecutions for all practical purposes exclusively to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but retains vested in the Attorney-General the capacity to come in over the top, as it were, issue guidelines and directives either of a general character or relating to the circumstances of a particular case subject to the discipline of those guidelines or directions being publicly gazetted and made the subject of public scrutiny. I believe that is an appropriate balance of functions. Whether Senator Chaney believes it is appropriate for someone with my particular combination of character defects to have that degree of professional residual responsibility is a matter I leave to the recesses of his mind to contemplate further. As to the circumstances in my private office, the situation is this: I have two electoral staff, as everyone does, one of whom is now a lawyer as of last week, although I do not think the appointment has yet been formalised, based in Melbourne, based in Canberra; all peripatetic. I have three highly qualified lawyers as principal private secretary, private secretary and senior adviser, the last mentioned of whom, Mr Pickering, was the subject of an exchange in the Estimates committee. In addition, I have three non-legally qualified secretaries or stenographers/receptionists, plus a Press officer who operates primarily out of the Department. So far as professional assistance from the Department is concerned, there are some 500 lawyers out of a total departmental complement of 2,500. I would have thought that given the expertise and quality which is vested in those 500 lawyers, I am as well served as any professional could be in the decisions for which I assume responsibility. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.25) —The reference that the Attorney has made to his private office indicates fairly clearly that he has some substantial legal help readily at hand, apart from those in the Department, who, spread around Australia might not be so readily available to perform the sort of task that he had in front of him when these transcripts were brought to his attention . Certainly when the matter was raised by the Opposition, one would have thought that quite clearly he would have been able to have checked the question that was asked and on which, as I said earlier, he clearly gave the impression that we could rely on his own personal judgment. However, I want to refer to one other matter. The Attorney himself raised it in the answer he has just given. When the matter of Mr Pickering's position was mentioned at the Estimates committee, Senator Evans told the committee that he was under the exchange scheme. Senator Gareth Evans —I subsequently corrected that. Senator DURACK —Yes, it was subsequently corrected, but in the course of correcting it the Attorney indicated that it was similar to the exchange scheme in some way. I must say that I find that the essence of an exchange scheme is that there is a two-way process. Mr Pickering apparently remains the employee of a private firm of solicitors in Melbourne. That firm pays his salary, yet he is on the staff of the Attorney-General. Certainly some expenses are apparently met by the Government. I raise with the Attorney-General two questions: First, is there not a very serious potential conflict of interest and duty in that situation? Senator Teague —That is right. Senator Gareth Evans —Oh, shut up, Teague. Senator DURACK —What is that? Do you want me to shut up? Senator Gareth Evans —No, not you, your back bencher. Senator DURACK —You want somebody else to shut up. You might do better to observe your own counsel. That is a quite offensive inter- jection. Senator Gareth Evans —The whole thrust of what you are saying is offensive. Senator DURACK —I know that the whole thrust of your being asked anything is offensive to you. Anybody who wants to ask you any questions should shut up. We know that, but you are not helping your own case. Senator Gareth Evans —Get down and crawl on your stomach when you are making these sorts of speeches. Goodness gracious, what are you trying to say? Senator DURACK —What did you say? Senator Gareth Evans —I said you should crawl on you stomach when making those sorts of statements. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Durack, I-- Senator DURACK —The Attorney-General is interjecting. I really would like him to have the opportunity- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Durack, I suggest that you disregard the interjections and continue with your contribution. Senator DURACK —Why should I? You propose to disregard them, do you, Mr Temporary Chairman? I wish to hear what the Attorney-General is saying. Senator Gareth Evans —You will hear my answer in due course. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I ask the Attorney-General to temper his remarks. Senator Gareth Evans —Might I suggest that the former incumbent of my office temper his provocation? Senator DURACK —It really is very difficult to have a serious discussion of this subject. You really are making a farce of this whole exercise- Senator Gareth Evans —It has nothing to do with the Estimates. My own private office is not paid for out of departmental estimates. You are out of order for a start. Senator DURACK —It is a serious question in relation to the administration of the Department and the readiness of this Parliament to vote money to a department administered by you with the attitudes that you express in this place . You are provoking- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack, would you direct your comments through the Chair. Senator DURACK —Mr Temporary Chairman, I apologise for not having done that, but not only are we being provoked, our questions are being disputed as to their relevance. At the present moment we are engaged in consideration of votes for a department. The role, attitudes and capacity of the head of that department, the Attorney-General, are highly relevant to that consideration. I return to the question that I asked in relation to the role of Mr Pickering and the position that this gentleman has on the Attorney's staff. I have posed one question to him, but I pose another. He has justified the situation, as I understand it, on the basis that Mr Pickering's employment is analagous to an exchange scheme. I can understand, and I applaud, the exchange scheme between the Department and the private profession whereby an officer of the Department goes to a private solicitor's office for a time and somebody, not necessarily from that office but from some other private legal office in Australia, comes to the Attorney-General's Department and spends some months working in the Attorney 's office. There is a mutual advantage to be obtained by that process. An officer of the Attorney-General's Department is acquiring experience in private legal practice and, as a quid pro quo, the Attorney-General's office is obtaining the services of someone from private legal practice. That is the very nature of an exchange scheme. I do not wish to impugn Mr Pickering in any way whatsoever, but I am intrigued to know how the seconding to the Attorney-General's office of a member of a private legal firm who continues to be paid by that firm in any way satisfies the basic elements of an exchange scheme. Senator Gareth Evans did not make the matter clear at the Estimates committee; he misled the Estimates committee and quite surprisingly was unable to answer what one would think were questions that he would readily have in mind. Admittedly he did clarify the matter later, making it clear that he was not a part of the exchange scheme. But he persisted in maintaining that somehow or other this employment was analagous to it. I believe that these two questions that I have posed certainly arise from that matter and perhaps he could bring himself, I know with great reluctance and invitation, to answer them. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.33) —Senator Durack seems to be quite unaware that the Public Service Board does run an exchange scheme which happens not necessarily to involve direct one for one swaps between a particular government office, agency or department and a particular private profession or private sector firm. There is no necessary identity of either location or time in the exchanges that do in fact occur under the auspices of the Board. I had taken some interest in and had some general knowledge of the existence of that scheme not arising in any way out of the conduct of my portfolio but by virtue of my general interest in public administration-an interest which Senator Durack does not seem to share. It was with that in mind, when I was approached on behalf of Mr Pickering by a partner of the firm with which he worked as to whether or not it might not be possible for him to spend a period in my office, with that firm paying his salary, in order to give Mr Pickering the benefit of a really intense and robust acquaintance with the way in which the world works, as I was told before, that I first asked the Department or my Senior Private Secretary to explore whether such a secondment, as it were, might not be accommodated within the framework of what I generally knew to be the exchange scheme. So it was against that background that the negotiations then proceeded. Apparently it turned out, for one reason or another, that the ground rules applied to schemes of this kind were not particularly appropriate for a secondment to a Minister's office as distinct from a department as such, or there was some other technical limitation which I confess I have never quite stopped to find out. In the event, the arrangement was reached quite cheerfully with the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley), whose responsibility it is to fund ministerial staff, that the tab would be picked up, as I think I said in my letter to Senator Durack, for Mr Pickering's travel and accommodation expenses but that his basic salary would continue to be paid by the firm. So it was simply by extension of that that the circumstances came about. What on earth is sinister or raises questions of principle or in some other way puts at risk the effective conduct of the nation's affairs or in any way embarrasses the person involved in such an arrangement or in any way creates a situation of embarrassment for the firm that employs him, I am utterly at odds to see. It is an entirely professional relationship in which the gentleman in question is working on particular projects assigned to him by me and is doing a very effective and useful job. It has been well and early established with the Special Minister of State that, if this gentleman had not been available on this basis, funds would have been made available to me to appoint another lawyer in my office to do professional work of this kind. Such are the demands upon the office, given the standard workload of the Department and the additional workload that has been placed upon it by the very extensive reform program that we have. Why on earth Senator Durack wants to crawl around, turning over stones in this area in the hope of turning up something which will raise questions about something or other, I just cannot understand. Maybe that demonstrates yet another deficiency on my part. But if any further explanation is necessary or if I have overlooked some basic matter that concerns Senator Durack I would be grateful if he would tell me. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.37) —Senator Gareth Evans has really exhibited in the last week or two quite an incredible incapacity to see any problems. Whether that is due to overwork, over-excitement, or over-tension, I do not know. All last week he exhibited a total incapacity to understand the situation that he had created with the answer that he gave in regard to the tapes that he did not in fact examine. He has an incapacity to understand why any problem was created by telling the Senate that we could rely on him, personally; that we did not have to rely on the police commissioner or anyone else but could just rely on him. Yet, when we found that he had only looked at only six to 10 pages-selected for him by a police commissioner-out of 700 pages, he could not understand what the problem was. He persisted all last week in refusing to understand that and presumably he persists today in refusing to understand it. Now he persists in saying that he cannot understand what the problem is when he tells us firstly, that somebody is on his staff as part of an exchange scheme. That was not correct; so he corrected it and said it was all analagous to an exchange scheme. I would have thought that the very essence of an exchange scheme is that both sides get some direct benefit out of it. Here we have, clearly, as I understand the situation now, a special one way appointment from a private legal office when the person is still an employee of that private legal office, to a specially graded position on the staff of the Attorney-General. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Attorney-General persists in saying that that is in some way even analagous to the exchange scheme between the Public Service and the private legal profession. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.39) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I listened with surprise to the complaint of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) about the nature of questioning by members of the Opposition during this procedure. Whilst I accept that Senator Evans is a competent, hard working and highly motivated member of the Senate, I also note his predilection for a degree of intolerance and a penchant for sarcasm as a substitute for argument. When he complains of wide ranging questions being asked by the Opposition, I remind him that it may be quite worth while to look back at the Hansards of both the Estimates committee hearings and the procedures in the chamber in dealing with appropriations to see with what degree of extended toleration of wide ranging questioning was the norm when Senator Evans was in opposition. I do not want to do more than say that I would not like to see that contracted by any degree of intolerance in government. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.41) —I remind Senator Rae that when I questioned Senator Durack, under Senator Rae's chairmanship I seem to recall Senator Durack was driven to almost frenzies of frustation and reciprocal intolerance of a kind that makes my reaction here today look positively mild by comparison. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.41) —I thank the Minister for his reply. I disagree with it. I do not wish to debate the matter further, but I do wish to remind him as to the nature of parliamentary tolerance in the inquisitorial process of the executive government of the day. I hope that he has not changed his mind in relation to that. I remember well a publication which was issued in February this year by the Minister and the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to the Australian Labor Party in government and some of the principles which were there espoused. I hope those principles will continue to be applied in this chamber. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.42) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a matter concerning the Committee's earlier consideration of the vote for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) promised that a paper would be tabled prior to lunch. She said she was assured by her officers that the paper would be available shortly after 12 o 'clock and that she would have it incorporated into the proceedings of this Committee today. We are anxious to see that paper. I ask the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans), who is the only member of the Government in the chamber, whether the paper, if it is in an appropriate form, can be incorporated in Hansard. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.42) —I will endeavour to check on the matter and give the honourable senator an answer as soon as possible. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $207,955,000. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.43) —I ask the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) whether security contracts come under the vote of the Department of Administrative Services or the vote of the Department of the Special Minister of State. Senator Gareth Evans —Can the honourable senator give us a little more detail? Security in relation to what? Senator REID —It is security contract No. RT62/02946L-1. Senator Gareth Evans —In relation to what? Senator REID —In relation to who holds the contract and what records are checked with regard to the background of people with whom such security contracts are entered into. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you talking about security of buildings by guards and so on? Senator REID —Yes. Senator Gareth Evans —That comes under the Department of Administrative Services . Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.44) —When the Committee considered the appropriation for the Department of Social Security I asked for some figures. I was told to ask for them when the Committee considered the vote for the Department of the Special Minister of State. May I have those figures? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.44) —I have a written paper here. I do not know whether Senator Walters wants me to read it into the record. Perhaps it will be simpler to do so in case she wants to come back at me. During consideration of the estimates of the Department of Social Security in the Senate on 3 November, Senator Walters raised questions about possible expenditure under Special Minister of State allocations on information in the social welfare area. Senator Grimes invited Senator Walters to raise the matter when the Senate was considering SMOS estimates. Senator Walters indicated she would do so, which she has now done. The facts relating to the allocations provided to the Information Co-ordination Branch are as follows: No expenditure has been made from the allocation on information in the social welfare area in 1983-84. No expenditure on information in the social welfare area is at present planned from this allocation. The Information Co-ordination Branch was allocated $1.2m for expenditure on special information campaigns related to the National Economic Summit Conference and Summit initiatives. Expenditure from this allocation has been concentrated on publishing the conclusions of the Summit and the details of the changes in superannuation taxation arrangements. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.45) —Is the Minister saying that the allocation of $1.2m for any information has been done only for the National Economic Summit Conference? Is he saying that information concerning programs in other departments is not covered in the Department of the Special Minister of State vote? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.45) —I indicated that they were Summit initiatives. One of the major initiatives arising out of the Summit was the initiative in relation to superannuation taxation. That apart, on the information before me at the moment, the answer appears to be no. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.46) —The information is gradually sinking in. Is the Attorney-General saying that any initiatives from the Summit, such as that on taxation superannuation, are covered by the Special Minister of State vote and that had there been any initiatives in the Summit in the area of social welfare they would have been covered by that vote also? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.46) —I think that is what I am saying. I can only give the honourable senator the information I have. If she can tell me more precisely what she is worried about maybe I can get a more precise answer. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.47) —What I am worried about is the fact that there has been a very great increase in the Government's information services. When we were in government I believe the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, used to call our information service a propaganda service, which was absolutely incorrect. I do not criticise the Government for spending the same sort of money , but the amount has been increased tremendously. Does the Department of the Special Minister of State make payments for this sort of service? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.48) —To the extent that the National Media Liaison Service is funded out of the appropriation for the Special Minister of State, it is the case that money is under this vote for purposes related to the advertising of Government programs and initiatives. Senator Walters —That is what I was asking. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not the Minister in charge of the Department. I have been wallowing around looking for bits of paper that will help me answer the honourable senator's question. There is a heap of estimates information here which indicates, among other things, what the vote is for the National Media Liaison Service. If the honourable senator requires, I will give her a page reference in a moment. From time to time there have been answers to questions in this place by me and others about what the Media Liaison Service does. It is not directed to party political propaganda; it is directed to conveying information and news about Government initiatives to media outlets in a rather more controlled way than was the case with the former Government Information Unit. As to the sums of money involved, the honourable senator has had an opportunity to question that in the course of the Estimates committee hearing Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.49) —While that information is being found, Mr Temporary Chairman, I ask the Minister: How different is the Government's information service from the information service of the previous Government? I would be most interested to hear of the more controlled way in which it deals with information. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.49) —In due course I will refer the honourable senator to a long answer I gave on this subject which appears in Hansard. The answer was directed squarely to that question. My name not being Gough Whitlam, I cannot recall the date on which I made that speech. For the moment, the honourable senator will have to permit me to take that question on notice. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.50) —I am waiting for the answer from the officers. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.50) —The only information we are able to produce at the moment is the salaries for the staff of the national Media Liaison Service. It has 21 members of staff which is to be compared with the Government Information Unit staff complement of 23. There is in addition the Ministerial Media Group which has a different and immediately political function . It has 16 members and is based primarily in Canberra at Parliament House servicing 27 Ministers. However, that is off to one side. The direct comparison is between the NMLS and the GIU and the difference is between 23 and 21. As to the total moneys that have been spent on publicity purposes, I will have to ask the honourable senator in effect to allow me to take that question on notice. I will do what I can to supply her with further and better particulars. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.51) —I gather that that is on top of the money already spent in the Department of Social Security for government information. We have a very large vote already in the social security area for government information. I do not think the Attorney's comparison is very worth while seeing that he has ignored completely government information in the Social Security Department itself. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.52) —The honourable senator is entitled to draw whatever conclusion she wants to draw. I have indicated that a significant proportion of the other money through the Department of the Special Minister of State was allocated to superannuation taxation which has a social security spin-off. However, what might be the case in the Department of Social Security is a matter for the honourable senator to pursue when those estimates are dealt with. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.52) —Is the Minister getting me the additional information? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.53) —Perhaps someone can ask me another question while I am looking at the material. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.53) —The Government Information Unit, which is dealt with under this item is, of course, in contradistinction to that terrible propaganda outfit that we had. I am fortunate enough to live quite proximate to the Government Information Unit of the non-propaganda variety which has been established by the new Government. One of the things I am really desperately anxious to find out is what services the Unit will offer me. Like most of the Australian people, I am desperate to get information about what this Government is doing. I would like the Minister to consult his advisers and tell me what valuable services this outfit will provide for the people of Perth who are very remote from Canberra and who would welcome better access to information from the national capital. Since I am a resident of Perth occasionally myself, what services will it provide for me too? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.54) —If the honourable senator goes on the way he has been going on today I doubt that he will get anyone to provide any services to him whatsoever. No doubt, if he asks the people working next to him in that office very nicely what it is that he wants to know about whatever it is that the Government is doing, they will be only too pleased to assist him because that, indeed, is their function. As to the National Media Liaison Service and its functions I refer first of all to pages 456-457 of the Hansard report of the Senate Estimate Committee E hearings on 16 September. I read into the record a detailed description of what precisely the functions of the NMLS are. I will incorporate that again in Hansard if that is helpful to the honourable senator; I will read it out if she really wants me to. I think the most succinct way of indicating the function of the NMLS and the way in which it differs from the GIU is to read from the brief supplied by the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley). The NMLS assists the Government in communicating its policy through the media, community organisations and interest groups. It also maintains channels of communication between the Federal Government and the media in each State. The difference between this service and the former GIU is that the NMLS is designed to provide a genuine information service and will not take direction from any political party organisation or other non-government body. The Ministerial Media Group-I guess the honourable senator will want to ask me further questions about this-consists of media specialists who are allocated to service Ministers as required in the role of Press secretaries in Canberra and interstate. Offices of both the NMLS and the Ministerial Media Group operate under the direction of the Special Minister of State. They are engaged under the Public Service Act. They work under the same rules and conditions that apply to ministerial staff. Both services will take care not to duplicate the information activities of government departments and will liaise with relevant departments to ensure that such duplication does not occur. So now the honourable senator knows. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.56) —I would like to ask a question on that subject. I have an acute sense of recall about the then Labor Opposition 's interest in the Government Information Unit. It found two mortal sins in the GIU. It suggested that it would be a heinous thing if the GIU or any such government body should assist any Minister or member in any political action or distribution of the media as distinct from a Cabinet decision or government policy. It also said, quite clearly, that no assistance should be given to Ministers or members at the time of an election campaign. I seek an unqualified assurance from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that in fact this new unit will commit none of those heinous things that in fact were claimed-and claimed, incidentally, wrongly in most cases-of the GIU. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.57) —All I can do is repeat the clear terms of the Minister's brief. I do not believe he is in the habit of dissimulation on these matters. It is not the intention of the NMLS to behave in any way as a servant or agent of the party organisation as distinct from the Government in its government functions. I have no doubt whatsoever that those strictures will be observed in the conduct of election campaigns and the general business of this Government. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.58) —I raise another matter about the NMLS. Being concerned about the far flung posts of the NMLS, particularly in Perth, I would like to know whether the Perth office will be provided on a same day basis with Press releases issued from Ministers' offices. Has administration been put in place to ensure that Press releases are available at the most distant capital from Canberra at the same time as they are available in Canberra? If they are not, I do not know why not. It would be nice to start treating Perth as part of Australia. Will the material sent by the Government to Perth be available to the public generally or only to the media? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.59) —I am not sure what arrangements are in place at the moment in Perth. I am aware that as of a month or so ago the director for Western Australia had been appointed but had not taken up his position although an office had been opened and a second member of the proposed outfit was there. I will bring to the attention of the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) about same day availability of Press releases. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable and legitimate aspiration for such a service to be able to fulfil. I am sure that in due course, if not already, Vocadex, telex and other equipment necessary to ensure that that situation prevails will be put in place. I think it would make a nonsense of an organisation like this if it were not able to provide that service. I do not know whether the basic passage from the Estimates Committee report to which I referred was incorporated in Hansard. I will read it into the record now. I think it answers more specifically some matters that Senator Sir John Carrick raises. The functions of the National Media Liaison Service are as follows: (a) to provide accurate and timely information on Government policies and programmes to the media throughout Australia. That is a partial answer to Senator Chaney's question because it is the media which is the primary target of the organisation. It continues: (b) Representatives in each of the State capitals, Townsville and Darwin are to coordinate the passage of detailed information on Government policies and programmes from the information office of various departments to the local media . So again there is a focus on media relationships. The third function is: (c) State representatives are to cooperate with the Ministers' staff, especially in the outer States, to coordinate Press arrangements for visiting Ministers. (d) -- this is a quite specific answer to one of the questions raised by Senator Chaney earlier on-- (d) State representatives are to provide local members of all parties with details of government programmes. (e) -- this is a further answer to I think both Sentor Chaney and Senator Sir John Carrick-- (e) Representatives will not work with local or State ALP branches and will not be involved in party programmes or campaigning in electorates. (f) To monitor local media reaction to government initiatives. Monitoring, however, is secondary in importance to dissemination of information. (g) Representatives will provide information on government policies to interest groups within electorates on request. I believe that that summary of seven points identifying the responsibilities and functions of the NMLS represents a comprehensive answer to the particular questions that have been put to me. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.01) —I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for that answer which does go a good way along the track to answering my particular queries although he has not done so yet, and I quite understand his not being in a position to give me the information about same day services. In one of the last points that he mentioned in reading from the Hansard, he touched on the question of monitoring. I would be interested in getting a little more information before we authorise the expenditure for this particular exercise on that particular aspect of the activities of the NMLS. Will the organisation be in Perth? I suppose it will be the same in other capitals. Will it be monitoring the local electronic media? Will it be preparing transcripts of matters of political interest from that media? If so, will those transcripts be available to the public as well as to the Government? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.02) —Not being armed with the ministerial responsibility in this area, I am unable to give any other answer than to repeat the terms of paragraph (f), that one of the functions of the NMLS is to monitor local media reaction to government initiatives which is a quite specific kind of monitoring function, with a further rider that that monitoring is secondary in importance to the dissemination of information. As to what the availability of the product of that monitoring might be, I will refer that to the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) to see what arrangements are presently in train and what is proposed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.03) —I have one final question. I hope that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) can tell me the difference between the money that is spent on the media information service in the Department of the Special Minister of State and that spent in the Department of Social Security for the Government information services. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.04) —Basically, as I have indicated again in trying to describe the functions as they have been identified to me, the purpose is not to duplicate the work that is done by the departmental public relations organisation, but rather to co-ordinate more effectively the discrimination of the work of those departments. That is how paragraph (b) describes it. It states: Representatives in each of the State capitals . . . -- and so on-- are to coordinate the passage of detailed information on Government policies and programmes from the information offices of various departments to the local media. There is many a slip twixt the central office publicity organs of the various departments and their actual delivery to local media in particular, which media are those often most avidly absorbed by the electorate to whom it is desirable that information of this kind be communicated. One of the very specific objectives is to make sure that that feeding out process is better co-ordinated than it perhaps has been in the past. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.05) —I am no clearer. Let us take the abolition of the over 70s pension without a means test. Is that work done by the information service in the Department of Social Security or is it done by the Department of the Special Minister of State? Heaven forbid that there be any politics in it. Is the advertising that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is assuring us is just for the information of pensioners done by the Department or is it done by the Minister? Which advertising is done by the Department and which is done by the Minister? Seeing that there is a great inclination not to have any double banking in this area, why is it not all done by the one group or one department? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.06) —As I understand it, when there is a major program of this kind being implemented, there is a function being performed at both the departmental operational level and by the Special Minister of State, either through the co-ordination or dissemination role of the NMLS or through special budgetary appropriations of the kind we were talking about recently, through the information co-ordination branch, as was the case with the superannuation taxation arrangements. If Senator Walters has a particular series of advertisements or something else of that specific kind in mind that she can ask a specific question about, we will endeavour to give her a specific answer as to how the responsibility has been divided or co-ordinated, as the case may be. But the world is a fairly complex place and often there are multiple functions to be performed by many different people. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.08) —Could the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) give me a clear reason why it is being done by both departments when he is so very keen not to have the taxpayers' money wasted with any double banking? Can he give me any reason why one department, either the Department of the Special Minister of State or the Department of Social Security, does not do that work so that at least the Parliament will know how much money is being spent on it? When this work is being done by several departments it is, as one can well imagine, rather difficult for the Opposition to catch up with what the Government is spending in certain areas and it is much more difficult for the public to be aware of how much of their tax money is going on this so-called information service. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.09) —It is all a division of labour. I mean Adam Smith and all that stuff. The honourable senator's Party ought to be familiar with that- Senator Sir John Carrick —Leave that to Senator Walsh. Senator GARETH EVANS —He may be better equipped to answer these sorts of questions. He is used to handling fatuous questions on matters relating to economics and finance whereas I have to answer fatuous questions in other areas. Senator Chaney —Here we go. Mr Politeness. Senator Walters —Minister, don't be so gung ho. See whether you can give me an answer. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Walters, the Attorney- General is speaking. Please do not get to your feet when he is speaking. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator asked for an illustration- Senator Chaney —Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I find references of this sort, that questions asked by honourable senators are fatuous to be insulting and demeaning of this place and the senator concerned and I think it should be withdrawn. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman, for that proper dispatch . An example, I guess, would be where the functional department actually prepares the basic advertising copy because it may involve substantial matters of technical detail that have to be explained but the actual dissemination of that information and the working of it up into a form which is presentable and able to be assimilated by the community at large may well be done by a specialist agency. There is, I am told, under the auspices of the Department of the Special Minister of State now an Australian Government Advertising Service which was previously in the Department of Administrative Services. Bringing it back into SMOS has been a further step towards the rationalisation which Senator Walters is quite properly concerned with. It is exactly the sort of division of labour which one associates with a business wanting to advertise in the market place but handing out the actual running of its advertising contracts and the placing of the material in question to another agency. As I understand it, that is essentially the role SMOS has played in this respect, co-ordinating and disseminating. But short of wallowing around in this particular portfolio myself for some period, I really cannot give the honourable senator any better answer than that. There is an attempt to rationalise and not to duplicate these functions. I am told that that attempt is largely succeeding. Nobody wants to waste any public money in this respect. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $910,031,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $4,273,981,000. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(7.10) —I refer to a couple of factors which have had a marked effect on the morale of the Defence Force Reserve. I note the decision that was announced yesterday to tax only half the pay of these officers. The two matters to which I refer are, firstly, the reduction in training time and, secondly, the taxing of part of the pay. I am concerned also about the delay in recommending pay changes associated with the decision to tax part of the pay of the Defence Force Reserve. In an answer given about the decline in training time we were told that last year the recruiting was so successful that a lower number of new recruits were required this year and therefore less training time was required. We were told further that some units were already overtrained. This unusual explanation prompted me to evaluate this reply by seeking information from some of the members of the Defence Force Reserve and also from some permanent officers from a number of units including some of the men serving in Butterworth in Malaysia. I visited that unit recently. To be quite frank, in all cases there was an air of complete disbelief about what they called an inaccurate and absurd situation that the answer along the lines given to me could have been given to a Senate Estimates committee. The decision to tax part of the income derived from the Defence Force Reserve's activities from 1 December 1984 ignores a number of factors. Firstly, the reservists get paid very three months. Therefore, effectively, they will be taxed from 1 September and not 1 December because of the time lag. Secondly, it fails to recognise that these people get no superanuation and no holiday pay. Thirdly, it fails to recognise that they receive substantially less pay than their full time equivalent. The argument that the Defence Force Reserve personnel should be taxed as regular members or at least pay tax on half of their salary ignores a remaining inconsistency. I think one of the arguments put forward was that the Government had to be consistent in dealing with the reservists and their regular members. This ignores the fact that even the regulars, when they sign up for another term, receive a tax free sum. In other words, they receive a monetary benefit. Is it the Government's intention also, if it is to be consistent, to try to tax this portion of their emoluments? I think the commitment of these people is very high indeed. In fact, the other day, in my State of Tasmania, I met a number of them on duty. I was told that a significant number of them would attend a camp the following week but would receive absolutely no pay at all. They were doing it gratis, for the love of it. What a situation we find ourselves in. Their commitment was that they believed this training was necessary and they were prepared to attend camp for which they would receive no pay at all. I think we have to recognise that this decision, in the long term, must have some widespread reaction. It must lower the morale, certainly of some of the forces. In fact, on the mainland, a recent survey taken among these people showed that 40 per cent of the reservists would not continue. What a situation. These people are needed in an emergency. I believe that the Government's attitude towards these people is a national disgrace. It shows that the Australian Labor Party is not really interested in the reserve force. In fact, I think the view can be extended to the defence forces generally. I think it is astounding that, at a time when the Labor Party, particularly through its eloquent Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is pushing the merits of high technology, within the Department of Defence-I am referring to the science and techology area-insufficient funds are being provided. This has meant the shedding of 80 staff. The reason given was astounding. These staff were being shed to increase the efficiency of the section and those involved in that work were doing work of a low priority. In other words, the Minister for Science and Technology is talking about sunrise industries. He believes that people involved in this type of work can provide the hope for tomorrow. Yet the Government sheds staff in these so-called high technology areas. I believe that is a disgraceful situation. I think the state of our defence preparedness has been lessened by the fact that while there is an increase in the civilian cost of the defence forces, there is a decreased cost to the uniform branches. Part of this was explained away by the decommissioning of HMAS Melbourne. But I do not think that is the whole answer. What is the significance of it? It means that there is inherently much more red tape and, unfortunately, less preparedness for the uniform branch to service Australia in an emergency. Further, I hope that the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) will also take steps to rectify an iniquitous position. A corporal with two children serving at Butterworth received a promotion to Flight Sergeant and receives a lesser take home pay after his promotion to Flight Sergeant than he did before. These sorts of anomalies are not good for morale with the defence forces. Another matter of great concern is the lack of depth within certain specialised units within the defence forces and their ability to provide support services. I give an illustration. Again, when I was in Butterworth, I discovered that reservemen in the communications area have to take leave from civvy street and go up to Malaysia to provide a communications coverage for just a single squadron operating there. In other words, the Defence Force relies on the reserve forces to provide some essential communications back-up because of inadequate depth within the defence forces. This is an absolute disgrace. Communications are vitally important. What if an emergency occurred? The lack of personnel is already manifesting itself in this way. I think it is a disgrace. I think Australians need to be informed of what I call the over-concentration of officialdom in Canberra at the expense or neglect of what is required of a modern defence force in a continental sphere. I think there is widespread acknowledgment now of the problems in relation to fixed wing aircraft, certainly until the arrival of the FA18 Hornet fighter. Most of the Mirages are now operating in excess of the manufacturer's safety limit hours in relation to the problems of air frame fatigue. What does this mean? This means that pilots' lives are at risk by following such a deliberate policy. I believe there is negligence here. This leads one to ask: Does the Government subscribe to the view that we are going to accept inevitable losses? Does this mean that pilots' lives will be lost? While the Government continues to pay civilian operators to keep watch over our northern coastline-these civilian operators fly and report at stipulated times-I believe the tracker aircraft which are now regarded as redundant could usefully be used for detection purposes and for surveillance of the coastline. In addition they provide valuable training for Royal Australian Air Force pilots. Training is vital and search and detection is part of their work. How much more effective could our Air Force surveillance be by the use of tracker or other sorts of aircraft rather than using a civilian service? The future role of the Skyhawk aircraft is still undecided. Again, this is a matter of great concern within the defence forces. In a force that is trained to make quick decisions such procrastination-and the procrastinations were evident in the Minister's report to the Parliament the other day-is not good and must be viewed against an environment where these fellows, particularly the ones in uniform, are trained to make quick decisions. But the people to whom they are responsible do just the opposite. They procrastinate and play around. Finally, I would like to ask a question in relation to the cost of the FA18 aircraft. When these aircraft were ordered in 1981 the Australian dollar was worth more than the United States dollar, but that situation is now changed. What therefore does the reduction in the value of the Australian dollar in relation to the American dollar mean to the purchase price of the aircraft, since we assume that the purchase price was expressed in United States dollars? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(7.22) —I would like to ask a number of questions, some of which relate to what Senator Watson has asked. First of all, what do reductions in the Budget in relation to steaming time for the Navy, flying time for the Air Force and training time for the Army mean? What in each of the specific services will have been affected as a result of this Budget? Secondly, what will be the reduction in the number of uniformed Service personnel at the end of this financial year compared with the beginning of this financial year? What will be the change in the number of civil personnel in the Defence Force? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.23) —Senator Watson covered rather a large canvas in his remarks and I can respond only briefly to some aspects of them. The reduction in training days for reservists was a matter that was really fully canvassed in the Estimates Committee E hearing, in particular by Brigadier Wade on 15 September. I draw attention to his evidence, recorded at page 297 of the Hansard report of the Senate Estimates Committe hearing on that date, which were in fact answers to questions by Senator Watson, to his renewed attention, in the hope that he might be persuaded this time that what was really involved was just maintenance of the capability which did not in fact demand more than the training days that were actually involved. As to the larger questions of morale of reservists, which he based his speech around, it is not on the information available to me, the case that there are any fundamental problems perceived by the Defence hierarchy. Whether that is a function of their over-establishment or over-concentration in Canberra, as Senator Watson might suggest, I do not know, but certainly I will ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of the Minister. To the extent that there are particular problems revealed by what he said, and some of the instances in relation to Butterworth I think do need a definite answer-one which would be assisted incidentally were the honourable senator to provide us with some more specific information about the particular cases to which he referred-I will bring this to the attention of the Minister in the hope that he might be able to give a further reply. The taxation question has been the subject I think of Government announcements- whether as to all the detail yet I am not quite sure. But it is the Government's belief that really quite a generous taxation package has been granted to reservists in relation to the additional income they earn as a result of their Reserve activity. If there are any questions that require the specific answer of either the Minister for Defence or the Treasurer (Mr Keating) as a result of what Senator Watson has said, I will ensure that he gets it. I am advised that the cost of the FA18 can really be determined only at the time payments are made-that is in the sense of the exchange rates that are applicable at that time. So, on what precisely the implications are of the present condition of the exchange rate, it does not follow from that that we can predict with any certainty what the overall costs are. But again I will ask the Minister to give in correspondence a further and better reply if one is possible at this stage. I am not sure that Senator Watson paid sufficient regard to the effectiveness of the refurbishment program that is now proceeding in respect of the fixed wing aircraft and the condition of the Mirages, quite apart of course from the impact on our strike capability that the FA18s will represent. Again I can only say, not having the ministerial responsibility for this portfolio, that I will draw Senator Watson's speech to the attention of the Minister and get replies for anything that can appropriately be provided. Similarly, with Senator Carrick's queries as to the civil manpower question, I can give this answer: Service manpower is planned to be reduced by 732 below the actual strength at 30 June 1983, reflecting largely the higher than planned strengths at 30 June 1983 and the planned savings flowing from decisions in relation to the aircraft carrier and fixed wing aviation. While there are increases totalling 648 in the authorised strengths of the Reserve forces, there is an overall reduction of 972 in actual strengths reflecting the Army Reserve being over recruiting target at 30 June 1983. Civilian manpower is planned to be reduced by 399 below the actual strength at 30 June 1983. This includes 147 staff transferred to the Department of Defence Support. As to the flying and steaming time and the implications of that, the Air Force flying hours program has been maintained at the same level as 1982-83, this financial year. The Navy's fleet fuel allowance will be reduced from the high levels applied in the last few years; by what amount I am unable to tell the honourable senator. I will endeavour to find what further information I can from the Minister. I am told that Army track running will increase slightly. What that means in precise quantitative terms I am again not in a position to advise, but will ask the Minister whether he cares to add anything further. There was a third question which the honourable senator raised which we do not have the answer to at the moment, but I will ensure that a written reply is provided. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(7.28) —I am curious to have an explanation of the Minister's answer where he said that he felt the Government had given a generous taxation concession to the reservists. As I understand it, until the Hawke Government came to power the reservists paid no taxation at all. That was done because it was considered to be an incentive. The Labor Government has sweated over the months and has decided that instead of charging them full tax it will charge them half tax. Under what possible principle could it now, obviously having recognised that it had done wrong in the first place to charge them full tax, decide that half tax is all right? I am puzzled as to why that should be regarded as generous. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —I call the Attorney-General and remind him that we have one minute left. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.29) —I am not in a position to give all the details because I do not carry the stuff out of my portfolio around in my head. But as I understand it what is being allowed is a tax incentive something along the following lines: Fifty per cent of one's income is taxed from scratch, as it were. That means that often the 50 per cent figure will come out at a figure which is below the threshold at which the tax rate begins to bite, or at least it bites only at 15 per cent or whatever rather than the middle or obviously the highest rate. I may have that wrong. I do not pretend to have full-- Senator Sir John Carrick —I suggest that the Minister get an explanation in detail for when we meet next week. Senator GARETH EVANS —Okay, I will undertake to do that, but whatever it is, it is generous by camparison with what other people get for extra marginal income. Whether the country can afford to have an incentive scheme along the lines of that which has prevailed in the past in relation to reservists is an open question. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I 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- Liberal International Membership-Cystic Fibrosis-Koongarra and Jabiluka Uranium Mining-Mr Niarros-Parliament The PRESIDENT —It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(7.30) —I rise to address myself briefly to a matter which has been canvassed in the Queensland Press this week. Queensland Australian Democrat, Senator Macklin, has demonstrated this week what an unreliable authority he is on the Liberal Party of Australia. He is reported in Tuesday's Courier-Mail as claiming: Liberal International . . . had refused the Liberal Party of Australia membership on three separate occasions. For the record, the Liberal Party has never applied to join Liberal International. As for Senator Macklin's claim that the Democrats' membership of Liberal International is some sort of evidence of purity by association I think anyone tempted to take him seriously should know that his so-called genuine liberal parties from around the world include a number of quasi-socialist parties. To use the words of Mr Stan Stanley, who has also commented, the Queensland Director of the Australian Democrats, Senator Macklin, shows 'dismal ignorance' of liberalism in Australia. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(7.31) —I rise this evening to talk about the hardships imposed on the family of two young Victorian lads whom I happen to know. Those boys are James and Andrew Gallacher aged 10 and 12 years. I have not seen them for some five or six years. When I last saw them I assure the Senate that they were fine young little devils in all the best traditions of young little devils. These two boys unfortunately have what I believe is a terminal illness. I see that the Minister for Health (Senator Grimes) is in the chamber, so perhaps he is able to confirm or deny that. I do not know whether it is true but I understand that the illness is terminal. It is a genetic disease called cystic fibrosis. These young boys take 16 pills with each meal. In addition, they inhale other drugs two or three times a day. At present they are on nine different types of drugs. That apparently is not excessive. Their physician predicts that they could get up to 11 or 12 different types of drug each day. These young lads have become part of a scheme to extract money from taxpayers in some way or other. There is no need for me to elaborate to the Senate about the sacrifices made by their parents or about the future of these young lads. It does seem to me that some sacrifies imposed by man on other men are beyond my comprehension. The Cain Labor Government in Victoria has directed the Royal Children's Hospital to reduce its expenditure by 1.5 per cent. It has directed all public hospitals to reduce their expenditure by 1.5 per cent. That hospital, Mr President, is faced, as I see it, with a number of alternatives. It could cut administration costs, its works programs, its staff or its medical services. But in the true tradition of politicians from all over the world what it has decided on is the 'close the fire station' policy. It has decided to cut off the free supply of drugs to all chronically sick children. I understand that some 340 children are being treated with this illness at the Royal Children's Hospital. The supply of free drugs to these children will be cut off from 1 November this year. I understand why the hospital has done this. It is not because it is a quick way of saving about $400,000. It has done it because it puts pressure on the State Government. A strong emotional feeling is aroused in people towards these children. I have no doubt the Royal Children's Hospital could have effected savings in other ways but what it has done, as I said, is to close the fire station and so send up a flame throughout the State because of the hardships imposed on these children. As I said before, why man imposes hardships on other men is beyond my comprehension. The hospital in my book deserves no praise at all for its actions but, I must say, neither does the Cain Labor Government. Victoria is now in a state of severe financial strife absolutely as a result of mismanagement by the Cain Labor Government. This Government has increased the number employed in the Public Service by over 8,000. One figure put to me was 9,600 but I cannot be sure of that. I am sure that it is in excess of 8,000 people at a time when governments have been trying to cut back expenditure. The Federal Government, of Liberal-National parties, was trying to cut back and the Federal Government, of the Australian Labor Party, is certainly not trying to expand its Public Service any more than it has to to cover unemployment problems. Yet, the Cain Labor Government in Victoria has decided to increase its permanent staff by at least 8 ,000 people. It is not only those decisions which are involved. For example, in the health field alone the Cain Government has introduced the 38-hour week operative from July this year. It must have been possible to defer that decision. That cost is estimated by the Cain Labor Government at $17m per annum. It is estimated by the Liberal Opposition in Victoria at about $30m per annum. In order to overcome that problem, of course, the Government has had to introduce what are called offsets to meet the cost. For example, it has increased cafe charges in hospitals and things of that nature. Five strikes have occurred in recent weeks about these offsets. Where is the benefit of cutting back to a 38-hour week? What purpose does it achieve? Even worse than that-this is what really gets me-is that these young kids are not in a union, their parents are not in a union so they cannot stand over their State Government to get what they are entitled to. That is not the situation with the Builders Labourers Federation and other building unions. Victoria is building the new Queen Victoria Hospital at Clayton. The Government of Victoria has agreed with the Builders Labourers Federation, and other labourer organisations working on that site to pay a site allowance of 75c an hour to every worker in the entire project. It will last three or four years perhaps. The unions are not satisfied with the 75c an hour site allowance at this stage. It is indexed to the consumer price index to make sure that the value remains in it and it is backdated to October 1982. The Victorian Government is paying unionist builders labourers working on the site of that hospital paying ultimately, because of the actions of the Royal Children's Hospital, at the expense of the families of 340 kids who have this illness. I think it is a disgrace. I think it is something that the Federal Government ought to treat as a disgrace. I understand that these boys' physician, Professor Phelan, who is in charge of the chest section of the Royal Children's Hospital is coming to Canberra on Monday to see the Minister for health, Dr Blewett. What the Cain Labor Government is doing in Victoria is what all State governments do. It is trying to blame the Federal Government and trying to push the Federal Government into providing it with the funds to make up its deficit so that it can pay the builders labourers working on the site at Clayton 75c per hour, indexed to the consumer price index and backdated to October 1982. It is a national disgrace. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.40) —This morning I wished to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, that is, Senator Ryan representing Mr Cohen. I should like to read it now and to make some comment. The question is: Has the Government taken any decision to declare the second stage of the Kakadu National Park? If no decision has yet been taken, what stage has the Government' s consideration of this matter reached? Is the Minister aware of the concern of the Northern Territory Government that any move to declare the second stage without provision for the excision of the Koongarra and Jabiluka uranium deposits will deprive the nation of billions of dollars in export income, Aboriginal communities of millions of dollars in royalties and equity returns and thousands of new jobs which would flow from the development of these reserves. Such is the concern of the Territory that a Press release was put out today by the Chief Minister. I should like to make some comment on it. The Press release read: Hasty action to prevent a future decision to develop Jabiluka and Koongarra uranium deposits would harm employment, the Aboriginal community and national development, the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, said today. 'Federal Cabinet should have pause before it takes any action calculated to obstruct these uranium ventures', he said. 'Furthermore it would pre-empt any decisions arising from the Federal Government's announced inquiry and make it a mere sham. Jabiluka contains $16 billion worth of recoverable uranium and $500 million worth of recoverable gold. I am not too sure about whether that figure for gold is correct. The Press release continues: It has an expected life of 30 years, employing 880 mill operators and miners over this period and providing $8.5 million annually to Aborigines. Koongarra has $1 billion worth of recoverable uranium. It would employ 150 people over a life of 12 years with Aboriginal traditional owners having a 25 per cent equity in the project. Both mines are ready to go ahead now on the basis of potential contracts which have been blocked by the decision of the Federal Government. In addition there are more than 2,000 jobs during the construction phases of the mines. These projects are of immense value to the Territory, to Aboriginal communities and to the nation. The Federal Government and the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service should have pause before taking action to stop Jabiluka and Koongarra going ahead by proclaiming the second stage of the Kakadu Park without making provision for these mines, as was done with Ranger and Nabarlek within Stage 1. The Coalition parties have committed themselves to ensuring that Jabiluka and Koongarra will proceed in the national interest after a change of Government. The Government of the Northern Territory has asked the Federal Government to excise Jabiluka from the Kakadu Park, to declare only 50 per cent of the second stage of the Park initially, and to declare a conservation zone over the highly mineralised remainder for an interim period of 12 months. There is considerable evidence of other minerals such as gold and copper existing in the area as well as high grade uranium ore.' I think that that states the case for the excision of Koongarra from Kakadu II and to bring about this conservation area, which is a matter of some national importance. I am not too sure as to whether it is right or wrong but there is, perhaps, a rumour in the House now, that while it was mentioned in the Senate today that Cabinet would be looking at this matter in the next few days, or perhaps today, I understand now that perhaps the decision has been made and that Kakadu II has been or will be proclaimed. If it is to be proclaimed without all these requests having been met, I can only suggest for the development of the north and for the people of the north that it is a calamity. If the decision has been made so hastily, one can only wonder why this action should be taken so quickly, because more thought should be given to the matter. If this action has been taken or is to be taken, it will have a very detrimental effect on the minerals of this particular region and, of course, on Jabiluka, too. If this decision has been taken or is to be taken, it could mean the end of Jabiluka after the tremendous efforts that have been made to bring it into operation. These efforts have been in being for perhaps 12 years. They are efforts which have brought about the environmental laboratory, costing over $1m, so that the whole escarpment and the area of Jabiluka can be properly investigated on an environmental basis. One would wonder why it is so necessary to hit Jabiluka, as has been done. If the action has not yet been taken, once again I and many people of the Territory would plead with the Government that this action not be taken until a proper review has been carried out, as instanced by the fact that the Federal Government is now carrying out an inquiry into the future of uranium. If the decision has been made that the action is to be taken, that Kakadu II is to be proclaimed, all I can say in regard to that is that it is a national calamity. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(7.47) —Some little time ago I drew the Senate's attention to the appalling industrial relations situation in the Pilbara iron ore industry in Western Australia and the very damaging effect that the irresponsible action of union leaders was having on Australia's share of Japan's iron ore trade. I use this evening to again refer to the Senate yet another example of irresponsible action by unions in the Pilbara, and perhaps more particularly to highlight the intimidating and intolerable position into which a responsible union member has been cast by the standover tactics of irresponsible and bullying union leaders. Last month the operations of Mount Newman Mining's activities at Port Hedland were closed down by the actions of 200 members of the Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union, who downed tools for two weeks, threatening the jobs of a further 2,000 workers. Honourable senators might ask what the issue was. During the recent long-running strike at Mount Newman a while back over an irresponsible dispute, the AMFSU members working for Mount Newman Mining at the Port Hedland site were ordered by the local union at Port Hedland to contribute $20 a fortnight from their own pay packets to provide financial support for the striking members at Mount Whaleback. One employee of Mount Newman Mining's operation at Port Hedland, a Mr Niarros, objected to being forced to support financially workers who were on strike over an issue with which he did not agree . He had already, due to the strike, been stood down for two weeks and had lost $800 in wages. Mr Niarros has been a member of the union for 27 years and had conscientiously paid his union dues during that period. Because of Mr Niarros's stand, one I would have thought he was entirely free to take, the union demanded that he be sacked. That is blackmail and extortion by any standards. Mr Niarros made clear his disillusionment with continual strikes, but when subsequently it became abundantly apparent to him that his actions in refusing to pay the levy might be used as an excuse for yet another dispute, he immediately offered to pay it. That offer was turned down. A meeting was held of AMFSU members who decided to stop work. The members refused to work on the same site as Mr Niarros and demanded his resignation notwithstanding the fact that he had subsequently offered to pay the levy for the sake of industrial peace. Two days later Mount Newman Mining applied to the Western Australian Industrial Arbitration Commission for a conference on the issue. The State Industrial Commissioner, Mr Johnston, directed Mr Niarros to write to the AMFSU, declaring that he would pay his levy, agree to pay future levies and apologise to the convenor with whom he had had some modest altercation on the issue, as can be imagined. Subsequently-surprise, surprise!-a meeting of the 200 strikers was held at which Mr Niarros read out a letter complying with the directives of the Industrial Commissioner. The union meeting decided that it would accept nothing short of a dismissal. However, at the same time, the company, Mount Newman Mining, was advised that it had no grounds for taking any action, particularly by way of dismissal, against Mr Niarros in the face of union demands that he should be sacked. Mr Johnston, the commissioner, then recommended that Mr Niarros should resign on the understanding that the men would return to work. He could be reinstated after eight weeks with the company in a different area. During those eight weeks the company would use his long service payment to pay his salary. This proposal was rejected by the strikers. They wanted nothing short of blood; they were going to show this man that nobody steps out of line with their union. Nobody would have the courage to stand up and disagree with their intimidating blackmail and extortion tactics. Last week a further conference with the Arbitration Commission was held and Commissioner Halliwell suggested two further options. One was that Mr Niarros accept a transfer to the town of Mount Newman where the Mount Whaleback operations take place, a modest eight hour trip by train from his home in South Hedland where he also ran a small ice-cream parlour. His other option was to be suspended without pay until the case was heard by the Arbitration Commission. Reluctantly, Mr Niarros felt that he had no choice but to accept the suspension, although I am sure that he entertains no real hope of subsequent reinstatement. It was interesting to note that during the period of this disputation, these brave unionists picketed his ice-cream parlour to discourage children from going along and buying their daily ice creams. I am glad to report that his sales went up dramatically as a vote of protest against the intimidation by the union. Mr Niarros is one of those few people who bravely, and perhaps in the modern jungle of industrial relations unwisely, stand up for a principle they believe in. Now he would appear to have lost his job. In his own words: The thing I don't like about the decision is that the unions will be able to do the same thing to any other worker. Nobody's job is safe. That might all be the reality of the industrial jungle, the way the warfare is run. However, I am sure that if those circumstances, that deprivation of civil liberties, were transposed into another environment, shock, horror and indignation would be expressed by all those in this Parliament and in this community who profess to have any real concern about civil liberties. If an employer were to conduct himself with the same brutal disregard for the individual rights of an employee or of an individual's rights in any way, I am sure the sky would fall in on him. I find it absolutely abhorrent and I notice that what I have had to say was in part questioned by Senator Bjelke-Petersen yesterday. There did not seem to be any real concern by the Australian Labor Party over the matter. I hope that those on the other side who profess daily to have concern for civil liberties will take up the concern of this man who was brave enough to step out and stand up for what he represents. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(7.55) —It was not my intention tonight to speak in the adjournment debate, but the first speaker, Senator Martin, referred to some Press reports in the Queensland Press in relation to myself and some discussion about Liberal International. I would be quite happy at some future stage, if Senator Martin is interested, to have a general discussion about the philosophies of socialism, liberalism and conservatism. But during this adjournment debate tonight I would simply like to read the letter that was alluded to by Senator Martin. She referred to Stan Stanley, the State Director of the Australian Democrats and to a letter that he wrote. If I can read that letter and make a few comments on it, I think that will suffice for tonight. Mr Stanley said: Is it any wonder that the Liberal Party is in such trouble, when their State Director, Mr Gary Neat, is prepared to state publicly that he has 'never heard of Liberal International'. Such a dismal ignorance of world groupings of political parties, and their respective philosophies, is no doubt the reason why the Liberal Party in Queensland has no idea what they stand for. Mr Neat's further statement that the Liberal Party of Australia was associated with two major 'liberal' bodies, the European Democratic Union and the Pacific Democratic Union, is either a deliberate deception, or again ignorance of the conservative nature of these bodies. Perhaps Mr Neat should get hold of a copy of his federal leader's speech to the European Democratic Union earlier this year. In this speech, Mr Peacock made it abundantly clear that the Australian Liberal Party was proud to belong to an international body of conservative parties-. . . The proposition also contained in Senator Martin's speech during the adjournment debate was that some members of Liberal International were, as she put it, quasi -socialist bodies. The members of Liberal International can join Liberal International upon invitation and upon acceptance of the charter of liberalism which was set down in the Hague Convention, as it is called in Liberal International. The major political party that Australians would be aware of which took part in drawing up that particular document was the British Liberal Party. Amongst its various other members are some well known throughout Europe as well as the Canadian Liberal Party. It has as one of its official observers the Democratic Party from the United States. Liberal International is a group of political parties. In fact, it is the oldest grouping of political parties on an international scale anywhere in the world, and that includes Socialist International. I think that if Senator Martin , who did not tell me that she was speaking tonight on this, feels at some stage that it would be useful to have a discussion, I believe it would be useful also. I think any furtherance of the debate about political philosophies might lead to a clarification in Australia of where various parties stand in their ultimate ambitions. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(7.59) —I wish to express my concern, albeit briefly , about the parliamentary process and Executive accountability. My concern was heightened today during the two extremely important parts of the parliamentary process, particularly so far as the Senate is concerned; that is, Question Time and the consideration of the Appropriation Bills in Committee. That is the opportunity we have after Estimates committee hearings to ensure the accountability of the Executive. They are both of absolutely fundamental importance to the parliamentary process. What have we been treated to, although I might say not by either the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) or the Minister for Veteran's Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), who are present at the moment, but by others? We have been treated to insult as a substitute for information, a display of arrogance, a display of absolutism which I find totally objectionable, a substitution of abuse for argument and an apparent belief in the unquestionable authoritarianism which was so different from the rhetoric which came from some of the same people when they were in opposition. Why, one asks, is this happening? The only conclusion to which one can be led is that it is an attempt to paper over the deficiencies and disunity which exists within the Government. It is a particularly unimpressive exercise but it is an abuse and a destruction of the processes of parliamentary democracy. I believe that it is time, before it goes too far, to require some acknowledgment of the accountability of the Executive. It is fundamental to parliamentary democracy that the Executive be accountable and however irrelevant, however peurile, the executive may regard the questioning which comes from an opposition , it ought to be treated seriously. It ought to be given appropriate respect even though it may be regarded by the government of the day, whoever it may be, as being either irrelevant or even obnoxious or misguided. I claimed this when I was a member of the parties which were in government and, equally, I claim it now when I am a member of the Opposition. I believe that, if the sort of arrogant display of insult as a substitute for information continues in this place, we might as well just disband the Parliament. I say this, Mr President, as a cry from the heart for the parliamentary process that we do not have a continuation of the sort of display that regrettably we had today. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.03) —Mr President, before I reply to some of the matters raised tonight, I table a series of papers on the assessment of year 12 students in the Australian Capital Territory which was requested by Senator Teague in the consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) this afternoon. It was to have been tabled earlier but Senator Ryan's office delayed it in the hope that a better copy could be obtained. The copy I now table is not very good but I assure the Senate that it probably provides sufficient information for the weekend, and next week I will get a decent copy for Senator Teague. The first matter raised tonight, by Senator Martin and later by Senator Macklin , concerned the relative merits of the Australian Democrats being a member of Liberal International. Although I did not hear all the remarks properly, I understand that the Liberal Party of Australia is now a member, or an affiliate, of what was to be called Conservative International. I am not sure what it is called. Senator Macklin —The European Democratic Union. Senator GRIMES —It was to be an organisation amalgamated out of the European Democratic Union and the Pacific Democratic Union. Certainly I think Conservative International would be an appropriate place for the Liberal Party of Australia to be. I am amazed at Senator Macklin's complacency about the Democrats being a member of Liberal International. Certainly when Liberal International was formed the Liberal Party of Great Britain, a noble party, was a member. But over the years Liberal International has had a chequered career. I remember one of its prominent European members was the Socialist Party of Portugal, which happened to be the party which supported Salazar during the time of his dictatorship in that country. I remember the Liberal Party in Canada at one stage withdrawing from Liberal International because of some of the strange bedfellows that it had. As Senator Peter Rae said as an aside to me during Senator Macklin's speech, Liberal parties in the European Parliament sit on the right of the conservatives, which is as about as far right as you can get. Senator Peter Rae —It is as far right as you can get in the European Parliament. Senator GRIMES —Yes, or probably as you can get anywhere. So I would have thought that the complacency and the pleasure that Senator Macklin gets out of his party being a member of Liberal International warrants more looking at by the Democrats than by any other political party in this country. Of course the Australian Labor Party is a member of Socialist International, so apparently we have members of all the internationals here now. Senator Kilgariff —We will have to look at you more closely. Senator GRIMES —Socialist International, Senator Kilgariff, is a long-standing organisation; its President is Willy Brandt who, I do not think anyone would question, is a great democrat. It consists of all the great social democratic and democratic socialist parties in the world. Senator Peter Rae —Delors, who is implementing the most John Stone-type monetary policy in France, is a member also, is he not? Senator GRIMES —The French Socialist Party is certainly a member of Socialist International, as is the recently successful radical party in Argentina. I move to more serious business. Senator Lewis brought up a matter concerning the Gallacher family and two boys who have fibro-cystic disease. Senator Lewis said he thought it was a 'terminal disease'. That is an unfortunate term to use for this condition because these days, with modern treatment, people with fibro- cystic disease frequently get into adulthood, and it may be as the years go by that they will live much longer than they used to. It is certainly true, as Senator Lewis said, that these unfortunate people need considerable amounts of medication. He talked about these young boys of 10 years needing 16 tablets a day. I have an acquaintance with cystic fibrosis who has to take something like 12 capsules before she eats, every day, and she is younger than 10. I had better divide his description of what has happened in Victoria into two parts. First of all, the Victorian Government decided to cut back on hospital expenditure and asked hospitals to cut back their budgets. Hospitals did what so many organisations do in these circumstances-they deliberately cut back on their budgets where it would cause the most public fuss and the most political fuss, in this case I would have thought in an appalling way, by depriving children with cystic fibrosis and similar diseases of free medication. I would certainly join with Senator Lewis in condemning such behaviour and I know similar behaviour has been carried out by other hospitals in Victoria under the instruction to cut their staff and their expenses. They pick on areas which will affect the public, which will affect the most unfortunate people in the community and use these people as tools in their battles with government. We see another example of this with the Federal Government where some of the drug companies, in particular Bristol-Myers, deliberately raised excessively and unilaterally the prices of food substitutes needed by children who are intolerant of milk, and of a drug, cyclophosphamide, which is needed to treat a very rare disease but also to treat people with cancer. That company deliberately picked these two drugs because it thought that this would put the greatest pressure on the Government to cave in. But the Government did not-it could not-cave in and eventually the company had to cave in. Senator Lewis then drew a long bow when he attributed the actions of the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne to the paying of site allowances to builders' labourers on the construction site of another hospital in Melbourne. I do not think he did his case any good by trying to draw that long bow and by trying to connect the Cain Labor Government, a very successful government and still a very popular one, with these actions. I think we as a government and-I certainly agree with Senator Lewis-we as a parliament and as a community, have to think about the costs to the relatively small number of people in this community like the families of cystic fibrosis sufferers, like the families of those with other uncommon genetic diseases particularly, who need constant and continuous medication. We really should consider what is the best way to supply the medication to these people. It is specific medication. It is not useful for anyone else. It cannot be diverted for any other uses. I would have thought that the community rating principle, whereby the whole community assisted these people in their unfortunate situation of drugs, would be the best one. It has been traditional that the States, through their public hospitals, have provided, as the Royal Children's Hospital has up until now, the medication in these situations. If State governments are attempting, as Senator Lewis suggested, to bribe or bully Federal governments we may have to consider whether some sort of a national constribution to a program to support these children is warranted. Frequently children in Tasmania who have cystic fibrosis go to the Royal Children's Hospital or the Prince Henry's Hospital in Melbourne for treatment, so there is an interstate element to this. However, I think it is most unfortunate that any hospital, particularly a hospital with the record and history of the Royal Children's Hospital would deliberately pick on a group of patients such as this in order to try to stand over the State Government. I will certainly be interested to see what Professor Phelan has to say when he sees the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, next week. I will certainly obtain from Dr Blewett a more detailed reply to Senator Lewis. Senator Kilgariff was concerned about the possible proclaiming of the second stage of Kakadu National Park. I am a member of the Cabinet and the Cabinet certainly has not yet made a decision on that matter. It may do so next week, I do not know, I have not seen the agenda for next week's Cabinet meeting. The matter may have been discussed by a committee of Cabinet or others this week, but I am not involved in this area and I do not know about it. I cannot comment, nor should I comment, on such a decision. I think that Senator Kilgariff was stretching things a bit when he said that if such a decision has been made it will have been made in haste. We have all heard about Stage I and Stage II of Kakadu National Park for many years in this place. There has been considerable discussion in the Northern Territory, in this Parliament and throughout the community about this matter. I would not have thought that any decision made at this stage would have been made in haste by this Government or any other government. Senator Crichton-Browne mentioned the case of an industrial dispute in the Pilbarra. I am afraid I do not know anything about that dispute. I do know that at the moment there are discussions between the Commonwealth Government, the Western Australian Government, the Western Australian unions and industry to see whether we cannot improve, on a continuous basis, the industrial relations record in that area. Not knowing the details of the case, I am not willing to comment on it. I do know that Senator Crichton-Browne spent all of his time canning the unions in the Pilbarra area. I would have thought that, in an area that has the sort of industrial relations record that that area has, one might have to look also at the managerial side, as we have to so often in this community. Senator Crichton-Browne —That was not a dispute involving the union. Senator GRIMES —I know that. I am talking about the industrial relations record up there. Senator Crichton-Browne also stretched the case a bit when he said-I think this is an accurate quote-that any employer who conducted himself with the same brutal disregard for employees, as he thinks the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union has done in this case, would not be tolerated in our society. I wonder what Senator Crichton-Browne thinks of the behaviour of certain large organisations in this community, particularly car manufacturers, when a manager walks into the factory on a Friday night and sacks 600 people without any notice or warning and without any consultation with the unions or the Government having taken place. That sort of behaviour by management would certainly not be tolerated in any of the social democracies of Western Europe. I have said many times that I do not think it should be tolerated in this country. I would have thought it was wrong to condemn that union. I understood from what Senator Crichton-Browne said, that the union came to its decision after a vote of some 200 members. I wonder what would have caused 200 members of the union to take that action after meeting and after consultation. Maybe there is more to it than we have heard from Senator Crichton-Browne, but I am certainly not willing to comment on that. The disregard which he sees for individuals involved in this case cannot just be sheeted home to unions. If it does exist in this country, I believe there are plenty of examples of management doing the same. Senator Peter Rae was brief. He complained about the lack of responsibility of members of the Executive to the Parliament, particularly in Question Time and during the consideration of the Appropriation Bills. Fortunately, he excluded the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt and I from that. We must have had a good day. I know that at one time in Question Time today things were so quiet that I went to sleep. I must have missed something during that episode. Senator Crichton-Browne —You were probably answering a question. Senator GRIMES —I may have been. I cannot really make any detailed comment on what Senator Rae had to say because he did not mention just what upset him in Question Time or what upset him in the consideration of the Appropriation Bills. Senator Peter Rae —Vulgar abuse as a substitute is the best way of summarising it. Senator GRIMES —If it is vulgar abuse as a substitute for answering questions, I would have thought that was a pretty fair pot and kettle exercise. I well remember sitting next to where Senator Rae sits and copping the abuse which we used to cop from Senator Sir John Carrick when he was standing where I am standing now, as well as from other honourable senators in this place at Question Time. I suppose that occasionally people on this side of the chamber who have subconscious memories of those days indulge in the same sorts of tactics. I have no argument with Senator Rae's general principle that the Executive should be responsible to members of the Parliament and the Parliament as a whole. I will look with interest at the Hansard of Question Time and the consideration of the Appropriation Bills today to see just what he was talking about and to see whether he was not being too sensitive. Mr President, I would have thought that you would have pulled up anyone who indulged in that sort of behaviour, as you usually do when I step out of line in this place. Senator Peter Rae —To save you time I will be delighted to send you a copy of Hansard with some of the objectionable parts identified by underlining. Senator GRIMES —I accept that Senator Rae has always had an interest in the responsibility of the Executive to the Parliament. I think that the interest which he has shown has kept him out of the Executive in the past, because of his capacity to irritate executives and those who lead them. If I have not answered anything I will try to answer other matters raised by honourable senators during the next week. I think I have covered all the matters about which honourable senators spoke. I think it is about time the Senate adjourned and we were allowed to finish our evening meal. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sentate adjourned at 8.17 p.m. The following paper was presented: State Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the State of Queensland, dated 28 October 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 387 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) What Aboriginal Land Rights applications have been received by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. (2) What claims are currently being heard. (3) What claims are still outstanding. (4) What claims are in the hands of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or awaiting ministerial action. (5) When is it anticipated a decision will be made on these claims. (6) How many Aboriginal Land claims have not yet been made. Senator Button —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, in substitution for the answer appearing in Hansard of Tuesday, 8 November 1983: (1) The net number of Aboriginal land claims lodged since the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 came into effect is 60. This total takes account of claims which were later replaced, withdrawn, or amalgamated with others. A listing of all applications, with their current status, is contained in the following schedule. (2) The Jawoyn (Katherine area), Murranju, Warumungu, Kenbi (Cox Peninsula), Beetaloo and Upper Daly River claims have been partly heard. A High Court decision is awaited before the Warumungu and Beetaloo hearings may proceed. (3) Thirty-one claims, which are listed in the schedule have yet to be heard. The hearings of nine of these are scheduled to commence in 1984. The Cox River, Mt Allen, Nicholson River, Mt Barkly and Ngadi Warlpiri claims have been heard, and the Minister is waiting for the Aboriginal Land Commissioner's reports. (4) The Finniss River and Daly River (Malak Malak) claims are awaiting Ministerial decisions. (5) The Finniss River and Daly River claims involve complex issues of potential detriment to other parties, and it will be some months before decisions can be made. A working party of Northern Territory and Australian Government officers, and the Northern Land Council, is currently studying detriment issues involved in the Finniss River land claim. (6) The number of future claims cannot be forecast. The rate at which applications have been lodged has slowed; only two new applications were received by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in the year ended 30 June 1983. Claim Number/ Report Land Council No. Name of claim Minister's decision given 1-NLC 1 Borroloola 2-CLC 2 Warlpiri and Kartangarurru-Kurintji 3-CLC 3 Alyawarra and Kaititja 29-CLC 4 Uluru (Ayers Rock) National Park and Lake Amadeus/ Luritja 17-NLC 5 Yingawunarri (Old Top Springs) Mudbura 21-CLC 6 Anmatjirra and Alyawarra Land Claim to Utopia Pastoral Lease 24-CLC 7 Warlpiri Anmatjirra Land Claim to Willowra Pastoral Lease 5-NLC 8 Limmen Bight 19-NLC 10 Alligator Rivers Stage II 26-CLC 11 Warlmanpa, Warlpiri, Mudbura and Warumungu 33-CLC 12 Daguragu 25-CLC 14 Kaytej, Warlpiri and Walmanpa 36 15 Yutpundji-Djindiwirriti (Roper Bar) Report received, no decision taken 39-NLC 9 Finniss River 7-NLC 13 Daly River (Malak Malak) 14-NLC Cox River (Alawa/Ngandji)-Hearing completed: 9 August 1982 40-CLC Mount Allan Station-Hearing completed: 26 August 1982 20-NLC Nicholson River-Hearing completed: 25 March 1983 57-CLC Mount Barkly Station-Hearing completed: 12 September 1983 46-CLC Ngadi and Warlpiri-Hearing completed: 13 September 1983 Hearings in progress 15-NLC Murranji 13-NLC Jawoyn (Katherine Area) 22-CLC Waramungu-Awaiting outcome of High Court proceedings 37-NLC Kenbi 54-NLC Beetaloo-Awaiting outcome of Jawoyn High Court proceedings 32-NLC Upper Daly Land Claim Claims awaiting hearing 9-NLC Vernon Islands (Larrakeyah) 10-NLC Woolner (Wulna) 16-NLC Wombaya 23-CLC Tjila Warlpiri Land Claim to Chilla Well Pastoral Lease 27-CLC Kartangarurru Warlpiri and Walmajeri 30-NLC Borroloola No. 2 (certain islands in Sir Edward Pellew Group and proposed reserve on Seven Emu Station) 31-NLC Kidman Springs/Jasper Gorge 34-NLC Borroloola No. 3 (certain islands in Sir Edward Pellew Group) 35-NLC Larrimah 38-CLC Ti Tree (claim to Tea Tree Pastoral Lease) 41-CLC Simpson Desert 42-CLC Wakaya Alyawarra 43-CLC Western Desert (a separate claim to the same parcel of land as No. 27) 44-CLC Lake Amadeus 45-NLC Amanbidji (claim to Amanbidji Pastoral Lease) 47-CLC Ormiston Gorge 48-CLC Palm Valley 49-CLC Simpsons Gap 50-CLC Tarlton Downs 51-CLC Ooratippra 52-CLC Ammaroo 53-CLC Deep Well 58-NLC Timber Creek 59-CLC Illamurta Springs 60-CLC Amburla Stock Route 61-CLC Undoolya Bore Reserve 62-CLC McGrath Dam Stock Reserve 63-CLC Middleton Ponds Stock Route 64-CLC Frances Well 65-NLC Robinson River 66-NLC Mittiebah Reserve Discontinued claims 4-NLC Alligator Rivers Region-Later replaced by Alligator Rivers Stage II Land Claim - (No. 19) (report No. 10) 6-NLC Cobourg Peninsula-By request hearing permanently adjourned; Cobourg Peninsula Aboriginal Land and Sanctuary Act 1981 passed by Northern Territory Legislative Assembly vesting the land in perpetuity in a Land Trust 8-NLC Gregory Tree Area (Victoria River)-Notice of discontinuance received 24 July 1978 11-NLC Douglas-Amalgamated with Upper Daly River claim (No. 32) 12-NLC Umbrawarra Gorge-Amalgamated with Upper Daly River claim (No. 32) 18-NLC Dum-in-Mirrie Island-Claim later amalgamated with Kenbi (Cox Peninsula) (No. 37) 28-CLC Lake Amadeus/Luritja-Later incorporated with Uluru National Park Claim (No. 29) NB: NLC=Northern Land Council. CLC=Central Land Council. Question No. 412 Senator Zakharov asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 October, 1983: (1) Is it part of the duty of the Director of the Canberra School of Music to participate in public performances in Canberra and in the school's concert activities. (2) Has the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs' attention been drawn to an article in the Canberra Times of 21 September 1983 in which the Director of the Canberra School of Music was reported to have said that he would no longer perform in Canberra because criticism of his performances adversely reflected on the school. (3) Has there been adverse criticism of the Director's performances; if so, have these reflected on the Director or the school. (4) Did the Director also indicate his reasons for no longer performing in Canberra in a letter to the Friends of the School of Music Society; if so, what were the contents of that letter. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. The situation of the Director in this regard is different to that of other members of the teaching staff. It is, however, quite appropriate in my view for the person who occupies the position of Director of the School of Music to choose to participate in public performances. (2) Yes. (3) I understand from the Press report referred to in (2) that there have been some comments concerning the present Director's performances, or a particular performance, which he regards as adverse criticism. I cannot of course say as a question of fact whether any such criticism has reflected on either the Director or the school but I do not believe that it has. (4) I would regard the contents of any correspondence of this kind as being a private matter between the individual and the organisation.