Thursday, 29 March 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Education To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government schools costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government schools costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 24 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-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from eight 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 Kilgariff (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 81 citizens). Petitions received. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recalls the promise of the present Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign that a Labor Government would provide support for private sector investment; (b) recalls the frequent claim of the Government that it was unable to keep its election promises because it inherited a projected budget deficit of $9.6 billion; (c) notes that economic benefits which befell Australia in the year 1983 as a result of the breaking of the drought, the effects of the former coalition Government's wage freeze and the U.S.-led world economic recovery; (d) notes that notwithstanding this there is a total failure of the Government' s economic policies to provide a profitable investment climate and the pleas from the Prime Minister to manufacturing business to ignore their obvious assessment of the economic climate and invest nevertheless; (e) notes the recent admission by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the deficit forecast used to break the Government's election promises was so illusory and meaningless that this year's deficit forecast will not be released; and (f) condemns not only the Government's double standards regarding the use of deficit forecasts but also its blatant breach of its election undertakings. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recalls the promises of the present Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign that a Labor Government would provide: (i) . . . immediate reductions in income tax for almost 6 million Australian taxpayers with the greatest tax cuts going to those on the lowest incomes . . .' ; (ii) '. . . a lift in the tax threshold of $5,000 which will free tens of thousands of low income earners from all tax . . .'; (iii) '. . . a lift in the tax threshold for pensioners of $465 to $5,893 . . . '; (iv) '. . . increases in the spouse rebate and sole parent rebate . . .'; (v) . . . a liberalisation in the income test applying to the family income supplement'; (vi) '. . . $20m extra for child care in its first Budget . . . which will finance 400 new child care centres . . .'; (b) recalls the frequent claims of the Government that it was unable to keep its election promises because it inherited a projected budget deficit of $9.6 billion; (c) notes the recent admission by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that the deficit forecast used to break the Government's election promises was so illusory and meaningless that this year's deficit forecast will not be released; and (d) condemns not only the Government's double standards regarding the use of deficit forecasts but also its blatant breach of election undertakings. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian National Gallery-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 42 (3) of the National Gallery Act 1975. 2. Annual Return of Persons Granted Australian Citizenship during 1981-82- Pursuant to Section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. 3. Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969. 4. Determination Required in Relation to Division 312 of Appropriation Act No. 1 of 1983-84-together with the text of an explanatory statement relating to the determination. 5. Operation of the Fishing Industry Act 1956-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956. 6. Operation of the Special Employment-related Programs Act 1982-seventh report . 7. Guidelines for Registration of Lobbyists-Text of a Statement made in the House of Representatives on 28 March 1984 by the Special Minister of State. 8. United Nations Mission to Cocos (Keeling) Islands-Text of a Statement made in the House of Representatives on 28 March 1984 by the Minister for Territories and Local Government. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in consequence of the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make a number of amendments to legislation consequential upon the provisions of the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 for the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor. A number of Commonwealth Acts contain references to the Crown Solicitor or to a Deputy Crown Solicitor. A number of these references are such that they may not be conveniently dealt with by the interpretation provision contained in that Bill, by which references to the Crown Solicitor or a Deputy Crown Solicitor were to be converted into references to the Australian Government Solicitor. It has therefore been found necessary to make specific amendments to the Acts in question. Generally speaking, the provisions which are amended by the present Bill are such as to require a person to be identified for the purposes of the relevant provision. The approach taken in this Bill is to amend those provisions so that references to the Crown Solicitor or a Deputy Crown Solicitor are translated into references to the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department or to an officer of that Department authorised by him to act in the name of the Australian Government Solicitor. It will be recalled that, in setting up the Australian Government Solicitor as a body corporate, it is intended that all acts done in the name of the body corporate shall be done by the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department or by legally qualified officers of that Department authorised by the Secretary for the purpose. The Bill is purely of a technical and consequential kind. It is proposed to be debated cognately later today with the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That Government Business, Order of the Day No. 5 (Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (No. 1) 1984) be postponed till the next day of sitting. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.10) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting this Bill, but as I said briefly yesterday evening, I shall not be criticising the Wool Industry Amendment Bill in my statements today but rather referring to the reasons given by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) which, in total, seem to blame the depressed market conditions rather than address the issue of lack of government action in this area and the effects of other government action on the wool industry. Last night I referred to the fact that in the six months prior to the flotation of the Australian dollar in December last year, the dollar revalued by up to 15 per cent on a wool trade weighted index. Local merino type wools were then quoted up to 50c a kilogram higher than their South African counterparts. The Australian Wool Corporation consistently purchased as a result of that in the four months following the opening of the wool selling season in July last year 30 per cent of the catalogue boosting its stockpile from 400,000 bales to 1.3 million bales. Following the flotation of the dollar in December, the Corporation came under a great deal of criticism for its decision not to adjust the floor price mechanism . The Australian Council of Wool Buyers, for example, went so far as to say that if a revaluation of between 3 per cent to 5 per cent occurred, overseas buying of Australian wool would cease completely. The revaluation has been of the order of 4.6 per cent and the Australian Council of Wool Buyers predictions have not at this stage proved true. Indeed, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in its Quarterly Review of the Rural Economy in the February 1984 edition predicted under the optimistic heading 'Prices to improve in 1984': For the 1984 calendar year, the average price is forecast to be 510c/kg and 540c/kg clean, with the most likely price being around 520c/kg clean, 9 per cent above the average price in November. Australian auction prices should improve significantly in the second half of the 1983-84 season (July-June) as offerings decline, stocks in South Africa are further reduced and demand strengthens in line with improving economic activity. In fact, what has happened is almost the exact opposite of that optimistic prediction. Prospects for a predicted recovery in the wool market took a heavy blow at the auctions in Brisbane and Adelaide last week. The Australian Wool Corporation was forced to intervene buying to about 30 per cent of the 60,000 bales offered to reach the highest point to date for the second half of the season. The market indicator at the close of the week was 3c down at 487c per kilogram clean, although the quote is still being distorted by the effect of the 19 micron demand squeeze generated from February tradings. The market indicator is still being supported to a large extent by the nominal 19 micron-type quotations. The removal of these quotations would take at least another 5c to 7c from the present stated level of the indicator, leaving it at about 10c to 12c above the floor price. Last week's slump appears to have been triggered by a combination of the catalogue affixed in Adelaide which usually sells to the Eastern European competition, and a large offering of pre-sale dumped wool in Brisbane. Nevertheless, the extreme volatility of the Australian dollar on the market-again this was exemplified last week-my Party believes is a complicating factor and has led to a depression of the market. Another factor which obviously is important is the comparatively low reserve prices in South Africa and New Zealand. Also important is the virtual non- appearance of China in the wool sales. In spite of constant predictions that China will appear, very little has occurred. In fact, China has been buying only a very small quantity of crossbred fleece. If we take all these factors into consideration, we believe that the effects of the world currency in the wool trade weighted index is probably the most critical factor currently affecting the Australian wool industry. Therefore, it is extremely easy to sympathise with the Corporation in the situation in which it finds itself, a situation which has necessitated this Bill. I will mention some other factors before suggesting what we believe ought to be the action that should be taken by the Government at this time. I refer first to wool promotion funding. At the half yearly conference of the Wool Council of Australia in November last year increased promotional funding was seen as the major priority in the coming months. Indeed, there was a projected shortfall of $18m in 1983-84 and $21.5m in 1984-85, and Senator Scott in his speech last night alluded to this aspect. The shortfall is currently being funded by the Wool Corporation's reserves, but obviously this is a short term measure. The industry needs to develop a long term policy. The decision to establish a wool promotion trust account and redirect one per cent of current woolgrowers' levies to the fund specifically for additional promotion will certaintly go part way to meeting the problem. The fact that this decision was reached as a result of the Chairman's casting vote suggests that there is still a fair amount of confusion within the industry as to the usefulness of this activity and as to how it will contribute in the longer term. We will have to wait and see about that. The Government has contributed to the problems in wool promotion. I remind the Senate that during the election campaign last year the Australian Labor Party promised $28m a year in funding for promotion. Last year's Budget allowed for only $20m, $8m short of the election promise. This shortfall on the Australian Labor Party's election promise becomes very important in terms of the commitment of the Corporation and other wool-growing bodies to funding new markets, particularly given the International Wool Secretariat's $US42.5m wool promotion in the United States during the next five years. The Australian Wool Corporation is fully behind this promotion. Given that the Corporation's reserves are being used to fund the shortfalls in wool promotion funding, it is quite clear that the breaking of the Australian Labor Party election promise on this matter has put further pressure on the Corporation's finances. This, in turn, has necessitated this Bill we are now discussing. It was therefore with considerable enthusiasm that I greeted the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 8 March that the Federal Government would reassess the 1983-84 Budget decision not to increase wool promotion funding. According to Mr Hawke, the Government had been unable to lift its contribution to the promised amount because of budgetary constraints, but things had now improved and he was now directing that the matter be brought forward for discussion before the normal 1984-85 Budget discussion. Mr Hawke, when he made that statement on 8 March, was speaking at an open day at the merino stud property of Mr Rupert Murdoch at Deniliquin. He obviously expected that his speech would be widely reported, as indeed it was. Consequently, there arose the expectation that the Government would soon honour its election promise. If we consider last Saturday's New South Wales election results in the country seats, we might say that the activity of the Prime Minister in that regard had borne some fruit. When I was preparing notes for this speeech during the last couple of days I thought that the $28m per annum promise by the Prime Minister was a step in the right direction. According to the most recent estimates, the promotion costs will be of this order: $60m to the International Wool Secretariat, $8.5m for the special United States promotion campaign and a very heavy domestic commitment. Given all those factors, I thought the Prime Minister's promise was a step in the right direction. However, Mr Kerin informed us, when launching the New South Wales ALP rural policy, that the Government would definitely be breaking its election promise yet again because he said the Government would be granting $25m in 1984-85. To be fair, this is a step in the right direction, especially as it appears that the Government has accepted in principle the formula proposal of the Wool Council of Australia that the Government pay a dollar for every two dollars raised by wool growners, but it is still a total of $12m short of the Government's election promise at this stage, $12m which the industry drastically needs. The industry has paid out $12m over and above what we believe it should in order that the Corporation sustain itself within its financial structures; hence this Bill. I would like to refer briefly to a couple of other items, not tangential to this Bill but which I think are important in overall financing. At the Queensland Wool Centre at Rocklea an experiment in tri-packing prior to sale is currently being carried out. It is rather interesting to note that while tri- packing has gone on after sales, this is the first experiment in doing it prior to sales. It would seem from the results at the moment that there have been savings of almost a million dollars a year. If that is the case, the Wool Corporation, in giving its full support to this system, is certainly heading in the right direction. The centralisation of wool sales which is taking place has been far less popular within the industry. Wool sales are being centralised at six major centres rather than being spread across 15 sales rooms as at present. The Wool Corporation has bought into this dispute by virtue of its report 'The Preparation for Shipping Arrangements for Wool in New South Wales', which was released in May of last year. The Corporation has had further difficulties in this area, due, I believe, to its constituency, its peronnel. I do not wish to go too far into this but there could be conflicts of interest between certain people because of the various hats that they wear, some of which will be resolved by 30 June of this year. I believe it is an area that we should pay attention to. This involves a delicate public policy area, one which I think can cause disquiet within the industry, and is of some concern to the growers. I think the other activity of the Corporation, selling wool sight unseen, demands fairly close scrutiny, particularly in relation to the proposed introduction of sale by description. I understand that equipment problems have arisen and that this has delayed the introduction of the first steps of this procedure, we believe, by up to about three months. It is now expected to be in operation by the end of this year. The various steps in this procedure do lead one to have some concerns but provided it continues along its present track the computerised selling operation, which is due to be completely operational within a 5-year period, should be a boon to the industry. If the buyers end up accepting the proposal-and approximately 90 per cent of them accept it-there will be a 14c per kilogram saving in transport and handling charges. I raise this matter in debate on this Bill because the enormous costs involved in the implementation of the system have put a further strain on the Corporation 's finances at a time when it is under pressure elsewhere. The negative reaction of buyers to having the procedure forced upon them has encouraged them to look elsewhere. In my opinion, it is clear that we must eventually get to this method of selling but at this time I would caution about moving too quickly, particularly bearing in mind the current high volatility of the wool market. Last night, Senator Watson referred to the floor price mechanism, which is extremely important in terms of wool and is something about which anybody involved with the industry is always concerned. Senator Watson's comments were quite pertinent. I add to the points he raised the fact that the Corporation itself, through its Chairman, has bought into this operation in a sharp and defined way and has opted to leave the floor price mechanism unaltered. The reason given is that the industry needs to put more weight on the element of risk concerning the Australian dollar but it has rejected the suggestion put forward at the National Agricultural Outlook Conference last year that a set percentage, between 10 per cent and 15 per cent, be maintained between the floor and the market to cover the risks of dollar fluctuation. The Chairman has said that while there needs to be a greater awareness of the risk involved, the industry should retain the setting of the floor on the basis of the world outlook for wool. It is fine to say that but in reality that comment fails to address the critical situation in which the market currently finds itself. Indeed, it is a situation in which it has basically found itself for the last nine months and a situation which, if one listens to the economic predictions, is not likely to go away very rapidly. We believe we need to address this matter now. This Bill does help slightly by allowing the Corporation to borrow from a wider range of sources; and certainly it allows it to borrow at much more competitive rates than it has been able to do in the past. But we must ask how much further into debt the Corporation can afford to go. Since the start of the 1983-84 wool selling season on 1 July, the Corporation has gone from having liquid assets in the market support fund of more than $250m to having a potential debt of $115m. It has also drawn heavily on other reserves and has spent income from wool sales and wool tax. The total amount spent by the Corporation in market support activities since 1 July is estimated to be more than $400m to the beginning of this year, with the stockpile increasing by more than half a million bales. The situation is delicate in the extreme; I see that Senator Watson indicates that possibly it is something even worse than delicate. What needs to be done we believe needs to be done rapidly. We support the notion that, in the light of the various items that I have raised and in the light of the fact that one cannot see, even with this Bill, terribly much hope on the horizon, all relevant bodies need to come together-the producers, sellers and buyers, the Australian Wool Corporation and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics-to look at the current situation and to look at our market procedures. The only body which could assist in achieving that result would be the Government. So the Australian Democrats call on the Government to organise a summit on this matter as soon as possible. The summit would need to consider the effects of the fluctuations in the Australian dollar and other relevant currencies on the Australian wool industry, the comparative reserve prices in South Africa and New Zealand, the changing buying patterns of our major traders, including China-we have been told that there are some hopeful signs on the horizon in that regard but we are still looking for them-the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia, appropriate levels of government assistance to wool promotion, tri-pack selling, the centralisation of wool sales, selling wool sight unseen, the floor price mechanism and the current indebtedness of the Australian Wool Corporation and other matters some of which have been raised by Senator Watson and Senator Scott in this debate and which I will not be able to go into due to the shortness of time. These items include rising freight costs and expenditure on wool research. I feel that if we do not sit down now and solve these urgent problems, if we merely stand by and watch the indebtedness of the Corporation increase, the Government will be called upon to bail out the industry and it will have to bail it out to the tune of a fairly massive amount because undoubtedly at that point there will be nothing else that the Government could do. Why wait? Why allow the industry to move through to that extremely critical situation? Why not work with the industry now and have in place an agreed formula and an agreed understanding of where we are going? Undoubtedly the Government will be called upon to assist. I believe that if it makes its move at this time we could very well avert what might be a catastrophic situation for the wool industry of Australia. Without immediate Government action it is difficult to predict the future. I believe that the trends which are currently appearing do not give us very much hope. We may be looking at a disastrous future for one of the most important rural industries in Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate but urge the Government not to allow its activity in this area to stand solely on this Bill. Rather it should take the further initiative of working with everybody concerned in the industry to get in place a coherent, cohesive and effective plan that will take us through to 2000 in such a way as to allow our growers to be confident that there is a bright future for this important rural industry, one upon which so much of rural Australia depends for its livelihood. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.34) —The objective of the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1984 is to provide the Australian Wool Corporation with further opportunities to raise money overseas. In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) summarised the Bill by saying: . . . the amendments proposed in the Bill will allow for better management of woolgrower funds for market support operations and for wool research. I hope that is right. I support what Senator Macklin said about the need for a summit meeting on the operation of the Wool Corporation and other matters related to it as soon as possible and as a matter of urgency. I have had a number of representations from the Australian Wool Processors Council with respect to this amendment. Several questions loom in its mind. For example, it asks: Why is the Australian Wool Corporation agreeing to what is an attempt to conceal correct prices? I have some notes which were provided by G. H. Michell and Sons (Australia) Pty Ltd whose head office is in South Australia. I seek leave to incorporate the information in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- G. H. MICHELL & SONS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED Wool Combers, Scourers, Carbonisers, Wool Buying Brokers Telephone 258 4455 (11 lines) Telex AA 82203 Cables and Telegrams ''Michell Adelaide'' G.P.O. Box 1739, Adelaide South Australia 5001 Senator D. Jessop, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. Report on Pre-sale Dumping-Brisbane Sale 37-W/e 23rd March, 1984. Prior to this sale a JWSO meeting was held with the main topic ''Market Reporting''. Apparently the brokers are still upset over last sale, when fleecewools in tripaks were quoted up to 2 per cent easier than similar wools in farm bales. They insisted, with the backing of the AWC that in future the JWSO Market Report would be a blanket report, without any reference to tripaks. The buyers representative would not agree to this proposal and subsequently the JWSO Market Report from Brisbane will be from AWC/Brokers only. Out of a total offering of 26,313 bales, 11,999 or 45 per cent were in tripak form! This total represented an increase of 14 per cent of wool offered in this form compared to the last Brisbane sale. The overall selection was rather coarse with the bulk of fleecewools of good topmaking style, 22.5 to 24 micron with a fault content of 2-5 per cent. Skirtings mostly medium/heavy fault, 5-15 per cent, with a fair amount of colour , and carding types (locks, crts, lambs) suitable for carbonising. The break-up of fleece/skirtings in tripaks of various brokers was: Total in Broker Total bales tripaks per cent Fleece Skirtings First day- Dal-Winch 9,623 3,862 40 915 2,947 QWC 3,128 1,643 52 634 1,059 Grazcos 1,095 . . . . . . . . Second day- Primac 5,461 2,194 40 441 1,753 Elders 7,006 4,300 62 2,143 2,157 In this sale, all brokers continued to have a greater percentage of skirtings in tripaks, while Elders increased their overall percentage to 62, including more fleecewools. As in the last sale, the fleece portion in tripaks of Dal-Winch, QWC, and Primac was made up of inferior wools. Mostly tender, cotty or discoloured. However, in Elders catalogue the selection included more topmaking types. The way in which the skirting section was formed, with 75 per cent in tripaks, makes a comparison of quotations between the two impossible. Farm bale lots Tripak Dal-Winch 78 381 QWC (Inter lots) 75 131 Primac 27 211 Elders 60 234 240 957 The market on the opening day was quoted generally unchanged for fleecewools, 2 per cent easier for heavy fault skirtings of broader quality, unchanged for carding descriptions. Once again, with such a broad selection, together with the AWC dominating on these fleecewool types, it becomes difficult to compare prices. The AWC purchase of fleece was over 60 per cent. Fleece Skirtings AWC Buying- Farm 3419 (61.2%) 12 (0.07%) Tripak 918 (60.1%) 118 (3.0%) Jumbos 340 (56. 8%) 10 (2.1%) On the closing day, the AWC purchase of fleecewools was even higher at an overall 72.2 per cent. Fleece Skirtings AWC Buying- Farm 3661 (72.1%) 51 7.6%) Tripak 2174 (81.0%) 120 (3.0%) P & L made the few lots of 21.5 micron fleece 6 Australian cents cheaper in tripaks compared to farm lots on this day, but this would not be general. People from the trade who operate on tripak fleecewools are all Continental firms such as P & L, Lemp, ADF. All firms appear to have orders for tripak skirtings even Duncan purchased some in this sale, but these, of course, could be for an overseas order. The Japanese section, with the exception of Nissho, who explained they had a Czech Indent order, all left the sale room when tripak fleece commenced to sell. Kreglinger also joined the protest. Textilimpex did not attend this sale. The next Brisbane sale is scheduled for May 23/24th. TABLE 1: RATIO OF FLEECE TO SKIRTINGS AT QWC-PSD BASIS Skirtings as % of Sale date Fleece Skirtings total October 3,700 4,300 54 November 2,754 5,929 68 December 1,759 4,905 74 Total Dec. Quarter 8,213 14,134 63 BASED ON NORMAL SALES IN BRISBANE 18,437 3,910 17.4 Sale date Fleece Skirting % February 24 2,249 6,782 1 75 March Note (1) Skirting in tripacks slightly superior Senator JESSOP —On 1 December 1983 I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in this place, several questions about the pre-sale dumping of wool at the Queensland Wool Centre. I was less than satisfied with some aspects of the response, but as I believed there were only six months remaining of the 12 month trials, I decided to wait for the results of the commercial evaluation. I hoped that the study being undertaken by the Australian Wool Corporation would prove whether the continuation of the Queensland Wool Centre trial was warranted on commercial grounds. I have now changed my position as a result of a report in last Friday's Australian Financial Review which indicated that more information will be sought in relation to pre-sale dumping and that sales will be supported through the floor price for a further 12 month period. The Minister's replied to my question as to whether the Government should intervene should wool brokers proceed with the installation of further pre-sale dumping, as follows: The Corporation has indicated it will not continue a reserve price support indefinitely for pre-sale dumped wool unless the system proves its commercial viability and potential net benefit to the wool industry. The Australian Financial Review article reported that the Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, Mr David Asimus, had said that: 'it would be very reasonable to extend the support for another 12 months as the market must get above the floor price level'. What is so surprising is that at the last meeting with the brokers, the Australian Wool Processors Council was told that pre-sale dumping at the Queensland Wool Centre was an outstanding success and had fulfilled all the objectives set. Only two months later the Australian Wool Corporation has seen fit to continue to propose the operation through the floor price. Not since 1980 has the Australian Wool Corporation conducted a detailed comparative study of the more restricted attempt at pre-sale dumping, known as the jumbo bale exercise. One would have thought that in matters of this nature continuous monitoring would have to be undertaken in order to assess the acceptance level under varying demand conditions. There must be some correlation between the two forms of pre-sale dumping, for the Corporation has indicated that the difference in the jumbo price and farm bales would be greater than that anticipated from tripacks. If the Australian Wool Corporation can forecast this with such preciseness I for one cannot see why it cannot evalute the acceptance level of tri-packs by the lack of response they have received from China and Russia. Together the Japanese mills and the Australian industry purchase about two thirds of our clip . Certainly, during February when wool prices rose above the floor level it was reported that tri-packs were quoted 2 per cent lower than farm bales. It has been stated that tri-packs would be considerably cheaper at the Queensland Wool Centre if the normal proportion of skirtings had been offered. If the Wool Corporation has extended the trial period to assess the influence of tri-packs on the selling price, I suggest that skirting should represent only 17 per cent of the total sold in tri-packs, not 80 per cent as was offered during the most recent sale. This is certainly not representative of the final proportions and must distort any investigation into demand and price. I indicate that this is not an isolated instance of a distorted clip representation. Skirting represented about 75 per cent in the previous offering. At the beginning I explained that I was less than satisfied with the replies received through the Department of Primary Industry from the Australian Wool Corporation. The first two replies were evasive, although it was indicated that detailed comparisons were currently being undertaken. I ask now why these comparisons, as well as the assessments made in the desk studies by the investors in the Queensland Wool Centre, cannot be made available to all parties concerned for the purpose of appraisal and comment. I asked the Minister in my question-- Senator Walsh —What question was this? Senator JESSOP —I referred earlier, before the Minister for Resources and Energy came into the chamber, to a series of questions I put on notice on 1 December 1983. I am referring now to the answers and demonstrating some of the doubts I have about them. In a question directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy representing the Minister for Primary Industry I asked that an international authority on commodity handling undertake the comparisons and commercial appraisal. I requested that this approach be considered not because I did not believe that the Australian Wool Corporation was competent, but because I felt that impartiality must be achieved and demonstrated. Certainly bias was demonstrated in the reply from the Minister, which stated: . . . a study into the comparative effects of pre-sale dumping on the wool industry is being undertaken by the Australian Wool Corporation on behalf of woolgrowers. He did not say this was on behalf of the buyer and users; he stated specifically that it was on behalf of the woolgrowers. How can the evaluation of the net benefits to the wool industry be unbiased when the buyers and users have been excluded from studies and earlier assessments? The Australian Wool Processors Council has indicated to me that it is appreciative of the understanding displayed by the Minister for Primary Industry . In fact it undertook to support sales at the Queensland Wool Centre as a result of this understanding, even though overseas buyers walked out of the sales to demonstrate their opposition. I understand that the Australian Wool Processors Council, whose members process more than 20 per cent of the Australian clip, are giving serious consideration to boycotting the Queensland Wool Centre as a result of what they consider to be a breach of an understanding . The competitive position of the local industry is aggravated, as it cannot take advantage of the lower freight rates for superdensity dumped wools. This does reduce their competitiveness on overseas markets. While they see this as a commercial hazard, they are seriously disadvantaged by the charges made for a pack which they do not want and which adds a considerable amount to their costs, as these bales must then be de-dumped. In fact it doubles the original dumping charge, so they are paying twice for something they do not want. So far, discussions with brokers have yielded nothing and have been described to me as circular negotiations, getting nowhere. I put it to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry that this matter can hardly be considered purely a commercial one, for discussions among the parties concerned are really yielding nothing. The extension of the trial period could quite easily develop into a situation where attendance at the Queensland Wool Centre will be limited to the European buyers who accept the bales because of freight savings. What I also find surprising is that within the last week the brokers involved in the Queensland Wool Centre have invited wool buyers to join with them to determine the features that need to be exercised to evaluate properly pre-sale dumping trials. Surely after the original investigation and six months of trial it is a somewhat belated attempt by the brokers to see what features need to be exercised. It seems to me that this latest nonsense will result in another circular discussion designed as an iron lung to extend the life of the faltering trial into pre-sale dumping, something that has been mishandled from the time it was forced on to the industry. I am not saying that there are not advantages in pre- sale dumping. What I am saying is that when a form of packaging that is not wanted is introduced without consultation, and additional charges are made for this unwanted package as well as placing additional burdens on sectors of the industry, the exercise will need propping up. That is what is happening, as is evidenced by the Australian Wool Corporation having to buy up to 90 per cent of the fleece wools offered in tri-packs. I suggest that this matter has become critical and that this Government should not stand aside from an issue that could seriously jeopardise the sales of Queensland wool and the operations of the Australian processors as well as redirect our major customers to purchase from South America, South Africa, New Zealand and their own domestic wools. I say that in the spirit of constructive comment. As I said at the outset, it is important that top level discussions be carried out, including wool processors, because I believe it is of critical importance to the industry that we sustain the valuable help that has been provided by the wool processors of Australia. I have two or three attachments. I will exclude the Press cutting. I have already included the comments of Michells on this subject. I have another comment from the Australian Wool Processors Council, expressing its concern. I seek leave to have that incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- AUSTRALIAN WOOL PROCESSORS COUNCIL Representing Members of:Wool Textile Manufacturers of AustraliaWool Scourers & Carbonisers Association of Australia Industry House, 370 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne 3004 Telephone: 698 4322 690 6870 Telex: 32596 Communique: AUSTRALIAN WOOL PROCESSORS COUNCILS' POSITION SUBSEQUENT TO DISCUSSION WITH THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOOL SELLING BROKERS OF AUSTRALIA-2ND FEBRUARY, 1984 1. This council is not convinced that sufficient thought has been given to improving the handling and movement of farm bales, prior to sale to warrant the installation of a system only capable of reaching maximum efficiency under total presale dumping conditions. 2. There seems to be a tendancy on the part of the brokers to describe presale dumping as ''progress'' before the benefits are known. 3. Until an evaluation of both presale and postsale dumping can be objectively approached with due regard to all aspects of distribution and use, further dislocation of sections of the wool industry including labour and management should be avoided. 4. As commercial acceptance should eventually depend on the net cost or worth to each party, the conflict cannot be overcome at this point by compensatory means. 5. The AWPC recognise that sales in Brisbane did present unique problems and that improvements were overdue. It also acknowledges that its members do not generally bid as widely or purchase at the same level in Queensland, as in other States. Local processors are, however, concerned that presale dumping could flow onto other centres without due regard to alternative methods or indeed consideration to important issues and the disruptive influence this will have on trading. 6. Should assessments of technical and commercial acceptance, as well as viability of presale packaging include the first three sales at the Queensland Wool Centre i.e. quarter ending December '83, significant adjustments will need to be made to compensate for the unrepresentative nature of the wool offered. Over the past few years skirtings have represented about 17 per cent or 18 per cent of the total sales in Brisbane. The average level of skirtings sold in tripacks at the Q.W.C. during the first 3 sales represented 63 per cent of the total. This is 3.6 times greater than normal. The acceptance of skirtings sold in tripacks was significantly higher than fleece wools, but still below the level of acceptance in farm bales. The trade demonstrated that presale dumping was unacceptable as it bought less than 15 per cent of fleece wool offered, while it purchased larger quantities of skirtings in farm bales than in 3BUs and 2BUs. 7. There have been several forecasts produced suggesting a significant increase in the level of activity in the scouring and topmaking in Australia during the ' 80s and '90s. While Australia's lack of positive export incentives has retarded growth, extensions to presale dumping would result in reductions rather than increases in activity. 8. This council repeats its opposition to presale dumping on four grounds. The imposition of total presale dumping in any one area denies the buyer's freedom of choice. Significant charges are made without any benefits to buyer/user. Capital expenditure will be incurred. Dedumping and disruption to work flows will result in substantial increases in operating costs. 9. The ability of the Australian wool processing industry to compete on International markets will be impaired as freight advantages will operate in favour of superdensity dumped bales of greasy wool. 10. While the local processors are concerned about their own position, they recognise that the majority of Japanese buyers, the USSR and the Peoples Republic of China oppose presale dumping at the Queensland Wool Centre and as a concept. Should the reduction in costs achieved by brokers be less than the costs incurred by prospective buyers, the adoption of presale, dumping will be counter productive for total industry. Commercial judgement that will be exercised by disadvantaged buyers will dictate that the discounts must be greater than costs. The resultant price depression will be supported by those not disadvantaged. The Australian Wool Processors Council proposes that serious consideration be given to the withdrawal of the support price for presale dumped wool. It should be obligatory upon any enterprise engaged in presale dumping to underwrite price assurances equal to the current prices for farm bales. Unless offsets greater than the costs incurred by the buyer of presale dumped wool can be achieved, then presale dumping must be regarded as futile. Senator JESSOP —I also have a summary from 'Wool Market News'. I suggest it would be helpful to have that also incorporated in Hansard and I seek leave to do so. Leave granted. The document read as follows- FEATURES The tone at Australian wool auctions in Brisbane and Adelaide this week was distinctly weaker. The market indicator eased a further 3 cents to 487 cents/kg clean and the AWC purchase rate reached 32.2, its highest level since the beginning of December. The strength of the Australian dollar and the increased volatility of exchange rate fluctuations this week were significant factors in the market. Prices for practically all descriptions were affected by the quiet trading conditions. Representative quotes are only available for wool in the narrow range 21-24 microns and these were between 2 and 5 cents lower than last week. Prices for most types in the 23-24 micron categories and 30 micron and coarser categories are at AWC floor levels. Nominal quotes for the restricted supplies of 19 and 20 micron wool closed 3 cents lower than last week, while the 25 and 26 micron indicators were nominally 4 and 2 cents lower, respectively. Broader categories were largely unchanged. Merino skirtings and carding descriptions were notably cheaper this week as reflected in the Merino carding indicator which fell 5 cents. Price declines were greater for average style wool carrying medium to heavy vegetable fault while values for good style fleece containing light VM fault were less affected. The fact that the selections at both centres contained varying degrees of vegetable fault may have contributed to the high AWC purchase rate overall, although the large proportion of wool offered in tri-packed form clearly contributed to the high AWC purchase rate in Brisbane. The offering of 59,856 bales was one of the smallest for the season to date and only 64% was cleared to the trade. The downtrend in the South African wool market was reversed this week; trading was very active and the new market indicator rose 4 cents to 571 cents/kg clean. Prices for 20 micron wool rose by 2.5%, 21 micron wool was unchanged and 22-25 micron wool was up to 1% dearer. The total offering comprised 25,609 bales of which 92% was cleared to the trade. Approximately 28,000 bales are rostered for sale at Invercargill, N.Z. today. Sales next week (approximately): Newcastle 20,500, Portland 22,800 bales. Date Offered Sold Passed National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia This Centre March Bales Trade AWC Per cent Provisional figures for: This week season Per cent Per cent Total 20-22 59,856 64.0 32.2 3.8 Average price (c/kg gsy) 267.93 302.09 Brisbane 21,22 26,537 56.8 41.2 2.0 Average price per bale ($) 462.66 505.04 Adelaide 20,21 31,854 69.3 25.2 5.5 Provisional proceeds ($M) 25 .30 1,326.88 Other 20,22 1,465 76.6 22.1 1.3 Average bale weight (kg) 172.68 167.32 Senator JESSOP —That is all I want to say on the subject. I know that the Minister for Primary Industry is a sympathetic person and I believe that, as demonstrated by the Wool Processors Council, he has a knowledge of their concern . I know that the Minister at the table, Senator Walsh, will take note of what I have said on his behalf. I hope some action will be forthcoming in the near future. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.49) —I thank the Opposition for its support of the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1984 and also for the relatively speedy impending passage of it. I am not able to respond definitively to questions that have been raised by Senator Jessop but it seems to me that he has established a prima facie case for some examination of this issue by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and I will bring it to the Minister's attention. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.50) —I have just been told by the departmental officers that there is some information relevant to the question that Senator Jessop raised. I seek leave to incorporate the information in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Pre-Sale Dumping I can ensure honourable senators that the Minister for Primary Industry is well aware that high density pre-sale dumping in tri-packs is a matter of some concern to some buyers, particularly local processors. But it should be remembered that local processors take less than 10 per cent. I should remind honourable senators that pre-sale dumping in Brisbane has received qualified support from the Wool Council of Australia and the United Graziers Association of Queensland. The Minister has discussed this issue and other issues at a meeting this morning with the Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, Mr Asimus, and received an assurance that there would be full consultations with all relevant sections of the industry before any decision is made by the Corporation on the question of any extension of reserve price support for pre-sale dumped wool in Brisbane beyond the 1983-84 season. At the same time the Corporation's policy is that reserve price support will not be extended for pre-sale dumped wool in tri-pack form beyond Brisbane until a full evaluation has been undertaken. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.51) —The Opposition supports this measure. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney General)(10.52) —I am indebted to the Opposition for its support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. [COGNATE BILLS: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT BILL 1984 AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr Deputy President, I suggest that the Senate have a cognate debate covering this Bill and the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1984 and the Australian Government Solicitor ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a cognate debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator DURACK(Western Australia-10.55) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) seems to have little interest in the debate on these important measures because he walked out of the chamber when they were called on for debate. Senator Gareth Evans —I am right here. Senator DURACK —I am pleased to note that he is still here. The Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the Bills associated with it-the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1984 and the Australian Government Solicitor ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984-are, I think, of considerable importance and should be of considerable interest to this chamber. I might say that the Bills have come to us in a rather messy fashion. This is particularly the case with the third Bill of the group, the Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984, which was introduced only this morning and which seeks to amend one of the Bills that is to be the subject of this debate. The legislation contains numerous amendments to various Acts of Parliament. One would have thought that the Government would have its act together in a sufficiently clear manner to have had all of these questions dealt with in the legislation that it introduced in the first place. Nevertheless, that seems to be simply a matter of technical amendments which are consequential upon the passage of some of the amendments to the Judiciary Act. Consequently I do not propose to deal at all in this debate with those minor matters. As I have said, the amendments to the Judiciary Act and the consequential amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act raise matters of very great significance. They deal primarily with the right of appeal to the High Court of Australia. A second and quite unrelated purpose of the legislation before us is to set up the office of Australian Government Solicitor and I will deal with that matter quite separately. The amendments to the Judiciary Act seek to limit the appeals to the High Court to cases where the High Court grants special leave to appeal. What the amendments will do essentially is take away one of the major features of the operation of the High Court. They seek to take away one of the major rights which have been enjoyed by citizens of Australia since the institution of the High Court in 1903, namely, the right to appeal to it as of right. So that will be a very significant change-indeed, a very important change -in the future role of the High Court in the legal system of this country. Indeed, there will be a great change in the rights of the citizens of this country. Undoubtedly the High Court of Australia is our most highly respected national institution and it deserves the very high regard it enjoys. It has earnt this regard by its record in the 80-odd years of its existence. Alfred Deakin, in introducing the Bill to establish the High Court of Australia as the first Commonwealth Attorney-General, said that in his view the High Court would be the keystone of the Federal arch. Although the High Court was opposed at the time by some people, nevertheless from its establishment it has satisfied that description by Alfred Deakin. It is important to consider why the High Court has established that reputation. The policy followed by the first High Court of sitting in various parts of Australia, so that the Court could be available to litigants throughout the country and so that its presence should be obvious to the people, was an important factor in its growing reputation. The other important reason for the standing of the High Court has been the quality of its judges, their standing as lawyers, their experience in many walks of life and their high character and integrity. The Court has enjoyed a reputation not only in this country; it has also established an enviable high reputation in the common law world. The Court's standing outside Australia is of great significance and is an important element in the development of the law in Australia and the quality of that development. At one stage of the Court's existence, in the era of what one may call the Dixon court-the period when Sir Owen Dixon was at the height of his judicial powers and reputation, particularly when he was Chief Justice of the Court-many people in this country, in the United Kingdom and the United States of America regarded the High Court as probably the greatest court in the common law world. When Justice Harlan of the United States Supreme Court visited Australia during that period he told me of his high regard for the High Court of Australia and particularly for some of its judges. Justice Harlan, one of the greatest lawyers to serve in the United States Supreme Court in recent times, also told me that he personally used to read the judgments of the High Court of Australia, particularly in constitutional cases, as a matter of course when preparing his own judgments as a member of the United States Supreme Court. The High Court of Australia has enjoyed that reputation, and the legal profession has paid it the respect which has been its due. It is seen as the final bastion of the law in Australia in relation to the rights of the people. It is interesting to note the quality of the membership of the Court over the years. It is essential that in future those standards should be maintained and that appointments to the Court should be based on the legal standing and quality of those considered for appointment. That includes their experience and practice of the law, experience in other areas, particularly of government, and the character and integrity of the person considered for appointment. A great deal of debate takes place these days as to who should appoint judges. The question is asked whether that process should be undertaken by a judicial commission or should remain with the Executive, as in the past. In my view, the Executive government is the body which should retain the responsibility for the appointment of judges in general but certainly those appointed to the High Court . It is one of the greatest responsibilities upon the Executive and should be exercised carefully and cautiously. There is also the question of political appointments to the High Court. From time to time active, practising politicans have been appointed. Indeed, the first Court comprised Sir Edmund Barton, who stood down from being Prime Minister to become a justice of the High Court, and Mr Justice O'Connor, who stood down as Leader of the Government in the Senate, to do so. There are some precedents for active political figures being appointed to the High Court. I will not go into others. Although that practice is not necessarily to be criticised-I do not accept the view that there should be no such appointments to the Court-nevertheless, it should be only an occasional occurrence. It would be a sad day if the High Court of Australia ever became a political court dominated by political considerations. If appointments were commonly based on such considerations, the high standing of the Court would be at an end. It is a matter of concern that the few occasions on which there has been great public disquiet and criticism about High Court appointments have invariable been related to political appointments. It is an area in which government should exercise great caution. By and large, appointment to the Court should be made from outside the political arena. That is not to say that it may not be appropriate to appoint to the Court people who at some stage have had experience of government or political life, but the appointment of active, practising politicians should be rare indeed. The Bill removes a right which Australians have enjoyed for a very long time. The Opposition's view is that this matter requires further consideration and investigation. Therefore I propose to move an amendment to the motion for second reading of the Bill in the following terms: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: 'the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report and, without limiting the generality of such inquiry and report, particularly to examine: (a) whether, in recent years, there has been an increase in the workload of the High Court sufficient to justify the abolition of the existing rights of appeal to that Court as of right; (b) whether further restrictions upon the rights of appeal to the High Court are justified in view of the workload of the Court and, if so, what would be the fairest and most equitable system of restrictions which could be imposed; (c) what matters should be considered by the High Court in determining whether to grant special leave to appeal; (d) whether the conduct of the Government's litigation would be improved or rendered more efficient following the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor to replace the office of Crown Solicitor, as proposed by the Bill. With respect to those first three matters, the Attorney-General's speech in introducing this Bill was completely devoid of any statistics about the work load of the High Court, which is said to justify this very major change. In recent years the work load of the High Court in matters not thought to be appropriate for its attention because of its very great concentration on matters of law, particularly constitutional law, has been relieved quite considerably. I have been provided with some statistics; I do not know whether the Attorney- General intends to make them public. Suffice it to say that the statistics, such as they are, do not make out a case for this move at this time. I think it probably needs further consideration because I can appreciate that the increasing number of five and seven-judge benches and the increasing number of major matters of law, particularly constitutional law, coming before the Court would undoubtedly increase the work load of the Court. Just how urgent this matter is at this time is a matter for speculation and debate. I believe that the appropriate course would be for this matter not to proceed at this stage. It should be investigated. I also believe that it is premature to take the step in view of the discussions that are taking place within the Australian Constitutional Convention for the establishment of an integrated court system in Australia. There is widespread support for the view that there ought to be a new national intermediate court of appeal which would be the appropriate body to hear a great number of cases dealing with complicated questions of fact which at present may go to the High Court. Undoubtedly, those cases create an undue burden for the High Court. I know it can be said that it is still very uncertain whether agreement will be reached about an integrated system of courts, or indeed about an intermediate court of appeal, but I think that very good progress is being made in those discussions. I do not think that the High Court's work load is so urgent at this stage. As I said, the Attorney- General has not even put on the public record-- Senator Hill —The Attorney has not claimed any urgency. Senator DURACK —No, quite. I think it would be better if this matter were stood aside for the time being until the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs can look into it and report back to us. During that time I hope further progress will be made in the matter of an intermediate court of appeal. The other matter I need to address is the proposed amendment to the Judiciary Act to establish what is called the Australian Government Solicitor in place of the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor. The Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, of course, is the solicitor appointed to perform that function on behalf of the Commonwealth Government and who, with his officers around the country, acts as the legal firm, so to speak, of the Government. His office is structured in the traditional way; he has the clear personal responsibility of a legal practitioner and responsibilities ultimately to the court. It is proposed to replace his office with a body corporate to be called the Australian Government Solicitor. Personal responsibility for that body corporate rests with the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department and other authorised officers of the Department. The many solicitors who will act on behalf of the Australian Government Solicitor will be subject to directions from the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department. The Bill specifies the Secretary's responsibility to the court. I think it is a major and rather curious step that an organisation which provides legal advice and does legal work should be in an incorporated form rather than in the traditional personal form in which solicitors practise. The Attorney in his speech talks about this new body being a firm, but of course, firms of solicitors are not incorporated bodies. Thus, this is a very major change in the structure of the legal profession, albeit confined to the office of the Australian Government Solicitor. Apart from those comments about matters which may be the subject of further debate or discussion at the Committee stage, I am intrigued about this whole exercise. It seems to be a totally cosmetic and bureaucratic exercise. What good it will do completely escapes me. To abolish the office of the Crown Solicitor is a very major change in the history of the Australian legal system as far as government law is concerned. The office has been with the government, I suppose, since its beginning. In the context of High Court judges, I point out that one former Commonwealth Crown Solicitor was a judge of the High Court for many years. I refer to Mr Justice Powers. There is no apparant reason for this major change and no real argument has been presented by the Attorney-General for it. I think that proposal also should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for consideration as to the point of the change. It seems to be a cosmetic exercise and an example of legislation for the sake of legislation. For all those reasons, therefore, the Opposition believes that the amendments which are the subject of the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) are not in any way urgent. The right of appeal to the High Court, in particular, is an extremely serious matter when it is considered that we are taking away existing rights that have been enjoyed and exercised over a long period and that the role of the High Court, our most respected institution, is being changed in a major way. Those matters deserve very sober, serious and lengthy discussion. I do not think it is appropriate that it simply be dealt with in this chamber today. The proper course to take, as the matter is not urgent, is to refer it to the Senate Committee. I move: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: 'the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report and, without limiting the generality of such inquiry and report, particularly to examine: (a) whether, in recent years, there has been an increase in the workload of the High Court sufficient to justify the abolition of the existing rights of appeal to that Court as of right; (b) whether further restrictions upon the rights of appeal to the High Court are justified in view of the workload of the Court and, if so, what would be the fairest and most equitable system of restrictions which could be imposed; (c) what matters should be considered by the High Court in determining whether to grant special leave to appeal; (d) whether the conduct of the Government's litigation would be improved or rendered more efficient following the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor to replace the office of Crown Solicitor, as proposed by the Bill.' Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.20) —With the indulgence of Senator Hill I have asked whether I might speak for two minutes, having just heard in my room the proposal of the Opposition that the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report. The fact is that I, as Chairman, have not been approached in relation to this matter, and the Committee has not had an opportunity to discuss whether it could take this particular reference and deal with it within a reasonable period in any way which would be helpful to the Senate. The Committee has before it at the moment a reference on the National Service Amendment Bill 1983 and that has been put on the back-burner whilst we consider the national crime authority reference, a matter of great concern to this chamber. We have a reference on State parliamentary privilege and the relationship to possible over-borning of that privilege by Federal law. Of course we have the oversight of Law Reform Commission reports and have already had to inform the Law Reform Commission Chairman, Mr Justice Michael Kirby, that , given the pressure of business, we have been unable to deal with the privacy report in the way in which we had intended. What I am saying is that we have a very full slate indeed. In addition, three members of the Standing Committee-namely, myself, Senator Bolkus and Senator Lewis-have now been asked by the Senate to go on the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. I am trying to tell the Senate that I have been taken by surprise. I am sure the Committee would find itself quite overwhelmed by a further reference to it at this moment. It could not discharge this intended reference in any reasonable frame of time. Senator Durack —There is no urgency about the matter. Senator Robertson —It is just a matter of courtesy in letting us know. Senator TATE —Well, if it is merely a delaying tactic-- Senator Durack —No, it is not urgent. Senator TATE —Anyway, I thought I ought to rise and allow the Senate therefore to have fuller information as to the quite impossible task which is being thrust on the Committee without consultation and, as Senator Robertson has said, without the courtesy of letting us know that this was intended. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.23) —I rise briefly to support the referral of the very major changes proposed to the jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia in the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for consideration and report. The effect of the Bill is to abolish the right of a citizen to appeal to the High Court as of right. It is therefore a very fundamental change and obviously requires the closest scrutiny. That the proposed change has been condemned by the Law Council of Australia, comprising 12 constituent bodies and representing some 20,000 lawyers throughout Australia, is, I believe, further reason for the Senate to proceed with caution. In passing, I add that last Friday the shadow Attorney-General in South Australia, the Honourable K. T. Griffin, being a former Attorney-General in South Australia, also issued a statement expressing great concern at the change and the effect upon the people of South Australia. There is therefore considerable disquiet within the legal profession as to the consequences of the proposals of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Whilst the legal profession obviously cannot dictate to government, its views should nevertheless be treated with respect. I would have thought that was a lesson that this Government would have learned from the current Medicare debacle; professional views are relevant and should be treated with respect. It is Australian lawyers, the practitioners at the coal face, who can most vividly foresee the consequences to their clients, the Australian public, of the Attorney-General's amendments. It is the public, the litigants, who will lose by this legislation what are regarded almost as basic rights in this country. It is not the legal practitioners who will lose by the Attorney-General's proposed amendments. The Bill does not affect the position of lawyers, only the position of their clients . First, it is proposed that the High Court should be empowered to remit to the Federal Court or a State or Territory court a matter commenced in the High Court by virtue of its present exclusive jurisdiction. Thus the court may not, at its discretion, hear matters that it presently must hear. I briefly remind the Senate that they are as follows: . . . matters arising directly under any treaty; suits between States, or between persons suing or being sued on behalf of different States, or between a State and a person suing or being sued on behalf of another State; suits by the Commonwealth, or any person suing on behalf of the Commonwealth, against a State, or any person being sued on behalf of a State; suits by a State, or any person suing on behalf of a State, against the Commonwealth or any person being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth. The High Court shall, if this amendment is passed, have power to remit such cases to another court. Thus the right of such litigants to have their cases determined by the High Court will be lost. I acknowledge that there are inappropriate cases, particularly lengthy determinations of questions of fact, that do reach the High Court and that there is need for reform in this area. But I am not convinced that the answer is simply to give the High Court the discretion to determine which matters of first instance it shall hear and determine. Secondly, it is proposed to restrict the current rights of appeal. There is now a right of appeal to the High Court in respect of appeals involving matters concerning values of $20,000 or more or involving the interpretation of the Constitution. The effect of this amendment will be that no appeal from a State Supreme Court to the High Court will lie otherwise than by special leave of the High Court. I have considerable doubt as to whether this right should be removed , particularly in relation to constitutional matters. I must also admit a prejudice against refusals to grant leave when no reasons are given. I do not believe that that makes for a good legal system. I am concerned also that the proposal may mean a considerable increase in costs to litigants in having to travel, say, from South Australia to Canberra on applications for leave, and then in certain cases having to return to Canberra another day for the hearing of the case. This point was particularly made by the shadow Attorney-General in South Australia in his Press release last Friday. What, therefore, are the Attorney-General's reasons for these dramatic changes? He says the justices have expressed concern about the increasing work load of the High Court and, as a result, its capacity to function effectively as a final appellate court and as the interpreter of the Constitution. Of course, interestingly enough, under these amendments it may in a sense cease to have such functions, but in any event the basic justification must be challenged. I was pleased to see that the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, raised these matters. What is the extent of the increase in the work load of the High Court? I, as one senator, have not seen any figures and I do not think too many of my colleagues have either. What is the evidence that High Court justices work harder than, say, State Supreme Court judges? In particular, what is the evidence of the detrimental effect upon their performance? Surely, if the Attorney-General wants the Senate to endorse such dramatic changes, we should be given evidence of need. There has been no attempt to give us such evidence. Even if we are convinced that the work load of the High Court should be reduced , we must nevertheless ask whether the Attorney-General is on the best track. The Law Council of Australia, which is not necessarily opposed to reducing the burden of work on the High Court, in a letter it wrote to me and I presume to other senators on 22 March 1984 expressed the view that the solution of the Attorney-General is drastic and undesirable. The Law Council has provided a different formula, and stated in its letter: The end purpose of the Council's policy is to protect the interests of citizens , ease the workload on the High Court and satisfy the Government's policy objectives. The Law Council is of the firm view that the right of appeal as of right should not be abolished. It has put to the Attorney-General a whole series of proposals as alternatives which it believes will better achieve the objectives which it understands the Attorney is seeking to achieve. It did this in the form of a letter to the Attorney-General dated 17 August 1983, a copy of which is attached to the Law Council's letter to me and I presume to correspondence to other senators. Rather than go through its alternative proposals and take up time of the Senate in doing so, I seek leave to have incorported in Hansard a copy of that letter. Leave granted. The document read as follows- LAW COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA THE FEDERAL COUNCIL OF BAR ASSOCIATIONS AND LAW SOCIETIES 17th August, 1983 The Hon. Senator G. A. Evans, Commonwealth Attorney-General, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr Attorney, APPEALS TO THE HIGH COURT At the recent General Meeting of the Law Council, the Council approved a policy in relation to appeals to the High Court. I therefore set out below for your information the policy adopted and mention as background that it is the firm view of the Council that the right of appeal as of right to the High Court should not be abolished. Policy of the Law Council of Australia 1. If a monetary criterion is adopted, then the present limit of $20,000 should be raised. Further, the law should be that the appellant must show that the result of the appeal may advantage him in the requisite sum; that is a stiffer test than the present one. 2. Consideration should be given to providing an appeal as of right where the appeal court below is divided in opinion, subject to a mechanism to exclude appeals raising purely factual points. 3. The Full Federal Court should be given jurisdiction to entertain any application for a prerogative writ which may at present be made to the High Court, with an appeal by special leave to the High Court. 4. Appeals to the High Court should be permissible in cases where special leave is presently necessary or will become necessary under these proposals, on the certificate of the appellate court from which the appeal is brought that, in its opinion, a point of law of general importance is involved or that the point is one which ought to be considered by the High Court. 5. A right of appeal should be granted in criminal cases with respect to any ground relating to a point on which the appellate court below was divided in opinion, but only where the applicant has been sentenced to life, or to a term of imprisonment of five years or more. 6. The present right of appeal with respect to constitutional matters given by Section 35 (6) of the Judiciary Act should be preserved. 7. There should be no appeals as of right in tax matters as at present-see Section 200A of the Income Tax Assessment Act-but otherwise all types of civil cases heard in the Full Federal Court or the State appellate courts are to be governed by the same rules as to the right of appeal to the High Court. This would involve a new grant of the right of appeal in certain cases, e.g. patent actions. 8. Appeals from the Full Family Court should be governed by the same provisions as at present-i.e. by special leave or certificate from the Full Family Court only. 9. Appeals on the quantum of damage should be governed by the same provisions as at present-i.e. special leave only. While not directly related to the question of appeals to the High Court, at the same General Meeting it was resolved that, recognising the heavy workload now borne by the judges of the High Court and the effect upon that workload that the adoption of the Council's policy in relation to the right of appeals would involve, the number of judges in the High Court should be increased from seven to nine. Adopting this policy, the Council appreciates that in major constitutional cases it will still be necessary for all judges to sit. Yours faithfully, G. A. MURPHY President Senator HILL —I am not sure that I agree with all of the Law Council's submission. Many of the points raised are arguable, although as I have indicated I am not satisfied with the merits of what the Government proposes. In considering this matter, I bear in mind that there has been no suggestion to the Senate that this is a Bill of any great urgency. Therefore, as I have indicated, when fundamental rights such as the right of appeal to the High Court as the ultimate court in major matters is to be lost, the Parliament should move cautiously. Of course we do have a mechanism for the careful review of such matters-I am pleased to see you nodding agreement, Mr Deputy President-and that mechanism is reference to one of the standing committees of this Senate. In this case, the obvious standing committee to consider these important matters is the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Senator Crichton-Browne —It has some very fine members, too. Senator HILL —As Senator Crichton-Browne says, it has some very fine members. Senator Grimes —Is he on it? Senator HILL —He was in the past, and contributed greatly. When the proposed crimes authority legislation was referred to the Committee, I was confident that the Committee would proceed constructively and expeditiously and also meticulously keep to its terms of reference. The Government opposed reference of that matter to the Committee but I can report with some confidence that the Committee will be reporting to the Senate on time and that it has proceeded both constructively and expeditiously; and I believe the Senate will approve of its work. The same would apply to this reference. The Chairman of the Committee, Senator Tate, spoke immediately before me. Although as his deputy I do not particularly want to disagree with what he said in regard to the work load of the Committee, I remind the Senate that the crimes authority legislation report will be brought down by the end of next month. The Committee has completed its public hearings on the national service Bill. The question of privilege that Senator Tate mentioned is still around. I think it is fair to say it has not attracted quite the public interest that we thought it might and it is clearly a matter that can be considered over a more lengthy period. It does not require urgent consideration by the Committee. The same sentiment applies to our ongoing reference to oversee Australian Law Reform Commission reports. Certainly the reference of this task to the Committee will provide more work but I guess that is what we are here for. I do not see in the Committee's current work load anything that would unduly hinder the expeditious consideration of this matter. In saying that, I do bear in mind that the Attorney has not put to us that there is a tremendous urgency in the matter. I certainly disagree with an interjection we heard a few minutes ago that, with this proposed course of action, we are seeking to delay implementation of these provisions. That is obviously not the intention of the Opposition in this matter . I am disappointed to hear that objection. We are saying that it is a matter of major concern. It has caused considerable worry to the legal practitioners of Australia. We have some 20,000 legal practitioners who, through their supreme body, have expressed concern to honourable senators. All we say is that the matter should receive proper and careful consideration. We can give it that consideration through the committee system. Therefore, I urge support for this proposal-I suppose in many ways I am speaking particularly to the Australian Democrats who decide these matters in this place-because I am sure that in the longer term it will be in the best interests of the people of Australia. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.38) —In the last two weeks, I, and I understand a large number of other senators, have undertaken discussions with a number of groups which have an interest in the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, including representatives of the Australian Bar Association and of the Law Council of Australia, both here and in South Australia. Senator Hill said a moment ago that at the end of the letter he received from the Law Council it indicated it had a number of concerns, including a desire to protect the rights of Australian citizens and a desire to ease the work load on the judges, as well as some concern for accommodating Government policies. It seems to me from the discussions I have had that almost everyone has agreed that the High Court of Australia work load is increasing, that that increase is not improving the quality of justice in Australia, that there is a very significant and real difficulty in coming up with a set of criteria for as-of-right appeals and that we are urgently in need of balancing, first, the need to cut back the number of inappropriate as-of-right appeal cases before the High Court and, secondly, offering some sort of certainty to lawyers and their clients with regard to leave-to-appeal cases. I understand that part of the problem comes from the fact that no reasons are given when leave to appeal is denied. I also understand, I hope correctly, that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is undertaking some discussions with the judges about coming up with some reasonable way of getting around this problem. Quite clearly it is not the sort of thing that could be drafted into legislation without either producing the need for a full appeal hearing or coming up with a new layer of legal judgments. Everybody seems to agree that the money criterion is not an appropriate one, but suggestions that have been made to me by members of the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Bar Association about making it more appropriate by increasing it, have ranged from raising it to $50,000 or $60,000 and raising it to $200,000. So there does not seem to be great agreement there. Senator Hill was correct when he raised the question of costs to clients with an increased number of leave applications. This applies particularly to South Australia and Western Australia where it is simply not possible for counsel to make a quick one-day trip to Canberra to put the case. That is a significant question that has to be faced. Objections have been raised, also, with regard to what some people see as the lottery element of the proposed scheme, notwithstanding the fact that they argue that there is considerable inappropriateness inherent in the current scheme. Whatever they say, the problem always comes back to the fact that there is no uniformity of opinion among the groups concerned, which includes the Government, the Opposition, the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Bar Association, about what sorts of cases should fall into which categories. Senator Durack believes that the solution for this is to refer this legislation to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. In the first part of his amendment he says that the Committee should inquire into, report on and examine whether, in recent years, there has been an increase in the workload of the High Court sufficient to justify the abolition of the existing rights of appeal to that Court as a right. One wonders, if it decides there has been no real work load increase, whether it will dissect the sorts of things that have been forming part of that work load to work out whether there would have been an increase if more of the leave to appeal cases which should have gone before the court, but could not because of the number of inappropriate right of appeal cases, had gone before it. Paragraph (b) of Senator Durack's amendment states: Whether further restrictions upon the rights of appeal to the High Court are justified in view of the workload of the High Court and, if so, what would be the fairest and most equitable system of restrictions which could be imposed. Yet, in discussions that I have had over the last two weeks with people who are most closely involved in this, no agreement has been able to be reached. I would have thought that what one representative of the ABA said to me should be taken into account. He said that lawyers-the people involved in this-have been turning their minds to this question for years and have not been able to come up with a reasonable set of criteria. One wonders how much time Senator Durack and the Opposition believe that the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee will have to put into this sort of inquiry if it has to come up with a set of criteria that presumably the finest legal minds in this country have not been able to come up with despite the fact that they have, according to one senior member of the ABA, been considering it for a number of years. This is particularly so given the fact that the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee is currently rounding off its report into the National Crimes Authority and that senior and significant members of that Committee will have to take on the work load of an investigation into the Age tapes. Quite clearly any consideration of the work load confronting the High Court will have to take some considerably lower priority than it ought to take. I suggest that this sort of delaying tactic is at least partly due to the fact that Senator Durack is understandably interested in the formation of a national appellate court which he believes will emanate from the next constitutional convention. I suspect that he believes that with more optimism than justification given the fact that Queensland has indicated that it is not interested in this and that Queensland has a charming habit of stacking the conventions. The Law Council of Australia telexed me yesterday with several amendments that it felt would improve the current Government proposal. The Council suggested that proposed section 35A should be amended so that in the first sentence, after the word 'but', the words 'without limiting the generality of the foregoing,' be inserted. It suggested that the final three words-'have regard to'-should be omitted and that the words 'grant such an application where' should be inserted. It suggested also that in paragraph (a) of the proposed section the first word, 'whether', should be omitted and that one or two other consequential amendments should be made. It suggested also that following the end of the proposed section the words 'and shall have regard to the punishment (if any) in criminal cases and to the significance of the outcome to the litigants in civil cases' should be added. The Government has indicated that it is not at all happy with that. Senator Durack —Nor am I. Senator HAINES —In the brief conversation that I had with Senator Durack this morning, he indicated that he was not at all interested in pursuing the path suggested by the Law Council. As I am not in the business of pursuing futile exercises in this place, I am afraid that I have to say to the Law Council of Australia that, notwithstanding the amount of work that Ian Temby and Brian Maguire put into this, there seems to be no point in pursuing it for them. That leaves us in the position of coming to a decision with regard to the current problem facing us in this legislation and that is whether to take some sort of steps to improve what everybody agrees is a situation which cannot be allowed to continue or to say that the Senate is not in the position or not prepared to make a decision on this and to foist yet another piece of legislation or another controversial question upon an already overworked group of people. Given those two alternatives, we decided that the better, although obviously not the most satisfactory, of the two paths to take is to support the Government's proposed legislation. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.47) —The Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill 1984 and the Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 are aimed at decreasing the work load of the High Court of Australia. Of course, that is a matter of conjecture. I will read to the Senate a letter that I received from the President of the Law Society of the Northern Territory in regard to this matter. He said: I am informed by the Law Council of Australia that the Commonwealth Government has recently introduced legislation to limit appeals to the High Court to only those matters in respect of which special leave has been given. I believe that Territory lawyers would join with those in the rest of Australia in saying that this proposal is not the best way of divesting the High Court of unwanted work. In the Territory, we have no Full Court of our Supreme Court and therefore one of the appeal processes presently available to all of the other people in Australia, is not available to Territory residents. Access to the High Court for Territorians has been regular in recent years, and of reasonable frequency having regard to the population living in the Northern Territory. I believe that such access for Territorians is of fundamental importance having regard to the emerging nature of our law and the relative uncertainty of much of the modern legislation effecting Territorians. He continued: I therefore urge that you consider the Bill which I understand to have been presented before the Senate. If you do not reach the conclusion that the Bill is not in the interests of Territorians, then I invite you to meet with myself and other members of the Council of the N.T. Law Society to discuss the matter and make suggestions which might provide for alternative ways of lessening the work load presently being experienced by the High Court. If any matters occur to you on which you require specific advice from the N.T. Society, please do not hesitate to contact me. That letter was signed by H. B. Bradley, the President of the Law Society of the Northern Territory. Briefly, it appears that the representations by that Law Society are reasonable. I suggest that the Government gives very full consideration to the points that the Society has put forward. It appears that if the legislation is passed it will not be in the best interests of the Northern Territory, which I and another senator represent in this place. Those people have given very good reason why a right of appeal to the High Court is necessary if justice is to be seen to be done. I note that the Opposition shadow Attorney- General, Senator Durack, has brought forward an amendment which in part states: the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report and, without limiting the generality of such inquiry and report, particularly to examine: (a) whether, in recent years, there has been an increase in the workload of the High Court sufficient to justify the abolition of the existing rights of appeal to that Court as of right; (b) whether further restrictions upon the rights of appeal to the High Court are justified in view of the workload of the Court and, if so, what would be the fairest and most equitable system of restrictions which could be imposed; The amendment continues. One would surely say that this amendment is most reasonable as it affects the rights of individuals in Australia, particularly those of the people in the Northern Territory, which faces special problems. As Senator Durack has said, there is a necessity to review this legislation. Would it not be better to refer it to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs so it may inquire into the matter and bring back to the Senate a report on the situation as it finds it? Surely it is much better to legislate after the matter has been properly reviewed rather than, as appears to be the case now, legislating in haste and then finding that some people in Australia will suffer because of it. I support the amendment. I hope that honourable senators will support it also. If the amendment is not passed by the Senate I suggest that, as the Government is obviously legislating in haste, the legislation should be defeated. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.53) —The Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) seeks to make three major changes to the Judiciary Act 1903. First, it provides for the establishment of an Australian Government Solicitor to replace the personal office of the Crown Solicitor. This is largely an administrative change. It will not alter the powers held by the office or its functions. It is designed to make the office more efficient and more functional. I am not in a position to make judgment on whether it will. However, it is not without significance to me at least to note that the amendment to section 55E of the Act deletes any reference to the Crown, which is in line, of course, with Labor's practice to delete the Crown from legislation. Although it might be thought by some to be a trivial matter of no moment, it is but another step by the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his pursuit of a republic of Australia. I might describe it as another insidious and pernicious move towards that goal. It is a course of action which Senator Evans has made quite public before and for which he makes no apology. In the same way as he would abolish the States and gut the Senate of its consequential powers, he would cut out Australia's historical and intrinsic links with the Crown. Secondly, the Bill will give the High Court of Australia the power to remit cases, which were previously under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court, to State and Federal courts, where the State and Federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties involved in the case. No doubt this matter will be raised at the Committee stage. On reading the amendment to section 38, my superficial observation is that the amendment becomes nonsensical in terms of its wording. I imagine that is only a drafting which will be corrected in due course. The cases concerned are those involving matters arising directly under any treaty, suits between States and suits between the States and the Commonwealth or people being sued on behalf of a State or the Commonwealth. Under the provisions of this Bill the High Court will be empowered to remit the whole or part of the case to a Federal, State or Territory court; for example, where lengthy hearings are required to establish matters of fact. The High Court will retain the power to issue directions concerning the case to the lower court, thus retaining some control over the proceedings. Of course, they will have absolutely no influence upon the final judgment. It may be properly argued that this clause does represent a strengthening of the powers of the State and Territory courts and, as such, may be welcomed by some. However, in many instances the case will have been dealt with by the full Supreme Court on appeal and if the matter has been dealt with previously by the Federal court on appeal that is the end of the matter. It is the first part of this Bill, dealing with the right of appeal to the High Court from courts of the States, to which I am strongly opposed. I believe that this clause seeks to remove one of the basic rights of Australian citizens, namely, that in certain circumstances a case has an automatic right to be heard by the High Court. The Bill would amend the Judiciary Act of 1903 so that an appeal against a judgment passed by a lower court in Australia would only be heard by the High Court where special leave is given to appeal by the High Court . Currently, there are two grounds upon which a person may claim his or her right to a hearing by the High Court. The first is upon monetary grounds, where the subject matter of a case involves an amount of $20,000 or more. I agree that it is an arbitrary figure which was set some time ago-as I recall, 1976-and perhaps a monetary figure is not necessarily appropriate. There may be questions of law which are more important than the amount of money involved. However, it does seek to strike a guideline and a bottom line as to what is a case which may be referred by appeal automatically to the High Court. At the moment, any case which involves the interpretation of the Australian Constitution may, as of right, be brought before the High Court. If the Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2), which is now before us, is made law, there would be no grounds upon which a case could, as of right, be heard by the High Court. At one stroke, one of the most basic rights in Australian law would be removed. An automatic right of appeal to the High Court in certain circumstances has been embodied in Australian law since 1903. Now it is proposed that it should be abolished. What is the reason for the removal of this basic tenet of Australian law? We are told it is simply to ease the work load of the High Court judges. I do not deny for a moment that the work load of the High Court judges is excessive and, indeed, that measures must be taken to alleviate this problem. But I would point out that there is an enormous work load in the Federal Court and the State Supreme courts. By the provisions of this Bill cases will be referred back to those courts by the High Court and that will add to their work load. So while we may be relieving in some part the work load of the High Court all we are really doing is redistributing the work load back to the States and the Federal Court. I must say that I have no memory of the Labor Government showing any concern for the work load of the High Court at the time it sought to impose upon that Court, the Australian Federal Parliament and the Australian people, the advisory opinions which would have placed, in my view, an intolerable burden on the work load of the High Court. On that occasion the Labor Government sought to take the power of the Parliament and of the Australian citizens and place it, in some obscure way, in the hands of the High Court. Now they propose to take from the Australian people access to the High Court. This Bill proposes that only where special leave is granted will there be a right of appeal to the High Court. Frankly, if I am able to find any virtue in this legislature it is that, superficially, challenges to the traditionally held interpretations of the High Court could be lessened and the new and enlightened approach to the Constitution that has been embraced so fully by the High Court in recent times could be slowed. However, of course, that will not be the case, because the right of access to the High Court will now rest exclusively, in the case of such appeals, with the High Court. By and large, putting aside recent constitutional determinations, the work of the High Court has been performed admirably well. If there is one area of its operation that has attracted any criticism, it is its performance in selecting cases as appropriate for granting special leave to be heard. Applications for special leave are heard by a varying number of judges-I believe from one judge to three judges-depending upon who is available. It is inevitable that there will be variations of opinion upon which cases should or should not be granted special leave to be heard by the High Court. Therefore, the situation undoubtedly will arise where one week a case might be granted special leave and a few weeks later a similar case heard by a different judge could be denied special leave. In addition, the reasons for granting or denying special leave are not given by the High Court judges. It becomes impossible, therefore, to know even whether it would be worth applying for special leave for an appeal to be heard by the High Court. If it is the case that an appeal against a judgment can be referred to the High Court only through the process of applying for special leave, the system inevitably will become fraught with resentment and, in my view, frustration, and ultimately faith in the judicial system itself will be undermined to some degree. Furthermore, such a move might open the way for an American type system of applications for cases to be heard by the High Court. I am sure I am right in saying that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has shown some real attraction towards the American judicial system. The United States Supreme Court deals mainly with written applications for an appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court judges. The judges confer behind closed doors and make their decisions, largely-this is a matter of record with which I am sure very few will disagree-on a political basis. In other words, whether or not a case is heard by the United States Supreme Court is decided by the political views of the judges. That is easily done, of course, because all the judges have to do is to keep declining to accept the appeal, wait for the right case to come up, and then make a judgment that is compatible with their philosophic approach to the interpretation of the Constitution or the law upon which they are being asked to make judgment. Already there is some concern about the politicisation of the High Court. If this section of the Bill, which would allow cases to be heard by the High Court only where special leave is granted, becomes law, it can represent only a move towards even greater politicisation of the Australian judiciary. If cases can be heard by the High Court only through the granting of special leave, inevitably this will give rise to an increase in the number of special leave applications. In turn that will increase the time taken up in the hearing of special leave applications, and thereby result in pressure for applications to be in a written form rather than oral submissions, as is the case at present. We would then have a situation in Australia akin to that which exists in the United States of America of judges making political decisions behind closed doors, a practice that in my view is completely alien to the Australian law practice and completely alien to Australian notions of justice. One further point I make on this matter relates to the question of expense, which has been referred to by previous speakers. It is extremely costly to lodge an application for special leave. The High Court holds its hearings on special leave applications in Canberra. Thus, barristers are compelled to fly to Canberra, and from some of our capitals that is a long and expensive haul, only to find themselves spending most of the day waiting in the High Court for a case that may take only 10 minutes to hear. As I have pointed out already, there is little basis upon which to make a judgment on the likely outcome of an application, so this expensive trip has to be carried out purely on a speculative basis. There has been mention of the possibility of establishing guidelines upon which the High Court should base its considerations of applications for special leave. This would be a step in the right direction, but it would still leave us with the point that this Bill is seeking to take away a basic right to have a case heard by the High Court in certain circumstances. In its submission to the Attorney-General of August last year the Australian Law Council set out comprehensive proposals that it believed would alleviate some of the work load problems currently experienced by the High Court judges and would also strengthen the right of people to have their cases heard by the High Court. Although, as Senator Haines pointed out, there is not complete unanimity among all legal bodies, one thing about which they are all unanimous is that there ought to be automatic appeals. That is the fundamental point upon which this legislation rests: not the process of accommodating the legislation but the fact that the legislation seeks to deny the automatic right. Every law body in Australia has expressed its grave opposition to that proposition. By way of seeking to put some proposals before the Attorney-General to accommodate the legislation, which he is determined to put through, they first made the simple suggestion that the number of High Court judges could be increased from seven to nine. I am not suggesting for one moment, particularly while the Labor Government is in office, that that has a great deal of appeal to me, because it has some other distractions as well. The High Court, as I understand it, has some provision already to accommodate two additional judges. The law bodies have also suggested that cases relating to taxation matters should be dealt with only by State and Federal courts, except where an extremely fine point of law is involved. They have suggested that if the monetary criteria for granting automatic right of appeal to the High Court were to be retained, the present limit of $20,000 should be retained, and in addition the appellant should be required to show that the result of the appeal may advantage him in the requisite sum. To strengthen the right of appeal to the High Court, the Law Council proposed that an additional right of appeal be granted where the lower court that had passed judgment on the case was divided on a fine point of law, and in fact I think it was a general point of law to which the Council was referring. The Attorney-General rejected these proposals out of hand, and has not even been prepared to explain why he dismissed them. His only reference to them in his second reading speech was when he said that the Law Council representatives had not been able to suggest a more satisfactory test to isolate those cases in respect of which there might be an appeal as of right to the High Court. He appears unable to devise a satisfactory solution to the problem himself, so his answer simply is to remove the right altogether, despite the dangerous implications such a course of action clearly has. He has ignored the Australian Law Council's point that the removal of the right of appeal will greatly diminish the benefical influence of the High Court on the work of all courts below it in the hierarchy. I am sympathetic with the Attorney-General's difficulty in finding the criteria and the formula. That is certainly no excuse for saying simply: 'We will solve that problem by removing an automatic right'. At the eleventh hour we have now had an amendment which I understand is a compromise between the Attorney-General and the Australian Law Council. I would not want for a moment to misrepresent the real position of the Australian Law Council. I should make it clear that as I understand it, the amendment to section 35 of the Judiciary Act 1903, which is in the form of 35A, is not an amendment with which the Law Council of Australia agrees. Rather, in the Council's view it is more satisfactory than having no criteria at all. Having read it quickly this morning, I might say that it appears very hollow to me and gives almost no direction to the High Court. It refers to public importance. The meaning of public importance is a question that has never been resolved fully, and it gives the High Court enormous scope. It goes on to refer to whether the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in the particular case, require consideration by the High Court of the judgment to which the application relates. It seems to me that it really in no way advances a sensible or realistic criterion. These criteria are so vague and inadequate as to be meaningless. Much constructive work has been done, as I understand it, by the judicature sub -committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention of which the Attorney- General is a member, as are all the State Attorneys-General. As I understand it, they have worked in conjunction with a number of judges of the Supreme Courts of the various States of Australia. Their work has been directed towards providing a rational and sensibly integrated court system in Australia which will overcome many of the problems which face the High Court, particularly in respect of appeals. To take away that automatic right of appeal to the High Court until a suitable new structure is in place is to put the cart before the horse. In fact I am rather cynical about the reason for the rush of this legislation. Enormous work has been done. I am sure Senator Durack will agree with that. It has been going in the right direction. Of course it will take time; all these things take time. But inasmuch as the sub-committee has been set up, the work is being done and it is going in the right direction, while it may take a little time, it seems inappropriate, inexcusable and inexplicable that we have before us now legislation which seems to usurp the role and the function of that sub-committee . Frankly, this legislation denies Australians proper access to justice. At the time of the Australian Federation the court of general appeal for the whole nation was instituted because it was believed that such a court would provide and prove to be an important unifying influence. This has indeed proved to be the case. One of the major influences of the High Court has been its work in bringing about a more uniform system in Australian law and a beneficial supervision of the State appellate courts. In the long run this Bill would greatly reduce these advantageous effects of the High Court by increasing its politicisation. The high regard in which it is currently held could only be diminished if its decisions on whether to hear a case were made behind closed doors, not on legal but on political grounds. Of course, this would have the effect of substantially shifting the role of the High Court from that of an influential unifying body, highly respected for its legal work, to that of an isolated political institution whose legal decisions would be regarded with increasing suspicion. In closing, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard an extract from the book The Brethren, which relates to the situation inside the Supreme Court of the United States of America and which was written by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. While the book itself in content may be argued not to be right in many cases, the preamble sets out, in my view, a very clear picture of the functioning of the Supreme Court of the United States, particularly in respect of appeal provisions. It gives a clear demonstration of what happens with the sorts of provisions proposed in his legislation where decisions are made behind closed doors with no requirement for the Supreme Court to give reasons for its judgments. I seek leave to have that introduction incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- INTRODUCTION The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, is the final forum for appeal in the American judiciary. The Court has interpreted the Constitution and has decided the country's preeminent legal disputes for nearly two centuries. Virtually every issue of significance in American society eventually arrives at the Supreme Court. Its decisions ultimately affect the rights and freedom of every citizen-poor, rich, blacks, Indians, pregnant women, those accused of crime, those on death row, newspaper publishers, pornographers, environmentalists, businessmen, baseball players, prisoners and Presidents. For those nearly two hundred years, the Court has made its decisions in absolute secrecy, handing down its judgments in formal written opinions. Only these opinions, final and unreviewable, are published. No American institution has so completely controlled the way it is viewed by the public. The Court's deliberative process-its internal debates, the tentative positions taken by the Justices, the preliminary votes, the various drafts of written opinions, the negotiations, confrontations and compromises-is hidden from public view. The Court has developed certain traditions and rules, largely unwritten, that are designed to preserve the secrecy of its deliberations. The few previous attempts to describe the Court's internal workings-biographies of particular Justices or histories of individual cases-have been published years, often decades, after the events, or have reflected the viewpoints of only a few Justices. Much of recent history, notably the period that included the Vietnam war and the multiple scandals known as Watergate, suggests that the detailed steps of decision making, the often hidden motives of the decision makers, can be as important as the eventual decisions themselves. Yet the court, unlike the Congress and the Presidency, has by and large escaped public scrutiny. And because its members are not subject to periodic reelection but are appointed for life, the Court is less disposed to allow its decision making to become public. Little is usually known about the Justices when they are appointed, and after taking office they limit their public exposure to the Court's published opinions and occasional, largely ceremonial, appearances. The Brethren is an account of the inner workings of the Supreme Court from 1969 to 1976-the first seven years of Warren E. Burger's tenure as Chief Justice of the United States. To ensure that our inquiry would in no way interfere with the ongoing work of the Court, we limited our investigation to those years. We interviewed no one about any cases that reached the Court after 1976. We chose to examine the contemporary Court in order to obtain fresh recollections, to deal with topical issues and to involve sitting Justices. This book is not intended as a comprehensive review of all the important decisions made during the period. The cases we examine generally reflect the interest, time and importance assigned to them by the Justices themselves. As a result, some cases of prominence or importance-but which provide no insight into the internal dynamics of the Court-have been dealt with only briefly or not at all. The Court conducts its business during an annual session called a term, which begins each October and continues until the last opinion is announced in June or early July. The Court recess runs from then until the next October. Normally, there are seven decision-making steps in each case the Court takes. 1. The decision to take the case requires that the Court note its jurisdiction or formally grant cert. Under the Court's procedures, the Justices have discretion in selecting which cases they will consider. Each year, they decide to hear fewer than two hundred of the five thousand cases that are filed. At least four of the nine Justices must vote to hear a case. These votes are cast in a secret conference attended only by the Justices, and the actual vote is ordinarily not disclosed. 2. Once the Court agrees to hear a case, it is scheduled for written and oral argument by the lawyers for the opposing sides. The written arguments, called legal briefs, are filed with the Court and are available to the public. The oral arguments are presented to the Justices publicly in the courtroom; a half-hour is usually allotted to each side. 3. A few days after oral arguments, the Justices discuss the case at a closed meeting called the case conference. There is a preliminary discussion and an initial vote is taken. Like all appellate courts, the Supreme Court is bound by the facts already developed from testimony and information presented to the lower trial court. The Supreme Court can reinterpret the laws, the U.S. Constitution, and prior cases. On this basis, the decisions of lower courts are affirmed or reversed. As in the cert conference, at which Justices decide which cases to hear, only the Justices attend the case conferences. (The nine members of the Court often refer to themselves collectively as the conference.) 4. The next crucial step is the selection of one of the nine Justices to write a majority opinion. By tradition, the Chief Justice, if he is in the initial majority, can assign himself or another member of the majority to write the opinion. When he is not in the majority, the senior Justice in the majority makes the assignment. 5. While one Justice is writing the majority opinion, others may also be drafting a dissent or a separate concurrence. It can be months before these opinions-a majority, dissent or concurrence-are sent out or circulated to the other Justices. In some cases, the majority opinion goes through dozens of drafts, as both the opinion and the reasoning may be changed to accommodate other members of a potential majority or to win over wavering Justices. As the Justices read the drafts, they may shift their votes from one opinion to another . On some occasions, what had initially appeared to be a majority vanishes and a dissenting opinion picks up enough votes to become the tentative majority opinion of the Court. 6. In the next to last stage, the Justices join a majority or a dissenting opinion. Justices often view the timing, the sequence and the explanations offered for ''joins'' as crucial to their efforts to put together and hold a majority. 7. In announcing and publishing the final opinion, the Justices choose how much of their reasoning to make public. Only the final versions of these opinions are available in law libraries. The published majority opinion provides the legal precedents which guide future decisions by lower courts and the Supreme Court itself. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a first time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.15) —When I was just a lad in primary school in 1946 an elderly lady of very deep religious conviction gave me a card with the portrait of a man described as one of the very great ambassadors of Christ. That man was Pastor Frederick Niemoller. He died on Thursday, 8 March 1984. Martin Niemoller was born in Germany in 1892 and as a youth grew up in a Germany that was overtly dominated by military ideas and imperialist aggrandisement. In fact he was caught up in the spirit of militarism, though later in life he was to be moved by an opposing ideal. During the First World War Niemoller was a U-boat commander in the German navy but on his discharge he studied theology at Munster and took his vows in the Protestant Church. He joined many right wing groups, most of which, it could be safe to assume, after 1930-31 would have identified themselves fairly closely with Hitler's nazis. Yet it soon became very apparent that Niemoller would not go the way of so many of his countrymen of that era. Niemoller had become a pastor in Berlin in 1931 and two years later, in 1933, he founded the Pastors Emergency League. During this period he confronted and attacked very fervently the racist policies of the nazis. The following year, in 1934, he became one of the leaders of the Confessing Church, one of the few organisations to protest against the regime of Hitler and the nazis. Before his arrest by the Gestapo on 1 July 1937 Niemoller had the opportunity to engage in a face-to-face confrontation with Hitler when he was amongst a group of clergymen being admonished by Hitler for their so-called meddling in the affairs of the German nation. Niemoller, while maintaining a firm grasp of the Fuhrer's hand, proceeded to make it clear that the affairs of the German nation were the affairs of God and that he had no intention of leaving God's affairs to any man. The impact of this meeting was not lightly forgotten by Hitler because he ordered Niemoller's arrest and imprisonment in 1937. It was not until 1945 that he was freed by the Allies. Throughout those eight long dark years of his imprisonment the pastor never forgot his God. He never doubted for a moment that God was on his side. He never entertained the thought of silencing his urge to speak out against the horrors and the inhumanity he witnessed almost daily. After his release, during the post -war reconstruction period of Europe, he argued very strongly against the remilitarisation of Germany and eventually became somewhat disillusioned by the apparent lack of remorse or penance on the part of the churches and the German people as a whole. But he did not desert his church, as he could have done had he been a man of lesser faith. Instead, he again took an active and leading role in its affairs, becoming for 11 years after the war the head of the German Evangelical Church's foreign relations office. During this period, in 1954, he made the conscious decision to become a pacifist. Sitting in the comfort of this chamber some 30 years on, it is difficult to appreciate the position the pastor found himself in because 1954 was the year of the height of the cold war. He had visited Moscow two years previously. His decision cannot have been an easy one in the sense that he knew he would be attacked by some quarters as a fellow traveller of the communists. In fact, criticism of him increased with his calls for international reconciliation and improved social justice. From 1961 to 1968 he was one of the six Presidents of the World Council of Churches, an organisation often labelled as being soft on communism. In fact Niemoller drew criticism for his role in this organisation also. This was especially so after he was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize in 1968. Yet nothing could have been further from the truth. All his life he remained implacably opposed to the atheism of communism. He was not weakened in the moral fight against tyranny and oppression. Latterly he was committed actively to seeking universal disarmament, a view not widely held by the powers that be in the West or, indeed, even in the Eastern bloc countries. Pastor Niemoller stood out for five decades as a burning light of hope for this turbulent world, a man very much committed to his belief that everybody should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. I think this world is blessed by people who have such strength of character and vision. I believe we will mourn his passing. (Quorum formed) Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(12.23) —I want to raise a very important subject in the minds of many South Australians; that is, the question of the wine excise that was applied to fortified wines as a result of last year's Budget. You may know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that in the last day or two there have been Press reports attributed to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, in regard to his visit to that very important area of South Australia, the Riverland. It is recorded that the Minister has admitted that the imposition of this wine excise last August was a grave mistake on the part of the Hawke Government. That is a great revelation to all of us, especially South Australian senators on the Labor side of the Senate. I know that Senator Elstob and Senator Foreman, who are present in the chamber at the moment, support the remarks of the Minister for Primary Industry. I hope that their efforts in bringing to the attention of the Minister the concerns and worries of people in South Australia over this most important issue have brought a great flash of light to the Minister's eyes and that he has recognised the problems. However, I am afraid that the Minister's recognition is really only the first step in the battle to convert the whole Hawke Cabinet to that viewpoint. As we all know, the destruction of the wine industry in South Australia is nigh in the light of the imposition of that savage wine tax last August in the Hawke Government's first Budget. Consequently, it is most important not only that the Minister himself recognise it as a grave mistake but also that the Hawke Cabinet recognises the same thing and reverses its decision immediately. As you will probably appreciate, Mr Acting Deputy President, the wine industry in South Australia is currently in a state of vintage. It has harvested the grapes. It is in the process of making wine and spirit. It is at a vital stage of planning for the current year's production. Consequently, it is most important that the industry itself knows exactly the plans that the Government has afoot in order either to raze the excise-that is, take it off altogether-or to seek some other alternative. We on this side have been pleading for the last six months for the razing of the excise. Alternatively, we want the establishment of some basis of payment which is not as onerous upon the industry , as has been demonstrated by various industry submissions over the last several months. Failing that, we would like to have as soon as possible, on behalf of the industry in South Australia, a clear statement from the Hawke Government of its immediate intentions with regard to this tax. The result of a clear statement in favour of a decision to get rid of the excise would probably be the saving of many thousands of jobs in South Australia. If we wait several months from now we will see the opposite occurring and several hundred jobs will be lost. I think those points need to be brought to the attention of the Government at this very vital time in order to ensure that the wellbeing of the people of South Australia is enhanced as much as possible. I repeat that what I have said is against the background of the Minister's admission of there being a fundamental mistake by the Government in introducing this tax in last year's Budget. I think that all of us on this side of the Senate have recognised the stupidity of that action. It is pretty clear that the Minister has now acknowledged it as well in the light of representations from this side of the Senate. However, I think the Hawke Government now has to make a clear statement and, hopefully, a decision in favour of the abolition of the duty which it imposed last August. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(12.27) —This time last week I was in China. On the day that I visited Nan-ning, the capital of Guang-Xi province, I had the opportunity of going to the Dong Min forestry project at which six Queenslanders are engaged in promoting the growth of different trees. I want to pay a tribute to the Queenslanders who are working on the Dong Min forestry project helping the Chinese to decide which types of eucalyptus trees should be growing there. Twelve hundred acres are going to be planted and I feel sure that Ted Mannion and his offsiders are doing a job that will be of great help and benefit to that part of China. Actually, the people of Guang-Xi province are so impressed with the Queenslanders and what they are doing to help them that the Governor and Deputy Governor expressed to us the desire that Queensland become the sister state of Guang-Xi province. I was certainly very glad to have the opportunity to accompany the Premier of Queensland on his visit to China, but nothing I saw in China convinced me that communism is a better way of life than the democratic philosophy of private enterprise and initiative. Indeed, in terms of both the economic situation and the spirit of the people nothing made me feel that I wanted to pack my bags and go to live in China. However, we had a very interesting week. I found the people of China to be very friendly and hospitable. For those who have not been there it would be hard to accept that there are 1,000 million people in China and six million bicycles in Beijing. China is certainly a land of contrasts. Centuries ago, of course, the Chinese had a very advanced culture. Over 2,500 years ago they built the Great Wall of China. The wall is 6,000 kilometres long and I am told that it took one million people to build it. On my return I was asked whether the Great Wall of China was any different from my expectations. I replied that it was certainly a lot wider than I thought and it gave plenty of room for what seemed like the hundreds of thousands of other people who were there on that day to walk along it. The Ming tombs have existed for hundreds of years. When one realises that centuries ago the Chinese introduced their own alphabet and even produced gunpowder, it seems to me that their technology must have stood still for many centuries because the Western world now appears to have overtaken the Chinese. It must be remembered that they went through the period of the cultural revolution when academics were not appreciated. During that time Chairman Mao decided that the academics needed re-education and they were sent to rural areas to obtain it. It is interesting to note that academics needed re-education in rural areas in China. Sometimes I think Australian academics could do with a little period of re-education in rural areas in this country. Senator Colston —I was out your way while you were away. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am pleased to hear that comment from Senator Colston. I feel that Western civilisation certainly has caught up to the Chinese, and indeed it has passed them. China now has plenty of people but not enough technology. China is seeking technology from and joint ventures with other countries so that it may gain not only finance but also the expertise which it badly needs. In the province of Guang-Xi I was told by the Governor that up to $ 4m of joint ventures can be approved by that province without reference to Peking. We also looked at the Bao-Shan steel works outside Shanghai, a tremendous project which is being built with Japanese involvement. That project when completed will be very large. The Queensland Government was hoping to sell coal to that venture, but when one hears that firms such as Occidental are putting in half a billion dollars to develop coal deposits in China, one wonders whether eventually the Chinese coal may not be able to be sent to Japan at a lower price than the coal produced in Australia-even the coal that is produced in Queensland . In view of the lower wages paid in China, I feel that China will eventually become a competitive nation in the export of coal. Japan is always looking for cheaper coal, as was evidenced recently in the price negotiations between this country and Japan over the price of coal. It was argued that the Australian Federal Government was not allowing Queensland with its cheaper coal prices to get the exports into Japan that were really wanted. I examined with interest the wage structure in China. Many people work for the princely sum of $40 a month. As for holidays, Chinese workers get seven days a year, plus 52 Sundays-and that is all they get. They work a six-day week and certainly do not enjoy any holiday loading. Senator Button —No free trips to Kingaroy from China, Senator. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That might be right, too, but a number of Chinese people are coming out to visit Australia. I do not know whether members of the Christian delegation which came out here recently were enjoying a free trip from China. However, that delegation got here and we were glad to meet them at lunch the other day and talk with them. I wonder whether the Chinese people need unions or whether Australia can learn from the Chinese how to work harder. There is one lesson I feel the Chinese can learn from the West. I refer to the need for incentive-a factor that is gradually being appreciated in the rural industries of China. For example, in the rural area of Nan-ning we visited we were told that once people on the farms make the quota given to them by the Government they are allowed to keep what is over for themselves or to sell what they make over and above their quota. It was obvious that some of the people on the land do not like the idea of their having to keep down the birth rate to one child per family. They feel that the more children they have, the more help they will get on the farm. They will thus reach their quotas more quickly and be able to make more for themselves. Obviously they feel that there should be reward for initiative. Perhaps a farm worker may want to buy a motorcycle instead of having to pedal a push-bike; another worker may wish to buy a small tractor. I heard of one instance in which three young Chinese wanted to farm an area on their own. The area had been previously farmed by the commune. The men were give permission to farm a citrus orchard. When the orchard was run by the commune, it produced 3,000 tonnes of citrus fruit a year. However, when the three young men adopted a type of private enterprise system to work that farm, they brought the citrus production up to 27,000 tonnes. That happened because those young men thought they would make more money for themselves. Senator Robertson —Perhaps the trees were older. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That might have been a help, too. Whatever happened, the situation improved-so much so that the commune then wanted to take the trees back. The matter went to a court which ruled that the young men were entitled to keep on growing the trees for themselves and could keep the money they made over and above the quota. I was interested on my visit to meet many people who were employed in work on arts and crafts. The Chinese are very clever people. I went to an arts and crafts factory in Beijing where people were carving ivory. While I was there they were carving a fine looking horse and saddle. I wished I could have got hold of one to bring back to John. I thought it was a fine example of their work . I also saw the Shanghai industrial exhibition where refrigerators, washing machines and many other items were on display. The interpreter on that trip told me she had managed to save a year's salary to buy a refrigerator. Her unit was so small that she had to have the refrigerator in the bedroom; it was only a one -room unit. Nevertheless, she was very grateful to have that refrigerator. She also told me that she was now saving up to buy a washing machine which would also probably take a year's salary. I saw a number of instances where I am sure many Chinese women would have been glad to have had a washing machine. As a woman I know the advantage of owning and working a washing machine. It is different from the earlier days when one washed clothes by hand and put them in the boiler. I also saw evidence in China of equality of women with men. I saw women working on the roads, digging with picks, getting gravel off the trucks and really working hard. I saw a woman bent nearly half-way down to the ground pulling a big load behind her. If that is equality, it is not the sort of equality I want. I must admit that I did see a woman vice-chairman in the Guang-Xi province, who was very nice and looked after me very well. I also had the opportunity of going through a kindergarten in Nan-ning where I saw 580 children that day. Some 160 of them were day students; the remainder, some 420, stayed from Monday to Saturday. There were children aged from three to six living in a boarding atmosphere because their mothers and fathers went to work. I thought that was rather sad because probably the loveliest time in children's lives is when they are little. However, that is the way they work it over there. I must say that it was a very well run kindergarten, and the children gave a little concert which included a lovely display of magic from a little boy of five years. It was altogether a very interesting time. I was also very pleased to find that in China there is a resurgence of religion and that people are free to attend churches. I had the opportunity to go with the Premier to see the Chinese Premier. The Chinese Premier received Joh very cordially and spent about 25 minutes talking with him. The Premier said that China's economy had developed well in recent years but that, compared with Australia, China still remained a developing country. He also said that China was willing to expand trade relations and economic technology co-operation with Australia and other developed countries on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. I came away from China feeling that it is a country commencing to reach out through private enterprise to the rest of the world. As it reaches out and its standard of living develops, so potential markets for Queensland and, indeed, Australian goods will develop. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(12.42) — I was not going to rise in the first reading debate on the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill, but I believe I have a duty as a South Australian senator to answer Senator Messner with respect to the wine industry. It is true that both the previous Government and the present Government have taxed the wrong areas of the wine industry. As 80 per cent of Australian wine is produced in South Australia, such taxes hit that region very hard. The Liberal Government imposed an excise duty on wine. The Whitlam Government eliminated that tax. Senator Messner —What did we get in its place? Senator ELSTOB —The point is that, if we consider its history, that tax hit the industry. I agree to some extent that governments have not had a firm understanding of the industry. There is a better understanding now, which is of benefit. I believe that both the previous Government and the present Government did the wrong thing with the wine industry. It is not right to say that the wine industry should not pay some form of tax. The Hawke Labor Government is in power now and will be for a long time to come, but no matter what government is in power it cannot resist pressure from brewers and other people in the community to impose a tax of some sort on the wine industry. In the past the wine producers have resisted any form of tax whatsoever, and it is true that taxes have hurt that industry tremendously. It was the Liberal Government that increased the tax on brandy. All these problems could have been overcome with sensible discussions between governments, producers, growers and everyone else in the industry. It is true that any tax imposed on this industry has a depressing effect. It is a very volatile industry and it takes five years to adjust to any upsets. It takes five years to adjust to the planting of new varieties of grapes or to overproduction in an area. It takes five years for new varieties of grapes to come into production. I understand that the wine producers have now come their senses and are talking about a 2 per cent sales tax, which would be far better than an excise. Had the industry, perhaps up to five years ago, talked to governments about a 2 per cent sales tax and doing away with the excise, I believe these problems could have been avoided. I advocate this 2 per cent sales tax being put not only on wine but also on brandy production. Most South Australian senators have an understanding of the wine industry and we all know that it takes four to five times the amount of grapes to produce brandy as to produce wine. When the brandy tax was imposed, whole varieties had to be pulled out and that caused a great upset in the industry. Governments should be considering this because there would be more money for them if there were a 2 per cent levy on wine and brandy. It would be much easier to collect and there would be no pressure from the brewers. It is inevitable that the wine industry will pay either a sales tax or an excise duty, and anyone who says anything different is not facing reality. I think that is the sensible solution. Senator Messner —When are you going to get the Government to take the wine tax off? Senator ELSTOB —It was the representation of the South Australian senators to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that got the excise on alcohol reduced. Senator Messner —Oh, rubbish. It had no effect at all. Senator ELSTOB —It did. There is no doubt about that. I maintain, nevertheless, that that is the wrong way to go about it. I do not think that this Government will get $3m out of that levy on alcohol, and it is hurting the industry. I was up there only last week, and I do understand the problems. Senator Messner —Well, get them to take it off. Senator ELSTOB —The main problem is that it has taken years for the wine producers to realise that there has to be some sort of tax. They had always said there should be no tax at all, and they fought the introduction of any tax. I believe that they were remiss in doing that. It would have been far better to have advocated a 2 per cent sales tax instead of the excise duty. It was inevitable that there would be a tax of some sort, but they would not talk about the possibility. I understand that they are now coming around to realising that it is inevitable. All governments have to collect revenue. I think that this should be looked at as a special case. If common sense prevails governments will be able to get more revenue and the industry will be better off. I suggest to the Government that if an agreement can be reached on a sales tax of, say, 2 per cent this should last for a period of five years so that the industry can have stability. Long before any increases to that rate are made there should be talks within the industry. If there is to be a lift in that rate after five years, the industry should be aware of that so that it can adjust its plantings and whatever. It is vital for the whole area to produce brandy. As we all know, in Australia under law brandy must be produced from grapes; no grain can be used in the production of brandy. Yet we allow the importation of cheap brandy that most certainly is produced from grain, with a small percentage of grapes. Our brandy industry cannot survive while we allow into this country cheap brandy that is manufactured from grain. I still maintain that if the excise were taken off brandy and a sales tax were imposed on wine and brandy the industry would be better off and the Government would increase its revenue. The previous Government lifted the brandy tax. This Government had a responsibility to do something about the alcohol that was being produced. The Auditor-General in his report-- Senator Messner —Oh, come on. Senator ELSTOB —It is no use Senator Messner saying that he did not. People were using the alcohol and not paying the levy. This Government had to take notice of the Auditor-General. I do not agree with the way the excise was imposed on alcohol. I agree to some extent with what Senator Messner has said, but this Government would have been remiss if it had not done anything about the situation. I still maintain that it was the fault of the industry in not coming to the realisation that taxes of some sort were inevitable. I believe that sensible arrangements can be made with the industry and government. The industry then will be in a position to flourish. I know that the Minister for Primary Industry , Mr Kerin, has had prolonged talks with the industry and people in that area. He understands the problem. A fault of all governments in the past has been that they have not really looked at this industry. It is different from many other industries. Other industries can adjust far more quickly than can the wine and brandy industry. This has to be looked at in a special light. I believe that is being done now and we are well on the way to achieving a sensible compromise between the industry and this Government. Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.53 to 2. p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer him to reports which have appeared in the media over the past two days about a paper said to have been prepared by him which aims to change the Australian Labor Party's uranium policy when it is discussed at the July national conference. I preface my question by saying that the Opposition welcomes any move which would bring some rationality into the current policy which is completely devoid of both logic and principle. In view of the likely liberalisation of the policy at the conference, will the Government act immediately at least to allow companies which wish to negotiate in the market- place for new contracts to do so? Has he noted the reply of the Deputy Prime Minister in the House of Representatives yesterday, when Mr Lionel Bowen relied on the existing spot price as a reason for dismissing the relevance of new contracts? Does the Minister accept that the current spot price is not a significant factor when it comes to prospects for long term contracts with so little of Australia's uranium being traded on the spot price basis? Senator WALSH —The significant point of Senator Chaney's question-I think he would agree-is the question of the issuing or granting of negotiating determinations to potential suppliers. That, as he knows, of course, is administratively a matter for the Minister for Trade and not for me. Senator Chaney —You represent him. Senator WALSH —I represent him, yes. I will refer the question to him. But I would not expect that the Minister would be issuing such new determinations prior to the review of the Party's policy on all matters at the National Conference, which is now only three and a half months away. I would agree that the spot price at any particular time is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the prices that are likely to prevail when delivery is actually made, which for uranium contracts is frequently anything from five to 15 years from the time of signing to final delivery. However, an indicator of the general weakness of the market is the fact that stocks currently held are equal to five to six times present consumption and that production is still in excess of consumption, in other words, that high level of stocks is still accumulating. Senator Jessop —What about by 1990? Senator WALSH —If every uranium mine in the world closed down as from next year, the world would have run out of uranium by 1990. That, approximately, is the position and that gives some indication of the magnitude of oversupply of the product. No other commodity, even those which are heavily recessed, such as tin and copper are at the moment, carries stocks anything like five to six years' annual consumption. The projections of demand in the 1980s and the 1990s have been substantially reduced. For all these reasons, the market is extremely slack. This confirms the judgment made by the Government last year that on commercial grounds alone there would be no room, almost for the rest of this century if not for the rest of it, for any uranium in Australia other than that that can be produced by the two existing mines and Roxby Downs, should the joint ventures make a decision to go ahead. Senator CHANEY —I have a supplementary question. If there is no commercial possibility of making contracts, on what basis in logic does the Government deny companies the opportunity of going out to sell the uranium that they have under their control, given that if the Government is right they will not be able to sell it but if the Government is wrong the basis which the Minister has put before us is clearly wrong? Senator WALSH —Subject to confirmation by the Minister for Trade I state now that there are two companies with negotiating determinations which have the right to do just what Senator Chaney has said; that is, the two present miners. So far as I know they have not submitted any applications for endorsement of additional contracts, but I will check that with the Minister for Trade and see whether he has anything to add to what I have already said. Senator TATE —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to Press reports that the records of a private hospital in Victoria disclosed that a foetus had survived, gasping for air, for some 10 minutes, having been aborted after 18 to 20 weeks gestation in its mother's womb ? Is it a fact that a joint sub-committee of the British Paediatric Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is expected soon to recommend to its parent bodies that a legal time limit of 24 weeks be set for the termination of a pregnancy and that the World Health Organisation has recommended that the limit be set at 22 weeks? In view of the very considerable advances in medical science, allowing the survival of babies born at a markedly premature stage in their development, will the Federal Minister enter into urgent discussions with State colleagues and professional bodies with a view to ensuring that, at the least, terminations of pregnancy are not carried out in cases where the foetus may be viable? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did see, I believe in the Melbourne Age, the article that Senator Tate refers to. It reported on the alleged record of an abortion at a very late stage carried out at a Melbourne private hospital. As I understand it, this matter has been raised in the Victorian Parliament by the Victorian Minister of Health, and investigations into it are under way in Victoria. I understand also that there is a move in the United Kingdom to recommend a time limit on abortions of 24 weeks. The Lane parliamentary inquiry in 1974 recommended such a time limit. It is my understanding that moves are under way in the United Kingdom to put such a time limit on as a result of the recommendations of the Royal College of Paediatricians and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I think Senator Tate's reference to the time limit in fact refers to the World Health Organisation's definition of viability, which is a pregnancy of 22 weeks or a birth weight of 500 grams. This definition has been adopted in Australia since 1979 or 1980, but it is a definition for statistical purposes and not one referring to the possibility of abortion at that stage at all. As Senator Tate has inferred, legislation on abortion is largely the responsibility of the States, except in the Australian Capital Territory. Only the Northern Territory legislation specifies an upper limit of 23 weeks pregnancy in the case of grave risk to the mental and physical health of the mother. There is also some inconsistency in State laws on abortion, on infanticide, on child destruction and on concealment of birth, where definitions either relate to the duration of pregnancy or to vague things such as a child capable of being alive, et cetera. These inconsistencies were noted in the report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships, which was tabled here in 1977. They have been a matter for discussion between the State Ministers in recent times. My understanding is that Dr Blewett will refer this and other matters to his State colleagues in the hope that we can get some consistency in this country so far as legislation in this area is concerned. I will certainly make sure he refers this case, along with others, to the State Ministers. Senator JESSOP —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government and ask whether it is the intention of the Government to announce a national inquiry into the financing and operations of local government. If so, will the inquiry panel include at least one elected representative from local government? Has the Australian Council of Local Government Associations been consulted on the composition of the inquiry panel and the terms of reference of this inquiry? Senator GIETZELT —The Government is considering the establishment of a national inquiry into the operations, functions and financing of local government, although local government falls largely within the purview of State administrations. On 6 March, the Prime Minister wrote to all State Premiers suggesting terms of reference and proposed membership of such a national inquiry . As far as I am aware, only the State of New South Wales has so far indicated its approval for the project in detail, although I think other States have, in formal and informal ways, indicated their general agreement with the proposal. The Federal Government is awaiting final confirmation from the other States. It is proposed that the Australian Council of Local Government Associations will be officially involved. Formal discussions about the inquiry have been held with that body. It is an inquiry for which it has been seeking support for a considerable number of years. So, naturally, as it represents local government associations from the States, it is clear that it will have an important part to play in such an inquiry. It ought to be stressed that the Australian Labor Party in post-war years has been strongly supportive of the principle that local government should be strengthened and that it has a particular role to play in the three arms of government that operate in this country. In fact, we invited local government representation at the National Economic Summit Conference, and, in an informal capacity, at a number of other national conferences which Labor governments have convened from time to time. I understand that it is the Goverment's intention to have an inquiry and, given the support and endorsement of the States, to have it begin somewhere around the end of May this year. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister for Health discuss with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and State Health Ministers the possibility of facilitating the entry into Australia of overseas specialist medical personnel where necessary to staff Australian public hospitals if doctors here carry out their threat of mass resignation and open defiance of the law covering the charging of scheduled fees and if Australian replacements for specialists cannot be found? If not, can the Minister assure the Senate and the Australian people that patients in public hospitals will not suffer unduly as a result of the threatened irresponsible behaviour of some self-interested members of the medical profession? Senator GRIMES —I preface my answer by saying that what is needed in this dispute is a more rational approach, particularly by those medical specialists who are using publicly funded facilities and the skills they acquired at the taxpayers' expense. They should take a calmer approach. Senator Jessop —Didn't you? Senator GRIMES —I did too. Senator Walters —You are not even using them. What a waste! Senator GRIMES —It is good to hear that Senator Walters is back. She has been home and scratched the Rolls; now she comes back here and tries to annoy us and carry on. It is nice to hear her voice again. We need a rational approach, an approach which Dr Blewett has been trying to get from the medical profession. But the medical profession, as Senator Jones knows, will not at the moment accept any concessions; it just wants the right to charge what it likes in public hospitals which, as I say, are provided for it at taxpayers' expense. I will refer Senator Jones's suggestion to Dr Blewett, but I doubt whether at this stage, or at any stage, this country will reach the point where such a solution to the problem is considered, although I remind honourabe senators opposite that that very solution was used in Saskatchewan, Canada, some years ago much to the disquiet of the medical practitioners in that province. What we need is recognition by some sections of the medical profession that they do have some social responsibility, that they cannot just dictate to the taxpayer how much they should receive without some consultation and without some sensible approach. I hope that the dispute will settle down. I will refer Senator Jones's suggestion to Dr Blewett, but certainly I do not think any member of the Government contemplates such action. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy whether he agrees that the most deceitful election promise in recorded Australian history is: . . . a total unequivocal commitment to phase out Australia's involvement in the uranium industry. Senator WALSH —Senator Chipp referred to an election promise and then quoted a passage from the Australian Labor Party platform-it seems to me that it was quoted accurately-which is not the same thing. Senator Chipp —What is not the same thing? Senator WALSH —I am about to explain that. An election promise, at its tightest definition, is a commitment given by a party leader before an election or by some other parliamentarian on behalf of the party. What is in a platform is somewhat different from that. It is conceptually different. Everybody would agree that the present Labor Party uranium platform is certainly something which can be interpreted in various ways. Some people describe it as a dog's breakfast . Senator Chipp has chosen to quote one line from it, and in isolation it seems to support the proposition he puts forward, disregarding the error that, as far as I know, nobody on behalf of my Party-certainly not the Prime Minister or the then Party leader-made any such commitment in his policy speech. Other lines in that platform say, for example-I quote from memory-'until such time as the Labor Party is satisfied that these problems have been overcome'. That precedes, and it could be argued qualifies, the line which Senator Chipp quoted. Until the Labor Party is satisfied that these problems-that is, problems of waste disposal and weapons proliferation-have been overcome, those actions will be taken. One could have said that the Labor Party is satisfied. Logically it would be possible to say that and therefore everything that follows thereafter is inoperative. I do not want to get bogged down quibbling about this. But I agree, and I have said here before-and I do not think anybody has contradicted me-that the present Party platform on uranium is an untidy piece of English which could be interpreted, and has been interpreted, in a wide variety of ways. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. It stems from the Minister's answer that there were pre-conditions about the total, unequivocal commitment to phase out Australia's involvement in the uranium industry. He said one could say that the Party is satisfied that those conditions have been met. Are those conditions the safe storage of wastes and the fact that international treaties are binding on Australia and other nations? Is the Labor Party now satisfied that wastes can be stored safely and that treaties do mean something? Senator WALSH —The answer is that probably not everyone is satisfied that the waste disposal problem has been satisfactorily resolved. Some people are. Senator Jessop —I reckon they are. Senator WALSH —Apparently Senator Jessop is satisfied. If Senator Chipp is asking me personally, I am satisfied that it has been resolved, but not everybody would agree. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, refers to the 1986 International Year of Peace program in Australia. Has the Minister considered the potential of developing an intensive pro-peace community awareness program as a possible highlight of the Australian program for the International Year of Peace? Would the Minister welcome the concept of peace awards being made available to private citizens and community and business groups which have contributed to or developed specific peace oriented projects? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has advised me that his Department has held a series of consultations with other relevant government departments and agencies to start planning for a comprehensive program of activities to commemorate 1986 as the International Year of Peace. It is envisaged that the IYP program will encompass a diverse range of activities in fields such as the media, the sciences, the arts, sport, business and government and will involve as many sections as possible of the Australian community from both the private and public spheres. Consequently, it is intended that the IYP program, by its nature and scope, should serve as an intensive pro- peace community awareness program. In response to the suggestion about a system of peace awards being made available to private citizens, the Foreign Minister has advised me that he is attracted to the idea of peace awards for private citizens and community and business groups which have contributed to or developed specific peace oriented projects. He thanks the honourable senator for that suggestion. He has asked his Department to study the proposal carefully as a possible International Year of Peace initiative and report to him. He has told me that he will inform the honourable senator in due course of the result of his consideration of that advice. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I remind the Minister of the specific promise made by the Australian Labor Party before the election to provide $111m for the general support of government schools over three years and of the criticism that has come from Mr Van Davy and the Australian Teachers Federation of the failure of the Government to deliver the promised $37m first instalment. Will the Minister inform the Senate now when the government schools can expect that first instalment of $37m still outstanding from last year? Can she assure honourable senators that the full amount promised-that is, $111m over three years-will be provided over the next two years of the triennium? Senator RYAN —As Senator Baume and Mr Van Davy of the ATF are well aware, our Government is determined to improve the standards in government education throughout Australia. We are determined to do that because 75 per cent of Australian children are educated in government schools. We are determined to do that because, after seven years of neglect and, to some extent, hostility by the Fraser Administration, many government schools in Australia-not all, but many- are not able to operate at the high standards to which we believe all children should have access. I do not think there can be any doubt in the mind of any observer of the education scene or our Government's education policies about our commitment to improving educational opportunities for children in government schools, particularly in those government schools which have deteriorated as a result of neglect and hostility by conservative governments. Having said that, I point out to Senator Baume that we have specifically, in the area of the participation and equity program, for example, made a special commitment of, I think, $24m to improve those government schools which are having poor results in terms of maintaining the participation of children to the end of secondary schooling. There are a number of other programs through which we have increased resources to government schools. In our commitment of capital to government schools, we gave the first increase in capital funding to government schools that had been made for a number of years. Our record in this respect is a good one. There is a great deal more we would like to do with regard to government schools. I am very hopeful that, when the time comes for me to issue the Government's guidelines for the funding of education, those guidelines will contain more goods news for the government school sector. However, as Senator Baume will be very well aware, I am not in a position, nor is any Minister in this place in a position, to put a dollar tag on any particular program. I will be going in to the Budget negotiations with our commitments to government schools very much to the fore. I believe that, just as in our first Budget we made significant improvements in the standards available to children in government schools, we will improve those standards in the next Budget and over the next triennium. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I want to repeat the very simple question I asked the Minister. Her party did put a dollar tag on the election promise it made. Will the promise of $111m for government schools over the three years be redeemed or will it not? Senator RYAN —Senator Baume will learn all at the time of the publication of the guidelines. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, concerns the community employment program. How does the rate of absorption of funds for the program in South Australia compare with that for other States? How many unemployed people have been employed so far on CEP projects in South Australia? Is the Minister pleased with the general response and the level of assistance being given by the South Australian Government in administering the program? Senator BUTTON —As at February of this year 2,482 jobs were approved in South Australia involving over 300 projects. South Australia was the first State to formally agree to participate in CEP, doing so in July last year and having projects approved in early October 1983. The South Australian Government has told the Federal Government that, whilst its absorption of funds under CEP is slightly down on that of other States at the moment, it expects to meet its target expenditure of $21.7m by 30 June this year. The applications received in that State to mid-February under CEP have totalled 783. The Commonwealth Government is pleased with the overall progress in South Australia and with the general response and assistance which has been given by the South Australian Government in the administration of the project. I may be able to provide Senator Foreman in the next few days with some update on the February figures, which are the last ones available. Senator HAMER —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General in that capacity and also possibly in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns the constitutional position of the Queen of Australia when she is in a foreign country. I hasten to say that the question in no way implies any criticism of the Queen, who has my loyalty and admiration. My question is this: When the Queen makes a political speech in a foreign country, as she did recently in Jordan with a speech that obviously expressed the views of the British Government, is it constitutionally clear that she is speaking solely in her capacity as Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that the views are not necessarily those of the Queen of Australia? Is this fine distinction clear to other countries, if it is not specifically stated, as it was not in Jordan? If not, what can be done about it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not expect there are too many people, with the obvious exception of Senator Hamer, who would be likely to take the view that when the Queen is in Jordan she is acting in her capacity as Queen of Australia. However, for those souls around the place who are besotted with this particular form of exotica, I will endeavour to find out an answer to that question and advise the honourable senator accordingly. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. What is the Commonwealth's response to the call by the South Australian Government for the release of documentary evidence about the atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb tests at Maralinga in the 1950s and 1960s? Has any information now been supplied to the South Australian Government concerning the tests? Is the Commonwealth Government stalling over the release of information, as claimed by a legal adviser to former ex-servicemen in a recent article in the Adelaide Advertiser? Senator GARETH EVANS —What can be said about all this is what I have been told by the Minister for Defence and it is as follows: On 21 March the Minister for Defence stated that the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council-AIRAC- advised the Government on the effects of ionising radiation exposure on the population and environment. AIRAC's report No. 9, which was issued in January 1983 and was tabled in the Parliament, reviewed the safety of British nuclear tests in Australia. That report is publicly available together with the Department of Health study on the health of atomic test personnel. Department of Defence documentation was made available to AIRAC and similar access, I am told, could be given to the South Australian Government. I am not sure whether the South Australian Government has asked specifically for such access. No doubt, if it does, the material will be made available. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. It relates to the Minister's announcement at the weekend of a new pricing formula which reduced the price of liquefied petroleum gas by about $60 a tonne on the current price. At the same time he reduced the subsidy from $80 a tonne to $20.31 a tonne. Recognising that the Government's decision will mean no extra cost to the consumer but a saving of $21m, and recognising the fact that there is an added freight cost of $94 a tonne on LPG going across Bass Strait, will the Minister give consideration to transfer some of that money saved and apply it as a subsidy in areas such as Tasmania which are remote from LPG refineries and which have no natural gas? Does the Minister think that may be an appropriate matter to refer to the Interstate Commission? Senator WALSH —It does not seem to me an appropriate matter to refer to the Interstate Commission. I will think about that a bit more. In any case, I am not the Minister in control of that. Senator Harradine referred to a subsidy. The continuing arrangement is not a subsidy per se; it is a deficiency payment. More relevant to the question, Tasmanians are in exactly the same position vis-a-vis other consumers as regards a subsidy or the present deficiency arrangement. Senator Peter Rae —Tasmania gets it transported by ship. Senator WALSH —I ask the honourable senator to allow me to finish. Tasmania is not the only part of Australia which has a transport cost added to the wholesale price of LPG. If responsibility were accepted to reduce or pick up that cost for Tasmania there would be equally valid demands to do it in every other part of Australia including, I might add, Sydney, because about one-third of Sydney's gas is transported from the Bass Strait. A freight charge is applied to that and for gas transported to New South Wales in general. Some people might say: 'Why not subsidise it everywhere?' Some people approve of all expenditure propositions and oppose all revenue raising propositions. Governments, of course , cannot behave in that way. Governments have a responsibility finally to reconcile income and expenditure. The Government would be in a better position to consider claims for additional expenditure if half the Senate stopped obstructing the Government's taxation legislation, particularly the legislation to recover from tax dodgers money that ought to have been paid years ago. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is reflecting on a vote of the Senate. I ask him to desist from that course. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I apologise. Senator Harradine —I raise a point of order, Mr President. The Minister is reflecting on a vote of the Senate and he is not stating the facts. I ask you to call him to order. The PRESIDENT —I have already called the Minister to order. I ask the Minister not to reflect on a vote of the Senate. I call the Minister. Senator WALSH —I am not reflecting on a vote of the Senate. I am stating a fact, that precisely half the Senate knocked off a piece of taxation legislation this week. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is again reflecting on a vote of the Senate. Senator WALSH —People in opposition and so-called independents can luxuriate and indulge themselves by simultaneously opposing revenue measures and advocating expenditure measures. However, governments do not have that luxury or that potential for self-indulgence. Governments must finally reconcile income and expenditure. I will consider the proposition that Senator Harradine has put up, although administratively it would not be in my area of responsibility. I will discuss it with some other people in the Government, subject to some of the question marks I have put over it. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I understand that the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have had discussions with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory concerning the Northern Territory Criminal Code. As this matter is of great concern to Territorians and, indeed, concerned citizens in all parts of Australia, is the Attorney-General in a position to inform the Senate of the outcome of those discussions? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am pleased to be able to advise Senator Robertson and the Senate that following those discussions in Sydney a fortnight ago and a subsequent exchange of telexes, the last of which went off today, agreement has been reached today between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Government on the outstanding differences between us so far as the Criminal Code is concerned. There were four matters ultimately in issue. It will be recalled that the Commonwealth expressed to the Northern Territory the view that those matters had to be amended, in accordance with international standards and prevailing standards of criminal justice in this country, and the Commonwealth would be advising the Governor-General, under the Northern Territory (Self- Government) Act, to make recommendations to the Northern Territory if, in fact, such amendments were not forthcoming. Senator Durack —Is this an agreement or did you impose it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am saying that there were four matters in issue in respect of which the Commonwealth has indicated that it felt strongly enough to be willing to pursue that course. The Northern Territory Government felt equally strongly about the inappropriateness of that course and an interesting political situation developed as a result. In respect of three of those matters, the Northern Territory Government has now acknowledged that there were real problems with the original drafts of the legislation and it has agreed to amend the legislation accordingly at the first parliamentary opportunity in accordance with the principles proposed by the Commonwealth. Very briefly, the three matters were as follows: The first concerned section 7 of the Code in which the matter in issue was a request to restore the traditional onus of proof of intent in cases where an offender was intoxicated. The second concerned section 383 of the Code in which the Commonwealth was proposing the deletion of a reference to a fine and to imprisonment and release on bail in circumstances where an accused was acquitted in cases involving intoxication. The third matter, which is extremely important, concerned section 51 of the Code which created a category of prescribed organisations without any provision for judicial review. In respect of all those matters the Northern Territory Government has agreed, as I say, to amend the Code in accordance with the principles I have indicated. In respect of a fourth matter concerning unsworn statements from the dock, there has been an agreement to disagree. That provision of the Code was not of quite the same standard of offensiveness in the sense of not involving any obvious breach of international standards which seemed to be involved with the other matters. It is a matter in respect of which some jurisdictions in Australia have removed the right. It is also a matter in respect of which lawyers are very much in disagreement among themselves as to its appropriateness . Therefore, the Commonwealth took the view essentially that that was a matter about which reasonable legislatures might disagree. Although we still express our disagreement with that, as indeed we do about many other provisions of the Code, we do not regard that as a matter on which there should be any question of intervention. In the outcome, as a result of the Northern Territory Government agreeing to amend the law in the way I have indicated, there is now no question of the Commonwealth proceeding down the path as was originally foreshadowed. Although it has to be acknowledged that there have been a considerable number of difficulties along the way in reaching a resolution of this matter, I believe the final outcome has represented something of a triumph for reason and moderation. It does show the utility of a quiet consultative approach being adopted by the Commonwealth in this respect rather than any question of reliance on a big stick. I hope that in the circumstances we can look forward to a period of fruitful co-operation with the Northern Territory Government on other matters that might divide us. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the document from which he has quoted. Senator GARETH EVANS —If you reckon you will get any help from that, you are welcome to it. Senator Chaney —I meant the telex. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was not quoting from the telex. You can have whatever you like. You can have the whole deskful. This is a kindergarten performance. Senator SCOTT —My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and seeks clarification of a matter that consistently is raised by veterans. I refer to the pamphlet 'Medicare and Repatriation' issued by the Department. The section headed 'Medicare or Repatriation-a matter of Choice' indicates that repatriation beneficiaries will have a choice of taking health care under their entitlements in the repatriation system or under Medicare. I ask whether this is really a choice, since repatriation entitlements are significantly different from Medicare, which covers only public patient situations with no choice of doctor, and no other services. The pamphlet further suggests that there is no need to take out private health insurance if you are prepared to accept the treatment to which you are entitled under the repatriation system and/or that available under Medicare. Is not the inference here that the two entitlements are the same? I believe they are not. Is this not therefore a dubious piece of advice? I ask the Minister to clarify it. Senator GIETZELT —The Department has issued a pamphlet which indicates to veterans that they do have now freedom of choice in respect of their medical entitlements. Those who are eligible for repatriation benefits can still have their entitlements recognised, in every respect, at repatriation general hospitals. They can now elect to have basic health care attended to at any of the public hospitals situated anywhere in the State in which they reside. In addition, if they are entitled to specific benefits as a result of being recognised repatriation beneficiaries, then the Department also takes that into account in respect of any additional benefits or assistance they need in regard to their incapacity, illness or otherwise. The beneficiary can elect in the first instance to go to a public hospital rather than to a repatriation hospital . That freedom of choice is available to him. He can have such assistance rendered to him, if he is eligible for that assistance, in the public hospital system. Senator ROBERT RAY —I address my question to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Has the Minister seen the suggestion that at least half of the 23 new Federal seats should be named after women? Will the Minister write to the Chairman of the Electoral Commission supporting such a proposal? Senator Grimes —Call one 'Daisy'. Senator RYAN —When my colleague Senator Grimes can restrain himself I will answer the question Senator Robert Ray has asked. I was fortunate and pleased to be in the chamber during the adjournment debate last night when Senator Maguire made his very interesting, and I think very important, suggestion. I interpreted Senator Maguire's suggestion that at least half of the new Federal electorates should be named after women as a recognition by him of the contribution made by Australian women to public life and the past neglect of recognition of that contribution. I point out that there is no self-interest in my enthusiasm for Senator Maguire 's suggestion, since there is already a Federal electorate called Ryan, though clearly not named after me as I am not yet dead. I think it is a very good suggestion. I must say that it is satisfying to those of us in this place who have been trying to achieve greater recognition of the contribution of Australian women to public life that not only are the women of this chamber raising suggestions as to how we can recognise the contribution made by Australian women, but now some of our male colleagues are joining us in that exercise. Certainly I will make whatever formal expressions of endorsement of Senator Maguire's suggestion to the Electoral Commissioner it is proper for me to make. In the meantime, I ask honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to support Senator Maguire in pursuing this thoughtful and constructive suggestion. Senator HAINES —Is the Attorney-General aware of allegations made by a Labor member in the Queensland Parliament relating to the Sunshine Association of Australia and the apparent mismanagement of funds within that organisation? Is he aware that on 22 August 1983 the Australian Democrat member of the House of Assembly, Mr Gordon Walsh, wrote to the Hon. Tom Uren, MP, with similar allegations about the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Sunshine Association of Australia? In particular, is the Attorney-General aware that the Community Development Fund file on this Association reveals that its projected budget for 1983-84 indicates that $67,048 will be spent on salaries and expenses , but no mention is made of anticipated expenditure to assist terminally ill children? By the way, this body is apparently assisted by a $73,000 loan from its parent body in Queensland. Does the Attorney-General agree with Mr Uren's response of 29 November 1983, which indicated that the matter was very sensitive ; that the interests of all parties needed to be protected; and that there was no scope under the Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953 to undertake any investigation into the allegations? If he does agree, will he say who could undertake the necessary investigation, and whether or not he is prepared to recommend such an inquiry? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not at all sure that this is within my portfolio. Senator Haines —According to Mr Uren it is. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is interesting. My knowledge of this is confined to two small facts. One is that I recall seeing that the Queensland Attorney- General recently made some noises about this particular Sunshine Association and about the inappropriateness of its continuing to be registered under the Queensland voluntary associations legislation. I know also, as a fact, that there is a degree of concern about the inadequacies of certain provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Associations Incorporation Ordinance, in respect of which some remedial action is now taking place. As to the linkage between those two phenomena, I know nothing. I will endeavour to give the the honourable senator further and better particulars in due course. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. Can the Minister advise the Senate of the prospects for Christmas Island, in the Indian Ocean, after the projected exhaustion of high grade phosphate deposits on the Island in about 10 years time ? Senator GIETZELT —The question of Christmas Island has been a matter of consideration by governments for quite a number of years. In fact the previous Government commissioned a report to be made by a Mr Sweetland. That report was presented to the Parliament within the past 18 months. So far as I am aware, the report has still not had any response from the Government, although it is contemplated that it will shortly be placed before Cabinet for consideration. As I understand it, the high grade phosphate on Christmas Island has a very limited period ahead of it-about nine or 10 years-and the question of the future of the Island is therefore a matter to be considered by the Government. As I am advised, the previous administration was jointly operated by the British and Australian Governments. The company concerned with extracting phosphates from Christmas Island has closed down its operations or is in the process of doing so . The Australian Government has formed a new organisation called the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd. It aims to establish new markets because of the depressed state of marketing of phosphate. There is a possibility that, as a result of initiatives taken by the Australian Government, we will be able to find some new markets not only for the high grade phosphate which has been a feature of Christmas Island but also for the low grade phosphate which hitherto has been regarded as not a commercial proposition. It should be possible to open up new markets in South East Asia. If that does not eventuate, the Government will look seriously at alternative industries, particularly a tourist industry on Christmas Island. I can assure Senator Colston that the Government has this actively under consideration and will shortly make a response to the report of the Sweetland Commission of Inquiry into the Viability of the Christmas Island Phosphate Industry. Senator WATSON —Does the Attorney-General see any conflict between his proposals for amendments to the Trade Practices Act relating to unconscionable conduct with regard to contracts and one sided contracts and section 17 of the Health Insurance Act giving Dr Blewett complete power to change doctors' contracts at any time yet denying doctors the right of appeal? Senator GARETH EVANS —No. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What action does the Minister propose to take in relation to the further prosecution of the suspended Foreign Affairs officer, Mr Don Witheford, which the Acting Chief Magistrate, Mr Dobson, said on 16 March was conceived in prejudice and borne in bias on the part of some officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs? What action does the Minister intend to take in regard to apparent instances of perjury by prosecution witnesses? What action does the Minister intend to take regarding a new allegation by Foreign Affairs staff that the Secretary, Mr Peter Henderson, evaded customs duty, freight charges and possibly quarantine regulations by bringing in the diplomatic bag from the United Kingdom a riding saddle? Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first two matters, I have received certain representations, as might be expected. I have referred them, as might now also be expected, to the statutory officer whose job it is to deal with them, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, QC. As to the third matter mentioned, the alleged importation of a riding saddle, I will refer that to the Minister of Foreign Affairs so that he can make such inquiries about this as he deems appropriate. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and refers to the Government's proposal for a resource rent tax on off-shore oil . Is the Minister aware that such a tax would reduce Australia's self- sufficiency in oil production through increased taxation, leading to more oil imports, less government revenue and less jobs? Does the Minister realise that Australia's oil prospectivity is close to the lowest in the world and that an RRT would further reduce exploration? Is the Government aware of the theoretical and practical problems involved, including the fact that the prospect of high rewards is the driving force in oil exploration and that forcing an RRT to fit Australian circumstances would create costly, time consuming and long lasting administrative tangles, and doubtless lead to the discovery of less oil? Senator WALSH —I am aware that all the assertions made by Senator Bjelke-Petersen have been made by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Ltd recently in a booklet and by Esso Australia Ltd. Almost without exception they are based on a myth and an inadequate analysis of the proposition that the Government has put up and are either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of it. I note that Senator Bjelke-Petersen has faithfully learned the lines that have been put to her by APEA. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister for Social Security report on current negotiations with State governments regarding the organisation of the women's emergency services program? In particular, is the Minister aware of concern that realistic salary increases for women's refuge workers may not be implemented by the Queensland Government? Furthermore, can the Minister assure all Queensland women's refuge organisations that the new funding arrangements will be expedited through that State so that women's refuges will not experience the serious delays of past years? Senator GRIMES —I am at the moment negotiating with the States for the distribution of the women's emergency services money. Replies to this Government 's offer for the use of that money are now coming in. We have offered to use those funds to increase the salaries of all funded positions in refuges in each State and to upgrade to four the number of positions in those refuges where there are less than four. I received a letter from the Minister for Welfare Services in Queensland in the last couple of days accepting the conditions for the distribution of funds. He says that he is at the moment talking to Queensland refuges to decide how those funds will be distributed. Provided his concept of the conditions is the same as mine, I see no reason why the funds cannot flow to Queensland very quickly. A similar situation prevails in some of the other States. I am still awaiting replies from others. I hope that within the next month I will be in a position to distribute all those funds, the initial aim being to upgrade the wages and conditions of women who work in refuges who, as Senator Reynolds knows, are amongst the most exploited workers in this country. It has been a long process, largely because of the wariness of the States, I believe, that the Commonwealth will fund something this year and leave them holding the baby next year. However, I think we have managed to reassure most of the States that that is not the case and that the money will go out very soon. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and is asked in light of the new approach he is adopting to uranium policy. Will he as a matter of urgency, first, give the green light to the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia to recommence its final study of the market possibilities and technology of uranium enrichment, bearing in mind the projected future markets for enriched uranium as from 1990, the strict control that Australia could exert on its processing and marketing and the employment prospects for Australia? Secondly, will he re-institute full research on uranium enrichment at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission? If he will not go along with those suggestions, why not? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney referred to giving the green light to UEGA. The Government has neither given the green light nor the red light to UEGA. Senator Chaney —Oh, cut it out. You denied it facilities. Senator WALSH —No. We said that we were standing by and not doing anything about it. I do not know what will be done. The Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia did put a pro position to the Government that we should assist it to pursue this study further. We did nothing. We responded neither positively nor negatively. We have not stopped it. With regard to the second proposition relating to the Atomic Energy Commission and uranium enrichment, the Atomic Energy Commission, like all other qangos or subsidiaries, will of course be subject to pretty stringent financial discipline this year. At this stage, if only for that reason, I could not make such a forecast. However, I think it unlikely that the relative emphasis will be changed towards enrichment and away from waste disposal. I am sure Senator Chaney will know that last year there was a qualitative change in the Commission 's activities towards waste disposal and away from enrichment. I do not expect that that will be reversed even apart from the overriding financial constraint which will be applied to all Government expenditure this year and the limitations therefore on the adoption of new programs or the expansion of existing ones. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I ask for some clarification from the Minister of the early part of his answer. Does he deny that the operations of UEGA were frustrated by the Government's refusal to co-operate with the study and to obtain for it information which could only be obtained by the Government? Senator WALSH —I cannot remember the precise details but it would have been of assistance to the consortium, or whatever one should call it, if the Government had conducted negotiations with other governments. An exchange of information was relevant to that, as I recall it. The Government did not approach other governments on behalf of the Group in that way. But we did not close down the study. Senator McINTOSH —Has the Minister for Social Security seen the editorial in the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday, 28 March, entitled 'Just How Super?' which outlines some possible alternatives for the operation of a national superannuation scheme? Does the Minister agree that the accumulated funds of a national superannuation scheme would place considerable strains on the total Australian market for investment capital in absorbing the amounts involved? Can the Minister assure the Senate that plans for a national superannuation scheme are under way and will be in place as soon as practicable? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I read the editorial in yesterday's Australian Financial Review, which was basically on a national superannuation scheme and how such a scheme may or may not be introduced. It is an interesting and reasonable article . Senator McIntosh's reference to the comment in the article on the effect of accumulated funds on investment in this country relates, I think, to the projection of the Australian Government Actuary, Mr Ford, who pointed out that if we had a superannuation scheme in this country funded by 5 per cent of income tax the figure could reach something like $45 billion in 1991 and $307 billion in 2051 and that would, indeed, have a considerable effect on investment in this country. My personal belief is that the introduction of such a funded scheme is not appropriate or likely. I do not think the taxpayers of this country would take very much to the introduction of a funded scheme which would not provide benefits for another 20 or 30 years or so. The usual proposal is, in fact, to introduce a pay-as-you-go scheme to make sure that more than the present 35-odd per cent of people who have access to superannuation can get access to superannuation. The Government is still looking at this matter with the intention of introducing a contributory superannuation scheme in this country. I suppose one should welcome articles or editorials such as the one in the Australian Financial Review so that we can raise the level of debate on this subject. I commend the editorial particularly to Senator Haines, who the other day announced in this place that we could introduce a national superannuation scheme and provide benefits without putting on a levy or without increasing taxation on the grounds that the present pension system costs a fair bit of money. I think Senator Haines should be disabused of that little theory and this article will in part do that. We are still at both the departmental level and the ministerial level looking at the introduction of a national superannuation scheme which I believe will have to be introduced. But one needs at the same time to make reforms to the occupational superannuation system in this country. As this is such a large industry, we must negotiate with both the unions and the industry itself before taking any precipitate action. Senator RYAN —Yesterday Senator Townley asked me a question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism regarding the launching of the domestic tourism campaign in Sydney last week. I undertook to seek a reply and my colleague the Hon. John Brown has provided me with the following: On Thursday, 22 March, the Australian Tourist Commission launched the domestic tourism campaign in co-operation with the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The advertising agency to the Commission and a professional promotions company were involved in the launching. The program is aimed at encouraging Australians to holiday at home. I am advised by my colleague the Minister that if the domestic tourism market could be expanded by a mere 5 per cent as a result of the launching of this program some $600m would be injected into the Australian economy and some 20,000 extra jobs would be created. Surely, even the small-minded Opposition could see that the launching was the sprat to catch a mackerel. The Australian Government has, through the ATC, embarked on a major advertising campaign featuring the well known comedian Paul Hogan to promote this initiative . The evening was also the occasion for the launching of a motivational booklet which will appear in the April issue of the Australian Women's Weekly magazine. Some two million copies were printed and these will also be available in airline offices and from travel agents. Some 300 people attended the launching, including State Government representatives, captains of industry, the leaders of all facets of the tourist trade and the airlines. As well, more than 50 media representatives attended. The Channel 10 studios were chosen because of the advanced technical facilities available. The ATC has produced a videotape of the program which will be distributed Australia-wide. This, of course will be made available to all parliamentarians should they wish to see it. The cost of the production was in the vicinity of $100,000 and Mr Brown resents the undertone of alleged misappropriation insinuated by Senator Townley in framing his question. This expenditure was approved directly by my colleague Mr Brown. The function started at 4 p.m. and finished at 8 p.m. A buffet dinner was provided which could in no way be called extravagant. The launching was considered an extremely successful event by all concerned and the honourable senator may, if he wishes, see all the congratulatory letters and telegrams the government has received following the launching. Indeed, the ATC received $1.6m from private contributors to promote the domestic campaign. Major contributors include General Motors-Holden's Ltd, Trans Australian Airlines and Ansett, to name just a few, and we are still receiving contributions following the launching on the 22nd. The big failing in the promotion of tourism by the previous Government was its lack of professionalism. The launching on the 22nd was typical of the professionalism now being applied and the proof of the Government's success is the fact that industry contributions towards the promotion by the ATC this year are six times greater than ever achieved by the previous Government. Senator Peter Rae —I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the statement which has just been made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs in response to the question asked by Senator Townley and then I will seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator TEAGUE —I do not wish to go on about this matter but I must because of extra material on pages 790 and 797 of yesterday's Senate Hansard report of Question Time concerning an exchange between Senator Grimes and me following my legitimate and genuine question about Medicare. I asked for a withdrawal of the inference by Senator Grimes that I was not telling the truth in asking that question. He withdrew that. However, Senator Grimes, when making a personal explanation, said: I suggest Senator Teague read the Hansard to see what I answered. When I read the Hansard to my surprise and to the surprise of a number of people in the Senate there were some extra words spoken of which I was not aware at the time. They are these: . . . instead of telling lies, as he is doing now. Those words are directly contrary to the trumped up assurance that Senator Grimes gave in his personal explanation yesterday when, as recorded on page 797, he said: I was referring to the fact that members of the Opposition on occasions get up and tell lies about Medicare. I was not referring to Senator Teague's question, as he put it this afternoon. I was not referring to the items in his question. I suggest Senator Teague read the Hansard to see what I answered. So I read the Hansard and it says: . . . instead of telling lies, as he is doing now. This is directly contrary to what the Minister said in his personal explanation. I raise this matter only to say that if I am challenged by a Minister I will look up the Hansard and make my remarks accordingly. I do not believe that honourable senators should be subjected to the kinds of remarks and abuse, for which there were no grounds whatsoever, of the sort made by Senator Grimes in the Senate yesterday. The PRESIDENT —On the matter raised by Senator Teague, my attention was drawn this morning to the page of Hansard referred to. I did not hear uttered at the time the last words of Senator Grimes, the Minister for Social Security, because at that time I was in the course of calling the next questioner, Senator Bolkus. Had I caught Senator Grimes's words at the time, I would have asked for a withdrawal of them. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I claim to have been misrepresented by the story in the Australian Financial Review today headed 'Consumer Safeguards Urgent in Introduction of EFT-Evans'. That headline and the opening paragraph of the story wrongly ascribe to me a statement that I had said there was an urgent need for legislation to deal with certain issues arising from the introduction of electronic funds transfer systems. That article was based on an answer I gave in Question Time yesterday to a question from Senator Crowley. In that answer, I at no stage said that there was an urgent need for laws to address EFT issues. I said that other people, including Mr Landa, Justice Kirby and interested groups had expressed themselves to this effect, but also pointed out that, on the other hand, the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System had said there was no pressing need for legislation. I said that the Government was giving consideration to the issue. Indeed, the whole thrust of my answer was that there are arguments both for and aginst regulation. I at no stage indicated a view favouring regulation. The urgency that I was stressing was for consideration of the question given the concern that had been expressed. The first principle that governs the Government's response in this matter was spelt out in the Government's election policy on business regulation, namely that: 'A Labor Government has no interest in regulating business for the sake of regulation'. I fear that a contrary impression may well have been left with a reader of the Australian Financial Review article this morning. It is on that basis that I take this opportunity to correct it at the first opportunity. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Coleman proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The pressing need for Australia and other world powers to be involved in constructive discussions on international nuclear disarmament. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(3.12) —I put forward this matter as one of public importance because I consider the Senate an appropriate forum for such a discussion. I hope that it will not be the last and I hope also that discussion is not confined to these hallowed halls. I firmly believe that if Australia and other world powers do not become involved in that constructive discussion of international nuclear disarmament now, it may well be too late. I believe that the most important, relevant and overwhelming fact is that, unless moves are made to control and eventually halt the arms race, our planet will experience a nuclear war. It is no longer a matter of choice. I believe that if we do not act soon nuclear war is not only possible but inevitable. We have now lived with nuclear weapons for some 40 years and perhaps we have become accustomed to having them around. In the first instance one country had two bombs. Now, nine countries have a total capacity in excess of 47,000 bombs with about one million times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Those figures are pretty awe inspiring. It is not simply a matter of the number of weapons available or the strident rhetoric of world leaders that are the real causes for concern. The problems include the fact that agreements are being made and disregarded, that people are sitting down to talk and not saying anything, or are getting angry and walking out of disarmament talks when things do not go their way. The problems also include the fact that we are reaching the stage where the decision about what button to press, and when, is being taken away from human beings. It is being passed over to computers. I sometimes wonder whether there is an appreciation of the amounts of money spent on defence. I quote from a paper by Desmond Ball of the Australian National University headed 'Management of the Superpower Balance'. The paper was written for the Conference on International Security in the Southeast Asian and Southwest Pacific Region in July 1982. As that document relates to 1982, in all probability the figures are understated, but the important point made by Dr Ball was this: Over the next five years the United States plans to spend some $1.3 trillion on defence and the Soviet Union will undoubtedly spend something similar-equivalent in sum to more than $1m a day for the last 7,000 years! To most people those figures are absolutely incomprehensible. I think I can handle figures up to seven digits. I can recognise the possibility and probability of millions of dollars, but figures such as $1.3 trillion create tremendous confusion and the majority of people find them incomprehensible. Certainly to those people who are dying as a result of abject poverty and disease, those amounts of money spent on 'defence' are incomprehensible. It would be true to say that disarmament moves have been a crucial component of world peace since the cold war, but in the 1980s I believe it has taken on a greater urgency as more and more countries have become involved in the nuclear arms race. The stockpiles of nuclear weapons have reached such proportions that the potential for mass destruction has become an overwhelming reality. Later, I shall ask leave to incorporate three tables in Hansard. They relate to the arms race, the situation as at 1983, who has got what and where; what they are; the types of materials that are available; the tests that have been done, and, in addition, the arms control and disarmament agreements that apply to nuclear weapons. I shall read from those in a moment. It would also be true to say that in the 1970s the general move to detente was at least receiving a little encouragement from most of the world leaders. It is in the 1980s that we have found those negotiations reaching a stalemate. With trillions of dollars being poured into defence budgets, there are people in the Third World and developing countries, and even in developed countries, who are dying of starvation, poverty and disease. If that money were transferred into those areas, those problems could, in the main, be cured next week, next month or perhaps, at the outside, next year. What is required is a transference of funds. In some of those developed and developing countries there are people who are uneducated, unfed, unclothed, not properly housed and without access to proper medical care. We are talking about an expenditure of $1.3 trillion within five years. I believe that the need for a nuclear disarmament program is clear enough , but it is always easy to lay down programs to instigate world action. It is not so easy to put them into operation. Therefore, I appreciate the opportunity to raise this as a matter of public importance. I hope that we shall have more of these discussions and that more members of parliament will become involved. It is interesting to note from the list of speakers, which to a large extent is pre-arranged, that four speakers are co-conveners of the newly formed parliamentary Disarmament Group, and that a fifth is the secretary of that group which encompasses all parties. It includes Senator Teague from the Liberal Party , Senator Boswell from the National Party, Senator Mason from the Australian Democrats, myself, and Senator Hearn who is the secretary of the organisation. I believe that in any program for international nuclear disarmament discussion, Australia has a great role to play. The program itself would require the end of research, development, manufacture and sale of nuclear weapons, including those space-based initiatives we now hear so much about-the laser beam technology which frightens the daylights out of many people. It would also require the destruction of existing nuclear stockpiles and an end to military blocs based on nuclear weaponry and the establishment of international security checks on clandestine military nuclear activity. I repeat that it is easy to lay down programs, but not so easy to put them into operation. To put them into operation we must have consultation of thinking around the world, with people agreeing that disarmament is necessary at present. In most regions we find that there is already a vicious circle. The most typical example is what is currently happening in Iraq and Iran. Money is spent on arms, for instance in Iraq, and Iran has to have provided to it or has to purchase weapons that are a little more technologically advanced. Iraq then purchases something that is a little better. No country makes an appreciable gain while the barons of the arms manufacturing area are making millions of dollars, keeping us poised on the edge of destruction. Horizontal nuclear proliferation is a dramatic threat to world peace and the world as we know it. It is also taking away from people their right to survive with dignity. I have mentioned already those people who are dying of poverty, starvation and disease. I believe the potential for world destruction is a reality we must all face. Australians cannot consider themselves safely hidden away just because they happen to reside in the southern hemisphere. Scientists have already confirmed the fear held and spoken about by a number of us over many years that whatever happens in the northern hemisphere will affect us too. We cannot simply say that if there were a limited nuclear war in the northern hemisphere we would not be involved. That is fiction, not fact. For those honourable senators who may not have been aware of it, within the last two weeks in Western Australia a Nationwide segment showed that the United States, one of the super-powers, has not only fought and won a third world war but is already arming and planning for a fourth world war. The United States was shown in the program as seeing a third world war as a nuclear war of limited duration, an exchange lasting perhaps two months. What the program did no show and what it is not possible to show is the utter devastation of any nuclear exchange. That is precisely why there has not been a nuclear exchange. If there is, there will be utter and complete devastation at the point of contact and a certain amount of devastation in the immediate surrounding areas. If it occurs in Europe, with the prevailing winds Australia will be affected. Despite all the attempts at political detente about which I have spoken, there has been no progress in the area of disarmament. There have been many arms control and disarmament treaties. We have, for instance, the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, the Hot Line and Modernisation Agreements of 1963, the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the Outer Space Treaty, the Latin American Nuclear-free Zone Treaty, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Seabed Treaty, the Accidents Measures Agreement, the Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty , plus a plethora of other talks and conferences, including the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Nos I, II and III. I raise the question at this time of how these agreements can be secured. To use the buzz words of today, how can consensus be achieved? The answer, of course, is not simple. It is a very complex question and involves consideration of the social, economic and political climate as well as consideration of the perceptions, understandings and values of individuals. I believe that individual changes are interwoven with social, political and economic changes. They are mutually dependent. One cannot be achieved without the other. Basically, an international order of co-operation, understanding and peaceful co-existence is needed. That situation can be achieved only if there is a greater degree of universal equality, economic, social and political, because disarmament measures will be universally accepted only if they are of equal benefit to all. One super -power will not make a move if the other super-power is advantaged. A figure of $350 billion is being spent annually on military arms. That figure could be a little higher now, but it is the latest in the SIPRI Yearbook. If that money were deployed into other more humanitarian areas we would see a reduction in that polarisation of poverty on the one hand and wealth on the other, and political security would be enhanced by that social security. Expenditure on nuclear arms is senseless, immoral, and an irresponsible waste of human, technological and financial resources. Military expenditure throughout the world exceeds that for health services by two and a half times and that for education by one and a half times. Forecasters see the world population doubling by the year 2019. They also forecast that the poor will constitute 90 per cent of the world population at that time. If we continue to spend in excess of $350 billion a year on nuclear arms and armaments-weapons of destruction-even greater problems will exist in the future time than exist today. I believe there would be greater economic independence with the advent of nuclear disarmament. The free flow trade would be enhanced by nuclear disarmament. The economic independence of countries would be enhanced, and that is an element essential to what we are talking about. Wealthy countries would have to spend a certain percentage of their gross national product on foreign aid to bring up the levels of the underdeveloped countries to those of the developed countries. It would mean the international co-operation of all scientific, technical and technological resources, the end of the colonialism and neo-colonialism that still exists in its various forms throughout the world, the removal of foreign bases from all countries, and the abolition of arms sales. That is a big program . Today, because time is limited and I want as many people as possible to join in this debate, I will just talk for a moment about discussions I had this morning with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. He was most supportive of the Parliamentary Disarmament Group and what it is endeavouring to do and of the fact that we are having this debate in the Senate today. The year 1986 is the United Nations International Year of Peace. In my discussions with Mr Hayden this morning he was most supportive of a number of proposals that will be put forward and given due consideration for a build-up to 1986. These may include a number of forums such as this, but not, as I said before, inside these hallowed halls. Given that that year has already been declared as one of peace, there is a proposal that Australia could perhaps play a much more significant role than it has in the past or than it is playing now. We have got to the stage of appointing an ambassador for disarmament, Mr Richard Butler, but that in itself is not enough. It is very nice to have Mr Richard Butler, an extremely competent and capable person, wandering around the world talking about disarmament, but it is not enough. Australia is a force on the world scene. There are some who would say we are a small voice. Believe me, we are recognised on the world scene as a powerful force. Not only should we instigate discussions of this nature and bring together people from other countries, possibly in our own region, to debate the issues that are required for nuclear disarmament, but we should look further. Perhaps we should be looking at acting in the role of mediator or conciliator. I know that those are more of those 'buzz' words, but is there any reason why Australia could not be the conciliator between the two super-powers, which are having such difficulty at the moment in sitting down and having a comprehensive discussion about the very real problems we here today see in nuclear disarmament? Is there anything wrong with our putting forward the proposal that we will go to the Geneva talks and act as chairman in those discussions, and God help either one of the super-powers if they decide to move out of those places. Let me just say this in the short time remaining: I believe the role that the media has to play is a most important one. I have noticed with interest-and I am sure other honourable senators who have a concern in this area have noticed also -the prominence that is being given to recent stories about nuclear weaponry and nuclear disarmament. Educational-type stories are being placed where people now read them. They are no longer being consigned to the back pages of the newspapers but are appearing on the front pages. They express concern at articles such as the one in the Age on Thursday 16 February entitled 'Soviets have moved subs to Atlantic', according to the United States. That is cause for concern. People read those articles and that gives them the ability to go out and discuss competently with other people, who express the same concern, what they have read. I believe there are a great number of things we can do. The speakers this afternoon all come from the Parliamentary Disarmament Group-or the majority of them, as I recognise that Senator Sir John Carrick is not one of the co- convenors of that committee. He and I crossed swords many times in this chamber on matters relevant to the discussion but never, ever on this subject. We are always totally in agreement that Australia has a tremendous role-- Senator Teague —Could we put our swords down? Senator COLEMAN —Yes, we could indeed. With the budgeting of funds for the establishment of the institute of peace and research development, we perhaps will have a greater input-once that institute is established at, I understand, the Australian National University-from this chamber into what that institute is doing, just as I hope it will be putting into these hallowed halls what it is doing over there. As my time has nearly expired and because others have very important matters to raise in this debate on this matter of public importance, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard documents relating to the present situation with nuclear warheads and bombs, the strategic nuclear forces of the superpowers, an article on nuclear weapons testing, and, finally, the arms control and disarmament agreements on nuclear weapons that I spoke about earlier. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- NUCLEAR ISSUES SECTION ONE: THE MILITARY CONNECTION The Arms Race: Present situation (1983) NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND BOMBS Strategic Intermediate Tactical Total U.S. 10,000 1,300 17,000 29,000 U.S.S.R. 7,400 3,500 6,500 17,400 U.K. 192 96 158 446 France 80 18 165 263 China 4 200 100 304 Total 17,676 5,114 24,413 47,413 Notes: Strategic-capable of intercontinental distances and/or intended for use against the enemy's homeland. Intermediate-range or combat radius of 1,500 miles or more. Tactical-all other weapons with range less than 1,500 miles including land mines and artillery shells. STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES OF THE SUPERPOWERS US USSR Weapons Weapons Launchers Launchers Number Number %Total Number %Total Land-based 1,047 2,147 21 1,398 5,496 74 Sea -based 544 4,960 50 904 1,592 22 Bombers 241 2,892 29 150 300 4 Total 1,832 9,999 100 2,452 7,388 100 NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE Strategic Intermediate Tactical Total NATO: Launchers 144 222 2,400 2,766 Warheads 272 426 5,450 6,148 WARSAW PACT: Launchers - 1,748 2,676 4,424 Warheads - 3,663 2,676 6,339 Note: Nato figures include France. (Source: 'World military and social expenditures 1983'-Ruth Leger Sivard) Comment: Land based nuclear weapons are the most vulnerable to attack, bombers less so and submarines least so. The U.S. is therefore at a definite advantage over the Soviet Union in the way its nuclear forces are deployed. U.S. missiles are technically more advanced than Soviet missiles and are therefore smaller and more accurate. This accuracy means megaton yields can be smaller to achieve similar results. Soviet nuclear weapons do have a greater total megatonnage yield than the U.S. total. ALP federal platform reference: P 73-74, p. 88. SECTION ONE: THE MILITARY CONNECTION HISTORY OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS RACE *Atomic bomb-In 1945 the U.S. exploded the first atomic bomb. The U.S.S.R. followed in 1949. *Intercontinental bomber-In 1948 the U.S. started to replace its World War II propellor bombers with jets. These intercontinental (strategic) bombers needed refuelling between continents. In 1955 the U.S. started deployment of an all-jet bomber force and the U.S.S.R. followed suit the same year. *Thermonuclear bomb-The U.S. exploded the first H-bomb in 1954. The yield was 15,000,000 tons TNT (15 megatons), about 1,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima atomic bomb. In 1955 the U.S.S.R. tested a 1 megaton thermonuclear device. *Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)-The U.S.S.R. successfully tested an ICBM in 1957 and the U.S. did it in 1958. By 1962, both countries could deliver 5 to 10 megaton payloads over 6,000 miles by ICBMs. *Satellite in orbit-In 1957 the U.S.S.R. launched Sputnik 1 and the U.S. followed in 1958. More than half the U.S. and Soviet satellites launched have been for military purposes. *Submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM)-In 1960 the U.S. introduced the third leg of its nuclear triad, the long range missile fired from a submerged nuclear submarine. The Polaris submarine carried missiles with a range of 1,200 nautical miles. The U.S.S.R. had developed a similar capability by 1968. *Multiple warhead (MRV)-The U.S. developed MRV'd missiles with three warheads in 1966. The U.S.S.R. developed them by 1968. *Anti-ballistic missile (ABM)-In 1968 the U.S.S.R. deployed 64 defensive missiles around Moscow. The U.S. began the Safeguard system in 1969 but a treaty in 1972 restricted each country to one site each. The missiles were not considered effective and the U.S. site was closed. *Multiple independently-targeted warhead (MIRV)-The MIRV missile carried three to ten individually targetable warheads capable of hitting targets 100 miles apart. The U.S. deployment began in 1970 and Soviet deployment in 1975. *Long-range Cruise missile-The U.S. developed the small, relatively inexpensive , highly accurate and low flight profile Cruise missile with a range of 1,500 miles in 1982. The missile can be launched from air, sea or land and can use natural ground cover to escape detection. U.S.S.R. technology is reportedly 7-8 years behind in this area. *Neutron bomb-The U.S. developed the 'enhanced radiation yield' neutron bomb and announced it was producing and stockpiling the bomb in 1981. The U.S.S.R. announced it was deferring production but possessed the productive capability. *Anti-satellite weapons-The U.S.S.R. began testing anti-satellite weapons in 1968. Both countries are developing laser and particle beam anti-satellite weapons. (Source: SIVARD, 1978) Comment: It can be seen that the U.S. has been the initiator of most new weapons developments. It can also be seen that none of these new weapons has increased global stability or security, and has always led to a new weapons development. It is evident that once a weapon is developed, it is a matter of only a small-time interval till it is acquired by the opposition. It is apparent that the arms race will only end through mutual disarmament or mutual, and global, destruction. ALP Federal Platform Reference: P81, P83, P73-75, P88, P33 NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING Between 1945 and end 1982, 1,375 nuclear tests were carried out. Nuclear tests U.S. 700; U.S.S.R. 500; U.K. 35; France 113; China 26; India 1. In 1983, 48 nuclear tests were carried out. The U.S. carried out 12 tests, France seven and the U.S.S.R. 27, 13 of which were ''peaceful'' explosions for excavating underground reservoirs. China resumed atmospheric testing after a break of three years. (Source: ''World Military and Social Expenditures, 1983'', by Ruth Leger Sivard .) Comment: In 1963 the Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed by 111 states which banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater. This ban was largely achieved by the efforts of some radiation experts who questioned the effects of fallout from such tests on local populations. China, however, resumed atmospheric testing in 1983. French nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll, in contravention of the expressed view of regional governments has been a continual problem. Reports persist of increased cancer and other health problems in the area caused by the tests and the atoll itself is said to be breaking up from the effects of the tests. In Australia, the long term effects of British atomic tests on Australian personnel involved in the tests and people in surrounding areas is still in contention. Tests were carried out at the Monte Bellos islands off the W.A. coast and Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia. South Africa may have exploded two nuclear devices already. It is likely, however, that that country has the capability to produce nuclear weapons when wanted, as does Israel and Pakistan, but does not actually test them. ALP Federal Platform Reference: P73-74, P81, P83, P136. MILITARY SPENDING AND SOCIAL COST *World military spending $618,744,000,000 (1982)-Increase of 4% per year 1979- 83. *U.S. Military spending: $169,691,000,000 (1982)-Increase of 7% per year 1979- 83. *Nato military spending: $285,747,000,000 (1982) *Soviet military spending: $135,500,000,000, (1982)-Increase of 2% per year 1979-83 *Warsaw pact military spending: $148,280,000,000 (1982) (Source: Sipri Yearbook, 1983) *Between 1960 and 1981, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. spent $3,100,000,000,000 on military power, well over the figure for all other countries combined. Their combined population is less than one eighth the global total. *The U.S. ranks 9th out of 142 countries in economic-social standing (i.e. quality of life) and the U.S.S.R. 25th. *Worldwide, 2,000,000,000 people have incomes below $500 per year. One person in five lives in abject poverty. In the U.S. 34 million people are classified as poor. *Worldwide, 600,000,000, are unemployed and less than fully employed. In the Third World, one in three can't find regular work. *Worldwide, 11,000,000 babies die before their first birthday and 5,000,000 children die of common diseases annually. *Worldwide, 2,000,000,000 do not have a regular supply of safe drinking water and three quarters of the Third World has no sanitary facilities. Most Third World sickness is attributable to these two problems. *Worldwide, 450,000,000 people suffer from hunger and malnutrition. *Worldwide, 120,000,000 school age children get no education. *Between 1960 and 1982, military spending by developed countries rose by over $ 400 billion. Foreign economic aid rose by $25 billion. In 1982, military spending was 17 times greater than aid spending. Source: ''World Military and Social Expenditures 1983''. Comment: The problem with the arms race is not just its probable conclusion in nuclear war, but also the sheer waste of resources, material and human, consumed by the weapons industry, which should be solving global environmental, health and poverty problems. As the Brandt Report pointed out, it is not simply our moral obligation to ease global wealth inequality, but the key to economic progress as well. However, the rich and powerful countries not only waste their own money, resources and people on the arms race, they also suck the poor countries into it. Weapons sales to underdeveloped countries are booming with the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. the bigger merchants. In 1980, the U.S. sold $18 billion worth of arms and the U.S.S.R. $15 billion worth, mainly to Third World countries. The reality regarding the arms race and its social cost was stated clearly over twenty years ago by the then U.S.President, Dwight Eisenhower when he said: 'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed and from those who are cold and are not clothed'. ALP Federal Platform Reference: PPS 69-73 ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGREEMENTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS Antarctic Treaty, 1959-26 states Bans any military uses of Antarctica and specifically prohibits nuclear tests and nuclear waste. Outer Space Treaty, 1967-83 states Bans nuclear weapons in earth orbit and their stationing in outer space. Latin American Nuclear-free Zone Treaty, 1967-22 states Bans testing, possession, deployment, of nuclear weapons and requires safeguards on facilities. All Latin American states except Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, are parties to the Treaty. Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1968-119 states Bans transfer of weapons or weapons technology to non-nuclear-weapons states. Requires safeguards on their facilities. Commits nuclear-weapon states to negotiations to halt the arms race. Seabed Treaty, 1971-71 states Bans nuclear weapons on the seabed beyond a 12-mile coastal limit. TO REDUCE THE RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR Hot Line and Modernization Agreements, 1963-US-USSR Establishes direct radio and wire-telegraph links between Moscow and Washington to ensure communication between Heads of Government in times of crisis. A second agreement in 1971 provided for satellite communication circuits. Accidents Measures Agreement, 1971-US-USSR Pledges US and USSR to improve safeguards against accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement, 1973-US-USSR Requires consultation between the two countries if there is a danger of nuclear war. TO LIMIT NUCLEAR TESTING Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1963-111 states Bans nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, outer space, or underwater. Bans underground explosions which cause release of radioactive debris beyond the state's borders. Threshold Test Ban Treaty, 1974-US-USSR* Bans underground tests having a yield above 150 kilotons (150,000 tons of TNT equivalent). Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, 1974-US-USSR* Bans 'group explosions' with aggregate yield over 1,500 kilotons and requires on-site observers of group explosions with yield over 150 kilotons. TO LIMIT NUCLEAR WEAPONS ABM Treaty (Salt I) and Protocol, 1972-US-USSR Limits anti-ballistic missile systems to two deployment areas on each side. Subsequently, in protocol of 1974, each side restricted to one deployment area. Salt I Interim Agreement, 1972-US-USSR Freezes the number of strategic ballistic missile launchers, and permits an increase in SLBM launchers up to an agreed level only with equivalent dismantling of older ICBM or SLBM launchers. Salt II, 1979-US-USSR* Limits numbers of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, launchers or mirv'd missiles, bombers with long-range cruise missiles, warheads on existing ICBM's, etc. Bans testing or deploying new ICBM's. *Not ratified ALP Federal platform reference: P81, P83, P73-74, P75, P88 Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.32) —The Senate is debating the following matter of public importance: The pressing need for Australia and other world powers to be involved in constructive discussions on international nuclear disarmament. I commend Senator Ruth Coleman for bringing the subject forward. The principle within the matter of public importance ought to be supported. I believe it is supported by every member of this chamber. We may differ in methodology but I think the goal is clear. It is a sad fact that this chamber, the chamber in another place, and the Australian community have rarely directed their attention in a detailed and comprehensive fashion to discussing a subject which transcends all other subjects. Senator McIntosh —Hear, hear! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I acknowledge Senator McIntosh in this. Let us hope that this initiative is the start of better days for us all. All of us would start off on one premise-that all war is horrendous and barbarous and that it must be outlawed if possible, provided of course that we can, by its outlawing, get peace with dignity and freedom. Senator McIntosh —And social justice. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Justice and freedom, yes, so the goal is common for us all. I would have made only one small but I think significant amendment to the wording. I would have added 'and conventional warfare' because I believe one cannot tackle the subject of nuclear disarmament without also tackling the subject of conventional disarmament. I wonder whether Senator Coleman has read the statement of the present Secretary-General of the United Nations, quoted by our own Ambassador at the United Nations Committee on Disarmament in February of last year. Mr Peres de Cuellar said: . . . international public opinion wants the two main nuclear countries to start discussing nuclear disarmament. But I insist no less on the necessity of discussing conventional disarmament. I think both problems have to be considered . . . He went on to say: I always want to relate together the nuclear arms race to the conventional arms race. It is very easy for some countries to use the nuclear arms race as a kind of smoke screen in order to make us forget that there is the real and more immediate problem of the conventional arms race. At the same time we have to remember that conventional arms are becoming more and more sophisticated. I wonder whether they are not much more of a threat than nuclear arms . . . I think that is important, and I notice that Senator Coleman acknowledges that point. That was said by our ambassador and he obviously gave Australia's support to it. The dilemma we face is this: We all agree on the goals, but the methodology is the problem. One of our problems is that I do not believe there is a clear definition of the real facts in this question of nuclear armament and the arms race and, arising from those facts, what should be done. I want to dwell on that . It is important for Australia to participate in discussions in the world scene , to be a good neighbour and to be, if possible, an international mother-in-law helping to resolve problems. But I put as a prior necessity the vital need to uplift this dialogue in Australia, inside this Parliament and out, and to try to get consensus within Australia on the facts, the issues and the methods of getting our goal. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has talked of consensus. I do not cavil at that. If we can bring the Australian people together on any issues, it will be an achievement. On this above all issues, above all industrial issues-after all, we are talking about international industrial strife-let us seek consensus. The first thing I would say is: Let us raise the level and the comprehensive nature of the dialogue in Australia and let us try between ourselves to get the facts. Today I propose to put down a number of statements which I believe to be true. If they are not, let somebody challenge them so that we can weave our way. Yes, we can do things by discussion. I put down some 10 or 11 matters of immediacy, apart from the one I have just mentioned, the great dialogue in Australia. We can, of course, insist on more debate and more specific debate in the United Nations and its agencies, and that we should do. But we should not leave it only to the experts. We want every ambassador from Australia and every member of our staffs overseas to be ambassadors for disarmament, well-equipped in themselves with facts. Everybody overseas in our Department of Foreign Affairs is there to be good neighbours and to work for constructive peace. We should raise the level of our debate and participation in the Committee on Disarmament. I commend to all honourable senators the reading of the documents on the Committee on Disarmament from which I read a moment ago. They make good reading. The third point is that we should more actively participate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. As the Minister some years ago, I called upon that agency in Geneva and had discussions. I understand that the Director of the Agency, Dr Blix, is in Australia and will be having discussions. I commend to all the opportunity to have that kind of talk. We do not in this chamber or elsewhere, fully understand the immense political and mechanical problems of the IAEA, including the question of being able to carry out surveillance, to get verification and compliance. These are the very hubs of the issue. My view is that we should, after this more general debate, home in on specifics and on a debate with the IAEA and look at the problems. I would be very interested to upgrade the reports from our representatives at the IAEA so that we can debate the matters here and give that agency some lead to follow. Along with that, it is important that all in Australia should understand the nature of the Australian Safeguards Office. I think very few do. I was privileged to obtain such an understanding when I was the Minister for National Development and Energy. I believe it is necessary for the Office to be expanded and to undertake more specialist activities and I believe there is a need for it to play an even wider role. We should continue to increase our research into the disposal of nuclear wastes and the research which I was privileged to start at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission on Synroc and other matters-which I acknowledge the Hawke Government has continued-should be continued because we will do a great service to the world at large if we can find a solution. I believe-there may be controversy about this-that we should supply uranium and its processed products to the world, but provide it on the most strict conditions. The Government's Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has made the statement that on balance there is greater safety if we supply material than if other countries with less strict safeguards supply it. I therefore advocate that we supply uranium, and advocate that we should develop uranium enrichment processes because that is another step in the control of this material. I would go to the utmost limits to ensure that our controls of the monitoring and movement of fissionable products are the most intense in the world. I think they are now. We should work with greater intensity to achieve nuclear test bans. That is one of the great and constructive things we can do in our dialogues. We can promote regional discussions but above everything, although we are not ready to do this yet, all of us on both sides of the chamber must identify clearly what we want to do. Before we become good neighbours, before we become the interveners, we need to know not only the principles-Senator Coleman has expressed them with great clarity-but also the particularities of the journey. That is the important part of this debate. I want to venture on to the present scene. I do not want people to believe as a result of the comments I make that I am taking some pro-American and anti- Russian side. I am quite conscious of G. K. Chesterton saying: 'No one should say my country, right or wrong; it is like saying my mother, drunk or sober'. I want, if I can, to weave my way through this because I want to state some principles and some figures and have them checked. If they are wrong, let us have the correct information. The first point in this disarmament debate is that a belief, frequently put forward by the media, is that we have a nuclear arms race and that America is leading that race. Unless I am wrong, that is fundamentally incorrect. I put it to the test. As I am advised, since 1960 the United States of America has steadily reduced its warheads and its explosive power. Today, some 8,000 fewer weapons are deployed world wide than there were in 1960 and the megatonnage, the explosive power, is barely one-quarter of what it was 20 years ago. I do not say that in any puritanical sense. I am well aware that as one gets more expert, as one is better able to home in on targets, less megatonnage does the same damage. I merely want to put those figures forward. I am advised that in 1980 the United States unilaterally withdrew 1,000 warheads from Europe. Is this right or is it wrong? The United States says that in fact it is not escalating weapons at all; it is simply making strategic modernisations and is actually reducing weapons. Is that right or wrong? I accept it. The United States says that in the past 20 years it has suffered grave obsolescence and reduction in its weaponry and that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the other of the two most important nuclear nations, has upgraded by way of modernisation and an increase in numbers . It says-let us challenge it if it is wrong-that only 4 per cent of United States warheads are on launchers less than 15 years old. That 4 per cent is in one Trident submarine. It says that 94 per cent of Soviet weapons are on launchers less than five years old. Is that right or wrong? We must get to the facts. Where are the facts? Is this a nuclear arms race or is it something different? How can we evaluate the introduction of Pershing and cruise missiles into Europe unless we know the truth? I want to get to the truth of this because, as I said at the beginning, it is important to look at conventional arms as well. If we put down our nuclear weapons and one side has an overwhelming advantage in conventional weapons, we will have the same kind of destruction. Perhaps we will not suffer the same magnitude of destruction or the genetic damage but, after all, raids on German cities in the last year of the war did more damage than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No doubt modern conventional weapons, including nerve, germ and other chemical weapons, are equally horrendous. In any case, all it would do would be to put into the hands of one nation the ability to control the world. None of us wants that. I have sought and received agreement from the Government to incorporate in Hansard a series of tables and statements taken from the document entitled 'Soviet Military Power-1983', an official publication of the Defense Department of the United States of America. I seek leave to incorporate that document. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ''SOVIET MILITARY POWER'' Second Edition March 1983 Official Publication of the Department of Defense, United States of America PREFACE ''There is nothing hypothetical about the Soviet military machine. Its expansion, modernization, and contribution to projection of power beyond Soviet boundaries are obvious. A clear understanding of Soviet Armed Forces, their doctrine, their capabilities, their strengths, and their weaknesses is essential to the shaping and maintenance of effective US and Allied armed forces.'' Those words from Soviet Military Power, published in September 1981, provide a fitting point of departure for this updated second edition. Soviet Military Power 1983 reports on the size, capabilities, and deployment of the Soviet Armed Forces-and documents the improvements and the R & D which are shaping the increased capabilities of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces, the Air Defense Forces, the Ground Forces, the Air Forces, and the Navy-forces numbering more than 4.9 million men. Since late 1981: The USSR has begun test flights of two new land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, while continuing modernization of the deployed SS-17, SS-18, and SS-19 ICBM force. The USSR has begun test flights of a new generation of strategic manned bombers -the BLACKJACK bomber, larger than the US B1. The USSR has begun test flights of a new generation of ground, sea and air- launched cruise missiles, missiles with nuclear capabilities with ranges in excess of 1,600 kilometers, significantly expanding the flexibility of Soviet strategic options. The first of the USSR's 25,000-ton TYPHOON-Class strategic ballistic missile submarines has test fired its MIRVed, nuclear-warhead, 8,300-kilometer-range, submarine-launched ballistic missiles. A second TYPHOON has been launched. Modernization and forward deployment of increasing numbers of Soviet intermediate nuclear forces-land, sea, and air-have proceeded at an unparalleled pace. More than 330 mobile launchers for the SS-20-a Longer-Range Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (LRINF) missile with three nuclear warheads and reloads for each launcher-are now arrayed against Western Europe, the Middle East, parts of Africa, and most of Asia, including China and Japan. Su-24 FENCER ground-attack aircraft have been forward-deployed to nations of Eastern Europe and to border bases in Asia, extending the combat radius of these new nuclear-capable aircraft to include Japan and most of NATO Europe. The USSR has introduced additional nuclear-capable weapons systems to its forward-deployed division in Eastern Europe. The new SS-21 mobile, short-range ballistic missile system is operational in Eastern Europe as is the 152-mm self- propelled gun, adding to Soviet conventional, chemical, and nuclear war-fighting options. The USSR's T-80 main battle tank, in development in 1981, is in the field with Soviet Tank Division in both the USSR and Eastern Europe, adding to the extended combat capabilities of the more than 190 Soviet ground force divisions. In 1981, two Soviet KIEV-Class aircraft carriers were operational. Now, three units are on the high seas; a fourth unit has been launched; and development continues on a newer, larger class of aircraft carriers. In shipyards on the Baltic and Black Seas, series production continues on four new classes of surface warships-a new generation of nuclear and conventionally powered Soviet cruisers and guided missile destroyers enhancing the Soviet Navy' s air defense, antisubmarine warfare, and cruise-missile, surface-strike capabilities. Five Soviet shipyards have continued to produce new attack submarines for the world's largest submarine force. In 1980, the first of the new, extremely large OSCAR Class guided missile submarines was launched, a submarine capable of firing up to 24 long-range antiship cruise missiles while submerged. That lead unit is now on sea trials, and a second unit has been launched. The USSR's military related space program has grown in manned missions, more reconnaissance surveillance targeting satellites and antisatellite space systems . The USSR's combat operations have continued to expand in Afghanistan, and now involve more than 105,000 Soviet troops with some of the newest Soviet weapons. From Indochina to the Caribbean, the USSR has continued to expand its global military presence. To cite just one example, a Soviet Navy task force operated in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico from November 1982 to February 1983. Expansion of the USSR technology and industrial production base has matched the growth and deployment of its armed forces, reflecting a top priority investment in defense production aided by continuing acquistion of Western technology. Despite economic difficulties the USSR allocates an estimated 15 percent of GNP to its military buildup, an increase from the 12-to-14 percent reported in 1981, which in turn represents a continuance of the trend of the last 21 years. To place this modernization and growth of the USSR's Armed Forces in perspective, Soviet Military Power 1983 includes substantial data on US and Allied forces enhancement as well as some comparative US-USSR and NATO-Warsaw Pact tables. Comprehensive information on US forces, of course, is regularly made available to the public in such publications as the Secretary of Defense's Annual Report and the Military Posture Statement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Ours is a free society; the Soviet Union is not. The updated facts presented in this report leave no doubt as to the USSR's dedication to achieving military superiority in all fields. It is our duty to have a full awareness of Soviet military growth, modernization and capabilities and to shape our defense forces and our deterrent capabilities accordingly. We can do no less if we are to provide fully and wisely for our security, and that of our Allies. Ours is a formidable task, made more difficult by a decade of our neglect coupled with two decades of massive Soviet increases. But, we and our Allies can accomplish the task if we have the will, the courage, and the resolution possessed in ample measure by our predecessors who won our freedom, and who have kept it for us all. This is at once our most precious heritage and our most solemn responsibility to prosterity . Caspar W. Weinberger March 1983 Secretary of Defense LONGER-RANGE INTERMEDIATE-RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES USSR NATO kilometres kilometres SS-4 2,000 . . SS-5 4,100 . . SS-20 5,000 . . 3 MIRVs Total deployed March '83 581 . . Pershing II . . 1,800 GLCM . . 2,500 Total deployed March '83 . . nil NATO-WARSAW PACT FORCE COMPARISON 1981 Warsaw NATO Pact Total military 2.6m 4.0m Divisions 84 173 Main Battle Tanks 13,000 42,500 Anti-tank Weapon Launchers 8,100 24,300 Artillery-mortars 10,750 31,500 Armoured personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles 30,000 78,800 Helicopters 1,800 1,000 AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION USSR AND NATO 1981 Aircraft Type 19781 19791 19801 1981 1982 NATO2 Bombers 30 30 30 30 30 0 Fighters/Fighter Bombers 1,250 1,300 1,300 1,350 1, 100 900 Transports 400 400 350 350 350 300 Trainers 50 25 25 25 25 30 ASW 10 10 10 10 10 10 Helicopters 650 750 750 750 700 800 Utility 100 100 50 25 25 100 Total 2,490 2,615 2,515 2,540 2,240 2,140 1 Revised to reflect current information. 2 Includes that produced by the United States; excludes France. MISSILE PRODUCTION USSR AND NATO 1981 Missile Type 19781 19791 19801 1981 1982 NATO2 ICBMs 225 225 250 200 175 0 LRINF 100 100 100 100 100 0 SRBMs 250 300 300 300 300 0 SLCMs 600 700 750 750 800 700 SLBMs 250 200 200 175 175 90 SAMs 53,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 53,000 6,900 1 Revised to reflect current information. 2 Includes that produced by the United States; excludes France. NAVAL SHIP CONSTRUCTION USSR AND NATO 1981 19781 19791 19801 1981 1982 NATO2 Submarines 13 12 13 11 8 10 Major Combatants 11 11 11 9 8 20 Minor Combatants 50 55 65 45 55 40 Auxiliaries 5 7 8 5 4 0 1 Revised to reflect current information. 2 Includes that produced by the United States; excludes France. PRODUCTION OF GROUND FORCES MATERIEL USSR/NON-SOVIET WARSAW PACT AND NATO 19781 19791 19801 1981 1982 USSR NSWP USSR NSWP USSR NSWP USSR NSWP USSR NSWP NATO2 Tanks 3,000 800 3,500 800 3,100 700 2,000 520 2,500 600 760 T-55 500 800 500 800 . . 700 . . 500 . . 500 . . T-64 1,000 . . 1,000 . . 500 . . 200 . . . . . . . . T-72 1,500 . . 2,000 . . 2,300 . . 1,400 20 1,300 100 . . T-80 . . . . Trial . . 300 . . 400 . . 1,200 . . . . Output Other Armoured Fighting Vehicles 5,500 1,800 5,700 1,625 6,300 1,450 5,200 1, 250 4,500 1,450 960 Towed Field Artillery 1,300 110 1,500 160 1,400 160 1,600 210 1,700 260 160 Self-Propelled Field Artillery 700 . . 500 10 300 50 400 50 500 50 300 Multiple Rocket Launchers 550 150 600 150 700 150 700 150 700 100 0 Self-Propelled AA Artillery 300 100 300 100 300 100 300 50 200 50 0 Towed-AA Artillery 100 200 . . 200 . . 150 . . 250 . . 200 150 1 Revised to reflect current information. 2 Includes that produced by the United States; includes France. MAJOR SOVIET EQUIPMENT DELIVERED TO THE THIRD WORLD 1977-1982 Near East East Asia and Sub-Saharan Latin and Total South Asia Africa America Pacific Tanks/Self-propelled guns 7,065 5,205 1,140 80 640 Light Armour 8,660 6,500 1, 590 175 395 Artillery (100-mm and over) 9,590 5,115 3,510 420 545 Major Surface Combatants 32 19 5 1 7 Minor Surface Combatants 126 10 45 27 44 Missile Patrol Boats 53 33 4 11 8 Submarines 6 3 . . 3 . . Supersonic Combat Aircraft 2,235 1,635 220 130 250 Subsonic Combat Aircraft 290 150 80 5 55 Helicopters 910 620 125 35 130 Other Military Aircraft 345 100 70 65 110 Surface-to-Air Missilies 11,680 9,495 1,575 435 175 Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If it is true that the United States has downgraded its position and is now simply modernising its weapons, what again are the facts ? As I understand it, in 1981 the United States sought a reduction in intermediate weaponry-in fact, it wanted to wipe them out-but did not get far because the Soviet Union would not go ahead. Indeed, it sought to have a progressive reduction but it did not get far. It wanted to wipe them out so that there could be a balance between the countries. The Soviet Union has said that it will not enter into these discussion unless, when all weaponry is taken into account, its weaponry shall be equal to all other weaponry outside the Iron Curtain, that is, including the weaponry of Britain and France. I raise this matter again for consideration by the Government. I have seen it said as well as I can state it in these words: The Soviet position amounts to a claim that they be permitted to maintain nuclear forces equivalent to those of all other potential adversaries added together; in effect, that they must be stronger than any other single power, and equal to all of them combined. Furthermore, it implies that, in matters of nuclear weapons, the Soviets can dismiss the national interests of individual European nations by lumping their military forces together without distinction. This view violates the basic principle of equality in U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements, and is a reversal of the earlier Soviet position in the first and second strategic arms limitations talks (SALT I and II), when the Soviets acknowledged that British and French missiles were strategic systems. The British and French governments, moreover, have categorically rejected any consideration of their nuclear deterrent forces in the INF negotiations. I ask again: Is this right or is it wrong? Who is right and wrong in the present discussions on the Pershing II and cruise missiles? As I am advised, unless there are such missiles in Western Europe, and staked in Western Europe, Russia has breached the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks agreements by changing SS4 and SS5 weapons into SS20 weapons and thus completely altering the balance. The SALT talks provided that the intercontinental ballistic missiles which were to be weapons of a capacity of 5,500 kilometres should be limited in number, that a ceiling should be put on them. As I understand it, the Russians took their SS4s and SS5s and put multiple MIRV warheads on them-that is, multiple independent re -entry vehicles-which included three warheads. This gave them a range of 5,000 kilometres so that they can get inside Europe. I am advised that the situation at the moment is that Russia has the capacity to penetrate any part of Western Europe whereas Western Europe is powerless to retaliate. Is that true? If it is true, quite clearly what the Americans and NATO are seeking at this moment is to be supported. The picture is as I have described it. The Warsaw powers have conventional weaponry, armaments, men and materials which, as shown in the document which the Senate has agreed to have incorporated in Hansard, vastly outnumber those of the NATO forces. So simply to put down the nuclear shield will not get us peace. As I understand it, the question at the moment is not one of escalation but of modernisation. Let us get the facts. Let us get a dialogue going in Australia-in the Senate and elsewhere. When we have the facts we can go out and preach. Sadly I say to honourable senators that, except by my own searching, the facts have not appeared clearly. I invite the Government to give us a White Paper on this matter. Let us have a White Paper that we can worry out and debate in this chamber. Let us get the facts and take the dialogue to the community in the streets, in the halls and in the media. When we do and we get the feedback from the people-that is what we need because we represent them here-we will be in a position to go abroad. I have set out 10 or 11 ways in which we can do this on the international scene. I am a passionate advocate of peace with dignity and freedom. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(3.52) —The matter of public importance introduced by Senator Coleman is about the pressing need for Australia and other world powers to be involved in constructive discussions on international nuclear disarmament. Usually when I follow Senator Sir John Carrick in a debate I find myself bouncing into him because he always very eloquently and strongly puts the view of the Liberal Party of Australia. However, on this occasion I agree with him. I certainly do not agree with all the things that he said, but I agree with the thrust of his contribution, which was that we must uplift the dialogue on this most important matter. When he speaks of his abhorrence of war he speaks from his experience of the difficulties and horror that war means. The Australian Labor Party is unique in that it set out in its platform its basic principles and objectives, which include the maintenance of world peace, an independent position in world affairs, the recognition of the right of all nations to self-determination and independence, and regional and international agreements for arms control and disarmament. We go on, in our platform, to adopt principles of action in a co-operative process that involves constitutional action through the Australian and State governments and, in addition, call for ongoing action organised community groups, including trade unions and local government bodies. So it is fundamental to us that we be involved in, as Senator Coleman said, the constructive discussions on international nuclear disarmament. That means that we should participate in this Parliament, in the international forums and, most important of all, in community discussions. I believe that part of the success achieved in trying to turn round the nuclear arms race is due to being able to involve the community. I am fortified by a current publication entitled The Forgotton Treaties, which was written by Allan McKnight and has an introduction by Dr Keith Suter. There is a reference at page 16 of this book to the late Lord Noel-Baker who, in referring to the period 1932-33, but highlighting the importance of the participation of a community movement in disarmament negotiations, said: The Conferences and Commissions have proved that all the technical problems of Disarmament have been solved; that the further Disarmament were taken, the more swiftly and completely would the difficulties disappear. The only problem that remains unsolved is that of creating the popular support that will enable-or compel-the statesmen to see it through. That was absolutely true in 1932-33 and it is absolutely true today. I have the privilege of being involved in the anti-nuclear movement in this country. I certainly agree with Senator Sir John Carrick's remarks when he said that it is a more important issue by far that we face today. Indeed, it is the major priority of today. It is a major priority of the Labor Government. I refer briefly to some of the improvements and initiatives taken by the Labor Government in its first 12 months, not the least of which was the appointment of Richard Butler as Ambassador for Disarmament to upgrade the whole area. Australia's major initiative in the nuclear field in the last six months has been the promotion of a new approach to the objective of having negotiations started on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Our policy is that there should be such a treaty open for universal signature banning all nuclear testing by all states in all environments for all time and fully verifiable. The resolution to this effect which we put before the General Assembly of the United Nations in December was adopted by a vote of 117 for, none against and 29 abstentions. Three other countries which were absent for the vote stated that, had they been present, they would have voted for the resolution. Clearly that was a significant result. No other such resolution has attracted no negative votes. It is more of a truism to say that perhaps none of this would be necessary if human beings had been properly educated in regard to the virtues of peace rather than in the heroics of war and conflict. I shall refer in detail later to the massive community self-education program that is part of the anti- nuclear movement in Australia at this time. Ambassador Butler said: What is fascinating, and encouraging to me, is that talk about education for peace was seen only a dozen years ago as ephemeral and peripheral to main concerns. Today very many teachers and citizens see it as a central if not vital concern. He went on to say: I am delighted that good progress is also being made towards the establishment of the Peace Research Institute which is a part of Federal Government policy. The architect of so much of the Labor Government's initiative is the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bill Hayden, who emphasised at the United Nations when he spoke there on 4 October the high priority that we give to arms control and disarmament. He said: We must re-commit ourselves to the maintenance of peace at the lowest possible level of armaments and to disarmament as one of mankind's highest practical goals. The need for that is urgent and it is what the people of the world are telling us. That is what this matter of public importance emphasises. People will not accept that the system is out of control. One of the problems that we face in the world today is that people will not accept the arms race mentality. The Australian Labor Government is committed to the arms control and disarmament goals of the United Nations, both as enshrined in the charter and in the substantial fabric of the international law that has been developed since the United Nations organisation came into existence. Australia is determined that there be an end to the nuclear arms race and a reduction in the number and kind of nuclear weapons held by nuclear weapons states. The Australian Labor Party is determined that the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons be strengthened and adhered to universally. Linking those two objectives, we are determined that there should be an end to nuclear testing in all environments for all time. To achieve some of those objectives the Government has doubled the resources available in Canberra to allow work to be undertaken on these issues, to allow study to be undertaken, to advise on arms control and disarmament measures and the policies required to maintain peace. Senator Sir John Carrick said that he would like to see a White Paper. I am sure that type of thing will be the inevitable product of a beefing up of the activity in these areas. We will establish an independent peace research institute and examine the integration of peace studies into school curricula, which is one of the great weaknesses we have had in this country up until now, so that young people might be able to see both sides of the argument that is taking place in the world. In the Pacific we have opened up debate with our partners and neighbours on the possibility of establishing a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. As I said earlier, I believe that the strength and the movement for nuclear disarmament will be finally resolved by the peoples themselves. In Australia there is a tremendous movement in every State. I am proud to say that I am the convenor of a rally and march that will take place commencing in Hyde Park south in Sydney on 15 April. It will go to the Sydney Domain. We have held two similar rallies. Last year 60,000 Australian citizens attended a rally to demonstrate their concern. I invite honourable senators to consider the growth of this movement. In 1981, 100,000 people marched throughout Australia and last year 200 ,000 people marched. I am sure we will exceed that number this year. At our first rally in Sydney novelist Patrick White was the principal speaker. Last year David Williamson spoke. This year Dr Helen Caldicott, a leading Australian who has lived in America for some time and who has been particularly active in the American movement of Physicians Against Nuclear War, will attend the rally. I suggest the movement is one of the most democratic movements in which it is possible to be involved. It is a very pleasing experience. It shows that people can co-operate, even though they do not agree on many other issues. They march in a rally and carry their own slogans. Therefore, they are able to treat the subject just as we probably treat it in the chamber, that is, in different ways. Those people are led by Ministers of state, parliamentarians and community and church leaders. The participation is quite diverse. It includes Aboriginals, women's organisations, students, peace and disarmament organisations, environmental groups, churches, trade unions, professional groups such as doctors, scientists and lawyers, ethnic organisations, community organisations, solidarity groups, public officeholders, members of parliament, aldermen and shire councillors and political and other groups. One can appreciate why the people in Sydney on 15 April will feel the solidarity, the feeling of strength which one gets when one realises that thousands of people share that concern. Senator McIntosh —Every capital city. Senator CHILDS —I was giving my own State a plug. These rallies will take place in every State. In the nuclear disarmament movement in Sydney-it is the only one to which I will have time to refer-we have an educational program which I have referred to earlier. I emphasise that in 12 months thousands of people have undertaken what I would call self-education programs. We sell a system whereby four cassettes from the lectures address the problems to which Senator Sir John Carrick has referred. This means that people can study at their leisure the issues that are involved. That is what we must work on. If we do not allow people to consider the facts and if we cannot force them into facing the problems, we will fail. I think that we as politicians must realise that the peace and disarmament movement affects the way people vote. I also acknowledge that most of us here are members of the all-party Parliamentary Disarmament Group. That, I think, is an acknowledgement of the great concern we all have. I suggest that the sheer size of the membership of disarmament organisations gives the lie to the view that is often perpetuated in the Press that it is just a fringe group of fanatics which is involved. The truth of the matter is that there has been a tremendous development in this area. From my experience in New South Wales in the last 12 months, I can say that the nuclear disarmament groups have increased by 30 to 40 per cent. Whereas we had 12 regional or community areas represented 12 months ago, there are now between 60 and 70 in existence in New South Wales at this moment. Time does not permit me to go into all the areas, but when we look at the multi -cultural nature of our community we find that so many people who are concerned with the threat that exists in Europe at present have added their weight because they know that despite what might happen in Australia there is a real threat to the people in Europe of an accident or war occurring based on the dangerous situation that exists there at present. I urge people to take action. We in the Labor Party believe that people should participate within Parliament but they should go to the ultimate democracy and march with their fellow citizens in the streets. In that way they can show the community that both the people holding the highest posts in the land and those holding the lowest positions in the land might unite together on such an occasion. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.08) —The Senate is debating the following matter of public importance: The pressing need for Australia and other world powers to be involved in constructive discussions on international nuclear disarmament. This is a bipartisan debate, as of course it should be. We are not talking about the run of the mill political issues. We are talking about the future of civilisation. In February of last year Andrei Sakharov said: It should be said that all out nuclear war would mean the destruction of contemporary civilisation, hurl man back centuries, cause the deaths of hundreds of millions or billions of people, or, with a certain degree of probability, would cause man to be destroyed as a biological species and could even cause the annihilation of life on earth. The nuclear arms race is the most emotive level, because of its potentially catastrophic consequences, of the wider subject of the total arms race. The cost of that arms race to civilisation, particularly the poor, is enormous. I reflect upon my observations in the Horn of Africa. Mr Acting Deputy President, my observations will be known to you as you were with me on an occasion. We learnt that one third of the budget of some of the poorest countries on earth was spent on armaments and defence. How much better off they would be if an alternative method of conflict resolution, a peaceful method, could be found. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that world military spending for 1982 was between $700 billion and $750 billion. More dramatic, I think, is the effect upon the third world and poor countries. I refer to a figure in a speech made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in Adelaide in his Evatt memorial lecture last year. He said that roughly 75 per cent of the global trade in conventional arms in the 1970s consisted of deliveries to the third world. That is a most depressing figure. To put the position in perspective, he said: The current expenditure on arms for one year would pay off all the debt of developing countries, which is threatening the fabric of the world financial system. I remind the Senate of what was said in the final communique of the first Special Session on Disarmament at the United Nations. It was said: The economic social consequences of the arms race are so detrimental that its continuation is obviously incompatible with the implementation of the new international economic order based on justice, equity and co-operation. So, the cost in diverted resources is enormous. Perhaps that cost could be justified if it were making for a safer world. The Stockholm Institute, which monitors the number of wars, as broadly defined, from the end of the Second World War to 1980, has recorded 133 separate conflicts at a cost of tens of millions of lives. What is now clear to the United Nations and accepted by Australia is that the acquisition of weapons has led inevitably to an arms race which threatens the very security that the acquisition of arms was designed to protect. The legitimate security objectives of states is not in question. The question is: How best to provide that security? It is clear that the answer does not lie in an arms race competition. That was well expressed by Richard Butler, who now has the position of Australian Ambassador for Disarmament, in his speech at the commencement of this year's Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, a speech that was given on 14 February. He said: Another matter of concern to my Government is the extent to which the notion of not 'peaceful' but desperate competition has come to underlie and fuel the arms race. The implication of competition in arms is not that there can be a winner. We all know that in the nuclear age there are no winners, only losers. Competition in arms does not ensure security. It ensures escalation, massive and increasingly draining expenditures, and growing dangers. If the arms race is not to give the world the security to which it is entitled, where does the answer lie? I submit that it lies in a new order of international relations which would have as its centre the maintenance of peace and security through international co-operation. They should be familiar words to this Senate , because it was a desire in those terms which led to the formation of the United Nations. Nevertheless, it has largely failed to work, and it has failed largely because there has not been sufficient determination to make it work. Security through disarmament rather than the conventional thought of security simply through armament is a challenge which the world community must face. It requires us again to look at the causes of conflict, the institutional framework we have developed to allow a diplomatic alternative to conflict resolution, the reasons for the lack of faith in the institutions that have been so developed and all of the many related questions. The subject we have before us today specifically is to look at the role Australia should play. I want to look at that question in the context, firstly, of the bilateral and multilateral negotiations that have been taking place; secondly, the subject of collective security; and thirdly, our role in contributing to overcoming the pre-conditions to destabilisation. In regard to bilateral and multilateral negotiations, it is not widely recognised that Australia has taken a prominent, and on occasions leading, role in the multilateral disarmament process which has been taking place under the auspices of the United Nations through the General Assembly, particularly the two special sessions on disarmament, and the work in Geneva of the negotiating Committee on Disarmament. I have spoken before in this place on the role we have played in the Committee on Disarmament. I was privileged to attend the last session on disarmament in New York and to witness the prominent role we played at that conference of the United Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament. I reported to this Senate after that event. Unfortunately, in multilateral talks progress has been disappointingly, and to many states frustratingly, slow. Many reasons are suggested for this. I take this opportunity to suggest two. The first is the continual reference to the international climate not being conducive to constructive progress in disarmament negotiations. The United Nations General Assembly President, Ismail T. Kattini of Iraq, put the failures of UNSSOD II in perspective when he recognised that it would be an illusion to expect the United Nations to insulate itself from the general climate and relations among states- where mistrust, conflict, a growing sense of insecurity and the resort to force continued to prevail-and to produce miracles. Australia must not adopt this explanation as accepting the inevitability of little progress. Again I refer to the speech of Andrei Sakharov: I am convinced that nuclear disarmament talks are of enormous importance and of the highest priority. They must be conducted continuously-in the brighter periods of international relations but also in the periods when relations are strained-and conducted with persistence, foresight, firmness and, at the same time, with flexibility and initiative. The second reason I wish to suggest to the Senate for the failure of multilateral talks is that there is a tendency to accept that such talks should play a subservient role to negotiations between the super-powers. Throughout UNSSOD II there was a clear impression, certainly in my mind, of acceptance that the real decisions had to be made by the super-powers. That certainly appeared to be the attitude of the super-powers and, as a result, little in practice has been achieved in the Committee on Disarmament where, fortunately, the total world community has had the opportunity of representation in those multilateral negotiations. The right to be involved in efforts to reverse the nuclear arms race must not be limited to the possessors of those weapons. I suggest that we all have a right to be involved. We occupy an integral role in the American nuclear deterrence. We have, therefore, a direct involvement and we should have views and attitudes that we should press upon our allies. In fact, accepting as I do that there will be no limited nuclear exchange, all the world community has a right, and I believe a responsibility, to press their views upon the principal players. There is an interrelationship between the multilateral and the bilateral talks. Australia has been a leading proponent for a treaty to ban all nuclear tests in all environments. Such a treaty would limit proliferation horizontally, in that non-nuclear states would be unable to test weapons, and would limit it vertically, in that nuclear states would have difficulty in improving the quality of their warheads. In particular, we have recognised that such a treaty would not come about without adequate methods of verification and compliance, and we have been contributing to that challenge through the development of different methods of seismic verification. Unfortunately, when the United States finally indicated to the Committee on Disarmament that it was prepared to join a working group, China and France immediately announced that they would not take part, since in their view the two major nuclear powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, should make substantial reductions in their nuclear arsenals before other states should be required to adhere to a nuclear test ban treaty. I think that shows the interrelationship between multilateral and bilateral talks. Similarly, Australia has been a strong supporter of the non-proliferation treaty. If I had time, I could give examples again of the interrelationship between multilateral and bilateral negotiations in that regard and where frustrations have occurred. If I may say also, our good relationships with our super-power allies may well be important if the two multilateral negotiating projects, one of which has made considerable progress in recent years and the other at its infancy, are to be kept on the rails. I refer to the treaty to prohibit development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and, secondly, that for the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The second subject I want to mention, which is close to the hearts of all of us with faith in the United Nations system as an alternative to the ever escalating arms race, is collective security. Governments cannot and do not hazard their security. They will not disarm or even slow down their ability to arm their neighbours without substantial assurance that no harm to their interests will result. Andrei Sakharov has said that genuine security is possible only when based on stabilisation of international relations, a repudiation of expansionist policies, the strengthening of international trust, openness and pluralisation of the socialist societies, the observance of human rights throughout the world, a rapprochement or convergence of the socialist and capitalist systems and world -wide co-ordinate efforts to solve global problems. They may be prerequisites for genuine security but, if that is so, genuine security is a long way off. In the meantime a more effective method of collective security may provide a basis for slowing and reversing the arms race. In the very limited time we have, I wish to refer to the report by the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, the Palme report, and the comments of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth in this city late last year when he advocated a strengthening of the UN security system by a return to the concept of collective security, at least initially in the Third World, with a structure of collective peacekeeping, involving fact finding sessions, military observer teams and military collective security forces. This is an area in which Australia has made a significant contribution in the past and has a record upon which we can build. The third and final aspect that I have time to touch upon in looking at the contribution Australia can make in providing greater security is the role it can play in contributing to overcome the root causes of destablisation in the world, for example the contribution we can make to overcome starvation and poverty; in other words, our contribution to overcome the North-South dichotomy, our obligation not to refuse to supply our natural resource wealth on reasonable terms and conditions to the benefit of those less fortunate states; and our responsibility to contribute diplomatically to overcome regional disputes before they escalate into armed conflict. The list is really endless. We have made practical contributions in the past upon which we can build in the future. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.23) —There are several basic points to consider in the matter which we have before us. The first is that the need for international nuclear disarmament is indeed a most urgent one. It is a matter which has been debated in many world councils and, I gather, many chambers like our own for many years, without apparent success. We must recognise that this cannot continue. If it does, the events will overtake the discussions and that is the basic point of fundamental importance. It is a matter of concern. As one reads through quite responsible scientific journals and others, one sees that over the last six or seven months there has been a growing number of articles by very responsible people expressing concern at the growing risks of nuclear conflict. The risks are not seen as diminishing but rather, in the last six months to a year, as increasing at an alarming rate. Just this morning I was looking at a publication in which it was said that the world was now at the greatest risk it has ever been in its history. The second major point is that the five nuclear powers will not voluntarily give up the use of nuclear weapons. Somehow they must be persuaded, compelled or argued into doing it. The third point, which is concomitant with that second point, is that nuclear disarmament can hardly be unilateral under those circumstances. It has to be something carried out by all five nuclear powers. So in a sense we must come to the point that the five nuclear powers and the rest of the world are indeed opponents because the five nuclear powers, by persisting with nuclear armaments and the escalation of nuclear armaments-all of them are doing it-are placing the rest of the world, which does not have nuclear armaments, at risk. Therefore, in the most fundamental and serious sense the nuclear powers are as such the opponents, even the enemies, one might say, of the rest of the world. I do not think they recognise themselves as such. They see themselves as protectors of their zonal areas and somehow as conferring protection or some sort of benefit on people in the rest of the world. The point has to be made very strongly to them that they are not doing that. The result is completely the opposite. There is a pressing need for Australia and other world powers to be involved in constructive discussions on international nuclear disarmament. In other words, we are one of those countries on the sticky end of the situaton. We cannot contribute to a nuclear war but we would suffer if one ever happens. It is the representatives of the smaller countries who probably will have to face up to and solve the appalling problem of nuclear war. So Australia is directly involved, or ought to be. Clearly, multilateral disarmament talks are vitally necessary and these must be aimed, firstly, at a nuclear freeze and no more nuclear weapons and, secondly, at a comprehensive test ban treaty-no more testing of nuclear weapons. In recent months a disquieting tendency has emerged towards satellite weapons and space weapons. There is a need for the world to have some sort of early agreement or pact that those weapons will not be researched, built or used. If they ever come into use the situation will obtain in which the world will be in grave danger because of the impossibility of controlling weapons in space. Warning times will go down. The degree of automation and technical control of those weapons will increase and the human factor will diminish. To the extent it will become an impossible dangerous situation, most amenable to accident and to disaster and not at all amenable to patching up or preventing a disaster if indeed there is some kind of accident or some flaw even in a communications system. This has been brought home to many millions, possibly billions, of human beings recently by films which very properly have explored that area of the subject. It is partly because of that that this whole issue of disarmament has now become a major one in every country. It will become increasingly so in Australia. Not surprisingly is this the case, because at this moment as we debate this subject in the Senate about 47,000 nuclear bombs are stockpiled throughout the world in one place or another. As it would take only 2,000 at the most to destroy totally all human life on earth, the other 45,000 appear to be rather excessive, to say the least. Many are obsolete weapons or inefficient because of their age. The demolition and disposal of the materials alone in those weapons presents a major problem for the world which has not been solved and which will become an even greater problem as time goes on. We will have littering the world increasing numbers of aging atomic weapons, possibly which are becoming technically faulty, which at any stage might cause some horrendous accident somewhere, and there is no real attempt apparently to dispose of them. One might ask: What is the use of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics each having the capability to destroy the world 10 times over? The imagination boggles at this point. In one of my favourite Patrick Cook cartoons one sees a general explaining to someone that the last nine total destructions are just for fun. It is that sort of sardonic view that most human beings turn to for some sense of relief from the intolerable situation which now obtains. If two enemies have enough bombs to destroy each other they are said to have what our Government calls mutually stable deterrents. What does that mean? When the Americans developed nuclear weapons in the 1950s they held a massive advantage over the Soviets-so massive that they could credibly threaten the Soviets with nuclear devastation if they stepped out of line. In other words, at that stage one could see that nuclear weapons were an instrument of policy for the United States-a powerful if perhaps not too moral deterrent. But it could only work and be credible while one side held all the cards. Once the Soviets obtained the capability to devastate American cities in return, which capability they had by the 1960s, the deterrent had lost its impact and its credibility, and has done so ever since. Any talk, any rhetoric about there being any mutual deterrence is absolute nonsense, and has been over the past 20 years. Nuclear warfare cannot advance any national policies. Therefore, nuclear weapons are not weapons in the traditional sense of the word. They are not weapons of war because they cannot advance the policies of any individual country no matter how many weapons that country may have. Which United States President would threaten to obliterate Moscow if the Soviets did not withdraw from Afghanistan knowing that the Soviets could take New York off the map? From that time I think this became known as the real politics of the world. No President would ever do that again. This dilemma led to a change in United States nuclear thinking. The label 'deterrence' remained for public consumption but the action, of course, became different. Targets became military bases and one's opponent's weapons and one's own weapons were to become smaller and more accurate. The purpose of this change, which is known as flexible response, was to demonstrate to one's enemy that one's deterrent was credible because one was prepared to use it. This is the central unanswerable paradox of deterrence in the 1980s. The plan is to deter war by planning for and being equipped for war, and by war in this sense I mean nuclear war. So, while the public's concept of deterrence remains one of a defensive nature, the military one has changed it into a policy of trying to use nuclear weapons in a controlled way and developing first strike weapons, of saying: 'If we can get in soon enough and fast enough against the other side we may get in enough weapons to intimidate them, cow them, win the war and not be hit back'. That, in point of fact, is utter madness. There is a need for international extension of the concept of the rule of law. That should not be all that difficult or impossible to achieve. When one looks back through history to the city states and the gradual evolution of the human race one sees a gradual increase in the size of political units. Within political units, of course, there is rule of law. The people in Madrid do not think it is ever likely that somebody in Barcelona will drop a nuclear bomb on them, but it is conceivable that somebody in Paris or Rome might. There is not a great deal of difference between those cities or the people who live in them. It is really a matter of extending the rule of law, which has been accepted within the nation states for lengthy periods-for centuries. I might say that this has been done with increasing competence because of modern communications. Europe of the Middle Ages would have regarded the modern nation states as an impossibility. It would have said that having such a political unit is obviously crazy. If one had gone to the people of Europe then and said that one could have a world like that they would not have believed it. Now we have reached the stage where there are virtually two nation states of the world-the two super-powers with those who are, as it were, dependent on them. So here we have a last bridge to cross. It must seem to us that it is the most difficult of all bridges to cross, but that may not necessarily be the case. We may only be in the position of those people who lived in the Middle Ages who could not foresee the modern nation state, much less the super-power. Perhaps if we look at that bridge carefully we will find that there is a crossing for it and that the crossing of it is something on which the whole future of the human race depends. Finally, I turn to another point which Senator Coleman touched on. I think this point is of such importance in debating the matter in Australia that it is worth taking it a little further. I refer to the question of whether Australia is safe from the consequences of a Northern Hemisphere-based nuclear war. Senator Coleman —No. Senator MASON —Indeed, that is so. But it has been said for many decades that we are. I think it is a very gross misinforming of our people to say that. Senator Teague —Nobody is. Senator MASON —I do not think anybody is saying it now, Senator Teague, although there are still people who believe it. I have discussed this matter with people and they have said: 'There could be a terrible nuclear catastrophe in the north but we are not going to get it here'. The latest scientific research shows that no part of the the world is safe from the effects of nuclear war. The research into the nuclear winter shows a global climatic catastrophe will result from a nuclear war and that climatic catastrophe will affect the Northern and Southern Hemispheres alike. According to a recent copy of Science, which is published by the United States Society for the Advancement of Science, even a relatively limited conflict in the Northern Hemisphere would break down those barriers at the Equator which prevent a mixing of the winds to the extent that, indeed, there would be a leakage through to the Southern Hemisphere of nuclear contamination. This would happen quite quickly. It would not be a matter of decades or centuries. It could happen all of a sudden as the huge and unstable cloud masses building up in the Northern Hemisphere disturbed the equatorial balance completely. But in the worst case possible, in an all-out nuclear war using a considerable number of the stockpiled bombs-I think we must anticipate that as a possibility because of the delicate nature of the control of these weapons-the latest research shows that up to one billion people from the world's population would die immediately, up to one billion people would suffer immediate and serious injury and many would die subsequently from radiation sickness and from the sheer dislocation of society. The ozone layer would be largely destroyed, increasing the amount of ultraviolet light on to the surface of the planet by several hundred per cent, which would be a major catastrophe in itself even if there were no other consequences. The atmosphere would be clogged with obscuring smoke, dust and radioactive debris. Daytime light levels would become, for a considerable time, twilight gloom or worse. This would happen every day all over the world. Temperatures would fall some 30 to 40 degrees. These levels of sub- zero temperature are likely to last for at least some months. I think it is axiomatic that very little that is growing on the earth-certainly annual crops, which most of our food crops are-is likely to survive that. So, even if we could survive the other things, there would be no food left in the world and no food crops before that nuclear winter had ended. These effects would not be limited to the Northern Hemisphere. In some 10 to 20 days, according to the best estimates I can find, the enveloping cloud would cover the Southern Hemisphere. Comparatively small nuclear war can result in climatic consequences which are just as bad. The detonation of 500 to 2,000 high yield bombs-that is only one per cent to 4 per cent of the world's stockpile- could be sufficient. It is obvious, then, that the use of nuclear weapons, even if it could be done on a successful first-strike basis, would be an act of national suicide. It would be more than that. As a study by Dr Paul Ehrlich demonstrated: It is clear that the ecosystem effects alone resulting from large scale thermo- nuclear war could be enough to destroy the current civilisation in at least the Northern Hemisphere. Since he said that, of course, the Southern Hemisphere has become involved. I conclude with the words of United States Senators Kennedy and Hatfield when they held the joint American-Soviet scientific forum on nuclear war and its consequences: What is the conclusion? I think the conclusion is very simple. The nuclear device is not at all the weapon which will serve any military purpose. It is not the weapon which it is possible to use with any policy. It is just the weapon of suicide. I would add to that: The suicide is not individual; it is not even national; it is global. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.37) —All war is destructive. War is about death and dying. War is entirely tragic, fruitless and futile. Nuclear war is utter madness. Debate on the threat of nuclear holocaust is so current in the world, not least Australia, that we are right in saying in this Parliament that such a matter is of primary importance. Yet there have been only two such debates in the six years in which I have been a member of the Senate. As Senator Coleman and Senator Sir John Carrick said, we should go on from this general debate calling for disarmament to the specifics of the debate. I believe we would be assisted by having a White Paper on the subject. The responsibility of initiating and helping Australia in this way always falls on the government in office. We are asked why we did not take that initiative ourselves when we were in government for seven years. Whatever the past may have been, let us go on from this general debate in which the voices are all leading in the same direction to the specifics, including those that honourable senators who have spoken in this debate have raised. Not only do we have to face the threat of a nuclear holocaust that could result from a deliberate war, a war in which there would be no winner, but also we have to consider the other horror of an accident occurring. Many writers and many distressed persons of various nationalities have put before us the scenario of an accident occurring and the beauty and complexity of the world as well as its culture and history and the personal lives of grandmothers, babies and families of every nation being turned into an ash heap. I have in mind the singing of Simon and Garfunkel that so attracted me as an aspect of protest when I visited the United States of America in 1969. I think also of a film I saw in China on this topic when I visited that country; or of my discussions with people-in the Soviet Union-bona fide, genuine discussions to try to see how the world can come to peace; or the discussions I had in the United Kingdom where I was a student for several years; or in France. There is a world awareness-whichever country one has in mind, regardless of the language spoken-of the threat of nuclear holocaust. This Parliament has among its highest priorities the security of this nation and of the Australian people and the need to make a contribution to the security of the world. The matter of public importance before the Senate relates to the pressing need for Australia and other world powers to be involved in constructive discussions on international nuclear disarmament. Australia is a nation of 15 million people and I believe we have a significant influence in the world. We are not powerless ; we have special relationships with our near neighbours in the Pacific and in the Association of South East Asian Nations and, through them, with the non- aligned, disadvantaged and smaller nations of the world. Furthermore, Australia is an essential part of the Commonwealth. We have a special relationship with the United States, one of the super-powers. We conduct major trade with Japan and China. We have a heritage that flows to us from the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. We have links of importance with all those parts of the world. Let us not despair and take the view that Australia cannot talk, think about and reach conclusions on this matter. Australia can make a significant contribution. Whether Australia will rise to the challenge of being a mediator between the super-powers is yet to be seen, but we should seek to be a part of the mediation that will lead to genuine disarmament in the world. The Australian people are reflective about values. Australia has the fortune of being affluent in what is sometimes called the post-industrial era. Questions relating to the quality of life are of real importance to the Australian people, as is clear from statements by all political parties. The people of Australia, including the young people, particularly women, are well aware of the questions of life issues involved in the subject of disarmament. I refer to youth because one constantly hears the most dramatic responses expressed by young people at the overwhelming threat of holocaust. I must say empirically that it is women who raise this subject most frequently with me, but there are many men, including myself, who feel these matters keenly. Parliament needs to respond to that feeling. I mention these aspects because Australia is in a significant position, in its affluence, to go beyond bread and butter debates to consider this complex and high priority matter. The Parliamentary Disarmament Group was formed only last year. I am proud and claim it as a privilege to be with Senator Coleman, Senator Mason and Senator Boswell, representing each of the four parties, as co-convenors of the Disarmament Group. But we have not yet got very far. We have gained encouragement from the Australian people, but have yet to get on to an action agenda which will express in specifics the constructive discussions for which we are calling today. That is not new. We are saying that we have a long way to go, but will press on towards that goal. As the representative of the Liberal Party in this respect, I must acknowledge that I received personal encouragement from Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition, from Senator Sir John Carrick, very specifically from Mr Peacock, from the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman in the other place, Mr MacKellar, and other honourable members such as Ian Macphee. I wish to turn to a number of controversial questions that arise under this topic. One is the issue of peace-an all-embracing, large word that includes many concepts. Throughout the last centuries there have been minority groups in all countries whose members have described themselves conscientiously as pacificists . When I was a student, I contemplated the philosophical foundations of pacifism , and I am aware that one or 2 per cent of the Australian people are conscientiously pacifist. I applaud them for their personal values. However, although I seek to be a Christian and to be challenged by Jesus's encouragement to turn the other cheek when struck, I am not led to be a pacifist. I always want to see in Australia the ability for conscientious objection to participation in war or any kind of fighting and I would even allow conscientious objection to particular wars. However, I am not myself a pacifist. Similarly there is a small group that will seek unilateral disarmament. Some of the philosophical foundations of that movement are similar to those in pacifism. The argument is: 'Let us be the first. We will disarm, get rid of all our bombs, especially nuclear, as well as all our guns and armies'. The view is that that example will then be followed by others in the world. I do not believe it is realistic so to argue. I believe that one of the conclusions of my analysis of pacifism and unilateral disarmament is that it may lead to worse evils. I believe that peace will be found through strength and not through self-imposed weakness. Time will not allow me to recall the various instances in history to underline this point, but I shall refer to only one. We are all aware that in 1938 the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr Chamberlain, returned from the Munich Conference claiming 'Peace in our time'-as if the terror of the totalitarian nazis in Germany had been restrained and as if to suggest that everybody should be at ease. The feeling was that the nation did not need to prepare for immediate war. Yet Hitler's agression followed within a year when Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, and so on fell and people faced the terrible holocaust of the Second World War. Though we all speak with the same voice on disarmament, I still see as a welcome part within that vanguard those who are genuine pacifists and those who are promoters of unilateral disarmament. But I am not in those two groups. Another relevant issue is that of uranium. Many people involved with disarmament would urge that because the nuclear holocaust depends on uranium as the fuel for the bombs, all uranium mining should cease and that uranium should not be developed for industrial purposes. I do not agree with that view. I believe that uranium is required to meet the energy needs of the world and, not least, the needs of the poor countries. The resource development of our uranium is important for the development of Australia. I concur entirely with the present Government's views and with Senator Sir John Carrick's references today to strict safeguards. But just as bushfires bring great tragedy in Australia, one does not argue that people should not have heating and cooking in their homes. Although electric power is of such great benefit in our homes, obviously if one were to climb a power pole outside one's home and touch the wires one would be dead. Such arguments would not lead to the abolition of electricity or the use of heating. Similarly, I would beware of a false bipartisanship-that is, that each super-power is equally wrong in having nuclear armaments and that each is equally dangerous. I do not agree with that. I genuinely seek disarmament by all the super-powers, but this does not restrain my direct criticism as one Liberal senator of the Soviet Union as the major threat to world peace as an expansive and totalitarian power whose actions create the greatest danger for the peoples of the world. One has only to ask the people of Afghanistan, Kampuchea, Israel, the Caribbean, Poland, and Eritrea. I know from first hand that the people of the Soviet Union seek genuine solutions to the threat of a holocaust, but I will not necessarily be drawn to some false bipartisanship on the grounds that all super-powers are equally wrong. We need to be careful and factual in our statements about this aspect of the arms race and the other threats to world peace. What we all call for is much greater public support and general discussion of disarmament issues. There should be teaching, study and discussion in all schools, universities and communities. Although I was born only in 1944 I remember that as a teenager I read David Hersey's book Hiroshima and was devastated by it. I continue to be devastated by it. Similarly, I read Alan Moorehead's book Gallipoli, with its terrors of trench warfare. Those of us in the Senate who were born since the Second World War have learnt from discussion with our elders and from books and films. The film currently circulating, The Day After, is an important part of this. We should encourage awareness not in a context of doom, despair and pessimism but, as in this debate, in a search for constructive answers. I believe we can act immediately for a nuclear-free Pacific, and for a complete ban on nuclear tests and on space weapons. There are constructive calls beyond discussion for such clearly defined goals, but disarmament must be measured, mutual, and meaningful. We must not seek some merely utopian peace, but a realistic, practical, achievable peace. We must seek a peace through strength, not weakness. Senator HEARN(Tasmania)(4.52) —In speaking to this matter of public importance I am very mindful of the United Nations Charter which begins in its Preamble with these words: We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . I believe this points to the fact that it is the political will of the people of a country as well as those people who represent them in the parliament who must be active in seeking peace. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is an activity using three capacities of the human being: Thinking, feeling and willing. An ever-increasing number of people throughout the world are acting on the responsibility placed upon them by that Preamble to the Charter. As we see the growing movement of people protesting against nuclear weapons in the world, we realise that it is this activity, this participation in the democratic process, which will be important. The scourge of war is already with us. I ask the Senate to picture just for a moment the latest nuclear missile, together with a child suffering from starvation in one of the under privileged countries. If we picture that we see the ultimate in obscenity. The world spends $1.4m a minute for military purposes and every minute 30 children die for want of food. In developed wealthy countries production of food is being cut. In a year when United States farmers were paid to take nearly 40 million hectares of crop land out of production, 450 million people in the world were starving. The North-South report calls for the implementation of a new international economic order. Only people and the will of people can implement that new order. It calls for a change not only in our governments' arrangements and planning, but also in people's values. John Kenneth Galbraith said that there is a technological trap in military expenditure, with each country striving to develop weapons that protect it from obsolescence. More than $18.3 billion worth of major weapons were exported to the Third World in 1980. Military institutions represent a major force influencing the social, political and ideological development of a country. Military expenditure is a drain on resources which should be used for civilian purposes, to accelerate growth and modernisation in industry and agriculture, to promote health and education, and to raise the standard of living and the quality of life. If we look at the comparison of per capita income for 1978-79, the latest figures available, we see that Australia is comparatively wealthy. It had a per capita income of $9,100; India, $190; Ethiopia, $130; Chad, $110; Tonga, $355; and so on. John Kenneth Galbraith again reminded us that however large or small a nuclear exchange, socialism, capitalism, communism, whatever system we develop these weapons to protect, will be shattered. They will not exist. We are the curators of the earth. It is we the people of the earth who are responsible to future generations. We are responsible for the plant and animal kingdoms and we hold all that has been given to us in the past by humanity, all that people have struggled for. The face of the earth in the future will be the result of our action or inaction today. At present the most dangerous thing after a nuclear weapon is for people to think they do not mean much, that they are of no value, that they are merely grains of sand on a stormy beach. Though there is alarm for the future of humanity in many people's hearts, it should not engender blind fear and despair. It should not deprive us of the intelligence and courage which all people need, the capacity to face and probe the reasons for the present situation. It is the courage to oppose the values which lead to war and to develop the political will to bring change that we need. If we look at our society we see that the beginning of those nuclear weapons, the beginning of any weapons, has its roots in the values we support. Thus, it is very necessary that we oppose those values , which many of us recognise as being destructive. We must not remain silent. We have to remember that much of technology is now getting out of hand. It is controlling people's destinies, people are not controlling their own destinies. We have to look at the kinds of weapons that are being developed by scientists. It was recently announced that a laser weapon was being developed which would blind people, and yet there was hardly a ripple in the community about that announcement. I think we have to look at our education system. Over the last 20 or 30 years very great emphasis has been placed on the development of the intellectual side of the human being at the expense of the emotional and creative side. I think there is a need for a much greater and more effective democracy in our country. An effective democracy demands informed participation. I think it is the duty of everyone, and particularly of people in the Parliament, to ensure that they have the information which is necessary for them to make informed and democratic decisions. One of Einstein's more remembered quotes is this: The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe. It is in people's thinking and in people's values that we are going to bring about the changes that will build peace in our world. I do not think we can any longer make national interest our one and only priority. International threats demand international co-operation and care. They demand international work for peace. The Mayor of Nagasaki, in an address on the anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Japan, said: . . . just now we are standing at the edge of the abyss of mankind's destruction. Stop producing nuclear arms. If part of the expenses for the production of nuclear arms would be used, the hunger of millions in the world would be alleviated, the poor of the Third World would disappear. He said we must establish an endeavour of never looking at any other country in the world as our enemy. Archbishop Hunthausen stated: I have not dealt directly with the question always asked in regard to unilateral disarmament: What about the Russians? What about our enemies? He continued: I do not believe that we are the only nation in the world to cherish our homes, to love our children, to yearn for peace and to feel compassion for human misery . Nor do I believe that all the people of Russia are pounding their shoes in the forums of the world in a universal cry for war. The tragedy of today is that the youth of the world sees no future. A report on the North-South dialogue expressed special concern for the place of the youth in the world. It is very important that peace studies in schools are developed urgently because peace studies in our education system are the right of all children. In listening to Mr Martenson, the Assistant Secretary-General for the Centre for Disarmament at the United Nations, it became very apparent that he hoped the people of the different countries of the world-he was speaking to the people of Australia-would promote the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration that came from the United Nations and encourage the community to communicate its wishes to governments, as the United Nations must be the focus of international activities devoted to disarmament. It was Lord Louis Mountbatten who said what I think is the final thing that anybody can say when speaking about nuclear weapons. He said: In the event of a nuclear war there will be no chances-there will be no survivors, all will be obliterated. Nuclear devastation is not science fiction- it is a matter of fact. Let us all resolve to take all possible practical steps to ensure that we do not through our own folly go over the edge. There are many people in every small community who deeply long to be able to do something to prevent the thing that they fear most. I think it is our responsibility to find the ways to do that. The Palme reports make particular emphasis of the fact that people must recognise that because they share a common threat they must also work together for a common security. Each of us in our own way does that. I hope that those of us who have joined together in the Parliamentary Disarmament Group will demonstrate that differences between individuals and individuals' thinking can be overcome. We can work together and demonstrate that it is possible. I remind honourable senators that tonight we are showing the film Bringing Greenham Home. This is not a film about Greenham Common; it is about the effect of a peace activity on the development of the human personality and the capacity to care. I hope everybody will be able to attend. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.06) —As one of the four co-ordinators of the Australian Parliamentary Disarmament Group to represent the four parties in the Senate I wish to make a contribution to this debate and to put my Party's position on record. My Party is very mindful of the tremendous misuse of money, manpower and misdirected effort that is applied to the nuclear arms race. We support the resolution expressed in the wording of the matter of public importance. I believe that last night the Leader of our Party, Mr Ian Sinclair, expressed the view that he was totally opposed to the export of uranium for anything other than peaceful use. I think that the policies of the three parties -the National Party of Australia, the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party-are probably in accord on this position. When one considers that the world's military spending in 1981 totalled $625 billion, which is about $110 for every man, woman and child on earth, and then contrasts it with human suffering, such as one child out of four suffering from malnutrition and four out of five children not having modern health care, and when one considers the overall spending of huge sums of money on defence as well as nuclear and conventional warfare, one wonders if this matter of public importance is getting to the heart of the problem. However, the matter under discussion is the pressing need for the world powers to be involved in constructive discussions on international nuclear disarmament. Information exists showing that 50,000 nuclear weapons are now deployed. Together the combined explosive power is one million times greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima. There is the everlasting fear of a Third World nuclear power. Trouble spots exist in the world, which are at the moment of great concern; for example, the explosive political nature of the Middle East. This emphasises the need for the world powers to be involved in a positive and constructive talk on nuclear international disarmament. The starting point for such international discussion is the International Atomic Energy Agency. It appears to be looking at enlarging its role. The Agency 's Director-General, Dr Hans Blix, is in Australia to give evidence to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. He said that the Agency could act as an arm on diversion of peaceful nuclear material for weapon production. He was quick to point out, however, that the Agency could not look into the minds of countries which were known proliferation signatories. One has to face reality; much of the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is here. In this debate we must be careful not to make out a nexus between the peaceful use of uranium for domestic electricity generation and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were developed before the peaceful use of nuclear power. It is my understanding that the product used in domestic nuclear power stations is not necessarily or generally regarded as suitable in a technical sense for nuclear weapons purposes. Senator Coleman —Capable of being used, Senator, but not necessarily. Senator BOSWELL —I take the honourable senator's point. The trend is towards the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Dr Blix is of the belief that the world is increasingly turning to nuclear energy for the production of electricity. It seems there is genuine concern about the possible use of nuclear weapons in countries using nuclear material. Some 119 countries have become non- proliferation signatories. These countries believe it is not in their interests to acquire nuclear weapons and want to reassure other countries. Mr Deputy President, here lies the basis for international talks and action. Action can be taken in the area of policing. It is reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency, the authority charged with monitoring safeguards, has only 138 inspectors to cover 774 known facilities. It seems to me that this is one area in which action is required. Probably the greatest action can be taken by the people themselves by putting pressure on the government of the day to participate honestly in talks. Australia has been a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency since its inception and is one of the nine advanced countries on its Board. Therefore, Australia should use its influence to seek constructive international talks on the subject of international nuclear disarmament. I go further. I urge talks and action to de- escalate the all-encompassing arms race. The United Nations has reported that 8 per cent of the world's total capital is spent on the arms race. That money would go a long way towards eradicating poverty and hunger in both developed and developing countries. I support the spirit of this sincerely put matter of public importance. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under standing order 64 for the discussion of matters of public importance has expired. The debate is concluded. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the penalties that may be imposed upon persons convicted of offences against the quarantine laws of Australia. The Bill also makes a number of other amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 to overcome some operational difficulties experienced with the Act, and to make it more responsive to modern situations. I wish to impress upon honourable senators the seriousness with which the Government views breaches of quarantine. It is estimated that an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Australia would bring to a virtual standstill exports of meat and other commodities of livestock origin, and would cause a drop in rural output of the order of $2,500m in the first year. The penalties under the Quarantine Act were last increased in 1979 to the present maximum level of $10,000 or five years imprisonment. The rural sector has strongly pressed for further increases and has also complained about the inadequacy of fines imposed by the courts. As a deterrent to potential offenders, and as an inducement to the courts to provide higher penalties, the Bill at Clause 27 provides for substantial increases in penalties, particularly the penal sanctions. For example, the maximum penalty for importing a disease agent contrary to the Act is increased from $10,000 or imprisonment for five years to $50,000 or imprisonment for ten years, or both, or if the offender is a body corporate, $200,000. Where a quarantine emergency exists, any person who does not comply with a direction given to implement emergency measures taken by the Minister, or who hinders or obstructs such measures, will face a maximum penalty of $100,000 or imprisonment for ten years, or both. The maximum penalty that currently exists is $10,000 or imprisonment for five years. Mr President, I now wish to turn to the other amendents in this Bill and address the more substantial provisions. Clause 5 provides for the appointment of the Director of Quarantine and Chief Quarantine Officers by the Minister, and for the appointment of Quarantine Officers by the Director of Quarantine, instead of these appointments being made by the Governor-General. As there are about 1,700 Quarantine Officers throughout Australia this amendment will remove a considerable workload from the Governor- General. Clause 16 provides for the amendment of section 48 of the Act relating to goods ordered into quarantine. Section 48 provides that where goods ordered into quarantine cannot be effectively treated or disinfected and ought not to be released from quarantine, the goods may be destroyed. The clause amends section 48 to provide a review of the opinion of the Quarantine Officer immediately in charge of goods where those goods are live animals by vesting the decision to destroy the animals in a Chief Quarantine Officer. The clause also includes a new provision to enable the owner of any goods to be notified where the goods cannot be treated without damaging them, so that the owner can be given an opportunity to agree to the course of action proposed. If the owner has not notified his intentions in relation to the goods within 30 days, the goods will be forfeit to the Commonwealth. Clause 18 extends the powers of inspection of a Quarantine Officer under the Act to a vessel that is beyond the territorial sea of Australia and is bound for Australia or the Cocos Islands, to the extent that the vessel is within nine nautical miles of the outer limits of the territorial sea. The Governor-General may proclaim a greater distance than nine nautical miles under the provision. The Government considers it desirable for the jurisdiction of the Quarantine Act to be extended over as much territory to which Australia has a legal right of influence as is possible for effective quarantine control. Recent developments in international law have enabled this extension of the powers of inspection. Clauses 20 and 21 provide powers of search relating to domestic animals in the Cocos Islands. These powers are presently contained in Regulations 14 and 19 of the Quarantine (Cocos Islands) Regulations. They are being included in the Quarantine Act following reservations expressed by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances about the powers of Quarantine Officers to enter premises in the Cocos Islands, and advice by the Attorney-General's Department that the inclusion of such powers in subordinate legislation was inappropriate. Arrangements are in train for the repeal of the relevant regulations. Clause 25 provides for the Minister to have the power to determine the levels of fees for quarantine services instead of such fees being prescribed by regulation. Such determinations will be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament as the clause also provides that the determinations will be subject to certain provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. These provisions are for the laying of regulations before both Houses of Parliament, the disallowance of regulations, and the effect of the repeal of regulations. This provision will facilitate the introduction of new fee levels in accordance with the Government' s policy for the recovery of direct operating costs for quarantine services. Clause 26 of the Bill provides a new regulation making power to put beyond doubt the scope of the Act to control the storage, use, movement and disposal of goods, including disease agents where the goods are permitted to be imported by the Minister or the Director of Quarantine for a particular purpose for use in a particular location, such as a research establishment or diagnostic laboratory. Mr President, the remaining provisions of this Bill make minor amendments of a machinery or procedural nature in order to facilitate the more efficient administration of the Act. There will be no financial impact from any of these provisions. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(5.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Chairman and Director of the Australian National Gallery on its report for 1982-83. After having read this report, it is obvious that, with the opening of this outstanding venue which is already becoming a new focus for the visual arts in Australia, set in train an extremely historic year. I mention just a few statistics in the report which I find particularly impressive. Firstly, within eight months of the Australian National Gallery opening, half a million visitors had passed through it. That is a record of which the Gallery Director and its staff can be proud. Of these visitors, 77 per cent came from interstate or overseas. Apparently this represents a 15 per cent increase in the Australian Capital Territory's tourist industry. It has been of great benefit to Canberra. Secondly, membership of the Australian National Gallery Association has already jumped to 12,000 members, which indicates the extent of interest in the Gallery and the work that it will do in the foreseeable future. Thirdly, educational programs undertaken by the Gallery in this first year are equally impressive. Some 882 school groups have gone through the Gallery in its first months of operation, comprising nearly 33, 000 school students. Some 170 lunch time lectures have been held for the public and over 1,000 tours have been organised. I commend the very effective partnership established between the Gallery, the Government and the private sector. The founding donor fund has already attracted a very good response. Furthermore, the corporate appeal raised just on $1m, from over 100 companies, in the Gallery's first months of operation. There is also a very impressive account of exhibitions and a report on new acquisitions. I am particularly interested in the number of outward loans going from the Gallery into communities throughout Australia, or, should I say, to certain parts of Australia because obviously it has not been possible in the Gallery's first year to make loans throughout Australia. I certainly hope that that will be forthcoming over the next 12 months and on into the life of the Gallery. It is good to see that as well as outward loans going from the Australian National Gallery to galleries in capital cities, loans also go to places such as Burnie, Broken Hill and Newcastle. I notice that a loan was made to a local authority in Melbourne, and I hope that other local authorities will have the opportunity to borrow from the Gallery; that is, we must never forget, the National Gallery. Sometimes, when we have such fine resources in our Australian Capital Territory, it is easy for people who live many thousands of miles away to feel that perhaps it is Canberra's Gallery. Of course it is not Canberra's Gallery; it belongs to the people of Australia. That is why outward loans are particularly important in ensuring that Australians living away from Canberra do have the opportunity to view works of art that belong to the nation. This brings me to a point about which I am rather concerned. I note that, on page 18 of the annual report, it is stated: By the end of June 1983 a five-year exhibition programme had been sighted and detailed planning for its implementation commenced. The programme does not include travelling exhibitions; they are precluded at present by budget restraints. Certainly I will be making representations to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen, to bring his attention to this matter because it is of some concern that travelling exhibitions may not be introduced in the 1984-85 Budget or even after that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I believe that we must all take into account the tremendous job that the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee has done in establishing poultry as a basic part of the Australian diet. Poultry has come from the position where it was very much an odd meat, a luxury only to be eaten occasionally, to where it is now a dominant part of the household diet. Much of this has come about through the way this Committee has gone about its work. It has done a considerable amount of research into the various facets of production, presentation, feeding and marketing. I believe it should get full credit for what it has done. There are extraordinarly dedicated people mixed up in the Committee. It has done a great job in getting the consumption rate of chicken meat increased, improving nutrition and improving the health and housing of poultry generally. It is interesting that some people are racing around saying that battery eggs are not fit to eat and so on. It must be remembered that the poultry industry depends very largely on the quality of its product. It has now been determined that the quality, nutritional value and health standards of battery eggs are better than those of free ranging eggs. The health and diet of poultry has been a matter of great concern. Nutrition and health generally have reached a remarkable stage. The Committee spends approximately half a million dollars a year on research. The money is provided equally by the industry and the Government. Diseases have been attacked quite substantially. I am pleased to report that fundamental industry difficulties and diseases have been largely brought under control once again and the future looks very bright for the industry generally to continue in the manner it has been going for the last decade. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Nine projects were carried out using money supplied through the Fisheries Development Trust Account. The two to which I would like to refer are the south- east trawl fishery and the octopus fishery. The south-east trawl fishery has received funds from the account for the last four or five years. In the year under review it received $78,000 for investigations in New South Wales, $39,300 for investigations in Victoria and $237,000 for investigations in Tasmania. The work has been carried out, in the main, by a mixture of both research and local fishermen. The results have been, to say the least, quite spasmodic. The fishermen have been of the highest possible calibre. I make particular reference to the capacity and ability of Peter Rockliff, a Tasmanian fisherman, who has done a considerable amount of work in the deeper waters and is now fishing in waters up to 500 fathoms, which is quite unusual for Australian waters. His interest and involvement have helped considerably in trying to establish what fishing grounds there are, especially to the west of Tasmania on the edge of the continental shelf. There are high hopes of establishing grounds for an increase in the fishing industry in Tasmania. The octopus fishing industry is being carried out from Stanley by Michael Hardy . It has started to show some promise. It has been going for four or five years and has experienced various ups and downs. The gear has caused some difficulty. As late as today I was able to ascertain that certain equipment that is necessary in this industy will be available in the next few weeks. That is fortunate. It is difficult to establish such an industry in Australia. People here are not accustomed to eating octopus and do not consider it to be of any great value. Michael Hardy has been able to establish that there are viable quantities. He has developed methods of catching octopuses which appear to be quite satisfactory. He is now exporting to the United States of America and is looking to Japan and Europe as extensions of that market. The price, at present, is not as good as we would hope, but it is expected that, as he is able to provide continuity of supply, he will be able to supply at a better price. It is an exceptionally good fishery for Tasmania. It may not be generally known that octopuses are the great predators of the rock lobster. To be able to catch the octopus and dispose of it will improve the rock lobster industry. That makes it a worthwhile venture. Michael Hardy is a young man who comes from a long established fishing family. At this time I wish him well and hope that the venture turns out well for him and that it expands to include other people. The money that has been spent on this industry so far is not large. However, I think it has been enough to keep him interested. It will demonstrate to others that, as the market is developed, there could be a quite good livelihood for several other fishermen. Senator JONES(Queensland)(5.28) —I, like Senator Archer, would like to make a few remarks in relation to the report on the operation of the Fishing Industry Act 1956. The report deals with grants given to the fishing industry for research. Whilst one could deal with a number of items in the report, it is my intention to deal with the reference to the prawning industry in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The sixth item on the list of projects supported by the Fisheries Development Trust Account in 1982-83 refers to the exploratory prawn trawling in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The report indicates that a grant of $54,000 was approved in 1981-82. There was a further payment from the account in 1982-83 of $50,000 which completed the project. I think it is worth while mentioning at this time that although money was paid to the industry by the Federal Government for research concerning exploratory prawn trawling in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern Fishing Companies Association, which carried out that research by using six of its trawlers, would have paid somewhere in the vicinity of $420,000 into the cost of that research. One has to take into consideration the fact that the trawlers used for research at that time were not returning to their bases with catches. If running costs were taken into account, plus the time spent by the trawlers and their crew, that company would have spent $420,000-odd to complete its research into prawning in the Gulf of Carpentaria. I believe the money that is being expended by the industry and the Government in relation to research will help the prawning industry in the Gulf of Carpentaria to exploit the resources that are available to it. In the future the industry will be able to plan for further fishing and prawning within the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is worth while mentioning that the northern prawn fisheries deserve some congratulations for the courage and tenacity which they have shown in establishing a viable industry in a true frontier area of Australia. It is also reasonable to note that this industry has been established despite the problems it has faced in relation to the weather and not knowing what resource was available to it prior to the research being undertaken and completed. The prawn trawlers use Karumba as their base. Until now the prawns were processed there. There are some problems in the area, particularly the water supply. It concerns the amount of water used by residents in the area and the amount of water needed by the prawn processing plant in that area. Senator Robert Ray —What about the jellyfish? Senator JONES —I do not know whether there are any jellyfish in that area. It is interesting to note that Normanton, a town not far from Karumba, was paid money by the Federal Government in order to establish a water supply. Although $1.7m has been spent in the Normanton area there has been no allocation of money to Karumba. This is not the responsibility of the Federal Government. But it is certainly the responsibility of the State Government to supply some money for the establishment of a water supply to the Karumba area. This would allow the trade that has been undertaken by the prawn trawlers in the area to increase. It would increase the number of people living in the area. They could have a water supply which could be used by the prawn processing plant that was established in the area. Because of neglect in this area, we are putting in jeopardy a fishing industry which would earn in the vicinity of $35m a year. I think that some request should be made to the State Government to supply some of the money at least, or a major portion of the money, to provide a decent water supply in the Karumba area. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I want to make some brief remarks. If honourable senators do not wish to comment now I will seek leave to continue my remarks. I have not had an opportunity to study the guidelines so at the moment I will direct my remarks to the principle. From my experience as a Minister it seems to me that the guidelines were not necessary for lobbyists, but the guidelines were necessary for those who found themselves being approached by lobbyists-that is, Ministers and departmental officers. After all, if a Minister or a senior departmental officer is appointed one must presume that that person is capable of understanding the osmotic pressures that are around in politics and is capable of withstanding any pressures or approaches that are not valid. I took the view that if someone sought an appointment with me the question was merely whether the principal for whom the lobbyist operated was a respectable person with a respectable issue. If that was so I would willingly see the principal. It seems to me that we are looking at the wrong end of the telescope in simply concentrating on the lobbyist. If departmental officers are mature enough to do their jobs every day of their lives they will have to make value judgments on the subjective self-interests of those who approach them. I do not see that we have advanced the cause in any way by suggesting that some register of lobbyists would do any good. Clearly, all who approach Ministers or departments are coming forward in self-interest-many of which are very genuine and very fair self-interests. It does not necessarily follow that lobbyists have any more concentration of particular interests than individuals. I am puzzled over this matter. I want time to look at the paper. On that basis I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In speaking to the statement by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) regarding the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, I note that the United Nations has accepted an invitation from the Australian Government to send a visiting mission to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to witness the making by the people of Cocos Island of an act of self-determination. I understand the delegation is going to Cocos Island between 3 and 8 April and that the representatives of the mission will be from Sierra Leone, Yugoslavia, Fiji and Venezuela. This will be the third United Nations mission to Cocos Island. The matter has come a long way. I note that the people of Cocos Island have indicated that they wish to be more closely associated with Australia and that the self-determination which will take place, I think on 6 April, will give the Islanders the opportunity of independence, integration into Australia or free association with Australia. It seems that already there has been a consensus of opinion and that on 6 April we are likely to see that the Cocos Island people will choose integration. The statement reads: Under integration, the Cocos people would have the full rights, privileges and obligations of other Australian citizens: Local arrangements would be modified to give the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council wider powers and ownership of the plantation lands at present leased by the Commonwealth to the Cocos Co-operative . The electors of Cocos would be included in an existing territory electorate for the purposes of House of Representatives and Senate elections and national referendums. The move for self-determination has been in the pipeline for some considerable time, at least since 1978, when the former Federal Government paid to the former owner of the islands, Mr John Clunies-Ross, some $6.2m for an 11 hectare plantation. There has been some controversy between him and the Islanders with the result that he is no longer welcome there unless by invitation of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council. The recent suggestions by the Federal Labor Government that the Cocos and Christmas Islands be incorporated into the Northern Territory, which have been stated elsewhere, indicate that the Government is totally out of touch with the realities of northern Australia. Apparently, the Federal Government machine believes the three Territory senators and one member of the House of Representatives can add two islands some 3,000 kilometres away in the Indian Ocean to their already considerable responsibilities. During discussions with the former Home Affairs and Environment Minister, Mr McVeigh, and the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), the people of the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island, I understand, have repeatedly expressed a desire to integrate with Australia, as I have indicated before. More specifically, they say that they wish to be included as part of Western Australia. For many years Western Australia has had trade dealings and communications with the island group, resulting in direct air and shipping services between Perth and Cocos Islands. It would seem to me to be logical that if the Cocos and Christmas Islands were to be integrated into Australia it should be through Western Australia. Traditionally the people of the Islands have had strong connections with the Australian Labor Party, and that is no reflection on them whatsoever. As I understand it, the unions on Christmas Island, which is going the same way as the Cocos Islands, are reported to have donated some $50,000 to the Western Australian ALP last year to help fund the State and Federal election campaigns. It appears to me that the move to integrate the islands with the Northern Territory is purely a political move to enhance the ALP in the Northern Territory. There is no sound economic or administrative reason for it. I wonder why the Prime Minister has such strong feelings. He has repeatedly said that the Cocos Islands should be incorporated into the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has nothing in common with the islands and has never had any sort of economic or administrative connections . In closing, I suggest that if the Federal Government is interested in the Northern Territory acquiring more responsibility in the Cocos Islands, and perhaps in Christmas Island, as is being suggested, perhaps it might consider the return of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands to the Northern Territory. Those Islands were taken away from the Northern Territory at the time of responsible self-government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 27 March, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Senator Peter Rae: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.45) —One might think that the subject matter of this report would be, to use an Attorney-General-type remark, a fairly esoteric and even exotic species. In fact it is a subject which has drawn forth a considerable amount of concern among a wide cross-section of Australian manufacturers. There has been a finding by the Industries Assistance Commission that I believe is somewhat hard to follow. It is a finding that, though there has been the clear importation and dumping of automotive filters from New Zealand by a couple of multinational companies that also have operations in Australia, no damage is being done to the Australian industry as a result. Therefore it has recommended no action. The Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) has chosen not to take the advice of the Industries Assistance Commission and has continued the special duty, which was imposed when this matter first arose under the previous Government. The matter has been one of considerable concern. I speak to it briefly to indicate that the Senate is aware of the concern of a cross-section of Australian manufacturers who believe that they have been subjected to an unfair trading practice by our close trading partner across the Tasman Sea. That is one of the matters to which we will have to pay very careful attention, I believe, during the operation and development of closer economic relations with New Zealand. It is the sort of thing that, if it continues to happen and to cause the concern that this one has, can only sour the relationship. I hope that the New Zealand Government is as conscious as both the former Minister for Industry and Commerce and the present Minister of the need to ensure that unfair trading practices are not able to be engaged in to the detriment of either side, particularly with close trading partners. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make those brief remarks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Senator Jessop: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.48) —I commend the report. This is not just another annual report. It covers a period in which there have been some years of unprecedented drought in Australia as a whole, and in this catchment area in particular. Therefore, it tells a story of the management of what is one of the, if not the, most precious natural resources in Australia, that is, the River Murray, at a time of immense difficulties. It tells a great story, because it is able to show that in that time salinity levels, for example, particularly towards South Australia, were lower then they had been in many other times. In fact, in this chamber I have reported as a Minister that it was not abnormal for something like one and a quarter million tonnes of salt to be tipped out of New South Wales and Victoria in any year, largely from the dead sea that is there, into South Australia. The report indicates that that had been in the order of half a million tonnes. That is a lot, but nevertheless is capable of being handled by dilution. It tells a story of management by man so that the water could be used to the best advantage for irrigation purposes, against the contrasting needs of the various farmers and against the contrasting needs of hydro-electricity generation. The Senate will be aware of the grave difficulties that both New South Wales and Victoria have faced in keeping their coal-burning generation operating. New South Wales, which needed only 60 per cent of its installed generating capacity to be able to function, to keep lights on, was not able to do so on occasions, and the Snowy Mountains Authority had to be called in. I make the point that the annual report quite properly pays tribute to the existence of the Dartmouth Dam and the significance of the fact that at the start of these difficulties the Dartmouth Dam had filled to something like 75 per cent. The Hume Dam which was down to 20 per cent or less-it virtually was down to a breeding ground for mud crabs-was incapable of supplying water. The existence of the Dartmouth Dam allowed a flow through Victoria. This was carefully monitored so as to avoid too much flooding. It was properly handled through the Hume and downstream. The message from this is the importance of the new River Murray Waters Agreement. The annual report pays tribute to it and to the fact that qualitative measurements as well as quantitative measurements of water are now possible. Reports of any significant activity in the alteration of both the quantity and quality of the water in all the three States concerned can be obtained. This points to the significance of the various measures, particularly those that have been done under the Maunsell scheme in the past and, in my view, the absolute need for an early feasibility study of a new upper Murray storage. This was advocated by the Fraser Government and me when I was Minister. The aim was that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation should undertake this feasibility study. We need to set in place another major storage dam so that in the future there will never be a situation of no water and so that there will be a reasonable flow to dilute the salinity and meet irrigation needs. In my view, the need for an upper Murray storage is paramount. It is a great pity that it has been set aside but I commend the experts of the River Murray Commission and I pay tribute to their work. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Kilgariff: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.53) —I believe the proposal in the paper to repeal sections 45, 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act will see a return to the kind of union and industrial anarchy of some years ago. Business will soon lose the protection of speedy efficient sanctions that have prevented secondary boycotts. While the Government is loosening its legal sanctions against trade unions, at the same time this document recommends a tightening of its controls over business. How can business survive in this sort of environment, with this sort of Government and these sorts of proposals? These proposals are a sell out to the militant left of the trade union movement just as we see a sellout in the appointment of Mr Carmichael and Mr Halfpenny to the Australian Manufacturing Council. Others could have been appointed who would have made a greater contribution-for example, men from the car industry whose jobs and whose members are in jeopardy at present. There can be no justification for a secondary boycott and no justification for the proposals to repeal these sections. The reasons that have been given are both spurious and spineless in that the authors believe that these matters are more appropriate to industrial legislation. Such argument hides the fact of life that section 45D of the Trade Practices Act has worked successfully as a sanction against mindless and often wilful industrial disputation that harms Australian business and exporters. It is not difficult to forecast that, with the repeal of these provisions, some independent truck owners will be singled out and knocked off by the big transport unions. We will find that the shipping and airline industries will also be targets of disputation once these sanctions are removed from the Trade Practices Act. The proposals will be a tragedy for business and for Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.55) —The Opposition welcomes the statement by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) on Telecom and law enforcement in so far as it goes some way towards addressing the recent allegations of corruption within the Australian Telecommunications Commission. The statement has been forced upon the Minister by the perseverance of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, who has felt compelled to follow up his report of last year in which he outlined some very serious matters relating to Telecom and malfeasance within that organisation. However, we are concerned whether the measures outlined by the Minister in his statement are adequate in view of the serious allegations raised not only by Mr Redlich but also by recent royal commissions. It is our view that the terms of reference given to Mr Vincent are too narrow. We are concerned also that several of the announcements made by the Minister in his statement could pre-empt recommendations that Mr Vincent might make. Allegations of corruption within Telecom have gained some currency following the reports of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, the Connor Inquiry into Legalisation of Casinos in Victoria and, more recently, the issue of the Age tapes. In the light of these, the Government should be doing its utmost to ensure that all illegal activities are uncovered and dealt with appropriately. Such allegations, if they are left unchecked, serve only to impugn the reputations of honest and decent Telecom employees. The Opposition believes that an exhaustive inquiry is essential. We take no comfort from the Minister's statement that: . . . it is necessary to ensure that the proper efficiency of Telecom is not impaired and that the measures outlined above do not destroy the basic privacy of the telephone system. The allegations mentioned by Mr Redlich are serious. They relate to the involvement of Telecom employees in assisting in the commission of illegal activities; the indifferent attitude of senior personnel within Telecom to these activities; the lack of co-operation by Telecom staff with internal and police investigations; the employment of staff with serious criminal records and their placement in positions of trust; and the interference by senior Telecom personnel in internal investigations into the allegations. At this point I mention that the Minister assured us in his statement: Telecom has co-operated and continues to co-operate with law enforcement agencies in the detection of illegal bookmaking. Mr Redlich does not think that is the case. The Minister's statement is in stark contrast to the claims of Mr Redlich. Mr Redlich said: One area in need of urgent rectification is the manner and degree to which senior personnel interfere with internal investigations. Past interference has resulted in serious circumscription in the scope and effectiveness of internal investigation. In some instances investigations were brought to a premature or improper conclusion. . . . . In the case of Telecom it appears that senior personnel are able to control the efforts of investigators by directing the compass of the investigations to ensure that matters that may prove embarrassing to Telecom are not discovered or highlighted. That is what Mr Redlich says and it is nonsense of Mr Duffy to try to assure us that Telecom co-operates. Mr Redlich's evidence is to the contrary. Who is right ? Is it Mr Redlich in his role as investigator or Mr Duffy in attempting to tell us that this is, in Dr Pangloss's words, 'the best of all possible worlds'. Other problems outlined by Mr Redlich concern the improper use of the disciplinary power under section 58 of the Telecommunications Act, the reduction in the size of the internal investigation unit in Telecom and unsatisfactory working guidelines between Telecom and the Australian Federal Police. They are all very serious matters. The Government has appointed Mr Frank Vincent, QC, to investigate Mr Redlich's complaints, to recommend appropriate action and to report to the Minister by 30 June this year. Of course, Mr Vincent has no small task in front of him. But apart from the narrow terms of reference set down by the Minister, we in the Opposition are concerned that the recommendations Mr Vincent might make have already been pre-empted by actions of the Government. The Minister talks about amendments to the Telecommunications Act and outlines what some of them might be. Has the Minister a predetermined set of amendments which he wishes to introduce or is he going to wait and hear what Mr Vincent has to propose? The Minister talks about revised working arrangements and policy guidelines concerning the Australian Federal Police and Telecom. Has he predetermined his position? Has he predetermined his position on the way that Telecom might collect additional information from applicants? Have Caucus decisions been made already in relation to amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act which might make some of Mr Vincent's work academic or unnecessary? This is a matter of some concern to Mr Redlich. He refers, for example, to the internal investigation unit, which has been reduced over the last three years from, I think, 21 to 11 persons. The Opposition considers these to be very important matters. Telecom is the largest single employer of the Commonwealth Public Service, employing some 90, 000 people. It is the most influential and important instrumentality that we have. It is imperative, in the national interest, that these allegations be cleared up and that they be cleared up completely. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.02) —I have taken the opportunity-the liberty perhaps-of bringing back for debate in the Senate the 1982-83 annual report of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd because we did not have time to debate this matter when it was last before the Senate. I wish to commend Miss Lois O' Donoghue and Aboriginal members of the board for their report. I note that the highlights of the year were a 20.7 per cent rise in funding from the Commonwealth Government, opening of the first alternative style village for Aboriginal fringe dwellers in Australia, the winning of a prestigious Australian Institute of Management award for its 1981-82 annual report and the celebration by Aboriginal Hostels of its tenth anniversary. Under the heading 'Company Operations' the report states: Over the 1982-83 fiscal year, Aboriginal Hostels Limited operated or funded 122 hostels around Australia providing 2,996 beds to meet the temporary accommodation needs of Aborigines and Islanders. This total included 64 hostels providing 1,367 beds operated by Aborigines and community organisations under the Company's Third Party Hostel Grants Program. The remaining 58 hostels, with a total of 1,629 beds were operated directly by the Comapny. Under the heading 'Types of Hostels' the report states: Hostels provide temporary accommodation for Aborigines in education, employment , vocational training and for health reasons. I note also that there is to be a review of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd's company charter. This is to take place after 10 years of very successful operation. I believe that the board, after experiencing extreme difficulties at the beginning of its operations, has done a tremendous amount of work in accommodating Aboriginal people throughout Australia. I understand that the Government has agreed to a complete review of the company charter under which Aboriginal Hostels Ltd was formed in 1973 as it is now recognised that the original charter has served its purpose. I have always followed the operations of Aboriginal Hostels Limited with considerable interest. I have had something to do with this organisation over the years. I, too, believe it is time that its charter was reviewed. The organisation is responsible for hostels. I feel that its role could be extended considerably. The Aboriginal Development Commission was given responsibility for Aboriginal housing a couple of years ago. I wonder whether the Government, having in mind the success that the board has made of Aboriginal Hostels, would consider making Aboriginal Hostels responsible for Aboriginal housing with the assistance of the States, and I acknowledge that the States have a responsibility for Aboriginal housing. I believe that such an arrangement would result in a more efficient operation in terms of housing Aboriginal people. I also believe that Aboriginal Hostels could offer other specialised accommodation. I believe this organisation could house young people and apprentices to a greater degree than it does at present. I also believe that the time has come when Aboriginal Hostels could offer social facilities. I believe that social club activities could be introduced in places such as Alice Springs. I think this would be for the betterment of Aboriginal people. I believe that Aboriginal Hostels should cater for Aboriginal people broadly and not for particular groups of them. I notice that the Sid Ross Hostel in Alice Springs caters for the Pitjantjatjara people. I believe that the Pitjantjatjara people should be given land for the development of village-type accommodation and that the Sid Ross type of operation should be for the Aboriginal people generally. Considerable damage has been done to the Sid Ross Hostel. I do not believe that this is the fault of Aboriginal Hostels. I believe that Aboriginal Hostels has to review this type of operation. I recommend that the Pitjantjatjara people, like the members of other tribes who come into Alice Springs, should be housed in village type accommodation. The Sid Ross Hostel, which is of considerable value, should be used by Aboriginals as a whole. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.08) —I would like to make some comments on the 1982-83 annual report of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, being, as it is, the most successful of the Aboriginal commercial or semi-commercial organisations. It was my pleasure when I was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to work with Aboriginal Hostels. I want to place on record once more my appreciation of the work done by the directors. I particularly place on record my appreciation of the work done by Miss Lois O'Donoghue, the Chairman of the board, and also the work done by my former colleague, Mr Neville Bonner, in the long period that he spent working with Aboriginal Hostels. Of the organisations I visited around Australia and the facilities that I saw operating, Aboriginal Hostels seemed to me to be far and away the most efficient and to be delivering on the ground to those who needed it the most effective services. I would like to make one point to the Government. I understand that today a new head was officially appointed to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and that is Mr Charles Perkins. I understand he will take over his duties next Monday. I understand, too, that when he leaves the Aboriginal Development Commission the function of welfare housing will go from the Commission. That function may well go to a new organisation involving Aboriginal Hostels. This means that that organisation may be taking on the function of welfare housing which up until now has been with the Aboriginal Development Commission. Senator Kilgariff —They can do the job well. Senator PETER BAUME —I agree with Senator Kilgariff that it will be able to do the job well. What we need to know at an early stage, so that we can understand what is happening, is what are the new administrative arrangements which will be in effect for the functions presently carried out by the Aboriginal Development Commission. With the departure of Mr Perkins, who will head the Aboriginal Development Commission, what functions will it lose and which of those functions will go directly to Aboriginal Hostels Limited and which will be taken up in some new administrative arrangement? We ask this not in any combative way but so that those of us who are interested in Aboriginal welfare and have had some association with Aboriginal welfare, as has my colleague Senator Kilgariff, for example, will be able to know under whose responsibility some of these important functions will rest. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.10) —I move: That the Senate condemns the Government for its abandonment of the maintenance of an adequate defence force for Australia in relation to- (a) the totally inadequate share of the Federal Budget devoted to the primary responsibility of Government, namely the defence of the nation; (b) the consequential placing of the Australian Defence Forces in a position from where recovery is now impossible when faced with an armed threat to the security of the country; (c) the abandonment of the plans to provide a platform at sea for the operation of a rotary winged aircraft for anti-submarine warfare and fixed wing aircraft for surveillance, strike and air superiority; (d) the criminal negligence in disbanding the Fleet Air Arm whose continued existence was a national defence asset even if no seaborne platforms were available in the short-term; (e) the failure to provide helicopters for the FFG's for the Navy; (f) the decision to buy two more FFG's and not recognise the totally incorrect decision by a previous Labor Government to buy this class of ship for the Royal Australian Navy, a design which is completely inadequate for Australia's needs; (g) the failure to move purposefully to provide adequate airborne refuelling aircraft for the RAAF; (h) the failure to provide any airborne early warning aircraft; (i) the failure to provide adequate transport, air support, ammunition, boots and clothing to units of the Australian Army, particularly the Operational Deployment Force; (j) the very depressed state of morale in the Australian Defence Forces arising from the aforementioned factors and from poor housing, tax on Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits payments and general neglect from the Government of their needs; and (k) the breaking of morale in the Reserve Forces by taxing payments to its members. I move this motion because I believe that at no time since Federation have Australia's defences been in a more parlous state than they are now. Quite simply, I contend that Australia cannot defend itself against any sort of armed aggression. I recognise that the previous Government did not do as much as it might have done and that the defences of this country were not as strong as they might have been. But at least that Government had a publicly-declared target for increasing expenditure, and thereby the effectiveness of our defence forces. No such target exists for the present Government. Australians have seen a dramatic decline in the capability of their defence forces in the last 12 months. There has been a catastrophic decline in morale and a dramatic drop in the capability of the Australian defence forces. One is almost at the point of arguing that if this is what the defence vote is buying for Australia, it is hardly worth laying out 10 per cent of the Federal Budget for it. And this comes from a Government that runs a monumental deficit that is comparable with that in the United States in terms of the percentage of gross domestic product. Given this enormous deficit this year of $9 billion or $10 billion, we have a Government that has infantry units without boots. So much for the priorities spoken of by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who talks of having an adequate defence for Australia. Strategically, Australia is a very important country. It is not true that Australia is not coveted by other nations. It is worth defending: We must defend our country. It is our responsibility and not that of any other country. Australia has a most strategic position at the confluence of both the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Both oceans are important for the super-powers, as can be seen from the increasing deployment of air and marine units of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Australia is strategically important for Japan and its huge trade both with the United States and Europe and its oil supplies coming through the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. It is strategically important to the Soviet Union in support for its client states of Vietnam and North Korea and as a passage way to the Asian portion of the Soviet Union. Defence is one of the four great offices of state and the first duty of any government-the protection of its people. Yet Australia has negligible public debate-indeed, negligible parliamentary debate-on this topic. The Senate is the home of debate on foreign affairs and defence, but in the period of almost six years I have been a member of this chamber I cannot recall one full scale serious debate on the subject of defence. I think that I have spoken more on that subject than any other honourable senator, and when I have spoken I have usually provoked the intolerance of the Labor Party-not so much as a result of what I have said politically, but simply because Labor members begrudge the time of the chamber being devoted to this subject. In the 12 months since the Australian Labor Party has been in power it has kept very quiet about defence and has not sought to raise the subject in this place. Labor has done Australia a great disservice in its year in office. It has resurrected the no-threat doctrine, dusted it off and made it official holy writ. It is vintage Whitlam stuff. All it has done is to leave out the no-threat-for-15-years element. The Government now says that there will be no threat for many years and certainly none at present. I shall deal with the consequences of that doctrine in a moment, but I submit that defence cannot be considered in isolation. We must look at the other Government actions which support a defence posture. On all those fronts the Government is lacking. The wealth of the country and the industrial capacity to support the high technology that is now involved in military affairs are absolutely important. The will of the nation, the determination of the populace at large to preserve their freedom, and the system of alliances of the country, regional and global, are paramount for a nation as small in population terms as Australia. On every count the Australian Labor Party has sold the country short, it has done nothing to improve the competitiveness of industry or productivity. The present Government's massive deficit is increasingly leading to higher interest payments and higher inflation. It is not creating wealth. It is making it more and more difficult for us to have money to spend on defence in this country and to buy from overseas the weapons systems Australia needs. Despite all its talk of consensus, the present Government is doing nothing to promote the will of the nation. When the present Government first assumed office, we thought it was a neutralist government, but its record in office is clearly that of a pacifist government. There is a world of difference between those two. The way in which the present Government is promoting world peace movements and other communist front organisations, the development of an Institute of Peace at the Australian National University, the shallowness of the disarmament policies which it promotes on the world stage, with which I shall deal at a future date, are all proof of its pacifist directions. Above all, the Government has damaged Australia and its alliances. There has been a significant shift to the left on where Australia stands in the community of nations. This shift was epitomised by the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who was recently pictured on the front page of all Australian newspapers hugging and kissing the Vietnamese Foreign Minister. That was the Foreign Minister of a country which possesses the worst record of human rights and international relations in the world. It is a militant communist regime-a country not bound by the rule of law, the conqueror of South Vietnam and Kampuchea, and the country that subdued Laos. It is a country which keeps over 200,000 troops in Kampuchea and which is resettling that country with its own nationals. It is a country with a horrendous human rights record, ranging from the persecution of the ethnic Chinese to the boat people whom they pushed out to drift on the waters of the world. It is a country whose re-education camps are notorious. How many hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese are incarcerated in those camps? The very existence of those camps was denied by Nguyen Co Thach the Vietnamese Foreign Minister when I asked him a question during his appearance before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. He is one of the most charming liars we have ever had in this country. He denied that Vietnam supplied slave labour for the Soviet pipeline, thereby giving a new definition to the phrase 'guest worker'. These are the sort of people the ALP prefers to have as friends and allies of Australia, along with other sundry terrorist groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the South West Africa People's Organisation, and the African National Council. The ALP would rather deal with such people than support our traditional friends in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and our regional allies and neighbours. It is impossible to estimate the damage to Australia's position by the Invincible exercise before Christmas-an exercise that utterly undercut Australia 's reputation as a reliable ally and which has been in no way corrected by the ambivalent statements by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) after the event. I know from personal experience that the US Defense Department could not believe that Australia could be the perpetrator of such an action. I turn now to our relationships in the region. Our position with the Association of South East Asian Nations was developed over decades of hard, consistent work by Liberal Foreign Ministers. Australia had earned a responsible position with the countries of South East Asia, a position we did not enjoy before the Second World War. Because of the preference of this Government for the cause of the communists in Vietnam, in September last year we had the debacle over whether the coalition of Kampuchea would take a place in the United Nations and the effect that had on the alliance. We are retreating from Butterworth although every military analysis points to the need for Australia to maintain our place there. Because Mr Hayden and Mr Hawke want to kowtow to the Vietnamese and because Mr Thach has said it would be a good idea if we got out of Butterworth because it is a bit of a threat to them , we are now packing up and getting out. Butterworth is important to us. It is not a matter of forward defence or any of those semantic arguments. By retaining a presence in Butterworth we dominate the Straits of Malacca, the pathway between the Indian and Pacific Oceans and the South China Sea. We have the ability to monitor and do intelligence-gathering of the Vietnamese in South Vietnam and the whole of the Indo-China area. That is why the Vietnamese communists have put it to Australia that the best thing for international relations between the two countries is that we pack up and go and we are accepting their advice. Again with respect to relations with ASEAN, we had the dreadfully dishonest position when we misled the ASEAN group as to whether we would support it in co- sponsoring a motion to vote for the coalition Government of Kampuchea being the recognised representatives of Kampuchea in the United Nations. We misled the ASEAN group and turned around and attacked the United States on the ground that it had provoked the ASEAN group to raise a protest. What a travesty! What a lot of good that did the Australian-United States alliance! Never before in the history of Australia have our regional and traditional alliances been strained to the degree that they are today. It is against this background that the defence of Australia has to be assessed because we stand very much alone at present. The doctrine of this Government, as I said earlier, is the no-threat doctrine. That has a profound effect on Australia's defence capabilities because it paralyses the whole system. It paralyses the development of a force because if there is no threat it logically follows that we do not know what to prepare for. It follows that there are no objectives set for that force. There are no priorities and, most importantly, there is no urgency. We just drift along in an eternal dream time of 'she'll be right', because that is the corollary to the no-threat doctrine. A very damaging aspect of this doctrine is that it creates in the civilian element of the Department of Defence-a large component of the Department, being something in excess of 38,000 people-a feeling of utter cynicism and nihilism. They just do not believe that what they are doing is worth while because they do not believe it is ever going to be put to the test. It would sharpen up their thinking no end if they knew that their necks would be on the block if they made a miscalculation with respect to the defence of this country. I cannot emphasise stongly enough how inappropriate and destructive this no- threat concept is to the security of this country. I have seen it all before. I was eleven in 1945 at the end of World War II and my memory is good of the six years, between the ages of five and eleven, when we were at war. I remember very clearly the day Darwin was bombed and hearing the news on the radio and going next door to tell the neighbours. I remember the state of utter unpreparedness in which the Labor Government of the time had Australia. Thousands of Australian 18-year olds, hopelessly under-trained in emergency conditions, with obsolete weapons were sent to the front line. They lost their lives in those desperate days purely because we then had a Labor Government which had the same priorities as the Government in Canberra today. It also follows from the no-threat doctrine that we will have a long lead time. When we talk about a long lead time for defence preparedness in the 1980s we are really in mythology. We will not have any advance warning at all; there is no such thing in the nuclear age. The lead times we had in 1914 and 1939, when we could spend a year or more preparing, are things of the past. We must have a force in being, a force that is ready to go. This is a high technology age. I am not saying that Australia will be involved in a major nuclear war. We could be involved in local conflicts and we could be involved with great rapidity because of the technology of the age. Transport capabilities, communications and weapons systems are such that this country must plan on having no lead time to prepare to look after its essential interests. We must change from the negativism of the no-threat doctrine to the positivism of the protection of our national interests. Our national interests are quite simple: The defence of Australian territory and the defence of the Australian maritime zone. That means that, as well as being able to hold mainland Australia , we must be able to hang on to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island and deny them to the enemy. It means being able to cope with the lodgment of some army force on the Australian mainland. How many people in this chamber realise that the Australian Army, despite its 33 ,000 men, can cope only with anti-terrorist activity? If a brigade or division were put ashore in Australia we simply could not cope with it. This country cannot raise and put in the field at 48 hours notice one fully trained and equipped army battalion. I do not know of one other country in the world that is so poverty stricken with respect to its army. We should forget about the business of satellite technology and star wars in the air and under the water. The Army is essential. Infantry is essential. It is the only way we can hold territory. We must have a force in being. Quite clearly, we cannot have a force that can cope with all conditions and contingencies, but we have to have something and be able to demonstrate the presence of that force so that any attacker realises that he has a threshold to overcome. When we realise that there is a multiplier effect of about three to one on any attacker, the bigger the force we can demonstrate we possess, the more difficult it becomes for anyone to make a lodgment in this country and the virtues of being an island nation are turned to our advantage. We must dominate these difficulties in relation to defence because they are absolutely vital to our national security, but the problem is not solved by money alone. We do not have enough money to spend on defence at present, but clearly other factors are involved in the disbursement of moneys. We have to make sure that we are getting 100 cents value for every dollar we spend. I do not think that we do. There is waste and inefficiency in the Department of Defence. I think that was shown in the Auditor-General's report tabled here last Tuesday and I hope to come back to that at a future date. It is important not only that we get value for the dollar that we spend but also that the money is spent in the most effective direction for Australia's defence needs. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MACGIBBON —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was on the question of money for defence and I was making the point that the money at present is not adequate. According to the estimates for this year we will spend over $5 billion on defence, about 10 per cent of Federal outlays, or about 3.1 per cent of the gross domestic product. We have to compare that with the smallest expenditure of one of the European countries, about 5 per cent of its gross domestic product; about 8 per cent of that of the United States and 13 per cent of that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The hard fact of life is that defence costs money, real money. The Australian Labor Party will not recognise that fact. It will not recognise that we need an increase in real terms of around 4 per cent to 5 per cent per year over the next five years just to stay precisely in the position we are in at the moment-which means a decline into obsolescence. It is strange to me that a one per cent Medicare levy can be imposed on this country for a scheme that we do not need. We could disband that. The Labor Party should bring in a one per cent defence levy which is what we do need. At present, on this limited budget, most of the annual expenditure goes to paying for the essential equipment to partly modernise the services that was ordered by the previous Liberal-National Party Government. There is virtually nothing left to run the services on a daily basis. So the exercises are wiped, the budget has been cut by 30 per cent, there is no fuel and there is no ammunition. How can we maintain morale and proficiency on that basis? We need more money for defence and we need fresh, innovative minds applied to reorganise the three forces. I have had quite a bit to do with the three forces and I will stand second to no one in my admiration for their professionalism. One has to maintain a perspective in this debate about the Australian defence services because with respect to human resources they are absolutely first class . Their problems are organisational and financial. Those forces are not assembled to form an effective whole. In the services we are very much prisoners of the past. For example, the Army still sees itself in the infantry role, its personnel being on foot with rifles and packs on their backs as they were in the Owen Stanleys in 1943. That, of course, is the whole conceptual basis of the Operational Deployment Force. Australia presents unique problems with respect to its defence needs and therefore it demands its own solutions. I do not accept that the mere refinement of the present forces is all that is required, let alone the best way to go. I strongly support the need for three separate services but we have an overwhelming need for one Australian Defence Force with a common objective for the defence of this country. In the remaining few minutes I would like to look briefly at some of the salient features that need attention in those three services. The Army is the largest of all three and perhaps most in need of reform. The Army does need to be turned upside down and reorganised, for with 33,000 men and women in uniform it cannot put one battalion into the field in 48 hours. I simply do not have time, in the period remaining, to go into the details but two features that stand out. First of all, the ratio of the fighting elements to the base support numbers is absolutely impossible. If we had had the same ratio in 1939-45 there would not have been enough people in the whole of Australia to keep the four Australian Imperial Force divisions formed and the militia units. Secondly, if the degree of readiness as practised by the Army was applied to the Air Force or the Navy we would have no aircraft in the air and no ships at sea. I was once a supporter of the concept of the Operational Deployment Force, but having seen it in actuality and having watched it over a period I no longer believe in it. I think it is nonsense. At best it is a meaningless concept and at worst it creates a false sense of security insofar as it pretends to have readiness capability. It simply is not an effective fighting force. It consists of two under strength battalions of 680 men. They are under strength because they are each less one rifle company. It has no armour and no anti-armour capability. It has very limited artillery. It has no tactical mobility, either on land or in the air. Above all it has no reconnaissance capability. The Navy has major problems also. The most worrying factor there is the no air capability at sea. The Labor Party never thought through the consequences of the abandonment of the Fleet Air Arm. Maybe the carrier had to go but the need remained and there was an obligation on the Labor Party not to denude and leave naked the Navy of this country. It has made no provision at all to fill that gap . We are grossly deficient at sea in anti-submarine capability. We have no air superiority and no air reconnaissance capability. The Government has compounded that error by throwing away some very valuable national defence assets in the form of the Skyhawks and the Trackers which could have been used effectively from shore bases for the rest of their lives. It was only recently that we spent $8m in buying spare parts for the Trackers, which have low time air frames and a long period of life ahead of them. We have a major problem with the surface ships which are now without a carrier. We have the FFGs, which were a disastrous decision of a previous Labor administration, and compounding that problem the Labor Party refuses to buy helicopters to give them an over-horizon targeting capability or an anti-submarine capability. The Air Force is in many ways the best off, but it must have, as a matter of urgent priority, an air-fuelling capability and an enhanced weapons system. Finally I mention the matter of command and control of the Australian forces. We have a very long way to go in the Department of Defence, starting with infrastructure, at the intelligence gathering end, right through to the exercise of command. Communications within the Services are better than communications at a joint service level. I do not wish to go too far into this in public but I am alarmed at the position as I have seen it. More importantly, I am alarmed at what we do not have in this dimension. Last of all is the matter of reserves for the Australian forces. We have had a lot of hot air in this place about the morality of tax evaders and others, but what about the morality of a government that promised not to tax payments to reserve forces and then, within months of getting into office, did it and destroyed the morale of the reserves in the process? We need to consider the civilian component of the Department of Defence. The present system is a proven failure. The Government admits it would never use it in time of war so why then does it survive in time of peace? We are worse off in Australia today than we were in 1939. The Labor Party doctrine of no threat is a doctrine that must be abandoned immediately. The lesson of the Falklands war provided very clear proof that one cannot foresee when emergencies are going to arise and when one will need the defence forces. Britain would never have been able to fight the Falklands war if it had not had the planning done already for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation operation in relation to Norway. It would never have lost the ships it did if it had taken notice of committees that looked at them and reported on their lack of anti-air capability. The plans were there; the time was not. The important thing is that one goes to war with the equipment one has at the time, not at the convenience of the enemy. We have some very valuable assets in Australia. We have a nucleus of very dedicated, very able and very professional people in the Services, but they must be reorganised into an organic whole. They must have more money. They must never be placed in the position that a previous Labor government placed them in between 1939-45 when men were sent untrained and poorly equipped to lose their lives in defence of this country. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(8.10) —Unlike the previous speaker, Senator MacGibbon, I wish to speak to the specific motion before the Senate. It is no wonder that Senator MacGibbon did not dwell on that for a great length of time in that if we go to the particular aspects and parts of the motion we see that his case really does not have all that much to stand on. Instead of support for this motion over the last 30 minutes of the debate we have had a virago of wild rhetoric, of cold war rhetoric; a virago of allegations showing the mover of the motion as someone without credibility in this area, without credence and without substance. In fact, if Senator MacGibbon is as much a dental expert as he professes to be an expert on foreign affairs and defence, it is little wonder that his constituents in Queensland sent him down to Canberra. I for one will not go into that sort of cold war rhetoric debate. I want to look at the specific aspects of Senator MacGibbon's motion and put them up for scrutiny by the Senate. The motion comes at the end of a few weeks of statements and rhetoric from the Opposition-from the Minister for Defence in the previous Fraser Government, Mr Sinclair, from Mr Newman and now from Senator MacGibbon- about a supposed run-down in Australia's defence capacity. We have seen an outstanding example of the chameleon culture of the Opposition and its reckless disregard for the truth, despite the fact that it is discussing matters as fundamental as the defence of Australia. Its memory has been shown to be extremely poor. In fact it is members of the Opposition who are threatening Australia's security with their scant regard for the truth, a precedent which they set in government and are now continuing in opposition. At the outset I remind the Opposition, and especially Senator MacGibbon, of what members of the Opposition were saying about Australia's defence capacity just a year ago. Mr Sinclair, the Minister for Defence, in an article in the Pacific Defence Reporter just over a year ago, in February 1983, entitled 'Time on our Side'-in fact, in his case he almost got a bit of it-responded to a report by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr Acting Deputy President, that interpolation 'I think he nearly got a bit of it' is offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Senator BOLKUS —It is also true, Mr Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Bolkus, I think that the remark should be withdrawn. Senator BOLKUS —I withdraw. What did Mr Sinclair say about Australia's defence capacity in the Pacific Defence Reporter of February 1983, 13 or 14 months ago? He made the following points: Global nuclear war remains improbable, Australia would not be a principal threat in such a conflict. The large armies in our region are largely irrelevant to Australia's defence problems, because they are currently unsupported by the substantial maritime and air resources needed to launch and sustain a major military action against Australia as an island nation. These fundamental considerations provide us with considerable assurance for our own future security. Australia is able, with its present and planned military capabilities, to make low or intermediate level attacks against it costly and hazardous. Furthermore we are well equipped to expand these capabilities in the face of an emerging threat. What has happened in 12 months to change that situation? What has changed? The only thing that has changed is that members of the Opposition were in government then and now they are in opposition. In the first Budget of the Hawke Government expenditure on defence increased by more than 4 per cent in real terms. Senator MacGibbon quibbled about 5 per cent in real terms. We have increased defence expenditure at a time of obvious economic difficulty. We can compare this increase in expenditure with the last Budget of the Fraser Government, in which real defence spending went down by 1.7 per cent. The current Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, Mr Sinclair, is talking about a run-down in defence forces at a time when the Budget increase in that area is 4 per cent in real terms. When he was Minister for Defence he presided over the slashing of defence spending by 1.7 per cent in real terms. So now we are witnessing Opposition spokesmen, including Senator MacGibbon, Mr Newman and Mr Sinclair, proclaiming that the Government should be spending a lot more on defence. Senator MacGibbon —Are you the best the Labor Party can do to put its case? Senator BOLKUS —I do not profess to be an expert on foreign affairs and defence but, given the honourable senator's performance immediately preceding mine and given the degree to which he proclaims himself to be an expert, I do not think the Government need go very far to top him. Senator MacGibbon —Keep on, if you are the best they have. Senator BOLKUS —I do not think I am doing too badly. What I am really saying is that it is a case of the Opposition saying: 'Don't do what we have done, don't do what we do; just do what we say regardless of the validity of the rhetoric'. Senator MacGibbon may continue to read his newspaper, but the fact is that the Government in which he was a senior member increased spending on defence by an average of 2.5 per cent per annum throughout its disastrous seven years of office. In our first year we have increased defence spending by 4.1 per cent and , by some strange logic, he claims that this is insufficient, that the previous Government did the job but somehow in 12 months we have let Australia's defence capacity fall down. The fact is that this Government is prepared to spend more on defence than the previous Government, and is now doing so. As I said, we witnessed a strange, rather unethical attack on a foreign politician, who was called a most charming liar. Senator MacGibbon may well have been a party to make an appropriate assessment on that but I think his final judgment was wrong. I turn to the specific points of Senator MacGibbon's motion before the chamber. He claims that a totally inadequate share of the Federal Budget is being devoted to the Government's primary responsibility; that is, the defence of the nation. I have touched on that. All I can say is that it is total arrogance and impertinence for Senator MacGibbon, Mr Sinclair and others to raise this point in light of the record, but it is not an arrogance that we on this side are unaccustomed to given the performance of those people in recent years. We have raised defence expenditure in the context of an enormous deficit, one that the Opposition was not prepared to admit to when it was in government, even in its last dying days. It was only when we took over the Treasury benches on 6 March 1983-a date Senator MacGibbon obviously would like to forget-that we discovered the enormity of this country's economic problems. Despite that, despite the explosion in unemployment that took place under the Fraser Government and despite our commitment towards reducing that unemployment, whether by direct or indirect means, we have still found the opportunity and the money in budgetary allocations to raise defence expenditure. That is the record. Let us look again at the previous Government's record. The previous Minister for Defence, then Mr Killen, one who was more noted for his oratory and his horse racing interests than his ability actually to work with his department and sustain a credible defence program, promised in a White Paper introduced in 1976 -a paper Senator MacGibbon forgot to mention-that resources devoted to defence by his Government would grow by more than 5 per cent per annum. That is the magical figure to which Senator MacGibbon returned today. What happened? In the next year the share of Budget outlays spent on defence fell to below 9 per cent. Although the previous Government promised a real increase of 5 per cent in defence expenditure, real expenditure actually went down. That is the defence record that we have to compare with the Hawke Government's record. So much for paragraph (a). In paragraph (b) Senator MacGibbon refers to the consequential placing of the Australian defence forces in a position from which recovery is now impossible. It is amazing what we are alleged to have done in the last 12 months. I turn to Mr Sinclair, someone for whom I am sure Senator MacGibbon has some respect even though the rest of Australia does not. Just over a year ago Mr Sinclair said: The long lead-time in years necessary for personnel recruiting and training and manufacturing and acquisition of military hardware determining our defensive capacity is at least five and almost certainly ten years hence. It is the Government's view that this period is within the time frame necessary to identify possible threat ahead and so permit timely expansion, should it be believed necessary. What has changed since then? As I said earlier, it all changed on 5 March 1983. This Government agrees with that judgment. It is one of the few judgments of Mr Sinclair's with which we do agree. Furthermore, as I have said, unlike the previous Government we are prepared to devote and sustain significant resources in this area. In paragraph (c) Senator MacGibbon refers to the abandonment of plans to provide a platform at sea for both rotary winged and fixed wing aircraft. I turn for a moment to fixed wing aircraft and to all the items in Senator MacGibbon's motion on which he chose not to dwell. It should be remembered that fixed wing naval aviation effectively ceased under the previous Government when the HMAS Melbourne was tied up in 1982. There was then no prospect of another platform being acquired that would be capable of operating the Skyhawks. The decision was announced by Sir James Killen on 29 April 1982. Let us not lay the blame on this Government. I turn to rotary winged aircraft. Senator MacGibbon, in running away from the truth, neglected to mention that it is this Government's commitment-a commitment that is on record-that there will be, in the future, many sea-going platforms operating helicopters for anti-submarine warfare. The Government has already announced plans to acquire new anti-submarine helicopters for the guided missile frigates now entering service. It has also announced that our support ships will be able to operate them. This sort of flexibility is something that would not come from Senator MacGibbon's proposal. Paragraph (d) of Senator MacGibbon's proposal states: . . . the criminal negligence in disbanding the Fleet Air Arm whose continued existence was a national defence asset even if no sea-born platforms were available in the short term; I read that out because we need to compare Sentor MacGibbon's rhetoric with the truth and with his motion. The truth is that the Government is not disbanding the Fleet Air Arm. No wonder, once again, Senator MacGibbon did not touch on this. Quite the opposite is happening. Planning is continuing for a significant expansion in the numbers of rotary winged aricraft. It has been announced that a new helicopter is to be introduced into the service. Where then is the credibility of Senator MacGibbon, the self-proclaimed expert on foreign affairs and defence? I will go on because the more I go on the more embarrassed Senator MacGibbon should feel in bringing up this matter, wasting the time of the Senate with a spurious motion and placing on the Notice Paper something that does not hold substance. In paragraph (e) of his motion he claims that the Government has failed to provide helicopters for the FFGs for the Navy. The truth is that it has been announced that the Government gives high priority to the acquisition of new helicopters for the FFGs. The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) said that the types of helicopters available earlier for the FFGs were of older technology and limited capability and were judged unsuited for Australia's needs. The previous coalition Government-the Government of which Senator MacGibbon was a member, even though he may have slept through it-accepted this position. Under the Hawke Government tenders have been issued for two designs of helicopters which were not previously available. These tenders are currently being evaluated. One cannot do everything in the space of 12 months. Senator MacGibbon's Government had seven years to do it. Senator MacGibbon's motion then criticises the decision to buy two more FFGs, claiming that that decision did not recognise the totally incorrect decision, as he called it, by a previous Labor government to buy this class of ship for the Royal Australian Navy. He claimed that the decision made between 1972 and 1975 was wrong, that the design was totally inadequate for Australia's needs and that our continuation along this line is something that should be corrected. What is the truth in respect of Senator MacGibbon's claim? The truth is that the previous Labor Government in fact put in action a program to acquire the first two FFGs from the United States of America. What Senator MacGibbon neglected to mention in his motion was that the subsequent coalition Government, his Government, reviewed the decision when it achieved office. What did it do then? It completed the contracts and the formalities and went ahead and bought the two FFGs early in 1976. It ordered a further two FFGs in 1977 and in 1980. The present Labor Government is continuing the program which was set out between 1972 and 1975. That program was adopted, after review, by Senator MacGibbon's side of this Parliament. It is apparent that this Government and the previous coalition Government was satisfied by their actions that this class of ship most adequately meets Australia's defence needs. Paragraph (g) of the motion states that the Government failed to move purposefully to provide adequate airborne refuelling aircraft for the RAAF. The capacity exists at the moment. The Royal Australian Air Force already possesses four Boeing 747 aircraft that will be modified. Senator MacGibbon knows about that. The F111 strike reconnaissance aircraft can be refuelled in flight. There will be extended capacity in this area. As I said, the truth and the rhetoric do not come together at all. So it goes on. His claim that there was a failure to provide any airborne early warning aircraft can be discussed, but we know that Government priority is already being given to an over-the-horizon radar which is operating as project Jindalee and which we feel and the previous Government felt would adequately cover our needs in this area. The man who talked wildly about nuclear war and about no notice being given in, as he called it, the Goebbels network-I think that slip is probably quite appropriate in this instance-went from nuclear warfare to the inadequate provision of boots and clothing. He did not substantiate his claims there at all . It just reads good on the Notice Paper. It might get him a bit of publicity in northern Queensland. But it is all rhetoric; is is all shallow and lacks substance. If he can come up with specific allegations, let him substantiate them. He did not do that today in the 30 minutes in which he spoke. He did not do it because he could not substantiate the allegations. The one point to which he returned time and time again was the claim that there was a very depressed state of morale in the Australian defence forces arising, as he said, from the aforementioned factors and others. Senator MacGibbon may know one or two people in the defence forces but I shall quote from a recent statement by the Chief of the Defence Force Staff. Let us see how that stands with the network which Senator MacGibbon claims to have. The Chief of the Defence Force Staff said that he is satisfied that the overall morale and spirit of the defence forces remain high. He blames the lack of morale on the housing situation. Let us look at the facts. The housing situation is largely a legacy of the previous Government, the Fraser Government, the Government of which Senator MacGibbon was a member. What did he do about it then? What did he do when the iniquitous Garland report was adopted by the Government? That report stalled progress in the area. He did nothing. Despite the legacy left to this Government, it has started initiatives to upgrade existing homes and to add to the total inventory. In the 20 minutes that I have been speaking I have managed to scrutinise and assess Senator MacGibbon's motion which is before this chamber. As I said, it is little wonder that what we got in lieu of substance from Senator MacGibbon was cold war rhetoric. It was rhetoric that we, as rational beings in this place, should reject out of hand. Cold war rhetoric can only be substantiated by baseless allegations. That is what we have seen this evening. It is quite ironic that, on a day when we have debated as a matter of public importance the question of disarmament, Senator MacGibbon and his colleagues are prepared to come in here and present a false claim of neglect in the defence forces. I have not attempted to argue the merits of increased defence spending or otherwise. What I have done is looked at the allegations made by Senator MacGibbon, Mr Sinclair and Mr Newman, who are all tin soldiers, and rejected them. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(8.29) —We have just listened to Senator Bolkus decrying Senator MacGibbon's excellent speech in the Senate in which he told us of the many inadequacies that exist in the Department of Defence and the Department of Defence Support. It is appropriate that I should speak in support of Senator MacGibbon's motion because I feel very strongly about the inadequate provision being made for the defence of our nation by this Government. Yesterday I moved a motion along similar lines to the motion that Senator MacGibbon put forward expressing concern over this Government's restraints in the area of defence training and maintenance schedules. I consider that the Government is not doing enough to encourage domestic industry to participate in Australian design, development and production for defence purposes, an initiative which, in my opinion, would help Australian industry to regain some international competitiveness. Under the Labor Government the Australian Defence Force is suffering severely. Despite what Senator Bolkus says, there has been a rundown in equipment, spare parts, ammunition and fuel; exercising has been restricted; morale is low and, most significantly, no clear direction for the future is being given. Indeed, the situation has reached the alarming stage where the Department of Defence has admitted that Australia would have difficulty in maintaining security against a low level threat. For any government to have placed the security of our nation in such a precarious position is, in my opinion, unforgivable. The very instability of world affairs at present and the pressures apparent in our region require Australia to have a defence capability with a large measure of self-sufficiency and mobility. Surely the defence of Australia, its territories, maritime zones and legitimate national interests is the first duty of an Australian government-whether it be a Labor or Liberal-National Party government. However, uncertainties about foreign policy and the provision of defence aid to countries in our regions, the fiasco over the dry-docking of HMS Invincible, about which Senator MacGibbon told us very clearly and distinctly, and the continued imprecision over the policy on visits of allied warships, have all left Australia isolated from our friends at a time of considerable global tension. Labor's funding cuts have affected establishment levels in regular and Reserve forces, flying and steaming times for aircraft and ships, training levels in the three Services, the maintenance of stocks of fuel, munitions and spare parts and the scrapping of school cadets. I feel that the cadet corps should be re- established. School cadets are very important not only because they are trained for a future in the forces but also because they receive discipline. I believe many young men in the cadet corps, and girls also, are missing something because they are not able to have such training. Policy changes have affected servicemen 's Defence Force retirement and death benefits commutation tax liability and Reserve personnel pay taxation. I and other honourable senators have received many letters about this. Those changes have prejudiced morale. Service housing and base maintenance need significant additional investment. Yet the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has said that he cannot guarantee that next year's Budget will even maintain the present defence allocation. The Australian defence forces have already been weakened by the decision against an aircraft carrier, by the scrapping of the Fleet Air Arm's fixed wing capability and by training cuts to the three Services and to the reserves. But with present defence cutbacks, Australia's position will deteriorate even further. Nobody wants war. I believe the present horrific occurrences in the Middle East make us all well aware of the futility of nations going to war. However, to make provisions for the adequate defence of one's nation from attack is as much a form of necessary self-defence as making one's home safe from the mindless attacks of vandals and burglars. Nobody likes war, but it does go on. To turn one's back on it and pretend that if we do not equip ourselves properly against attack everyone will think that we are a peaceful nation and no one will attack us is absolute stupidity. The Labor Government's neglect of the defence of our nation is tantamount to it declaring that the Australian people are not worth protecting, that the magnificent country of Australia is not worth protecting, that if potential invaders really want us that badly they can just come in and take us. I do not believe that the majority of Australians would take very kindly to that suggestion. I believe the majority of Australians would like to see-indeed, I would say they would expect to see-a more adequate defence of their homeland. I believe the significant shortfalls highlighted in the submission of the Department of Defence to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence show the critical necessity for higher priority to be given to defence in this country. The prime role of the Australian Defence Force should be the deterrence of any threat to Australian territory or our national interests and the maintenance of an ability to respond to any defence emergency affecting these, independently of our major allies. Yet the Department of Defence has admitted that Australia would have difficulty in maintaining security against even a low level threat. The Australian Defence Force should be able to meet such military obligations as may be required and without detriment to its prime role, our treaty arrangements under ANZUS and the five power defence pact, in accordance with Australia's membership of the United Nations and the Commonwealth and as a participant in such other multinational force arrangements as are in Australia's interests. I regret very much that this is not possible under the present Government's lack of commitment to this vital part of Australia's security and future. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.37) —I enter this debate to say that the Australian Democrats cannot support the motion because of its wording and its scatter-gun approach. At the same time it does bring up some points that need to be discussed and I would like to look at a couple of those in practical terms in a moment or two. To say that the Senate condemns the Government for its abandonment of the maintenance of an adequate defence force for Australia, I think, is a rather strange irony from a Liberal senator in view of the fact that the Labor Government has been in office for only a year. As Senator Bolkus said, there are considerable lead times, as we all know, in providing defence equipment. I believe it is a very extreme statement. If the Senate says that it condemns the Government for its abandonment of the maintenance of an adequate defence force for Australia, ipso facto it is condemning the previous Government . I do not think that is quite what Senator MacGibbon intended, but of course that would have to be the effect of this motion if it were carried. Anybody in his right senses knows that nobody can put together a defence policy and implement it in a year. I think that anybody who has read what has gone on and listened to the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and others will see that the Government does seem to be showing encouraging signs of an approach to defence. Indeed, when the Minister for Defence made a comprehensive statement last November about the Government's thinking, we went so far as to say that we might get, for the first time, an army actually capable of defending Australia in the case of invasion, which we have certainly not had in the past. I agree with Senator MacGibbon that we do not have that now. One hopes that Mr Scholes and the Government will go ahead along the lines that they proposed and that this is not mere empty rhetoric. Both have said that they want to plan a flexible and highly mobile land force armed with modern weapons. Of course, that is what we need. The plans which the Minister outlined in his statement were a very promising beginning to implementing the concept. They showed that the Government had set its face against the blandishments of those who might seek to return to the old fashioned concept of a military force designed for foreign adventures but of little use for defence of the homeland. In foreseeable circumstances, if there is a major war in this world, we will be very much on our own and our major allies will be very much preoccupied and perhaps even mauled to the extent that, with the best intentions in the world, there can be no question of their coming to our assistance. It is a fact that the United States of America has told us time and time again that we are foolish if we rely on the idea of holding out our hand to uncle, who will come and help us. That is not a criticism of the United States or its intentions towards us. It is merely looking at the realities. The Government plans to spend money on trucks and it is planning for a new light armoured fighting vehicle and a new parachute training school to be built at Nowra. I hope that goes ahead soon, and that it is large enough and effective enough. It has plans also for specialised guerrilla-type forces and reconnaissance units and is putting much greater stress on helicopters and modern missile systems for the Army. All of these are thoughts in the right direction. Honourable senators have a responsbility to keep an eye on what the Government does while it remains in office, to see that those sorts of things come to pass, and that the Government does not just make pious utterances. Short of nuclear war, the most likely threat to Australia would be a regional war of some kind. Australians in general expect the Government to develop progressively an Army that could meet and counter any threat to our soil from such a development. I want to turn briefly to a question which was raised by Senator MacGibbon, but he did not say much about it. In relation to the Fleet Air Arm, he referred to the criminal negligence in disbanding the Fleet Air Arm, whose continued existence was a national defence asset even if no seaborne platforms were available in the short term. In this context I should draw attention to some comments that I have no doubt other honourable senators saw in the Pacific Defence Reporter of last August from Mr A. W. Grazebrook about the Arapaho containerised helicopter systems. I quote from his succinct and admirable article on the subject: Arapaho is a system whereby standard-size containers, fitted out for maintenance, fuel, communications, operations control, ammunition, landing facilities, and air and maintenance personnel accommodation are embarked in a container ship. This system has been developed by the United States and has been tried successfully by the United States Navy. Mr Grazebrook pointed out that the British Navy has leased the United States Navy's Arapaho equipment and chartered the container ship Astronomer in which it will test the Arapaho equipment at sea . The interesting thing about that is the new ship, that is, the Royal Navy ship Reliant, will be able to accommodate a total of six Sea Kings, with four in the hangars and two on landing spots. That is important to Australia, because the Royal Australian Navy has Sea Kings, complete with fully trained crews and operations and maintenance personnel ashore at Nowra. It is interesting too, when one considers the very high cost of defence material, that Mr Grazebrook has estimated that, given that the RAN has the Sea Kings and the necessary maintenance and communications equipment ashore at Nowra , it would cost less than $A20m to fit out a normal roll-on roll-off container ship to get the Sea Kings to sea. That seems to be very economical, especially as he says that, of the $20m, more than 80 per cent would be spent in Australia. That is another good argument. The Australian Democrats, I believe, were the first to raise a protest against the asinine idea of buying a slow, short-deck carrier for this country. Thank God that concept has been laid to rest forever! That does not mean that we are opposed to the Fleet Air Arm; far from it. I commend the Government to listen to Mr Grazebrook and, if it has not done so, to consider the Arapaho system. For the $20m involved it would be well worth while following the lead of the Royal Navy and checking this out for ourselves. That would give us a situation where we would have a possibility in wartime of taking container ships round our coast and converting them rapidly to that kind of defence system. While on the subject, it is interesting that if one reads the brochures on the Sea Harrier aircraft one finds that the same system is possible with the Sea Harriers. We can get a two-container system, one of which contains the aircraft and one of which contains its control systems, and it can be put on to virtually any ship. Certainly ships of the size of the coastal container ships around the Australian coast could accommodate that system. This approach towards naval and sea defence is a good one, because it does give us flexibility. It would allow us to use the facilities round our coast at a time of major war, when our merchant ships would not want to go very far out to sea without having some armament, for they would be sunk anyway. I commend that idea. Also, if we are going to go into the Sea Harrier business, that might be a way of getting into it without incurring too much expense. This presupposes that it is rational to have any kind of blue water fleet in time of war. That is what navies are for, after all. They are not to have parties on the quarterdeck regularly, which seems to me to be one of the principal functions in the life of a carrier in the modern world. As any naval flyer from any nation will say, any carrier is a sitting duck if it goes to sea in any war that is likely to occur in the foreseeable future. With Hunter killer submarines capable of attacking at 40 knots or more, it is obvious that that is the case. I believe that Senator MacGibbon might have a point in paragraph (f) of his motion which states: The decision to buy two more FFG's and not recognise the totally incorrect decision by a previous Labor Government to buy this class of ship for the Royal Australian Navy, a design which is completely inadequate for Australia's needs. The point has been made by a government speaker since that the Liberal Government did not change this policy; it went ahead with the FFGs. It seemed rather strange to me when I was in Seattle a couple of years ago, where the FFGs were built, that they were regarded by the US Navy, where they originated, as being very much ships that were used in large numbers. They were not regarded as the sort of ships that can carry out isolated defence on their own behalf. Indeed, they need constant mother ship or repair facilities near to them, due to the fact that they have only one propeller. It seemed that any arrangement which provided that the principal modern naval missile ship for this Navy should have only one propeller was a disaster of the first order. We agree with Senator MacGibbon on that point. While I was in Seattle I was fortunate to be at the final sea trials of USS Taurus, which was the final Pegasus class hydrofoil missile attack ship being delivered by Boeing Marine to the United States Navy. While I was there I talked to the Boeing Marine people who build these ships. I must say that I was impressed with these hydrofoils. They are quite remarkable ships. I have since mentioned to the Defence Ministers of both governments that we ought to consider those ships because of their low profile, high speed, flexibility, low cost and enormous hitting power. It is striking, in view of the comments that have been made about the FFGs, which cost something like $250m. Fully armed, the hydrofoils cost about $75m each. One of the PHMs, as they are called, can fire its eight harpoon missiles, which are on lightweight launchers, in 13 to 20 seconds-a vastly superior rate of fire to an FFG frigate, which can fire four harpoon missiles in 40 seconds. The Indonesians-not that I am particularly pointing the bone at them-are buying Boeing PHMs. If those PHMs ever get within striking distance or there is any close range conflict between them and our FFGs, will the FFGs come off second best. A much smaller, much cheaper, much more lightly manned ship will clobber them. That is a good comment on the inadvisability of relying too much on that kind of ship. They are regarded as a blue water ship and are not capable of carrying armaments or any of the facilities that would protect them against nuclear attack submarines. Those ships would be at risk from the very moment they put to sea. The great advantage of the hydrofoils is that they are a coastal defence system and would match in very neatly with our FA18 fighters, providing an adequate naval and air defence capability, preferably along our northern coast. Manning is one of the great expenses. It was going to be one of the enormous expenses involved with the short-deck carrier. A PHM can be manned by 21 men, so we can buy about 14 of them for the cost of a short-deck carier and man them for about half the complement. The Australian Democrats commend the PHM to the Government and remind the Government that this is an area in which they might consider some expansion of our Navy in the future. I have had some discussions with naval officers who are very keen on those ships, especially the younger naval officers who are not on the captains list but who command our smaller ships and who will soon be on the captains list and who will run the Navy of the future. While on the subject, I plead with the Government at least to consider some system whereby we might at least fit some of our Fremantle class ships with missiles and thereby make some of our younger and more enthusiastic naval officers happy that they will be at least in command of a warship that has some kind of capability other than a World War II bofors gun on the foredeck. That is what the Fremantle class ships have. I am reliably informed that they are not even capable, with those bofors guns, of putting a shot across the bows of a Taiwanese fishing boat in any kind of bad weather. Of course, the place for those guns in not the foredeck of a small ship. They were never designed for that and they are an utterly inappropriate type of armament. It is a pity because the Fremantle class ship is really a first class small warship in its own way. It has the space to accommodate missile systems. It has the channelling for them. It is high time the Government considered at least turning some of them into real warships so that, if ever there were an emergency or time of war, they would be of some use in the defence of this country. I defy anybody in the Senate to claim that in their present state they would be of any more use in a war situation than a rubber duck. Surely we do not want that situation to continue. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.52) -Senator MacGibbon, in bringing forward for discussion this matter of defence, has served an excellent purpose for the Senate and, more particularly, the Australian people. It is an area in which all Australians need to be involved. All Australians should take a realistic view of possible threats and the capacity we may need as time goes by to meet those threats. As this operation involves a consideration of our defence capacity and the sorts of commitments we may need to meet, it serves a very real purpose not only in this place but hopefully in the wider area of the Australian community. I was fascinated when I heard one or two of the matters brought forward tonight . I recall the words of Senator Bolkus which were a mixture of abuse and perverted humour. He more or less implied that the previous Government had left a dreadful legacy of Australian defence incapacity. Of course, when one looks at the missile firing frigates of the Royal Australian Navy, at the Orions, the Oberon submarines, HMAS Tobruk and the F111s, which are still the most sophisticated aircraft and the most effective strike aircraft in this part of the world; when one looks at and recalls the Australian helicopters which are serving today with distinction and effect with Australian pilots in the Sinai; when one recalls the capacities and development of the Special Air Service Regiment in Western Australia, probably one of the finest military units of its type in the world; when one thinks of the patrol boats that the coalition Government of yesteryear developed and which are continuing to be developed; and when one thinks of their bases in Darwin and Cairns and the significant capacity of the trainees in the forces, one has to recognise that Australia's capacity to defend itself is significant. It has a considerable capital asset, a considerable equipment capacity to meet the tasks that may confront it from time to time. The significance of this debate is that 12 months after the change of government, rather than observing an increase in our defence capacity, we have seen a disastrous decline. Bearing that in mind it is important that this debate should continue and that we analyse the circumstances relating to the defence of this continent and, indeed, of the region. I recall that Senator Mason has great knowledge of aircraft carriers and ships in general and I now note that he has recognised the failure to be accurate with a 20 millimetre gun on a patrol boat. Of course, that is a very accurate observation on his part. But he also said that he thought aircraft carriers were literally sitting ducks. One got the impression of their being sent to the bottom almost by the dozen. Of course, the fact is that only one aircraft carrier has ever been sunk by land-based aircraft. Indeed, their capacity to defend themselves is enormous. Their effectiveness as command ships and as central operating units in the defence of sea lanes is probably second to none. I really do not share the view of Senator Mason that aircraft carriers are little more than sitting ducks. It is hard to understand why several hundred of them are around the seas of the world today and are significant units in the navies of the United States of America, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and so on. Either an enormous number of mistakes and miscalculations have been made by the naval people in particular, and the defence people in general, around the world, or Senator Mason's authority is not as great as he imagines. I would have hoped that, with the circumstances of the last 12 months, with the Australian economy developing significantly in line with a lifting of the recession around the world and particularly in the United States-the Australian economy has been blessed at long last with the breaking of the most disastrous drought we have ever known-and while there is the prospect of increased revenue and perhaps more buoyant circumstances, one of the first things a responsible government would have done would be to increase the emphasis on defence. That does not appear to be the case. Indeed, I regret that it appears to be the contrary. We have virtually sold out our naval air capacity. There is total abandonment of the concept of an aircraft carrier which we so nearly had two or three years ago. Apparently, there is no concern to establish even platforms that will be of significant use in handling helicopters and vertical take-off aircraft. The circumstances that confront us today are vastly different from the economic circumstances that confronted this country 18 months to 2 years ago. These things should now be feasible options for the Government, and are indeed distinctly relevant to a government's first responsibility. Above all things, a government must surely be concerned to establish the security of its nation. Indeed, it must be responsible enough to be involved with the region and ultimately, I suppose, with security around the world. However, its own security is certainly its first obligation. Its attitude to health, education, communications-to a whole range of necessary matters-is secondary to the circumstances that will dictate its capacity to defend itself and to enable these other enormously important areas to be researched and implemented. Senator MacGibbons's motion suggests that the Government appears to be abandoning the maintenance of an adequate defence force in Australia. Indeed, there is very significant proof that that is the circumstance. It seems to me that we should be looking at a whole range of things that are relevant to the defence of this country. In the first place, although clearly there is no acutely identified threat to this country either in form or in time, unquestionably there are at least three areas of possible threat which we should be seeking to establish a capacity to meet. In the first place, we should be aware of the threat of terrorist activity, both from within-that is, on-shore- and off-shore. It is enormously important for us to be able to defend our oil installations and other important port facilities. We should be developing a capacity, in terms of both men and machines, to defend any possible terrorist activity in those areas. Of course, it is important that we should look beyond our coastline to the region in which we are a very significant partner. Indeed, the security and development of the South Pacific region to which we belong is largely dependent on our capacity and determination to have a clear facility to defend it. Besides the terrorist situation, one has to be aware of the possibility of warfare of one kind and another, insurrection and difficulties experienced by our neighbours. It must be assumed that we would have the capacity and determination to help our neighbours meet those difficulties should they arise. So we have to have a capacity to move beyond our own shores and to give our troops not only carriage but also cover in meeting obligations within our region. When we look even beyond our region it seems to me that in the wider view we should have a realisation of the demands of defence in a forward circumstance. We have screens beyond this country to which we should be willing and able to contribute a measure of defence capacity. It is in that area that the Butterworth base in Malaysia is so important. I am surprised and disappointed to observe that apparently the Government intends to scale down our involvement to the extent that a squadron will be based at Butterworth perhaps on a temporary basis for only one-third of the year and that ultimately our presence there might be eliminated altogether. It was and is the intention of the coalition to base a squadron of FA18 aircraft at Butterworth when those aircraft become available. As Senator MacGibbon pointed out earlier, such a squadron in such a position would make a very significant contribution to the defence not only of Australia but also of the whole region to our north. Talking of the region to our north brings me to a consideration of the necessity for our foreign affairs relationships and our defence considerations to be closely related. I am quite concerned about some of the revelations of recent times in regard to the abrasive circumstance that has developed between Australia and our Association of South East Asian Nations neighbours. Indeed, the countries of ASEAN have proved to be a real bastion against the communist nations of the Asiatic mainland. Dennis Warner, a very experienced correspondent in South East Asian politics, certainly is of the view that although the disastrous, sad and tragic Vietnamese War resulted in a loss measured in terms of the foreseeable future as far as the history books are concerned, it may well have provided sufficient time-a sort of vacuum in time-during which the countries of ASEAN were able to consolidate regimes and their defensive capacity and to become a bulwark, if you like, in the South East Asian area against the spread of communism. The spread of the communist power and influence in that part of the world is not really a dream; it is quite factual. The Vietnamese are still 100,000 or 200 ,000 strong in Cambodia, where they are playing the role virtually of Soviet puppets. They have extended to the Soviets the use of the facilities of Kham Ran Bay in Vietnam. This has meant the establishment of a very significant Soviet naval force in that part of the world, which lies astride the oil routes and general trade routes from the Gulf area to Japan and East Asia and, indeed, to the Pacific itself. All of those factors have increased the tensions of the area . They have also increased the need for Australian defence awareness and for Australia's capacity and determination to defend itself and play a very real part in the defence of its region. A little earlier in this debate mention was made of the lead time that is required to provide the sorts of facilities and equipment that are necessary in a rapidly changing defensive and armament capacity. Because of that lead time Australia should now be looking-I have seen no evidence that the present Federal Government is looking-towards the establishment of the sort of equipment that will be needed in the next five, 10 or 15 years. We should be looking at converting Boeing 707s for air refuelling; at introducing airborne early warning aircraft; at purchasing anti-submarine warfare helicopters and vertical take off aircraft with appropriate platforms. This country should look ultimately to the need to replace the Oberon class submarine. In that context it is surely not unreal to look, in terms of five or ten years hence, at nuclear powered submarines as the most effective weapon for a country that is so far from the major population centres of the world, surrounded as it is by massive ocean areas. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there is no apparent immediate threat in this part of the world and we should be thankful that that is the case but, regrettably, the world is unstable. For example, there is warfare in North Africa and in the Middle East-and indeed in many parts of the Middle East area where there is no actual warfare there is a dicey type of peace. There are problems in South West Asia, continuing warfare in areas of South East Asia, and problems in Central America. The circumstances that surround Australia immediately may in relative terms be peaceful, but the circumstances in the world in general are far from peaceful. One adds to all the problems I have mentioned continuing terrorist attacks which cause unstable conditions in the world. Australia should be seeking to upgrade its present equipment and to establish the training facilities in the air, on the sea and on the land that this country needs, but should also seek to ensure that the sort of equipment this nation is likely to need in five, 10 or 15 years is on its way. I seek leave to contunie my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 31 May 1983, on motion by Senator Lewis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.14) —Senator Lewis has proposed as a private member's Bill a Bill for an Act to establish Anzac Day as a national day of remembrance, which is uncontroversial, but also to provide for observances in the Australian Capital Territory to mark Anzac Day. The provisions of the Bill designed to achieve that objective are very much more controversial. The Government, as a result, opposes Senator Lewis's Bill. Though we endorse the sentiments contained in clause 4 of the Bill about Anzac Day being appropriately marked as a national day of remembrance, though we acknowledge the enormous significance of Anzac Day not only in our history but also in terms of our whole national culture, though we are anxious that the day be commemorated in Canberra and elsewhere with all the solemnity and dignity appropriate to the occasion, though we fully appreciate the values of respect for personal sacrifice which lie behind observance of the day, we consider that the solutions proposed in the Bill to the problems which have arisen in the Anzac Day march and ceremony in Canberra in recent years are unacceptable. There are better ways, which I shall outline, to ensure appropriate commemoration of the occasion, but in a way that does not undermine the democratic values for which so many Australians in so many wars fought and died. There are a number of reasons why Senator Lewis's Bill in its present form is quite unacceptable. I shall spell them out to the House. In the first place the Bill would place the arrangement of appropriate Anzac day observances in the Australian Capital Territory in the hands of the President of the Returned Services League of Australia. He would be empowered to designate areas for such observances and to grant permission to persons or classes of persons to participate in such observances. Under the provisions of the Bill the Federal Court of Australia would have the power to review such decisions. Senator Lewis' s Bill is novel in placing significant public powers with the president of a private organisation, overriding other Commonwealth legislation in the process- for example, the Australian War Memorial Act 1980-placing areas of the Territory under the control of government bodies. The second problem of the Bill is that the review power vested in the Federal Court is severely limited to altering the designation of an area or a decision of the President refusing a person or group permission to participate where the alteration would be consistent with the establishment of Anzac Day as a national day of remembrance. The third problem-perhaps the most significant problem of all-is that the Bill would abrogate the right of peaceful assembly for all persons in areas designated by the President of the RSL in the Australian Capital Territory, unless the President chose to allow those persons to participate in such observances as he may have arranged, and there is a limited power of review of his decision. The Bill would clearly impinge upon the civil liberties of citizens in the Australian Capital Territory. While the right of assembly guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognises that some restrictions may be placed legitimately on this right, the provisions in the Bill, in the view of the Government, go quite beyond what may be regarded as restrictions which are necessary in the interests of public order . The fourth problem in the Bill-this is not a product of any knowledge on my part but speculation which may well be relevant-is that Senator Lewis's Bill may not accomplish his intention, presumably, to preserve Anzac Day in the Australian Capital Territory for RSL marches without disturbance by others. It may be the case that the RSL would not welcome the legislation as that organisation would be put to considerable expense in publishing in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notices of arrangements for observances, designed at areas and permissions to participate-not least the expenses that may be associated in defending those decisions in subsequent court proceedings. The fifth problem that appears in the Bill is that clearly there would be considerable difficulty in listing, not less than 90 days before Anzac Day in any year, all persons allowed to attend without requiring them to seek permission. Thus, many people wishing merely to view the parade could be excluded from traditional viewing areas. Otherwise protesting groups could join spectators along the route of the Anzac day parade even though the RSL said they were unable to join the parade. In 1982 the RSL objected to the presence, on a knoll behind the main Anzac Day ceremony in front of the Australian War Memorial , of Women Against Rape in War, but this sort of protest would not be prevented by Senator Lewis's Bill. The Government believes that the inevitable result of the enactment of the Bill would be to create many more problems than it solves. It may be that many of the problems in the Bill would be avoided if the amendments circulated by the Australian Democrats were accepted. That series of amendments adopts a fairly robust approach towards the legislation and strips away from it almost all of its substantive provisions so far as they govern the role of the President of the RSL and the whole question of designated areas and limitations on rights of access to those designated areas. Practically all the Democrats' amendments leave intact is clause 4 of the Bill which I will read into the record as follows: It is hereby declared that it is the intention of the Parliament that Anzac Day should be marked as a national day of remembrance for the purpose of commemorating members of Australian armed forces and their auxiliary services who served Australia in the cause of freedom and who suffered death, injury or loss as a result of their service as members of those forces in the course of armed conflicts in which those forces were engaged. Apart from that, the only thing that the Bill, as amended by the Democrats, would leave intact is the provision authorising the House of Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory in effect to proscribe of its own authority and in the exercise of an open-ended discretion the way in which Anzac Day would be commemorated in the Australian Capital Territory. By arrangement, and to assist public debate on the issues that are involved in this legislation and in the counter proposals, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the full text of the Democrats proposed amendments. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows: (1) Page 1, clause 3, definition of ''observance'', leave out ''the President'' , insert ''House of Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory''. (2) Page 1, clause 3, definition of ''Returned Services League of Australia'', leave out the definition. (3) Page 2, clause 3, definition of ''the Court'', leave out the definition. (4) Page 2, clause 3, definition of ''the President'', leave out the definition . (5) Clause 5 to be opposed. (6) Page 2, clause 6, sub-clause (1), leave out ''the President'', insert ''the House of Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory''. (7) Page 2, clause 6, sub-clause (1), leave out ''he'' insert ''it''. (8) Page 2, clause 6, sub-clauses (2), (3), (4) and (5), leave out the sub- clauses. (9) Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 to be opposed. While the Government sees some merit in a Bill which would contain, as I have said several times, the kind of declaratory provision that is contained in clause 4 of the Bill, we do not however believe that it is appropriate that the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, at least in these pre-self- government days, should be left with the open-ended authority to proscribe, presumably in a legislative fashion, the appropriate measures for the observance of Anzac Day or any other public march, ceremony or protest in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government believes that the preferable course is to promulgate a new public assemblies ordinance in the Australian Capital Territory. My colleague, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, has already announced that that is the Government's intention. This legislation, unlike Senator Lewis's Bill, will guarantee to the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory the right of peaceful assembly which is recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The new Government legislation, like the public assemblies legislation in force in New South Wales and South Australia, will provide for the prior notification to the police of public assemblies. Assemblies so notified will enjoy immunity from prosecution for obstruction of persons or traffic. The onus will be on the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to apply to the Supreme Court for an order prohibiting the holding of a public assembly if he is of the opinion that it would not be in the public interest for it to be held. In forming this opinion, the Commissioner will be required to have regard to the right of peaceful assembly, recognised in the Civil and Political Rights Covenant, and any likelihood that if the assembly were to be held serious public disorder would be occasioned, the safety of any person would be placed in jeopardy, damage to property would be occasioned or the assembly would cause an obstruction that in the circumstances would be of unreasonable size or duration. The Supreme Court, in determining whether to prohibit the holding of an assembly, will be required under the proposed legislation to have regard to the same considerations. The right of peaceful assembly will thus be recognised and assemblies will be prohibited under the Civil and Political Rights Covenant. The biggest problem in designing a public assemblies ordinance of general application is the problem of so-called competing assemblies. This after all was the central problem which arose in Canberra in 1981 when we had the Anzac Day marchers on the one hand and the group calling itself Women Against Rape in War on the other. It was that conflict or clash between the so-called competing assemblies, although in this instance they shared many values, that led to the extraordinary proposal in the 1982 ordinance which was much debated in this place for the concept of a limited participation assembly, a concept which seems to flow through into at least some of the conceptual thinking behind Senator Lewis's Bill. The Government is now considering a legislative model for dealing with this problem of competing assemblies which I outlined very briefly in the course of the 1982 debate. If adopted, I believe it would be both defensible in principle, securing a balance between the interests of the original participants in the assembly and those whose presence might offend them, and at the same time be capable of practical operation. Such a model would contain three elements. The first element would be that the conduct is objectively likely to occasion a breach of the peace. This sort of consideration is appropriately expressed in the language of the first part of clause 24 (2) as it appears in the Public Assemblies Ordinance of 1982, namely: . . . a police officer of or above the rank of sergeant has reasonable grounds for believing that the conduct of a person in or near a public assembly is likely to cause or provoke a breach of the peace by any person. But this is a necessary, not a sufficient requirement. If it stands alone as it does in the 1982 ordinance, it would in effect enable participants in an authorised assembly, for example RSL members, to demand the removal of other protesters, for example, Women Against Rape in War, on the basis that their mere presence was likely to generate a hostile reaction. But there are many occasions when the primary obligation of the police must surely be to protect the rights of other protesters and not just, in effect, accede to the whims of those who are first in the field. The second element in this cumulative three-tier model is this: That someone found the conduct subjectively offensive or insulting. There must be a requirement of this kind because if no one was actually offended or insulted, protests could be stifled simply on unfounded assumptions by law enforcement officers about likely effects. The question arises, however, as to how this requirement can be made to work in practice. In this regard, I accept that it would be appropriate for a police officer to be able to act, that is, give directions, on the basis that this element was satisfied if he had reasonable grounds for believing that someone was actually offended or insulted. For the offence itself, that is, of contravening a lawful direction, to be made out later in court it would be necessary to produce evidence that someone was actually offended. In the circumstances of the Canberra marches of the past, that is unlikely to be a difficult condition to satisfy. The third crucial element in the three-tier model is this: That the conduct was objectively offensive or insulting. The requirement here is that a reasonable man or woman in all the circumstances would have been offended or insulted. It is necessary to add that third criterion to ensure that the first two do not operate illiberally. Conduct which is objectively inoffensive can nonetheless both offend particular, albeit unreasonable, individuals and be likely for that reason to cause a breach of the peace. Such conduct should not be restrained or punished on that basis. If that means that extra police resources may have to be devoted on occasion to protecting inoffensive provokers from unreasonable persons who are provoked, that is a price that simply has to be paid if we are to remain serious about fundamental civil liberties principles. I make clear that no final decision has been made by the Government about all of this, but we have been wrestling with these difficult concepts for some time in an endeavour to get the principles right. I thought it was perhaps worth flagging this sort of proposal for comment and consideration at this stage rather than have to deal with it on the run as it were in the context of the actual legislation when it comes forward. Senator Chaney —A bit late for Anzac Day. Senator GARETH EVANS —Regrettably, it seems that it may be. The new legislation, when it is promulgated by Mr Uren, will mark a significant departure from the approach of the previous Government to the problems which have arisen in the past in the Anzac Day march and ceremony in Canberra. By attempting to establish a separate category of so-called limited participation assemblies, which included the Anzac Day march, the previous Government merely exacerbated the problems. Because it considered the old legislation an affront to civil liberties, this Government repealed it soon after coming to power in March 1983. The new legislation will accord appropriate recognition to the civil liberties of the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. We believe it will set the scene for the resolution of Anzac Day problems in the future in an atmosphere of consultation and co-operation. The Government does not in any way criticise Senator Lewis for bringing forward this Bill. We believe it is a well-intentioned measure which does capture part of the reason at least why Anzac Day is such an important ceremony and so dear to the hearts of all Australians. The Government believes that it is important not to be carried away by that very obvious consideration as to ignore in the process, or perhaps to insufficiently emphasise in the process, the other values which are so crucial to the maintenance of democratic societies such as our own. We believe that Senator Lewis's Bill should not be passed in its present form. We look forward to the promulgation in the future of legislation for the Australian Capital Territory which will guarantee that RSL marches and ceremonies can be conducted with the propriety and solemnity that they deserve, but at the same time ensure that the rights of peaceful assembly of other Canberra citizens and visitors will not be infringed. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.32) -I address myself to the debate on the second reading of the Anzac Day Bill 1983 which was brought down by Senator Lewis. I am somewhat surprised and disappointed that we should be finding it so difficult to instigate this sort of legislation. I should have thought that it would have had the considerable support not only of all the people in this chamber but, significantly, of all Australians. However, if that is not to be the case, at least in the short term, I will seek permission to incorporate in Hansard Senator Lewis's proposed amendments and the explanatory memorandum. He has seven amendments which I believe totally meet the requirements of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which examined this Bill some time ago and brought down some relevant and quite logical observations. Those observations will be incorporated into the Bill via these proposed amendments. As an aid to understanding what this is about, I will read the explanatory memorandum to the amendments. There are seven points altogether which state: 1. Defines a Committee to include the National President of the R.S.L., the Chief of Defence Force Staff, and the Director of the Australian War Memorial ( or their respective nominees); 2. & 3. Substitutes the current title of the R.S.L.; 4. Requires the President to act on the advice of the Committee in arranging appropriate observances to mark Anzac Day in the A.C.T.; 5. Enables the Committee to seek the advice of others; 6. Deletes the right of the President to ignore the advice of the Committee; 7. Requires the President to advise unsuccessful applicants of their rights of review. That really seems not only to cover the matters that were highlighted by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee but also very realistically to come to grips with virtually any opposition that could be raised to this Bill. I was surprised and disappointed to read the proposition of the Australian Democrats, who seeks to have control vested in the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. If we wanted to insult totally ex-service men and women in Australia that would be one simple way to do it. The Anzac Day Bill seeks to establish Anzac Day as a national day of remembrance and provides for commemoration services in the national capital. As I said earlier, I am surprised and somewhat disappointed that there could be a long debate and various expressions of disapproval and disagreement on a matter such as this. Anzac Day has a particular place in the Australian traditional scene. It has been commemorated in this country since 1916, and I think great credit is due to Senator Lewis for having seen fit to bring this sort of legislation to the fore. It is, I believe, appropriate and absolutely logical that we should attempt, by legislation such as this, to ensure the proper recognition and control of a day that has been celebrated since 1916, a day that has been celebrated in this country from coast to coast, from north to south, from east to west, in towns and villages, in the provincial cities and in the great cities. It has indeed become a tradition within the Australian scene, very much a part of Australian history. It is a unique day in that it commemorates the sacrifices of Australians in many, and in those days continuously, tragic circumstances. It commemorates sacrifices, but it certainly does not celebrate or glorify war or conflict in any way. It does not have even the slightest thing to do with hating one's enemy . It is a day concerned purely and simply with the recognition of the sacrifices that were made all those years ago and on occasions since. As I said, it does not seek to hate an enemy and it does not seek to glorify war. On the contrary, I believe the circumstances of the original Anzac Day, which this is all about, made no small contribution to the establishment of what I suppose we call an Australian national character. I refer to various elements of that character which, of course, have been found and developed in lots of other spheres. They have been found and developed in the history of this country's exploration and development-the challenges of distance, communication, loneliness, education and health in harsh terrain and a harsh climate. They have contributed to the characteristics which I believe also came significantly out of the Anzac experience. I think particularly of courage and tolerance, because if there is one thing that came out of Anzac, and indeed of other similar problem areas, it surely must have been the capacity of people to show a very real and significant measure of tolerance. Of course, alongside tolerance must have been a measure of humour and-the great Australian word-mateship. It is obvious to me that without those faculties Anzac Day would not have survived. They were the qualities that enabled it to become something which we in Australia, and indeed Australians and others around the world, have commemorated year after year. Finally, in this context, there is no shadow of doubt that the Anzac experience enabled at least some people to survive and live another day, and probably enabled many of their descendants to continue on and to develop. Discipline and a measure of loyalty were faculties developed to a very high degree in the Anzac experience. There can be little or no doubt that without a measure of discipline , which I hope and believe is part of the Australian national character, there is no way on earth that the freedom we spend so much time talking about will ever survive. It did indeed make a very significant contribution to the Australian character along those lines-lines which have been emphasised in Australian history. The word 'Anzac' was protected commercially many years ago. In fact it was protected back in 1921. It is a very sad thing that today it should be seen to be necessary to protect it against minorities seeking to use it for their own promotions. I emphasise that I am not suggesting that minorities of all colour and creed with various objectives should not have a right to promote what they honestly believe. Indeed they have, but they certainly do not have, in my view, a right to impede commemoration of a day such as Anzac Day with a view to destroying a significant part of Australia's history. Whilst I believe there is every reason for the right of freedom of assembly, there is no reason why that sort of thing should be permitted to destroy observations of such value and national signficance as the celebration of Anzac Day. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated under sessional order for consideration of General Business having expired, the Senate will proceed with further consideration of Government Business. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. [COGNATE BILLS: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT BILL 1984 AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.45) —in reply-In winding up the cognate debate on the second reading stage of the Judiciary Amendment Bill ( No. 2), the Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill and the Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill, I remind the Senate that the legislation does two things, the first of which is to replace the personal office of Crown Solicitor with a corporate entity to be known as the Australian Government Solicitor, an entity which in fact will be the legal firm name under which the Commonwealth Government acts. Senator Durack —Are not a 'firm' and a 'corporate entity' a contradiction in terms? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not a contradiction in terms, if I might confront that point directly. Senator Durack made the point in the course of his remarks that it is odd or unusual to establish a firm of solicitors, using that expression in a loose way, as a corporate entity. He needs to appreciate that although no doubt it is not a familiar animal in Western Australia, where he commenced practice, the incorporation of solicitors' practices and the informal description of those practices as firms is not unknown. It is allowed for in South Australia and the Northern Territory. In South Australia the practising certificate is issued, I am told, to the company in question. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the Treasury Solicitor in England is a corporation sole. Since we have started on that part of the legislation, I will now deal with the other aspect of Senator Durack's challenge to the particular amendment here proposed. He says that the Australian Government Solicitor concept is a totally bureaucratic exercise which does not make much sense and ought not to be such as should be accepted without demur by this Parliament. He proposes that this matter be referred to a committee of the Parliament for further examination. Although I appreciate that the subject is one of some sensitivity to Senator Durack, he ought to be reminded that the proposal results from a substantial change in the structure of the Attorney-General's Department, a change which flows in turn from the manifest failures of administrative performance by that Department in recent years in that part of the Department's activities which represents its activities as the legal firm, in effect, for the nation. The Crown Solicitor's Division of the Department has tended to be separate from the rest of the Department in many respects and the report of the review of the structure and organisation of the Department referred to the problems and indeed the necessity of integrating the Crown Solicitor's Division into the Department. The abolition of the personal office of the Crown Solicitor will allow a rearrangement and a rationalisation of the legal services performed by the Department for its clients. Moreover, whereas under the old arrangement professional responsibility for all actions carried on throughout Australia in the name of the Crown Solicitor was carried out by the Crown Solicitor in Canberra, creating a situation in which there was an overload of work at the top , the present proposal will create a framework within which professional responsibility to the courts for the conduct of actions can be exercised at the regional office level by the officers in charge of those offices. We are talking about a legal firm which operates in an environment in which currently some 11, 000 matters are in litigation around Australia. Obviously it is impossible for any one person to accept responsibility on such a large scale. That is the underlying rationale for this change. Many other points could be made but they were essentially made in the second reading speech. I am a little puzzled, a little surprised and a little disappointed that Senator Durack should continue to quibble about what is manifestly a sensible and overdue change. The real nub of this debate concerns not the argument about the Australian Government Solicitor concept but rather the other step that this legislation takes which is to abolish appeals as of right, to the extent that they exist, to the High Court of Australia and create in their place a situation whereby it is proposed that in future all appeals to the High Court be by way of special leave . This proposal has produced an enthusiastic campaign against abolition from the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Bar Association. Senator Haines —Nothing at all to do with vested interests? Senator GARETH EVANS —Not a thing. That campaign is being built around the general theme that the abolition of the appeal right here proposed amounts to a denial of access, a denial of right of appeal, traditionally enjoyed, to the High Court and as such something that, it is said, is unconscionable and highly unattractive. The campaign, and the discussion associated with that campaign, has been going on for some time-in fact, since around the middle of last year when I first floated publicly the proposal that special leave be the only route to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. I believe that since that time, and since the Government's position was floated, the arguments have really been pretty well exhausted. There simply is not any point in a full scale committee examination of this proposal of the kind that is proposed in Senator Durack's amendment to the motion for the second reading. That amendment would require the reference of all this legislation to the Senate committee. I make it clear, though, that I am certainly happy to delay the Committee stage consideration of this legislation until Parliament meets next week in order to allow such further deliberation as anyone wants to give to the detailed legislative proposals which are now before the Parliament. There are problems with the present system of appeals by way of special leave and I believe that those problems should be frankly acknowledged as part of understanding the background to the Government's proposal. In the first place, it is not the case that all appeals that should be going to the High Court at the moment are going to the High Court. I think all of us-practitioners, the High Court itself and, I hope, other members of this Parliament-would agree that the two basic categories of measures which ought to be allowed to be appealed to the High Court and which ought to be guaranteed passage to the High Court are: Firstly, those matters where what is in issue is a law of general application or certainly of public importance where the High Court has some belief that the law is in need of examination and has not been properly stated by the courts below; and, secondly, the category of cases, both civil and criminal, where there is some reason to suppose that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred in the particular case. It may be that a point of law of major importance is not involved at all but where there is some reason to believe that justice may not have been done, that the administration of justice might be put at risk in some way if the matter were not appealed, that is obviously a case which ought to be able to go to the High Court. I repeat: I do not believe that, at the moment, it is the case that all of the matters which satisfy one or other of those two general descriptions are, for one reason or another, getting to the High Court, and they should. The second problem that is evident with the systems as presently operating is that special leave applications are expensive. They involve two bites of the cherry, not always in criminal matters where, for the most part, the Court tends to treat the application for special leave as the appeal itself and hears and determines the whole matter on the spot, but certainly in civil matters the application for special leave is made by one group of practitioners flying to Canberra, staying overnight and appearing, albeit often only for a few minutes, in the High Court the following day and going back to their respective cities, and then the same group or perhaps an even more expensive group of practitioners flying up to Canberra for the hearing and determination of the appeal itself at some later stage. That can be very expensive indeed for litigants. That point has to be readily acknowledged. To that extent, any system which implies a greater number of matters having to be dealt with in that two-stage way does need to be accompanied by some kind of provisions to ensure that extra expense is not unnecessarily incurred. The Government very much takes that point on board. Senator Haines —Having taken it on board, what are you going to do about it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will get to that in a moment. Senator Haines should curb her racing hormones. We have some considerable time yet to deal with this matter . I think it is important, since the matter has attracted genuine public concern -- Senator Archer —Carry on; we are enjoying every minute of it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I would not expect Senator Archer to appreciate the subtleties of this matter. Senator Archer —Who would you expect to appreciate them? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a very good question in this chamber. Senator Durack, for a start, is not bad on these matters, Senator Haines has been doing very well in recent days. I am not sure about anyone else in the chamber at the moment. Senator McIntosh, Senator Primmer, Senator Reynolds and Senator Jones are very good on these matters. I think there is really quite a considerable number of people who are interested and keen to get this one right, particularly in the context that we will be debating the details of it next week, and I think we ought to understand the basic principles. Senator Martin —Do you want some more senators in here for support? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that would be something of a waste of time. Senator Martin —Curb your boyish impetuousness; you never know where it will lead you. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate Senator Martin's thoughtfulness. There is a third problem governing the system of appeals generally to the High Court which is particularly strongly felt in the smaller States of the Federation. It is felt in those States with smaller courts where there is a limited pool of judges to appeal to and to appeal from. The argument in relation to those States with those small courts tends to be-it is very understandable-that there should be a second tier of appeals more or less automatically accessible to litigants and practitioners in those jurisdictions. What is the solution to those problems? The only answer that has been given by the organised legal profession has really been to stick with the present monetary criterion. At the moment when we are talking about appeals as of right we are only talking about a very limited category of appeals; those where the sum in issue is more than $20,000, except in personal injury cases where the argument is only about quantum. The argument of the Law Council of Australia is at least let us keep intact the principle that where there is a lot of money involved those sorts of cases ought to be able to go. It acknowledges that $20,000 is not, any longer, very much money and is quite happy to contemplate a quite substantial addition to that criterion, but nonetheless that is as far as it puts it. It floated in its letter, which was incorporated by Senator Haines, it may have been, or by somebody else in the earlier stages of this debate-- Senator Haines —Senator Hill supported my view. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Hill. Senator Haines's argument was sufficient to stand on its own feet without any documentary help whatsoever. There have been other possible criteria for automatic appeals that have been floated by the legal profession. For example where there is division in the court below. It has been suggested that that is sufficient ground for the matter to go automatically up to the High Court. It has also been suggested that, where the court below certifies the matter as appropriate to be dealt with on appeal by the High Court , that too represents a category of matters that should come as of right to the High Court. Even the most cursory examination should make people appreciate that there is nothing about any of those criteria which will guarantee that the right cases do go to the High Court: Those cases where there is some genuine reason to believe that a miscarriage of justice of some kind may have occurred or those cases where some point of law or of genuine public importance is involved. Particularly indefensible in principle and particularly incapable of producing solutions to that problem in practice is the criterion based purely in terms of dollars and cents. Whatever other criterion or criteria it may be possible to tailor, I do not believe that we should for a moment contemplate giving aid and comfort to those who would argue in terms of a maintenance of the status quo with a monetary criterion, albeit one substantially increased. Senator Haines —Unless we were able to go to the pre-1976 situation. According to them there has been some difference in the way the cost was determined. Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand the point. One way of narrowing it is by saying that the amount of money that is at risk for the person is of that magnitude. If it is an argument about a house that is worth $20,000, that is one thing; if it is where the actual sum that is at risk for the individual was of that order of magnitude, that is another way. But the same point can be made by simply increasing the sum of money involved to a higher amount. Really, I suggest, as I think Senator Haines would appreciate, her having mastered the intricacies of this subject matter over the past few days, that really does not alter the situation one iota in terms of the basic issues of principle that are involved. In relation to what I described as the third problem, that which particularly afflicts the smaller States and those jurisdications with smaller courts, I think the only point that can be said is that any of the automatic criteria do not help the problem there either. The only thing that would help that problem is for all matters to be appealable automatically to the High Court. That is clearly not defensible either. It may be that there is a longer term solution likely to be available with the creation of an integrated Australian court of appeal which many of us, including, I know, Senator Durack, are keen to establish which would create a larger pool of appellate judges to appeal to. But clearly that is not something that will be with us in the near future. The reality is that the Government's solution, for all the attention and concern that is attracted in some quarters, is a better one. It will free up the Court to deal with those important cases which are being refused access to the Court at the margin at the moment. I think the best way of demonstrating that is to refer to some of the statistics about the operation of the Court. I appreciate that the statistics that are prepared by and for the Court at the moment are not terribly useful or revealing in terms of enabling us to readily come to grips with this problem of how the Court is organising its business at the moment. Let us look at it in these terms: The average number of reported cases heard by the High Court each year is about 100. Sometimes it is more, sometimes it is less. The average number of appeals heard by the Court each year is anywhere between 30 and 70. In recent years there have been some quite marked fluctuations. Of the total number of appeals that are heard by the Court-it will be appreciated that the Court does many other things apart from hearing appeals; it hears matters in the first instance and so on in its original jurisdiction- the number of appeals that come up as of right represents a very substantial proportion. In 1981, 40 per cent of all appeals came up as of right. In 1982, 60 per cent of all appeals heard by the Court were as of right. In 1983, 64 per cent of all appeals were heard as of right. Appeals as of right represent-to the best that one can ascertain from the statistics-generally somewhere between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of the Court's total work load measured by the number of cases it is hearing. Moreover, appeals as of right represent an even more substantial actual burden on the Court because they come up to the Court in their entirety. The Court does not just pick and choose the particular points that it wants to deal with. When an appeal comes up as of right the Court must deal with the whole matter. If there is a contest about the weight of evidence, often the Court has to wade through dozens of volumes of evidence in order to deal with that point. It may involve no point of law of general application. There may be no reason to believe that a particular miscarriage of justice has occurred; it might just be an argument about the construction of a commercial document. This is the sort of thing that is occupying an enormous amount of the Court's time. The essential argument of the Government in accepting the Court's own view of its problems at the moment is that were the Court able to get rid of the appeals as of right which have no other merit associated with them it would have that much more time available to deal with, on a special leave basis, those cases which are, on the face of it, infinitely more meritorious. One can argue about just how much more time would be available, but on the figures I have indicated it is clearly substantial. Of course, it is the case that some of those matters going up as of right would also come up on a special leave basis because in some instances they would involve matters of general importance or the case itself would raise questions about the possible miscarriage of justice. The best estimate-it is really only intuitive-that I can get from people associated with the Court is that perhaps a quarter of the cases presently coming up on appeal as of right involve special leave points. The special leave points would not necessarily represent the totality of the matters in issue in each case. It may be that many of those cases involving a special leave point would occupy the Court's time far less coming up that way than they do coming up , as now, as of right. Although it is difficult to be precise-I appreciate that a number of honourable senators wanted more precise statistics in this respect-I believe the general scale of the problem and the way in which the Government's solution will contribute to resolve the difficulties can be steadily appreciated . The other side of what the Government is trying to do here, which is not apparent on the face of the legislation but which was mentioned in the second reading speech, is to try to make some administrative arrangements which will relieve the cost burdens on litigants that are associated with the special leave procedure. The Court has agreed now in principle, and the Government has agreed to accommodate it in this respect, to have regular sittings in both Sydney and Melbourne in order to hear special leave applications. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about Western Australia and other States? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am coming to that. At the moment the Court visits Western Australia and other States, albeit very rarely-perhaps once a year. At the moment it does not visit Sydney and Melbourne at all. So all litigation coming from Sydney and Melbourne, every application for special leave, necessarily involves an interstate plane trip for the persons concerned. So far as the west, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania are concerned, clearly it will not be possible, because of the relative quantity of numbers coming forward , for any more regular sittings to be built into the system, but I think it is a matter of looking at the ways in which new technology can contribute to a solution. One of the things which the Government is looking at, although it sounds pretty exotic for our courts, which are not quick to be susceptible to innovation, and which I believe deserves serious consideration is the idea of the video conference. It would involve setting up a big video screen with the relevant counsel arguing the case directly, face to face, to the Court in Canberra. Senator Durack —Would they have to robe, do you think? Senator GARETH EVANS —They might have to robe, depending on whether it was a chamber application. The honourable senator will recall the exotic distinctions that apply. The point I am making is simply that there are administrative solutions which in a lateral way can solve some of these problems which will not be resolved by the really quite inequitable and, with respect, silly system that is operating at the moment and which is just not guaranteeing, as I keep saying, that the cases that should get up do get up. Senator Critchton-Browne-You would not have written submissions? Senator GARETH EVANS — I am canvassing with the Court the question of written submissions. The difficulty is that most members of the legal profession find the concept of written submissions quite anathema. Whether it is because they have difficulty in writing coherently as distinct from talking, which seems to come much more easily to members of my profession, remains to be seen. I am particularly anxious that the question of written submissions be looked at for applications in criminal matters. At the moment, the Court will not entertain applications for special leave without legal representation. I believe that can create injustices of its own kind. These are the kinds of things that are being very actively pursued by the Government at the moment in order to try to resolve what it readily acknowledges to be a real problem in the operation of a special leave system. It seems that nobody really wants to move to the American system where everything is done on the papers in the first instance and the court makes a decision yea or nay on all the thousands of matters that are put to it, but I think there are ways in which we can improve the way in which the special leave system operates. One of the points made in this respect-I will be quicker dealing with the last few points I want to make-is the desirability of reasons being expressed by the Court in the course of dealing with special leave applications. Senator Haines was particularly keen to make this point, as indeed are many members of the legal profession. There is a real difficulty in trying to legislatively instruct or force the High Court to give reasons in special leave applications without making life impossibly difficult for the High Court and in effect turning each matter it deals with on special leave into a mini-appeal in its own right. About the only way we can get past this problem in a legislative way, is, I suspect, by outlining in great detail all the possible criteria that might be thought appropriate by the Court in accepting or refusing a special leave aplication and then enabling the Court to rely on one or other of those formulae to identify to the litigants why it has decided as it has. There is a difficulty about that because it is difficult to state in precise legislative form all the criteria which have been applied in the past, quite apart from those which might be thought relevant in the future. Again, in that respect I am having continuing discussions with the Court. I am concerned to ensure that, so far as possible, reasons are given to litigants so that it can be understood why it is that a particular matter has been dealt with. The Court tends to tell me that in 99 per cent of the cases the litigants will be very well aware from the course of the oral argument what it is that has actually moved the Court to decide as it does. I believe this can be resolved by further consultation and discussion. It is certainly very difficult to see a way of resolving it by actually changing the terms of the legislation. However, one of the things we can do in the legislation, and one of the things I believe we should do, is actually incorporate into the legislation at least some of the criteria which the Court has traditionally taken into account in determining special leave applications and which really are the central criteria in this respect. We will be considering this matter at the Committee stage and I will not stop to deal with it now. For the record, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of the amendment which the Government proposes in this respect, which is the incorporation of a new section 35A in the Judiciary Act articulating essentially the two basic considerations that I set out earlier-the idea of the public importance or general significance of the point of law and, on the other hand, the idea of the necessity to deal with the possibility of a miscarriage of justice in a particular case. Leave granted. The amendment read as follows- Criteria for granting special leave to appeal '35A. In considering whether to grant an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court under this Act or under any other Act, the High Court may have regard to any matters that it considers relevant but shall have regard to- (a) whether the proceedings in which the judgment to which the application relates was pronounced involve a question of law- (i) that is of public importance, whether because of its general application or otherwise; or (ii) in respect of which a decision of the High Court, as the final appellate court, is required to resolve differences of opinion between different courts, or within the one court, as to the state of the law; and (b) whether the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in the particular case, require consideration by the High Court of the judgment to which the application relates.' Senator GARETH EVANS —The Law Council has indicated a certain willingness to accept that, albeit as a second best solution to its concerns. Senator Haines in her speech indicated some of the further amendments that the Law Council was pressing upon the Government if it was going to proceed down the section 35A path. Those changes are unacceptable, for reasons that I can perhaps better explain at the Committee stage of the debate but which have to do with technical problems associated with them rather than any lack of appreciation on my part or on the Government's part of what the Law Council is trying to do. I repeat that there is a real problem with the High Court's work load generally . The figures that have been made available to interested members demonstrate that. But the more particular problem in the High Court at the moment is the clogging up of the system by the appeals as of right that are being heard. I believe our job as a government and as a legislature is to help unclog the system and to ensure the application of proper principles. I believe that the system, as it is proposed to be amended by the Government, will work effectively and fairly. It will nationalise the High Court's work load and satisfy the legal profession, although its members are grumbling still. I believe it will be fair to litigants. Let me conclude by saying that I do not assert that as an article of faith. I am happy and the Government is happy to test it. I told the Law Council in discussions the other night and I say it now publicly, that the Government is very happy to consult with the Law Council and the High Court to establish a basis for the effective monitoring and review of the new system. As I have indicated already, the statistics that are presently gleaned by the High Court and its registry are not especially helpful in trying to come to grips with the particular problem of working out how the present as of right, special leave system operates. One has to really burrow, in the way that I have endeavoured to do to provide the foundation for this speech tonight, to give the sorts of figures that can be given with appropriate research. We need to be able to pull out those figures and identify what is working and what is not working under the new system. I make it clear that the Government will fully review the operation of the new system no later than two years after its introduction, and certainly will do so earlier than that if it is apparent that any particular problems have arisen that need correction. I believe that the Government has acted in complete good faith throughout the course of this obviously sensitive and important debate that has been going on with the profession since the middle of last year. We have consulted extensively and we believe that the data on which the case can be made is clearly available. We believe that the Parliament should make the only decision which, so far as it creates new legislative guidelines in this area, will ensure that justice is genuinely done in the cases with which the High Court deals. I have indicated that the Government, for all those reasons, believes that the matters are ones that can be relatively quickly and easily grasped, although there are some difficulties in coming to grips with the data easily and, as such , there is no necessity to refer the matter to a Senate committee. The principles involved are relatively clearcut and such remaining discussion as needs to occur can happen in the context of the Committee debate on this measure which will now occur next week. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out . The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Grimes, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Haines, J. Tate, M. C. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Giles, P. J. Missen, A. J. Georges, G. Baume, Peter Cook, P. F. S. Martin, K. J. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Crowley, R. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Mason, C. V. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Grimes, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Haines, J. Tate, M. C. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Giles, P. J. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretGeorges, G. Missen, A. J. Cook, P. F. S. Baume, PeterButton, J. N. Martin, K. J. Crowley, R. A. Chaney, F. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That consideration of the Bill in the Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.25) —Honourable senators receive a great deal of correspondence every day, and on some occasions one is confronted with what to do about a constituent's complaint or problem. Often one feels at a complete loss to be able to do anything. I would like to read a letter that I received today because I believe it contains an example of some of the problems that exist within our community on an individual basis. It comes from a veteran, who states: I speak as an Australian front line solider who served his country without reservation for 5 years 10/12 months. I enlisted at 16 . . . served in every threatre of war as an infantry man or special operations behind enemy lines. He had forged his birth certificate and changed his name, as often happened during the Second World War. The letter continues: I was wounded, injured, suffered malaria . . . dysentry, dengue . . . tropical ulcers, malnutrition and was still fighting the Japanese 2 weeks after VJ ( Victory Japan day). When I cam out after 4 months in hospital I was a mental and physical wreck. For 4 years I could not face the public-I was unemployed. It has taken years to literally pull myself out of the mire. I never (and neither have my frontline mates) expected that Australia owed me a living but certainly I . . . did expect justice. Here are some examples. (a) Although I had . . . dysentry the Repat refused to accept it as a war caused disability for seven years. I had to pay for my medical all that time-yet they had the medical evidence. (b) only several months ago they finally accepted an injury to eye as war caused-because they said that there was no evidence-I was injured in Greece but it was never recorded. (c) Although I was exposed to repeated and gross stress-see attached history-I was never debriefed, never had access to psychological treatment. (b) the Repat has committed some dreadful errors of judgement, divulged medical history which penalised the future of the exsoldier. Rather than itemise in this letter please refer to attached list of questions . . . The Parliament have NO idea of what is being done to us. We have lost jobs or had them jeopardised because of our service, the insurance companies have penalised us. Many of us including myself had to pay our own medical expenses until finally we were accepted. We have lost our sick leave entitlements in some cases had to use our holidays to get treatment. In my case I did not have a holiday in 11 years . . . It was not until 1983 when under the 'Freedom of Information Act 1982' I found out that the Repat had evidence of some of my illnesses-yet all this time they had kept asking me for evidence which in fact was in their possession-I also found out the Army had failed to include some wounds, injuries, diseases . . . Please Sir-I know you are very busy-but please take time to digest what I have sent you. I repeat I and many of my mates have never thought that Australia owed us a living but No one ever told us we would have to subsidise our war caused medical costs for wounds and diseases experience whilst serving our country. . . . please let me address the sitting. I am not a stirer, I am not political. ALL I ask is to please let me . . . adress Parliament and . . . explain what is being done to US who really served our country. I am prepared to go to Canberra at my own cost. . . . . I can produce a lot of documentary evidence. I am. now 61. I have little time left. You politicians really do not know, are not aware of the grave injustices. Please let me speak. Fairly obviously, it would not be possible for that ex-soldier to address the Senate but he has provided me with a list of questions that he would like put and I would like to put them now. I do not expected the Minister at the Table, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) to answer them, but I believe they are the types of questions that one meets time and again from veterans around the country. While both the previous Government and the present Government try very hard at the legislative level and often at the administrative level to meet many of the complaints, the fact that these complaints still come, and seem to come in increasing numbers, leads me to be more and more concerned about the administration of the Repatriation Act of this country and its operation at various levels. Why is that so? Why do so many people still suffer from obvious injustices? I would seek the indulgence of the Senate to read the list of questions on behalf of this person who obviously cannot speak before the Senate. Why has Repat refused claims allegedly on grounds of lack of medical evidence when in fact that evidence is in the medical files of the armed services? Why have the politicians reduced the drug entitlements of returned soldiers? How come the insurance companies are allowed to load the premiums on diggers who contracted tropical diseases during the war? How come the Army failed to include all medical history in the records of the ex-digger, making it impossible to prove what diseases, illnesses or wounds he has suffered? Why does it take up to eight months for a digger to get an appointment with a specialist? Why has the Government never carried out a survey of life expectancy based on abnormal stresses, wounds and diseases of ex-diggers? The insurance companies have and so penalise returned servicemen accordingly by loading premiums. How come Repat can refuse to accept a disability for up to seven years, and in one case 30 years, and then, when it does accept them, not backdate although the ex-soldier has been carrying the burden of related medical and doctors' expenses all that time? Politicians, workers and even reporters-or their estates-get lump sum settlements both in and out of court under common law or workers compensation. Why not the soldier? How come Repat can divulge a personal medical history to an ex-digger's firm and so endanger his employment? Why does an ex-soldier have to exhaust his sick leave entitlement with his firm, because of war caused disabilities, and then have to use up his annual leave? What right has Repat to ask employment and wage details of a recipient of a disability pension? Does this mean, for example, that if there are two ex-servicemen, each of whom has lost one hand, the one with double the salary of the other gets less disability pension? Very obviously, some of those questions are relatively easy to answer but some are much more difficult. Some, in fact, are examples of injustices which have occurred time and again. I want to put that one person's request to me on the record not only because of what I have read out but also because he has included a copy of a diary that he kept during the war, from 1942 to two weeks after peace. The reason that the diary was kept for two weeks after peace was that at the end of the war this then young man had been behind enemy lines, often entirely alone and often working with people from various places. He was situated in Borneo for most of the war. When one reads the diary one is struck by the horror that that person went through. One entry in 1942 reads in such a way that one wonders how he could have maintained his sanity for another two or three years. That person, who fulfilled his duty to the Australian nation, now has to write that letter in 1984. I believe that the fact he has had to do so is a blot on this nation. It is also a blot on this Parliament in terms of the type of overview that it has had of the administration of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, of the repatriation system. One wonders how we are eventually ever going to solve these problems. I and many other members of parliament receive similar letters time and again. Something must be done. These people who cry out for justice cannot be left. This person cannot be left alone at the age of 61, after all these years, to battle the repatriation system, to fight yet another war for what are just entitlements. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(10.35) —I want to tie in the matter of public importance we discussed today with an article which appeared in this morning's edition of the West Australian newspaper. Frequently newspaper stories which concern Western Australia are unlikely to make many of the newspapers in the eastern States. I tie in the matter of public importance because page 3 of the West Australian contains an article which is headed 'The day her ship came in'. It relates to a touching story of a woman who devoted her entire lifetime to the promotion not only of her own gender but also of peace. I refer to Mrs Irene Greenwood who will be well known to a lot of people in this chamber, particularly to those who come from Western Australia. Irene is now 84 years of age. It was the Western Australian State Government's wish that the new ship that was being put into service by the State shipping line should be named after her. Irene has done a tremendous amount of work for the peace movement in Western Australia and, indeed, throughout the world. She has represented many organisations on many occasions. I had the honour of appearing on a number of platforms with her. I want to demonstrate that totally unselfish attitude of Irene by quoting an expression that she used in this article when she was interviewed. The article stated: 'I am not pleased just for myself,' she said. 'I think it is a tribute to the generation of pioneer women in this great State.' Irene Greenwood was born in Albany in 1899. As she would say, she is a very young woman-she was born in the last month of the last year of the last century. She has won international acclaim as a writer, broadcaster, social reformer and feminist. I think she was probably born as the latter. I cannot ever remember an occasion when she has not been putting forward very strong feminist views. Her work as a pioneer of the Australian women's movement was recognised when she was made a member of the Order of Australia in 1975. On that occasion I had the honour of taking her to lunch in Parliament House. I remember the absolute joy and pleasure she felt at that time, not because she had been recognised but because as a woman and a peace worker there was at long last recognition of some of the work that people were doing. In 1981 she became one of the first women to receive an honorary doctorate from Murdoch University. The same year she was awarded the United Nations Peace Medal. I think that is the most important point . Following the matter of public importance that we discussed today, I think it is important that a tribute is paid to people such as Irene Greenwood who has demonstrated that she is not only a wonderful person in her own right but also one who cares for the rest of humanity. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.39) —I notified the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) that I intended to raise a matter on the adjournment debate tonight. I know that the Minister's absence is unavoidable and therefore I do not make any point of the fact that he is not able to give me an immediate answer. However, I would ask that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), who is in charge of the Senate at the moment, draw my remarks to the attention of the Minister tomorrow. I refer to the concern that is arising in Victoria about what is regarded as excessive delay with the import of certain soft goods. A very lengthy time is taken to test the quality and content of the imported merchandise. This testing is done at the government laboratories which, it is suggested, are either understaffed or inefficient, or both. The Melbourne Chamber of Commerce informs me that two government agencies, the Customs Service and the Department of Science and Technology, are involved and suggests that is the problem. Products from overseas were being held up on the wharf for six to eight weeks due to testing delays. Members of the Chamber of Commerce have to finance soft goods for the eight weeks they do not have access and, additionally, are missing out on the seasonal sale to wholesalers and retailers. It is suggested private testing authorities should be authorised to carry out the testing procedure if it cannot be done expeditiously by the Government laboratory. The request made by the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, both to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), in their respective capacities in relation to Customs and the laboratories, was that steps be taken urgently to reduce financial suffering, alleviate concern, and avoid wasting the time of a significant number of people. It is claimed that importers of made up fabrics and importers of fabrics for manufacture in Australia are being held up and that this is having an effect on the availability of domestically manufactured goods as well as on employment in manufacturing. The consequential losses are total losses as the firms concerned miss out on the market. As the winter market is about to be embarked upon, it is obvious that urgent action should be taken by the Government to overcome an unconscionable delay as a result of what is regarded as an administrative breakdown in the operation of government. I ask that the matter be brought to the attention of the relevant Ministers tomorrow, with a request that they indicate to the Senate tomorrow whether some action can be taken. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.43) —I shall comment briefly on the matters raised by honourable senators in this debate and ensure that action is taken where needed. Senator Macklin read a letter from a veteran constituent which is of concern to us all, particularly as it raises serious accusations about the Department of Veterans' Affairs. He talked of inaccuracy in Veterans' Affairs records, improper behaviour by the Department in not recognising the presence of diseases on medical records, and an even more serious accusation that the Department exposed medical records in an unauthorised way in that without authorisation it informed employers of illnesses suffered by employees. I have two comments to make. First, I shall draw the letter quoted by Senator Macklin to the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt ). However, as the Minister will not be able to identify the person concerned, he will not be able to do very much. Secondly, I would have thought that any such serious accusations should have been brought by the honourable senator to the attention of the Minister and the Department to ensure that some justice was done. I am glad that Senator Coleman let the House know that a ship in Western Australia had been named after Irene Greenwood. I can describe her in the Senate as the grand old lady of the peace movement in Western Australia, and in some ways of Australia, but I must say I would never say that to her face for fear of what she might do to me. She is a fine lady and I am glad that she has been recognised in this way. Senator Rae said that he notified Senator Button's office tonight. Unfortunately, Senator Button is in Sydney, but his office has been alerted to this matter. Clearly, on the face of the matter excessive delays such as have been instanced cannot be tolerated and something should be done about it in an important area of this type. I shall ensure that Senator Button knows about the matter in the morning and that Senator Rae will be given an answer as soon as possble. Senate adjourned at 10.45 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act-Orders- 1983- M1-Reporting of Sales (Meat for Export). M2-Export of Chilled Sheep Meat. M3-Compliance with Contract Specifications (Meat). M4-Export of Chilled Beef and Chilled Veal to U.S.A. and Canada. M5-Prohibition of Export of Bone-in Mutton Legs to Canada. M6-Restrictions on Export of Meat and Meat Products: Slaughter at Registered Premises. M7-Descriptions of Meat. M8-Export of Chilled Goat Meat. M9-Corporation's Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat. M10-1983 Performance. M12-1984 Performance. MQ1-Buffalo Meat to the EEC-1983 Export Control Scheme. MQ2-High Quality Beef to EEC-1983 Control Scheme. MQ3-Sheep Meat and Goat Meat EEC (Excluding France)-1983 Export Control Scheme. MQ4-Meat to U.S.A.-1983 Export Control Scheme. MQ5-Buffalo Meat to the EEC-1984 Export Control Scheme. MQ6-High Quality Beef to EEC-1984 Control Scheme. L1-Corporation's Form L: Live-stock. L2-Compliance with contract specifications (Live-stock). LM1-Corporation's Form L: Live-stock Corporation's Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat. 1984- M16-Halal Certification. M17-Restrictions on Export of Meat and Meat Products: Slaughter at Registered Premises. M18-Export Documentation. M19-Corporation's Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat. MS5-Amendment of Contract Requirements-Shipping of Meat to East Coast and West Coast of North America and Gulf Ports, U.S.A. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 538) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What new authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups: (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed, by or within this Department, since 5 March 1983. (2) How many additional staff: (a) have been, or are being, appointed; or (b) are proposed to be recruited, as a result. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) Two committees and one board have been established within this Department since 5 March 1983. They are the national biotechnology program- Research Grants Advisory Committee which has a chairman and four members who were appointed on 1 September 1983; the National Research Fellowships Advisory Committee which has a chairman and eight members who were appointed on 1 December 1983; and the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board which has a chairman and six members who were appointed on 1 February 1984. (1) (b) No other authorities, committees, bureaus, or other such groups are proposed to be established within this Department at this time. (2) (a) and (b) No additional departmental staff have been, or are in the process of being, appointed directly to these bodies. However, fifteen staff will be used initially to administer the operational procedures resulting from the creation of the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board and six staff will be used to provide support to the other two committees. It is expected that staff from within the Australian Public Service will be recruited. As the selection process is taking place it is not possible to identify the number of positions which may be filled from outside the Department at this time . (Question No. 602) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 December 1983: (1) Do many patients seeking in vitro fertilisation (IVF) have to travel extensive distances from all over Australia to receive this specialist service; if so, are such patients eligible for benefits under the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme as IVF is not currently a schedule item. (2) What progress has the Department of Health made in reviewing this situation . Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is being performed in all mainland State capital cities and people from country areas would therefore need to travel to the State capital to obtain this specialist service. One of the eligibility criteria for payment of benefits under the Isolated Patients' Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme (IPTAAS) is that the service received must be an item within the medical benefits schedule. The IPTAAS benefits are therefore not available to patients seeking IVF as it is not an item within the Schedule. (2) A number of ethical and legal issues surrounding IVF have still to be resolved. The most appropriate method of funding these services has also to be determined and this matter will be considered in the forthcoming overall review of the Medical Benefits Schedule. (Question No. 608) Senator Coates asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 15 December 1983. (1) Has the Minister for Science and Technology seen the Royal Australian Chemical Institute report 'Why Doesn't Australia have a Research-Based Drug Industry'. (2) What is the Government's reaction to the report and its recommendations. (3) Will the Government set up a National Medicinal and Agro-Chemical Research and Development Council along similar lines to the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. (1) Yes. (2) I refer the honourable senator to the Minister for Health's reply to the same question which appeared in Hansard on 6 March 1984. I would add that I broadly agree with the report's conclusion that Australia has virtually all the necessary research, development, marketing and finance resources to set up a viable research-based drug industry. However, it is not an area where we consider a broad spectrum approach to be appropriate, rather industry needs to identify particular areas where they might compete successfully. Great opportunity would appear to lie in the area of diagnostics, veterinary medicines and agro-chemicals, where Australia can afford the costs of developing a product to the marketable stage. For veterinary medicines and agro-chemicals Australia has the added advantage of being a substantial market in its own right. The report identifies four factors which hinder a research-based drug and/or agro-chemical industry. These are a lack of defined national priorities, inadequate communication between researchers and industry, insufficient capital and inadequate toxicological facilities. The National Technology Conference in September 1983 addressed the problems of incentives for innovation, assistance measures and industry/research interaction. A National Technology Strategy which provides a coherent response to these issues through an active and anticipatory approach to technology development is currently under preparation. The Government has introduced a range of measures which will address the factors raised in the RACI report. These include the national biotechnology program; the national research fellowships scheme; provision for the establishment of management and investment companies, including a 100 per cent tax deduction; and further support to industrial research and development through increased funding of the Australian industrial research development and incentives scheme. The specific matter of the lack of toxicological facilities is one which may indeed warrant further consideration. I would also note that there are at present significant efforts being made by Australian firms and groups such as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, Biotechnology Australia, Bioclone Australia, Australian Monoclonal Development, Biotechnology Research Enterprises South Australia, Silenus Laboratories and others in the area of medicinal and agrochemical research. Several of these companies have received support through the national biotechnology program, which has to date funded several projects worth a total of $4.51m and through the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme. (3) The Minister for Health's reply to the same question on 6 March 1984 addresses this matter. I would add that the Government already has in place a range of funding mechanisms (listed above) which support medicinal and agro- chemical research and development. This particular field of research and development is just one of several areas which have been identified as having potential for producing growth industries. (Question No. 616) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 15 December 1983: (1) Have any staff been employed to work on the proposed assets test program; if so, in which State and Territory were they (a) appointed; and (b) presently working. (2) Was Public Service Board approval sought for their recruitment; if so, when was approval (a) sought; and (b) granted. (3) What is the total number of new officers that the Public Service Board has approved for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to appoint for the proposed assets test program. (4) How many other officers of the Department are working on the proposed assets test program. (5) From which source are funds being used to pay the new recruits for the proposed assets test program. (6) How many of the new officers are (a) permanent; and (b) temporary. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) On the assumption that you are seeking information about new staff recruited to work on the assets test program, in the Department's central office in Canberra two persons have been employed to undertake work on the proposed income/assets test program. One has since been appointed permanently and one is a temporary employee. In addition, 112 staff were employed, to undertake formal and on-the-job training to enable existing experienced staff to be released later in the year for the proposed income/assets test program. The 112 were made up as follows: New South Wales-31 Victoria-31 Queensland-22 Western Australia-10 South Australia-13 Tasmania-5 (2) (a) and (b) The Minister assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service matters agreed to staff intake plans until the end of March 1984 to allow for the recruitment of staff. (3) The Department sought establishment approval from the Public Service Board for 543 positions for the income/assets test program. Of these positions, 498 were proposed to form a reserve pool to be allocated on a needs basis for work directly on the income/assets program. The Public Service Board had agreed to the establishment of 386 positions. (4) One hundred and twenty-two other officers of the Department were working directly on the income/assets test program. The location of these staff was as follows: Central Office-30 New South Wales-23 Victoria-19 Queensland-11 Western Australia-16 South Australia-14 Tasmania-7 Officers of the Department's systems division in central office were also providing assistance. (5) Payments to staff working on the proposed income/assets test program and those undertaking formal and on-the-job training (see (1) above) have been made from the Department's normal appropriation pending augmentation from appropriation Division 312 (see my answer to Question No. 617). (6) (a) and (b) With the exception of the one person referred to in (1) above, all recruitments are permanent officers. (Question No. 715) Senator Coleman asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: Does the Euratom agreement effectively mean Australian control over uranium mined in Australia is lost when the uranium is delivered to one of the member nations. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Australian Science and Technology Council inquiry into issues relating to Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle is currently examining Australia's nuclear safeguards arrangements, giving particular attention to the effectiveness of the bilateral and multilateral agreements, and to the scope for strengthening these agreements. In the agreement between the Government of Australia and the European atomic energy community (Euratom), the community has undertaken that Australian origin nuclear material (AONM) shall, upon transfer to Euratom pursuant to the agreement and whilst under the jurisdiction of Euratom member states, be subject to the controls and safeguards specified in the agreement. The agreement provides that AONM will be used in Euratom member countries only for peaceful and non-explosive purposes. Within Euratom's jurisdiction AONM is subject to the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as well as Euratom safeguards and to agreed levels of physical protection. The agreement also provides that AONM shall not be retransferred beyond the community to any other country, enriched beyond 20 per cent in the isotope U-235 , or reprocessed unless Australia gives prior consent. In the case of reprocessing, Australia has exercised its prior consent rights in advance on a long term basis under conditions agreed under the Australia/Euratom agreement. These conditions permit reprocessing under IAEA safeguards, for the purposes of energy use or spent fuel management, and in accordance with the delineated and recorded Euratom nuclear cycle program agreed with Australia. Reprocessing for other peaceful purposes, for example, research, requires prior consultation and agreement on the conditions to apply. Australia has also exercised its prior consent rights on a long term basis in the case of transfers between the community and third countries in accordance with the agreed fuel cycle program or to third countries with which Australia has a bilateral safeguards agreement, subject to Euratom's obligation to give Australia prompt notification in the case of each transfer of this type. The agreement requires Euratom to provide Australia with regular reports accounting for AONM subject to the agreement.