Thursday, 5 April 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: Plant Variety Rights To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government- 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that Legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators of the Parliament of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, undersigned , shows that we strongly oppose the amending of Customs Regulations to allow the importation of video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from a visual image which can be produced, which portrays scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy; mutilation; child pornography; coprophilia; bestiality, or the use and effect of illicit drug taking, and our opposition is emphatically given because such material Will be viewed by 20 per cent of all Australian children during their parents' absence, or at other homes. Will introduce children during their formative years to sexuality in the context of violence and deviance. Will become a powerful teaching medium which will establish violence as a behavioural norm for coming generations. Will degrade women to an exploitable sexual commodity. Will change the attitudes of men to their partners and all women. Will give rise to a substantial increase in serious crime, crimes against the person, sexual offences, rape and incest. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jack Evans (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that- 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 19 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That- (1) the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Ordinance 1983, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 69 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910; (2) the High Court Direction No. 1 1984, made under the High Court of Australia Act 1979; and (3) the Dangerous Goods Ordinance 1984, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 4 of 1984 and made under the Seat of Government ( Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator COATES —These notices of motion relate to delegated legislation in which the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is interested. In each case the Committee has been corresponding with the relevant Minister or authority to obtain a detailed explanation of a particular provision or to suggest the need for possible amendment. As today is the last day on which notice for disallowance may be given, the Committee has decided to give notice to preserve its rights while awaiting replies from the relevant Minister or authority. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, four sittings days after today, I shall move: That the Health Insurance Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1984 No. 5 and made under the Health Insurance Act 1973, be disallowed. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) reaffirms the resolution of the Senate of 30 March 1984 which calls upon the Government to make a full statement as a matter of urgency on the content of and decisions taken by the Government on the document known as 'The Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy 1983' and the steps taken by the Government to keep the document secure; and (b) calls upon the Government to make that full statement by 1 May 1984. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate, recalling that the establishment of an Office of Aged Care was an Australian Labor Party election promise, notes that: (1) such an Office has yet to be established; (2) the Government has failed to clarify whether such an Office, if and when established, will fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Social Security or the Department of Health; and (3) the Government's accommodation programs for the aged are causing distress and demonstrate a lack of co-ordination which would be likely to be overcome through the establishment of an Office of Aged Care; and it condemns the Government for yet another example of its failure to honour election commitments to the aged. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.07) —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- I present Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1983-84 in which appropriations totalling $121.9m-additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1983-84-are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in that Act. Almost half of the additional appropriations sought is for natural disaster relief and restoration; the remainder mostly reflects cost and price increases which have occurred since the time of the Budget and requirements which the Government has considered appropriate to meet this financial year. Provision has been made under the Department of Finance for natural disaster relief and restoration amounting to $46.8m. This provision is based on the latest advice from the States and the Northern Territory of their requirements under the natural disaster relief arrangements. The main factors in the increase are: underestimation by the relevant States of the continuing financial implications of the recent droughts in New South Wales and Queensland; underestimation of the consequences of the April-May 1983 floods in Queensland; and the impact of new disasters not provided for in the original 1983-84 appropriation, including floods in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland and developing drought conditions in Western Australia. An amount of $15m is sought for payments in lieu of benefits for prescribed diagnostic services in respect of private patients in recognised hospitals. This reflects the difficulties the Government has experienced with medical practitioners over agreements relating to private practice rights of medical practitioners in recognised hospitals. This amount will cover circumstances where the Health Insurance Act 1973, as it would be amended by the Bill recently introduced by the Minister for Health, would not fully authorise Medicare benefit payments for diagnostic services provided to private patients in recognised hospitals from 1 March 1984. This expenditure will be offset by lower than estimated payments against the standing appropriation for Medicare benefits . I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.09) —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- Pursuant to accepted arrangements relating to the Parliament's appropriations and staffing, I present the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 which seeks appropriation of $1.7m in addition to the appropriation made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1983-84. The additional appropriation is sought mainly to provide for additional staffing, increases in salaries costs and the development of information retrieval systems. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.10) —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- This omnibus Bill seeks to implement a number of admendments of an administrative nature to the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, and the Fisheries Act 1952 and Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 pending completion of a comprehensive review of Commonwealth fisheries legislation. The amendments are designed to streamline and improve the administration of fisheries management arrangements for the benefit of both the industry and the Government. The Bill will amend the Fisheries Act 1952 to simplify licensing requirements, overcome a number of administrative difficulties and include review provisions in relation to licensing functions and fisheries notices made under section 8 of the Act. In particular, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the removal of the requirement for crew members of fishing boats to be individually licensed. In future only master fishermen will be required to hold a licence. There has been strong and continuing criticism from the fishing industry because the Commonwealth is maintaining a licensing system that is no longer necessary for effective fisheries management. The Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce in its report on the Australian fishing industry tabled last year also expressed similar concern and recommended removal of unnecessary licensing provisions. The amendments, which have the support of the fishing industry, will simplify existing arrangements by reducing the number of licences required, and associated administrative costs. Another important provision of the Bill will enable the entry of unlicensed foreign fishing boats to Australian ports for major repair and similar purposes. The entry of unlicensed foreign fishing boats for these purposes, which has the potential to provide significant economic benefits for Australian industries, has been limited by restrictive port entry criteria in the Fisheries Act. Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill will remove this difficulty by providing for the authorisation of entry into Australian ports for specified purposes. It is not intended that such authorisations be used for the purpose of allowing unlicensed foreign fishing boats to enter ports on an ad hoc basis for routine refuelling, or minor repairs. Clause 9 of the Bill will provide a procedure for formally controlling the activities of research boats in the Australian fishing zone by allowing the granting of permits for scientific purposes. Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill will permit the application of the Fisheries Act to Australian fishermen operating beyond the outer limits of the Australian fishing zone, should this be required under future international fisheries management arrangements. It is likely that if international agreement is reached on the management of highly migratory species of fish such as tuna, each country concerned will be required to control its own fishermen on the high seas. The Bill will remove all references to ''traditional fishing'' from the Fisheries Act. Traditional fishing as defined in the Fisheries Act relates to fishing by indigenous inhabitants of Australia's external Territories, with particular application to Papua New Guinea. With the granting of independence to that country several years ago, that term is no longer necessary for fisheries management under the Act. The Bill also effects a number of other amendments to the Fisheries Act to streamline administrative procedures. These include additional powers relating to the cancellation of licence endorsements, changes in licence conditions, and the endorsement of licences to exempt the licensee from a prohibition imposed by a specified fisheries notice. The Fisheries Act currently only permits licences to be endorsed in respect of one type of fisheries notice. These amendments will permit greater flexibility in implementing fisheries management arrangements. The Bill also adds new provisions to the Fisheries Act to allow Parliamentary scrutiny of fisheries notices and administrative review in relation to certain licensing powers. In particular, I draw the attention of honourable senators to clause 11 of the Bill which provides that fisheries notices made under section 8 of the Act must be tabled in Parliament and may be disallowed by either House. This amendment was also recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce in its report on the Australian Fishing Industry. The amendments in clauses 19 and 27 of the Bill provide for administrative review of decisions relating to licensing functions, other than decisions in respect of foreign boats or persons who are not citizens or residents of Australia. These provisions reflect the Government's commitment to the principle that discretionary powers exercised under Commonwealth legislation should be reviewable. However, in this Bill special provision has been made to recognise the position of State officials acting under Commonwealth law. The States have been consulted on the implications of the proposed provisions and have not voiced any objections. Decisions on licensing matters made personally by the Minister or the Secretary will be directly reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Decisions on licensing matters by delegates of the Minister or delegates of the Secretary, including State officials acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, although not reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, will be subject to reconsideration by the Minister or Secretary or a Commonwealth official delegated to review decisions. Any decision made following such reconsideration may then be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Decisions of a Fisheries Joint Authority itself will not be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government considers that, as a policy making body comprising Commonwealth and State Ministers, it is not appropriate to subject a Joint Authority to Commonwealth administrative review. However, decisions of delegates of a Joint Authority may be subject to reconsideration by the Joint Authority itself or a delegated Commonwealth official. Any decision made by that official would then be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I would point out that while this Bill amends some provisions relating to the functions of Fisheries Joint Authorities as a consequence of other amendments to the Act and the inclusion of review provisions, implementation of the system of Joint Authority management of fisheries will depend on the outcome of the review of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement now being undertaken by the Government . The Bill will also amend the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 to extend the Act to apply to the seabed beneath the territorial sea of the Coral Sea Islands Territory. This amendment is necessary in the light of advice from the Attorney-General's Department that the Act does not apply to this area of seabed. The amendment, which will complement regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 in its application to the proclaimed nature reserve in the Coral Sea Islands Territory, will ensure that the Commonwealth has adequate jurisdiction over the seabed area to prevent the illegal taking of giant clams and other sedentary organisms. Finally, the Bill will amend the Fishing Industry Act 1969 to authorise approval of a Northern Territory fund for the purposes of determining Commonwealth fishing research funding levels under the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account arrangements. Under the Act, the Commonwealth matches the amounts paid into recognised State funds on a $1 for $1 basis. The Commonwealth's contribution is appropriated for credit to the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account. The Northern Territory is not a ''State'' for the purposes of the Act and although, in 1979, it established a fund similar to that recognised in each State, that fund cannot be approved without an appropriate amendment to the Act. In 1982, the Australian Fisheries Council noted the urgent need to amend the Act to include the Northern Territory fund with those of other States to give proper recognition to the Territory's contribution to fishing research. The proposed amendment will allow approval of the Northern Territory fund as one qualifying for matching Commonwealth fishing research funding. Mr President, the foregoing amendments provide long awaited reforms to the fisheries legislation which will assist the Government to more efficiently discharge its management responsibilities for the valuable fisheries resources off our shores. The amendments come at a time when the Government is in the process of introducing new and improved management arrangements for a number of important fisheries to provide for the long-term stability of the fishing industry and at the same time protect the biological needs of those fisheries. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.11) —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 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 which is now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Bill contains 9 schedules and is necessary to enact tariff changes which have been introduced into the Parliament in the 1983 Budget sittings and the 1984 autumn sittings by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 15-19 (1983) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1-4 (1984). Certain of the amendments contained in the Bill arise from the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on: Copper and certain copper products (including removal of export control) Fatty acids and certain aliphatic acids, their salts and esters; glycerol; tall oil Lawnmowers, certain engines and parts and the Temporary Assistance Authority's report on certain air conditioning machines. The Bill also contains amendments relating to: The implementation of arrangements resulting from the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand; continuation of the textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy, including decisions taken by the Government in respect of the May 1983 report of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee; concessions granted under certain trade agreements with nations of the South Pacific region and with Canada; the insertion of provisions to allow imports of certain steel products from developing countries to be admitted under quota at concessional rates of duty; and finally, amendments to correctly reflect the intention, scope or wording of certain provisions contained in the principal Act. The changes in respect of TAA and IAC reports contained in this Bill are directed to the level of assistance accorded to certain industries. Some of these changes have the secondary effect of increasing or decreasing revenues. Decisions affecting levels of assistance are of course expected to have an effect on levels of imports and, therefore, the level of customs duty collected. The precise impact of these changes may also not become clear, in financial impact terms, until several months after the decisions of the Government are implemented. For these reasons, the financial impact of this Bill may only be broadly estimated at $6.96m in customs revenue foregone per year. It should be noted that bounty assistance is being provided as a result of the Government's decisions on the Temporary Assistance Authority's report on certain air- conditioning machines and the Industries Assistance Commission's report on lawnmowers, certain engines and parts. The financial impact of such bounty assistance is not included in the figure quoted above. Administrative amendments contained in the Bill are expected to have little financial impact. In addition, there are no significant administrative costs associated with the measures contained in this Bill. A summary of amendments for each schedule contained in the Bill has been prepared for the information of honourable senators. Copies are available from the Records and Tables Office. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday 1 May 1984 at 2 p.m. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That, business of the Senate, notices of motion nos. 1 to 4 standing in the names of Senator's Mason and Harradine relating to motions to disallow certain regulations and an ordinance, be postponed till after the consideration of Business of the Senate, Order of the Day No. 1, Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment)-motion for disallowance. (Quorum formed) Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.15) —Mr President, normally speaking this would be a simple procedural matter consequent upon the agreement yesterday for a composite debate on motions put forward by Senator Mason and me. But now, for all practical purposes, the deal that has been done between Senator Mason and Senator Evans, behind the back of the Senate, without consultation with the Opposition and without consultation with me, has in effect torpedoed the attempt that the Senate was making to give proper and due consideration to this matter. Senator Mason, after a great flurry of publicity against the flood of hard core pornography into this country, has in fact by the deal ensured that the importation and sale of hard core pornography will in fact be legalised in this country. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I take a point of order. My point of order is simply this: Senator Harradine is addressing himself to substantive issues involved in the debate, not to the procedural matter which is involved in this motion or the speech he is addressing to the motion. The PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine might take that matter on board while he is addressing his remarks to the procedural motion before the Chair. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr President. The fact of the matter is that prior to Senator Mason putting down his notices of motion to disallow the regulations, I had determined to do the same but because he indicated that he was going to move to disallow the regulation I did not put down a motion to disallow the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment)-- Senator Grimes —Mr President, I take a point of order. I understand that under standing order 74 this is a procedural motion. I question the capacity of Senator Harradine to be debating it in this way. The PRESIDENT —I uphold the point of order. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —Mr President, in view of the comments of Senator Harradine I feel I must seek leave of the Senate to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MASON —Mr President, I have never before in this place sat and listened to the degree of rubbish and misrepresentation which was brought forward yesterday by Senator Walters and today by Senator Harradine over this matter. Senator Harradine has the effrontery to get up here and say that I changed my view on this matter. Anybody who reads the newspapers or looks at anything over the last three weeks will understand that there were two matters, and two matters only, which were required by the Australian Democrats. Those two matters were achieved yesterday. I will only say that anybody who gets up in this place and says that we have changed our minds on that matter is a liar and I will leave that statement hanging in the air. The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable senator should not use that remark. It is unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw it. Senator MASON —I withdraw it, Mr President. I will say that those people are tampering maliciously with the truth. The point is-and I wish to establish it quite firmly here-that two very enlightened and useful changes in the law relating to X rated video tapes-and, after all, this is what Senator Harradine was on about-have been achieved in that these tapes will be subject to censorship probably throughout this country on a compulsory basis and that there will be a situation where cruel, violent and sadistic material will not be allowed in under Customs. Those two matters have been our ground for three weeks . They are our reasons for raising our motions. We have made it perfectly clear that having achieved that our point would have been satisfied. I want that point to be clearly on record. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-Senator Grimes has moved a motion about which I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding. Perhaps if Senator Grimes explained what his motion did it would clear everything up for the Senate and we would not have a continuation of what seems to me to be an unnecessary debate. There is real confusion on this side of the chamber. Senator Mason —If that debate is raised from your side you must expect replies to it. Senator DURACK —I am trying to get some sense into this place to which Senator Mason has not contributed much lately. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-Obviously the furore which resulted from this motion, as Senator Durack says, resulted from a misunderstanding. As Senator Harradine said, yesterday the Senate decided to have a cognate debate on all these matters. I think Senator Sir John Carrick is in fact in continuation. All the motion that I moved does is bring us back to exactly where we were yesterday, so that we can continue that debate and then proceed in the normal way. No deals have been done. There is no malice, nor is there any evil intent. I thought it was a sensible thing, as I think most people did, to rearrange the business to bring the debate back on, to resume from where it was yesterday. That is what is on the red order of business sheet and on the Notice Paper. There is no intention other than that to allow Senator Sir John Carrick and others who wanted to speak in the debate to continue. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-In respect of Senator Grimes's suggestion that we are being taken back to where we were yesterday, the whole point of my speaking was to show that we are not being taken back to where we were yesterday by reason of matters that have been dealt with outside this chamber. If we are going to proceed with a vote on these issues, as we were to proceed yesterday, that is a different matter. But as I understand it, the proposal is to adjourn these matters until 1 May. That places us in an entirely different situation from that of yesterday and in fact-- Senator Durack —This motion is not to adjourn. Senator HARRADINE —No, I know it is not to adjourn. Senator Gareth Evans —This motion is not doing it. There will be a motion to adjourn. Senator HARRADINE —There will be a motion to adjourn and that then will not enable me to move the motions standing in my name, No. 3 and No. 4, and to speak to both of them. Senator Gareth Evans —That is what you were doing yesterday. You agreed to a cognate debate yesterday. Senator HARRADINE —No. Because the Government has a deferral in the air it will be necessary for me to make out very clearly some case, particularly in respect of notice of motion No. 3, that it is essential for it to go forward at this time. Senator Gareth Evans —You had that opportunity yesterday when you spoke. Senator HARRADINE —No, because it was understood yesterday that the reason that was being put forward by Senator Mason in respect of his notice of motion to disallow was substantive, namely, the flood of pornography into this country. Now he has of course sold everybody out in respect of that and gone- Senator Mason —Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator HARRADINE —And he knows it as well as I do. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine will resume his seat. Senator HARRADINE —If he does not know, he is the only bloke who does not know. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Mason is taking a point of order. Senator Mason —I raise a point of order of the irrelevance of Senator Harradine' s contributions to this debate and the even worse aggravation of them by the fact that he is telling direct lies about- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will withdraw that remark. Senator Mason —I withdraw it, but Senator Harradine has misrepresented what I said yesterday. My speech yesterday made it absolutely clear which two points the Australian Democrats wanted. He obviously did not take the trouble to listen to it or read it. I simply cannot see why we should sit here and have this misrepresentation under privilege by a Tasmanian senator. The PRESIDENT —Order! No point of order is involved. Senator Harradine sought and was given leave to make a statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by Senator Mason: That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 331 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.25) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in defending his reasons for altering the approach to this matter said yesterday that over the years the Customs laws relating to these matters were totally inadequate and were not enforced. He did not dilate on whether they could be made more adequate or could be enforced. Senator Gareth Evans —I don't believe so. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Attorney-General says he does not believe that. That is a respectable view but, nevertheless, a view that should be tested. The essence of the matter is whether we can stop importation at the source when it is a trickle, or allow it through and then let it proliferate and become a flood . It is obvious that if one cannot stop through Customs regulations by policing, one cannot stop a proliferation elsewhere. I direct the attention of the Senate to the fact that there is a need throughout Australia to look to whether the Customs laws and regulations can be strengthened and can be enforced. The Attorney-General made some simplistic statements, on two of which I want to touch because they should not pass unnoticed. He invited honourable senators to look at an article published in the National Times suggesting that fantasising had therapeutic value for those kinds of people, particularly disabled people, who are unable to have normal relationships. That is not what this debate is about. There is no restriction at all on video films which show normal human relationships and normal acts of tenderness and love, including physical expression. What this debate is about is the depiction of gross, perverse and distorted actions so that any therapeutic value would be rejected. I know that psychiatrists will say that there is no such definition as normal and abnormal and they take the more absolutist view, but society itself takes the relative view and establishes norms. The Attorney-General also quoted an American journalist, Ellen Willis, in an article which he commended. Ellen Willis said: 'What turns me on is erotic; what turns you on is pornographic'. If that were to have value, one should look at what the word 'erotic' means. 'Erotic' is derived from the god Eros and pertains to love. There is no suggestion at all that what we are talking about in this debate is love. We are talking about the distortion of human relationships in terms of the obscene and pornographic. I pause merely to say that one should not intrude into this debate over-simplistic comments. It is fascinating in this debate that women's organisations covering the whole spectrum of women's thought-from those with more conservative views to those with more permissive views-have unanimously reflected their opposition to the present approach. They have taken the view that what is to be allowed to happen will continue the debasing and degrading of women. I want to see the matter widened. This is not a subject specifically relating to the debasement or degradation of women. If what they are saying is right, if the male of the species is the degrader or the debaser of women, then the male is himself degraded and debased. So both sexes are part of this situation. The cause should not be the preserve of womenfolk only, although I acknowledge what they are saying; these things debase and degrade both sexes. If they do that and if they are allowed to be represented to youngsters, of course the youngsters will be entitled to form a view that that is part of human relations, that is normal and that is part of the social mores and it is not wrong. This is the very heart of the problem. It is not good enough for the Attorney-General to lay down the principle in approach to this that what adults do by consent in the privacy of their own homes they should be allowed to do, including reading and seeing those various activities. Let me give honourable senators an example. We do not allow assault. We are strongly opposed as a community to the importation and distribution of hard drugs, including mind bending drugs. We do not allow people to buy such drugs and, in the privacy of their homes, either abuse themselves or abuse others by consent. We intervene into the private castle of the individual in a number of ways. Therefore one should not accept the absolutist views that have been put forward. After all, the psychedelic drugs, the hallucinatory drugs, are the destroyers of the mind as well as the body, and many people believe that, for the young at least, the distortion of the pornographic videos does much the same . What I have sought to do in this debate is to try to identify the kind of signposts that we should follow. We are not, as I have said, dealing with a choice between no censorship and some censorship. There is agreement from the Government and others that there must be some censorship, and there is a list of various matters that are to be censored. The real questions are where the line should be drawn and who shall make those value judgments. There has been considerable discussion upon whether one should ban 'extreme violence' or ' violence'. What do we mean? We should test that with the public. We should invite parents and individuals to tell us what this means. It is of fundamental importance that the very absolutists in this approach should not use paternalism by saying: 'I know what is right. I will enforce it'. Let me say, without being combative, that it sits very strangely and uncomfortably with those here who talk of human liberties and say that they are in favour of human liberties to allow this when they have banned the whole of this community from achieving voluntary private health insurance. If ever we want to see how governments react to restrain we have that on our plate. So those who would do a particular thing in one respect, as they do with thousands of laws-because the socialist is the great law maker and the great regulator of the community-in this matter want to do otherwise. Where are we on this? The situation with videos relates not to adults only but to children as well. We have the whole spectrum of womenfolk of this community saying that in any case they find the regulations unsatisfactory. They want something done. I remind myself of Shakespeare saying in Twelfth Night: In nature there's no blemish but the mind; None can be call'd deform'd but the unkind. He meant of course, in using the word 'unkind', the unnatural. None can be called deformed but the unnatural. In point of fact, what we are looking at is the kind of community we want to project for those around us to see. Fundamentally, the argument of those who advocate virtually absolute freedom is that the mature person is capable of withstanding anything; capable of making judgments and of looking at and absorbing violence and distortion, and that somehow or other that should be allowed. In point of fact, the test of maturity, as Mill and other great freedom fighters saw it, is that people would constantly say: 'The real test of my maturity is my willingness to concede some loss of my personal liberty in order that the total freedom and dignity of the community shall be established'. I conclude on the point that we would do well to remind ourselves when debating matters of great moment like this what Parliament, or government, is all about. Government is not an end in itself and society is not an end in itself. Government is a means to an end; it is to create an environment for the individual and the individual family. We should never lose sight of that. We should never lose sight of community mores. We should seek to use our influence to create an environment which enables human beings to develop their dignity, their spirituality. This is a great problem. I commend the whole researching of this matter, a tossing of it back to the public and the seeking of an inquiry to find out what the public wants. It is paternalism for the liberationists to say they know what the public wants. I reject that. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.37) —The Senate is dealing with the implications of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, relating to the Australian Capital Territory, and its regulations. As we have heard, the existing Customs regulations are being abandoned to bring these regulations and the Ordinance into effect. We are told by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that the Customs regulations have fallen into disrepute and are not observed. He is the one who should tell the chamber why it is that they have fallen into disrepute and are not being observed because it is his responsibility to see that they are enforced and observed. The Attorney-General has clearly indicated to his people that it is not necessary for them to enforce these regulations, and of course he has done that in other areas as well. It is worth looking at the amendments to compare what we are abolishing with what we are bringing into effect. Regulation 4A at present states: (1) This regulation applies to goods . . . that, whether of their own nature or having regard to any literary or other work or matter that is embodied, recorded or reproduced in, or can be reproduced from, the goods- (a) are blasphemous, indecent or obscene; or (b) unduly emphasize matters of sex, horror, violence or crime, or are likely to encourage depravity, and to advertising matter relating to such goods. The section goes on to say that the people judging these things are authorised by the Attorney-General. Throughout all of the legislation it is quite clear that it is all his responsibility; he is responsible for appointing the relevant people. What has the legislation been replaced with? Section (1A), which replaces sub- regulation 1 of the former regulation 4A, refers to: (a) publications, other than films that are registered under the Customs ( Cinematograph Films) Regulations, that, in the opinion of the Attorney-General or a person authorized by him for the purposes of this sub-regulation- (i) depict in pictorial form a child (whether engaged in sexual activity or otherwise) who is, or who is apparently, under the age of 16 years in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person; (ii) promote, incite or encourage terrorism; or (iii) gratuitously depict in pictorial form extreme violence or cruelty . . . We understand the Attorney has agreed to withdraw the word 'extreme'. I wonder what that really will do to the legislation. In no way does the package proposed deal with the sort of pornography that we have spoken about in this debate-the exploitation and degradation of women. Having passed the Sex Discrimination Bill , it seems extraordinary that we should be faced with a situation where that sort of pornography is not any longer to be excluded. It is clear that, as a result of the changes proposed in these regulations, the Attorney-General is allowing hardcore pornography to be a part of the scene in this country. As I said, if he claims that it already is, then it is because he has failed to administer the regulations for which he has responsibility. He made the claim yesterday that there was public demand for this sort of material, but he did not give any evidence whatever to support that assertion. To me it is a matter of extreme regret that Senator Mason has changed his approach to dealing with these regulations and the ordinance. His actions will ensure the legalisation of the sale of hardcore pornography in the Australian Capital Territory and the legalisation of its importation into this country. Yesterday Senator Mason made an excellent speech. I thought it was one of the best speeches that he has made. In that speech he set out in an extremely effective manner the reasons that the ordinance and regulations should be disallowed. I am very disappointed indeed at the turn that the whole event has taken; I regret it. I believe that the ordinance still should be disallowed. In the Australian Capital Territory the Attorney-General is the chief, the person who appoints the officer who determines the classification of material, and the Attorney-General determines who shall be prosecuted in this area, as he does in other areas. It may surprise you to know, Mr Deputy President, that the running of a brothel in the Australian Capital Territory is illegal. According to the newspapers and the correspondence I get from constituents brothels abound in the Australian Capital Territory. Presumably the Attorney-General has a different attitude towards brothels because he has not prosecuted any brothel proprietors, even though police have raided brothels and obtained sufficient evidence to allow a prosecution to proceed. The only explanation that we know of for his inaction is that apparently he says that not enough people have complained about their existence. The people of the Australian Capital Territory are very much in the hands of this man in determining what he regards as good for the community. He likes most people to have freedom in pursuing those activities that he believes in. However , he does not allow the same freedom to his own back benchers to make their own decisions about these matters. I think we need to examine the standards he brings to bear in making decisions on legislation such as this. As I said, he has been in a position to ensure the enforcement of those regulations that are in existence. I think the turn that the legislation has taken now will legitimise the flood into this country of this sort of material, and I am sorry that Senator Mason has been a party to that. A report that appeared in this morning's Canberra Times about the classification of this material highlights what in fact has happened, namely, that video tapes, both good and bad, will be classified compulsorily in the Australian Capital Territory. However, the article does not go to the heart of the matter; namely, what material will in fact be allowed into this country. Another interesting aspect of the report of the debate in yesterday's Canberra Times is that it refers to the threats of the Australian Democrats and the Opposition to disallow the ordinance and regulations. The Opposition was serious in moving to disallow those regulations and that ordinance. It was not threatening to do so, but apparently the Australian Democrats were only threatening. In this article that word was used twice in relation to the Australian Democrats. It is reported in the same article that the Attorney- General said that if the disallowance motion had not been rescinded but had been proceeded with it would have been a particularly obstreperous use of Senate majority power. He does not seem to have much regard for the views of other people if those views differ in any way from his own. He said that the disallowance would have caused chaos, confusion and legal uncertainty in Customs administration and the Australian Capital Territory video industry. Of course, that would not have been the case if he had enforced the legislation that was in existence. The Attorney-General now says that if this debate is adjourned he will put before the Senate the Government's intentions on the matter when the Senate resumes early in May. That may be so, but it will not allow the public appropriate time to examine the new proposals. I would have thought that it would be appropriate to allow the public time to examine this type of legislation. No doubt he will say that if he does not bring the matter before the Senate at that time there will not be time to deal with the motions of disallowance. I believe that these regulations and the ordinance ought to be disallowed so that proper discussions can take place as to what should occur. If they are disallowed today the regulations which exist can still operate and the Attorney-General can come back with something which is rather more appropriate than the present legislation. I said that we are dealing with a man whose judgment we have to trust in these matters. I think that it is reasonable to question whether we would want to rely on his judgment. Yesterday we heard his reference to buying the votes of the Australian Democrats, using language that I would not repeat. Last year we spent some time examining his actions and his judgment in relation to the spy flights over Tasmania. I seriously doubt the judgment of any person who would have been involved in that in the first place. The Combe situation brought his actions to light. I found the matter of his interview of Mr Combe extraordinary indeed. There was the referendum issue. He was prepared quietly to change the nature of the ballot papers for the first time in history. He wanted $1.25m to promote his side of the argument, treating the electors at large as if they were idiots and not able to view the matter for themselves and had to be persuaded in this way. In his view, apparently we are better off by having a pretty fair flow of pornographic material into this country which people can see, but he will not give to this chamber a copy of the Menzies report on the Sala investigation. It seems to me that we either agree with him or he gets very angry. People are concerned about this legislation. The matter was sent to the local House of Assembly. Honourable senators will recall that in the election campaign last year the then Opposition indicated its commitment to take notice of the views of the House of Assembly. As we know from the casino issue this Government does take notice if it suits the Government and does not if it does not suit the Government. The Attorney referred this matter to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). The Minister for Territories and Local Government referred it to the House of Assembly. He said: My colleague, the Attorney-General, has asked me to refer the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 to the Assembly for its consideration and advice. The Attorney-General has asked that the following information be provided to the Assembly. He went on: The Ordinance was prepared as model legislation for implementation of the uniform censorship classification scheme agreed to by Commonwealth State Ministers with responsibility for censorship in July 1983. The scheme is expected to come into operation on 1 February 1984. It is strange that we now have this legislation before us, but the States seem to be showing some reluctance to go along with it. I would have thought that alone would have warned the Attorney-General to proceed with somewhat less haste with this legislation when it was quite clear that the State governments were not proceeding in the same way. The Assembly was given a briefing by officers of the Attorney-General's Department last year. The fact is that the Assembly did agree to support the legislation. It did so because it believed at that time what it was told; that is, that it was to be complementary legislation between the States and the Territories and this was a necessary part of it. Subsequently , it found that was not the case. The matter came up before the House of Assembly last week. A motion was put to rescind the previous approval of the legislation. I am not aware of any disagreement which would indicate that members of the House of Assembly opposed it. The fact now is that the House of Assembly does not agree with this change of legislation in the Australian Capital Territory. Mrs Hocking, speaking in the debate, said: I support the amendment. I believe it was misleading when we had a Press release of 25 January from the Attorney-General which said over and over again that there was to be censorship of publications and video tapes when in fact it was known all along that the Customs Regulations would bring in an open season approach to the admission of all types and any type of hard core pornography into this country. The article in the Sun Herald on 19 February says: 'That overseas distributors are planning to dump container loads of pornographic publications and videos as soon as the State Government gives the legal go ahead .' Ms Walmsley also spoke against the legislation. Mrs Hocking, quoting Ms Walmsley , said: This is one occasion when Family Team Members find themselves in complete agreement with their radical feminist sisters in strongly objecting to the abuse of women as things or sex objects. From what I quoted earlier, it is quite clear that the legislative change which is proposed is correctly interpreted in those words. She also said: It is useless to place warning signs outside restricted areas to protect those 18 year old and under, when their parents or older brothers and sisters can take the stuff home for unrestricted viewing in their own lounge rooms. It is clear that in the Australian Capital Territory the majority of those representing the community in this forum do not agree with this legislation and do not want it. There is no adequate provision for protecting children from seeing these sorts of films in their own homes. As I said yesterday, Senator Mason dealt with a number of aspects. That with which he dealt most effectively was in pointing out the difference of being able to read and to see. Children can see video material. It can be on in their home and they have no ability to evaluate what they are seeing. By the time children can read, they may be able to read things which are harmful, but certainly children view videos at a much earlier age. They see violence, hard core pornography, extremely damaging material which would not be allowed in if the existing regulations had been enforced, and not these new ones brought in. I have heard recently of two separate occasions of young boys being able to see this sort of material in their homes. One was a case of a group staying overnight at a birthday party. After the parents went to bed the boys sat around and watched video films which they knew to be in the house. On another occasion a boy had taken a key that he knew gave him entry into a cupboard where his father kept these films and all night viewing took place. It is not adequate to say that it is just a question of adults viewing this material in their homes. It is available to children if it is available at all. I regret that the Australian Democrats, in pursuing the matter as they have, have allowed this to come in. I thought it a bit ironic this morning that on the front page of the Canberra Times, right next to the article to which I have referred in relation to this debate, was an article headed 'Children's television standards issued'. It deals with a number of matters including: Advertising standards designed to ensure that the vulnerability of children is not exploited through misleading advertising, undue psychological pressure, unsafe products, endorsements by children's program characters. A standard requiring that no program, advertisement of other transmission during 'C' time may demean any group or class of people on the basis of sex, age , race, ethnicity, disability, religious beliefs or political convictions. It is right and proper that there should be regulations within television to protect children during the times that children are likely to be watching television. But there are videos; these days many houses have videos. I certainly know of one three-year-old child who knows how to work a video machine in her house. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you saying that censorship standards should be governed by those appropriate for three-year-old children? Senator REID —What I am talking about is the possibility of children of all ages watching them. I have dealt with 12-year-old boys seeing material that is not appropriate for them. But if such material is in the country, they will see it. The rules applying to videos now are different from those applying to films. What I really get back to saying is: Why is there such a rush to change the regulations and bring in this regulation? Why not disallow the ordinances and start again, when they have been thought through properly and when there has been a much greater opportunity for consultation in the community? Why not enforce the legislation which exists at present? The House of Assembly certainly felt that it had been misled in what it was asked to do in the first place compared with what it now finds out to be the case. It regards it as premature. It is interesting that the Government has made a commitment to give financial impact statements. I refer to a speech by the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, on 7 September 1983 when he said that another major reform of the Government involves the presentation of financial impact statements. He said then that in the future all second reading speeches, would have significant information relating to costs, revenue and saving. He said that Ministers would attempt to assess the impact on industry and other sections of the community and get to know the financial and economic effect of their legislation. Most people welcomed that although we have not seen many of them as yet. In recent times we have all become familiar with environmental impact statements, the necessity for them and the reason they have become part of the legislative process. I wonder whether it is not time that we started thinking about human impact statements when bringing in legislation of this kind. We should do some research and give some thought to the real implications on people of this type of legislation. It is time that we threw out these ordinances and got around to preparing a human impact statement on the changes, bearing in mind the availability of the videos, before we allow the introduction of hard core pornography which will flow from passing these ordinances. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.56) —I do not want to occupy the time of the Senate for very long but I am very concerned at some misrepresentations and some allegations that have been made by honourable senators in this place yesterday and today. To put the matter into perspective it is important that the Senate be aware that this whole issue was raised in the first instance by Senator Mason of the Australian Democrats approximately three weeks ago. Since then Senator Mason, with the wholehearted support of the Australian Democrats, has used his leverage to bring about the changes to which the Government has now agreed. From all that I have heard from the Opposition, those changes are exactly what the Opposition has requested throughout this debate. We have achieved the changes that the Opposition seeks to achieve but lacks the ability to achieve because of its bulldozer approach. Let us be quite clear about what has happened in this debate. The Opposition has used it as a vehicle once more to express its views on standards within the community. It has ignored the real issue which is that at the moment, or up until recently, it has been open door for pornography. This is a move to close that door on the worst kinds of pornography. Senator Durack —It has been open door only since 1 February. Senator JACK EVANS —It was open door while Senator Durack was in the Government. Let us make that quite clear. Senator Walters —It was not open door. What rubbish. Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Walters has not denied that throughout her speech. Let her deny now that it was not open door throughout the life of the previous Government. If it has not been open door, I would like her to explain how it is that we have all this pornography, to which Senator Reid referred, flooding the countryside at the moment. If that was not an open door policy, she should let us know what is an open door policy. The Australian Democrats specifically set out to achieve two improvements to these ordinances and regulations. I believe that those improvements, and possibly others, will be achieved over the next few weeks. I would like to put a point to members of the Opposition because I was very saddened to see that nobody in this chamber was listening to Senator Sir John Carrick as he made a very good speech on this subject. It was an objective speech. It put the case from all points of view, as I understood him, and I believe that he put it into a perspective that members of the Opposition, particularly Senator Walters, would do well to read and to understand. What Senator Sir John Carrick said was that it is not up to us to impose our standards on the community. I repeat: It is not up to Senator Walters to impose her standards on the community. It is up to us to discover what are the community standards and to move in line with them. Senator Walters —Agreed. Senator JACK EVANS —If that is agreed, perhaps the Senate would also agree that Senator Sir John Carrick said that, having discovered what the community standards are, somebody then has to set those standards. I know that Senator Walters would like to set those standards in her terms. She made that very clear throughout her speech. But Senator Walters is not only not in Government at this stage, she is also not in a position to impose her standards on the rest of Australia. The Government is in the position to set the standards. It is up to the Government to set standards acceptable to the community at large and up to the Senate to agree to or modify those standards. That is what this debate is about-modifying them, not throwing out those standards, as would be the case if we accepted what the Opposition proposes. I believe that over the next four weeks, as a result of this debate, we will have the input which was suggested by Senator Sir John Carrick. We will receive that input from parents and from the community generally and as a result of that input and principally as a result of the debate that will take place tomorrow between the State Attorneys-General and the Federal Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) we will have the potential to formulate new regulations and ordinances to embody the views of the community at large and not just one section of the community as represented by Senator Walters. Let it be very clearly understood that, as far as the Democrats are concerned, there is no fait accompli with these regulations and the ordinance. They are amendable. They are in the process of being amended and there is potential to amend them further. We heard a suggestion yesterday that the interpretation given by Janet Strickland is likely to be incorporated in the ordinance. I believe that that is a step forward. I suspect that the Attorney is sympathetic to that suggestion. However, that will not be open to just our Attorney-General; it will be the subject of discussion by all the Attorneys-General. If I heard the Opposition suggest that the other Attorneys-General should have no input into this debate and should have no say on what will be set up as the model regulations and ordinances, I would wonder what had happened to States rights and the call for States rights from this side of the chamber. This is the ideal opportunity to get agreement from the States on the model regulations and ordinance. We should not impose our standards on the States but have their input and listen to their discussions so that hopefully we will arrive at a consensus with all of the Attorneys so that this is a real model which will be followed implicitly by all of the States. That is an ideal worth seeking to achieve. I believe it is important to put Senator Mason's position into perspective. That was the main reason for my rising to speak. There have been gross distortions by Senator Durack by way of interjection, by Senator Walters who spoke yesterday and by Senator Harradine in his brief comments this morning. Senator Mason has already achieved the two vital changes that others seek to achieve. He has had a commitment from the Government that the first of those changes would effectively refuse admission to the country under Customs rules of gratuitously cruel, violent and sadistic video tapes that have sexual elements. Let us recognise the distinction that needs to be drawn because the existing regulation would let that material in providing it is not extreme. Perhaps Senator Walters and Senator Durack do not understand the difference between those two types of material but that is what has already been achieved. It would not be achieved, Senator Walters, by disallowance of the regulation. I ask you to deny that. If you disallow the regulation you will not achieve that objective . Senator Walters —Then enforce the law. Senator JACK EVANS —You would not achieve it. You would go back to open doors and let anything in. Senator Walters —Rubbish, you would not go back to open doors. Senator JACK EVANS —I am sorry, Senator, you do not understand the regulation and its effect. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Senator Evans, I suggest that you direct your remarks through the Chair. I will then be able to hear what you are contributing to this debate. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Senator Mason's second achievement was that, under the Australian Capital Territory ordinance, which is intended to be a model for all the States, censorship will be compulsory and not voluntary as it is at present. Once more I put it to the Senate that the Opposition wanted to achieve that objective and is very upset because the Australian Democrats, through Senator Mason, have achieved the objective that it sought to achieve but we have achieved it through negotiation and discussion and not through scoring points in this Senate chamber on broadcast day. We have achieved the objective through meaningful, positive, constructive discussions with the Attorney-General. Senator Lewis —Absolute rubbish! Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Lewis said that it is absolute rubbish. I am not too sure what Senator Lewis is disputing. Is he disputing the achievement? That is there for all to see. Is he disputing that that method of achieving the objective is not the appropriate way to go about it? Perhaps he is suggesting that because he was not able to achieve it himself. Senator Lewis, the verbal browbeater of this chamber, has probably never been able to achieve an agreement with the party on the opposite side of the chamber through negotiation and discussion and thereby arrive at a constructive amendment that will satisfy most parties. That is what we have been after. We have been trying to satisfy most parties because one of the things that has been evident in this debate is that nobody in the Senate chamber represents 100 per cent of the views of the people of Australia on this subject. I do not believe that I represent 100 per cent of the views-nor does Senator Durack, Senator Walters or Senator Gareth Evans. None of us can do that. What we must endeavour to achieve in this debate is a degree of consensus that will satisfy the great majority of Australians in this very personal area. I quote from yesterday's Hansard a gross distortion of the Australian Democrats' position in this debate. It was done by Senator Walters when she rose, by leave, to make some comments. She said: I wish to correct a few words I said in my speech. I said I had the pleasure of joining Senators Harradine and Mason in their move to disallow the regulations and ordinances. I now find that the Democrats have decided not to support the motion. That is an absolute distortion of our position. I wish to have that withdrawn by Senator Walters when the opportunity arises in the future and in particular when she discovers that the Australian Democrats support the ordinance and regulations as amended and as the Opposition would have them amended and as I believe this Senate totally agrees to their being amended. Until that happens we will not change our stance at all. Senator Walters —Read the rest of what I said. Senator JACK EVANS —I will read the rest of what Senator Walters said. She said: The Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans has, as he said in his speech, been able to buy their lousy vote. She continued later: The Democrats have fallen for that and have changed their minds. Their vote has been bought and they no longer intend to support the motion. (Quorum formed) I will just repeat the distortion made by Senator Walters yesterday of the Australian Democrats' position when she said: 'The Democrats have decided not to support the motion'. Not at any stage have the Australian Democrats announced or indicated that they were not going to support the motion of disallowance which was put forward by Senator Mason. Not at any stage has that been said inside or outside this chamber. So I refute absolutely the claim made by Senator Walters and I repeat that I hope that Senator Walters has the good grace to acknowledge that she was totally and absolutely wrong in that claim. The Democrats have not ever indicated that they will change their stance which has been consistent right through. Despite the fact that we have been negotiating for the improvements we have retained our consistency on our position and we will continue to do so until we are totally satisfied that the ordinance and regulations are in line with what we believe the community wants them to be. We have simply at this stage agreed to a deferral. That deferral will come forward in due course and the debate no doubt will be resumed. I believe we will then be discussing entirely different regulations and ordinances . At that stage our position will be known and so will that of Senator Walters, Senator Lewis and Senator Durack. I would be surprised if all positions do not change as a result of the introduction of new regulations and ordinances. That would be a normal thing to happen. But as they stand now, the regulations and ordinance will be disallowed by the Australian Democrats. Is that adequately clear because that is precisely our position. It has not changed. Senator Lewis —When? Next month? Senator JACK EVANS —Do not give me the red herring of timing. Senator Walters said yesterday that we were not going to disallow. Let it be quite clearly understood: We have not changed our position. The regulations and ordinance will be disallowed within the time allowed for disallowance. That is our position and it has not changed. I am saying that the regulations and ordinance as they now stand will be disallowed by the Australian Democrats. That position has not changed and is not likely to change. I have had a number of interjections from my rear, which is quite an appropriate place for them to be coming from because of the nature of them, indicating that the Australian Democrats will allow a flood of child pornography into Australia. I indicated earlier-I thought the honourable senator would have been wise enough to recognise this-what is being proposed and the dreadful hiatus that would be caused if we disallowed the regulations and ordinance and replaced them with nothing. Let us just have a clear understanding that, if disallowed, the hiatus that would be created would allow a flood of material into this country such as we have never seen because of the potential for porno merchants getting into the gap that is going to be created, before new regulations and ordinances are introduced thanks to the Liberal Party. Senator Durack —You don't understand the effect of disallowance. Senator JACK EVANS —I am sorry; I clearly understand because we have already seen a trickle of it. The honourable senator does not understand what is likely to be the effect of allowing the trickle to develop into a flood. That would be the effect. Of course, one wonders what the motives are for this disallowance being pushed through. Senator Chipp —Surely, the friend of the porno merchants. Senator JACK EVANS —One wonders whether, through innocence and ignorance, people who purport to be opposing the porno merchants are in fact helping the porno merchants. That would be the likely effect if these regulations and ordinance were to be disallowed today. Perhaps out of the debate yesterday we can get some common sense. It has become evident that the present situation is unsatisfactory. I think that all sides have agreed that under the present regulations and under the present modus operandi, the Customs officers are not preventing the importation of pornographic material. There has to be a change. It is recognised by everybody that there has to be a change. All we are suggesting is that the change be effective and not just a series of words that are going to satisfy some of the wordsmiths in this House and let people flood a market in Australia which the Senate is trying to look after and protect. All that the Australian Democrats' position represents is a means of improving the regulations and ordinance; a means of having input from all Attorneys- General, State and Federal, towards that improvement; a means, as Senator Sir John Carrick suggested, of getting some input from the rest of the community; and then, probably on the very next day that this Parliament sits, having the opportunity to consider those new regulations and ordinance. I hope and believe that as a result of the discussions and as a result of this debate the new regulations and ordinance will be acceptable not only to this chamber and to the people of the Australian Capital Territory but also to all of the Attorneys- General and to the people of all of the States of Australia. Motion (by Senator Robertson) proposed: That the debate be now adjourned. Senator Lewis —Yes, I will speak to that. Senator Durack —I would like to raise a point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! You will not debate the motion to adjourn this matter. Senator Durack —I am not debating it. I want to raise a point or order before the motion is put. Madam Acting Deputy President, I am very concerned that there should be a possibility of any vote being taken on this matter while the Australian Democrats are under a complete misapprehension as to what is the legal effect of a disallowance because a disallowance revives a previous regulation. Senator Gareth Evans —I take a point of order on the point of order. My point of order is that Senator Durack's point, whatever else it is, is not a point of order. He is simply using the occasion in order to make a substantive contribution to the debate and to make a plea to the Senate as to why the matter should not be voted on. Senator Durack —Madam Acting Deputy President, I am taking a point of order. I should like to be able to be heard on the point of order without interruption. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it a point of order and not a point of law? Senator Durack —The point of order I am taking is that the Senate should not proceed to a vote where honourable senators are under misapprehensions as to what the effects of the vote would be. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Durack, that is not a point of order. Senator Durack —I have simply pointed out that the effect of disallowance is to revive previous regulations, not to leave a complete vacuum. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Chair does not normally recognise points of law . I will not rule on that. That is not a point of order. Question put: The Senate divided. That the debate be now adjourned. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Missen, A. J. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Reid, M. E. Hamer, D. J. Scott, D. B. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Cook, P. F. S. Boswell, R. L. D. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Ray, Robert Teague, B. C. Hearn, J. M. Rae, PeterButton, J. N. Watson, J. O. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for 2 May 1984. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.25) —I move an amendment to that motion, namely: Leave out all words after 'for', insert '12 noon this day'. I wish to speak to this amendment because Senator Jack Evans has just finished speaking to the Senate and he has misled it; he has misled anyone who followed what he said in regard to what the law currently is in Australia in regard to the disallowance of a regulation. It is a matter of grave concern-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I take a point of order. This contribution of Senator Lewis is no more directed to the substance of his amendment than was Senator Durack's alleged point of order earlier on in this debate. He is addressing himself to a substantive question of law; it is an argumentative submission. It is not one directed to the timing of the resumption of the debate . The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I will come to the reason why we need to resume this debate at 12 noon today. The Australian Democrat senators in this Parliament are apparently under the delusion that if a regulation is disallowed there is an hiatus. I do not know where the Democrats got that information from. I suspect they got it from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who does not want them to know the truth of the matter. Mr President, I direct these remarks through you specifically to Senator Jack Evans. The situation is that in 1982 there was an amendment to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1981; namely, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) 1982, Act No. 26 of 1982. If Senator Jack Evans does not believe me-of course he will not believe me because I am one of those stupid Liberals-I suggest he talk to the Clerk of the Senate or one of his assistants who would be able to advise him that the result of that legislation which was passed through the Parliament was as follows: '(7) Where- (a) a regulation . . . is disallowed . . . and (b) the relevant regulation repealed, in whole or in part, another regulation that was in force immediately before the relevant regulation came into operation , the disallowance of the relevant regulation- Senator Gareth Evans —What makes you think they do not know that? That is A-B-C. Senator LEWIS —I continue: or the operation of sub-section (3) in relation to the relevant regulation, as the case may be, has the effect of reviving that other regulation from and including the date of the disallowance . . . For honourable senators here to interject that something is simple and elementary after we have just heard an honourable senator stand up and say that that would not be the case is an absolute nonsense. The Attorney-General sits across there in the chamber smirking and going on because he knows he has absolutely conned the Democrats in this matter, bought their votes. He said yesterday to the Senate that if that is what he had to do to win the Democrats' lousy vote he was prepared to do it. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator should withdraw that expression. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, with respect, I would be prepared to withdraw it, but may I quote to you from yesterday's Hansard? The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator is quite entitled to quote. Senator LEWIS —Senator Gareth Evans, as recorded on page 1182 of the Hansard for 4 April 1984, said: I would prefer to wait until the meeting on Friday if it is possible there may be some better formula. I am certainly prepared to do it by tomorrow if that is the price of buying the honourable senator's lousy vote . . . Yesterday morning I heard most of Senator Mason's speech and it seemed to me to make good sense. I thought that I would not have to speak on the subject of disallowance because clearly the Democrat senators and the Opposition would combine to disallow the regulation. That was as at yesterday. What happened was that some time yesterday afternoon the Attorney-General bought their lousy vote. Senator Gareth Evans —I take a point of order. This is a fascinating contribution to the substantive debate on the merits of the argument for disallowance, but it has nothing whatever to do with the matter in issue. Senator Lewis's amendment relates to the timing of the resumption of the debate. I suggest that he be ruled out of order. Senator Harradine —On the point of order, I believe Senator Lewis's contributions are relevant because the importance of this issue is that tomorrow the Attorney-General and his fellow Attorneys-General meet. Therefore it is essential not only for this chamber but also for the Attorneys-General to be aware of the facts of the situation as described quite rightly by Senator Lewis. The PRESIDENT —It may appear somewhat tenuous, but I am allowing Senator Lewis some latitude to develop his argument as to why the debate should be adjourned until 12 noon. Senator LEWIS —Thank you, Mr President; I appreciate what you are doing. Let me explain why I am saying that this debate must come on again today. Our choices are either 12 noon today or much later this afternoon when the Senate will be about to rise. If the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations are not disallowed today, under those regulations this filthy, rotten, pornographic material will be legally imported into this country. Senator Harradine —Legally. Senator LEWIS —Yes, legally, under regulations brought down by the present Government. For the first time blasphemy will be allowed into the country, filthy, rotten stuff, and the attack on women will be allowed to take place via material brought into the country under existing regulations. If the regulations were disallowed today, the old regulations would be revived. That would be the situation. If the Democrats would only listen, they would understand that if the Senate takes the opportunity to disallow these regulations today, the old regulations would be revived and the material stopped from entering the country. But what will happen today, if this motion is carried, is that this debate will be adjourned and for the next three or four weeks, because the Senate will not be sitting, this filthy material will be brought into the country. We could stop it here today. What the Democrats have said to the Parliament is that when the debate comes on in three or four weeks' time within the total 30 sitting days, or perhaps within the next 15 sitting days from the notice of motion, the Democrats will then support the motion for disallowance. Senator Walters —Unless they change their minds. Senator LEWIS —One of my colleagues says: 'Unless they change their minds'. In the meantime it may be that the Attorney-General will be able to con them further. This is a matter of vital importance for the Senate to consider today, not in three or four weeks' time. What will happen to the country in that period of three or four weeks? This filthy material will be brought into this Territory , the Australian Capital Territory, and disseminated from here around the nation , to the detriment of the people. Everybody on this side, including the Democrats, agrees that it will be to the detriment of the people of this nation. The Senate can do something today if it deals with the matter now, whereas if we accept the amendment that this debate not be continued till 2 May, it means that between now and then it will be open slather for all these crims, all sorts of people with terrible ideas of pouring this stuff into the community. Once it is in here the tapes can be reproduced by all sorts of relatively cheap equipment and the material will be distributed around the nation to the detriment of the people. It will be to the detriment of anybody with any decency or morality, certainly to the detriment of children and women. It is nonsensical to suggest that this debate be adjourned to 2 May. That is why I put the case so strongly that we resume the debate at 12 noon today, take a vote on the matter and disallow these regulations. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.36) —Senator Lewis said that he wishes to bring the debate on at noon in an effort to educate the Australian Democrats, I gather. Senator Lewis —It has nothing to do with education. Senator MASON —He certainly spoke extensively about the need to educate the Australian Democrats. The whole of the first part of his speech was devoted to the fact that he thought he had to educate us on the simple matter that when a regulation is disallowed the earlier regulation takes its place. It is absurd of an honourable senator to consider that we have not given that degree of attention to our work. I take it as a gross affront by Senator Lewis. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has made this point and one listens to the Attorney-General. He is, after all, the Attorney-General and has certain responsibilities. He made the claim and, so far as we can see, he substantiated it. His point is that regardless of the fact that the old ordinance will be in position, it will not have the desired effect. That point has been made again and again in this debate. Senator Lewis has not answered that point. Therefore, his argument is spurious and on behalf of the Australian Democrats I reject it. There is a second point at issue. I am amazed that the Liberal Party has not taken it into account; perhaps it is behind hand in its information. I understand from the Attorney-General that the change to this ordinance removing the word 'extreme' was signed by the Governor-General last night and will be gazetted today. Therefore, Senator Lewis is chasing something that was not there originally. He and his colleagues have put themselves in a totally absurd position. They are attempting to destroy something which has made an enormous degree of progress. Most newspapers and correspondents have said that this is of value and fundamental and that the word 'extreme' should be removed from the definition of violence. By doing so, one would put an effective bar on entry into Australia of violent material which is gratuitous and associated with the sex function. That is what the honourable senator and his colleagues want to vote against. It is the amended regulation that we are not considering. It has been amended; the Governor-General signed it last night at a quarter to six, and it will be gazetted today. They have put themselves in a totally false position. I do not see why this matter should resume at noon today, and certainly the Australian Democrats do not support that suggestion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.38) —I suppose the one person in this chamber who feels most up in the air is me. I had understood that by Senator Mason moving to disallow the Classification of Publications Ordinance, the Customs ( Cinematograph Films) Regulations and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, the Australian Democrats were seeking to stop the importation of and trafficking in hard core pornography that is going on now simply because the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will not enforce existing laws. Senator Jack Evans —It is going on now. If you disallow the regulations it will continue to go on. Senator HARRADINE —Who said so? Are we to allow the Attorney-General to continue to get away with allowing breaches of the law? We have had an example put forward by Senator Reid as to what the Attorney-General is doing or not doing as the case may be, in regard to prostitution in the Australian Capital Territory. The laws are there, as has been explained quite explicitly by Senator Lewis-the amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act which last year were adopted by the Senate. Under those amendments had we disallowed these regulations, as proposed by Senator Mason, that would have revived the old regulations. As I said, all that was needed to stop this material was the Attorney-General implementing the law as it stands today. Senator Mason —Ask Senator Durack whether he enforced them. Senator HARRADINE —I have said that in my speech on the disallowance motion. I have pointed out the situation not only so far as the Customs regulations are concerned but also so far as objectionable publications ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory are concerned. I explained where the rot set in, and the rot set in with the former Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, in 1973. Senator Mason —What about Senator Durack? Senator HARRADINE —I gave him a serve. Senator Jack Evans —Which Attorney-General is going to implement them? Senator HARRADINE —That is what I say; this is the Attorney who should enforce the laws. Because the laws are not being enforced the Democrats are saying: 'We have an open slather situation, now let us legalise it'. Senator Jack Evans —No, we are not. Senator HARRADINE —The Democrats are saying that. Let me prove that. Let me prove what they are doing because they do not know as they have been absolutely conned. Let me just explain to the Democrats how they have been miserably conned . I am concerned about that because in good faith I said to Senator Mason: 'You can go ahead with the disallowance motion. I will not move for the disallowance. I will just move for the disallowance of the regulations'. Senator Mason —You moved them on the same day. Senator HARRADINE —I did not move them on the same day. The honourable senator should read his Notice Paper. I did not move for the disallowance. Senator Mason —You gave notice of it on the same occasion. Senator HARRADINE —I did not move for the disallowance. The honourable senator has said that I moved for the disallowance of the ordinance on that day and on the other regulations, but I did not. Senator Mason —You gave notice, Senator, on the same day. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Mason is saying-- Senator Mason —You gave notice. Senator HARRADINE —Let us hear what he said. He is saying now that I gave notice on the same day that he did for the disallowance of the ordinance and for the disallowance of the Customs regulations. Did everybody hear him say that? Would everybody please go to the Notice Paper? This is how ridiculous these Democrats are. They do not even know what is on the Notice Paper. Senator Jack Evans —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I would like to discover what it is that we are debating. I have been trying to find out for the last five minutes. I ask whether the current debate has anything to do with the adjournment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question before the Chair at the moment is: 'That the words proposed to be left out by Senator Lewis's amendment be left out'. I am allowing a fairly wide-ranging debate because it is relevant to the urgency of the motion and some of the material being put before the Senate is relevant. But I ask Senator Harradine not to spend too much time on minute details in the Notice Paper. Senator HARRADINE —I am responding and showing that the Democrats do not even read their Notice Paper. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is not very relevant to the adjournment of the matter . Senator HARRADINE —Well, it is relevant to me because I did not move for the disallowance of the Australian Capital Territory ordinance. I did not move for that, as Senator Mason has suggested. Senator Mason —You did. Senator HARRADINE —I did not. Look at the damn Notice Paper. That is not even there. I did not move that because I was going to but Senator Mason said to me on that day that he would do so. Senator Mason —I did not; you asked me. Senator HARRADINE —But now, Mr Deputy President, what we have is his pulling the rug out from under those of us who were concerned to see that the disallowance proceeded to a vote on the issue. That is what the Democrats have done, and in so doing they have been absolutely conned by the Attorney-General. Let us have a look at the big deal that they have got. According to Senator Mason's Press release the big deal is that they have got compulsory censorship-whatever that might mean-in the Australian Capital Territory. What is compulsory censorship? I suppose they mean compulsory classification. That might seem to be a minor point , but it is quite important. So they say that they have compulsory classification in the Australian Capital Territory. Now bear in mind that we are talking about so-called model rules for the rest of Australia. I can tell honourable senators now that so far as the other States were concerned, particularly Tasmania, Queensland and one other State, they were not going to cop anything less than that at the meeting of the Attorneys-General tomorrow. Senator Mason —Pure speculation on your part. Senator HARRADINE —I happen to have had discussions about this matter and I know that they are not going to cop anything less, and the Attorney-General knew that so he gave the Democrats nothing, nothing that would not have been dealt with tomorrow at the meeting of the Attorneys-General. What is the other great gift of the Attorney-General to the Democrats for 'their lousy vote'?. Let us have a look at what the other one was. It is in effect to amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations by deleting the word 'extreme' contained in proposed regulation 1A (iii). That is all. Did honourable senators hear Senator Jack Evans get up here and say that the Democrats would not support the regulations as they now exist? He gave that undertaking to us. Although, of course, last night the Governor-General in Council amended these regulations to delete the word 'extreme', so presumably we will see the Democrats vote against the regulations; or will we? Senator Mason —You have misrepresented the position. Senator HARRADINE —All right, so they are not. They are satisfied with that. Senator Mason —We wanted the word 'extreme' out. Senator HARRADINE —The Democrats are satisfied with that, are they? I hope they are not satisfied with that. Senator Jack Evans —Aren't you satisfied that that is a step forward? Senator HARRADINE —No, I am not satisfied that that is a step forward because at the present moment, by law, Customs must send video tapes to the Chief Censor. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. As engaging and fascinating and informative as this contribution to the debate may be, may I suggest to you, Mr Deputy President, that it has nothing to do with the timing, which is the subject of the amendment before the House at the moment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have been listening with some concern to this debate, but because of the nature of the motion before us, which is that it should be brought on for urgent consideration, I have to allow debate on the importance of the change to be made, but I would ask honourable senators to be as brief as possible. Senator Harradine is in order. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Deputy President, it is of vital importance that this matter be determined today because what people do not seem to understand, and of course the Press has missed it altogether, is that unless we reject and disallow these amendments, for the first time-by courtesy of the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, and the Australian Democrats-the importation, sale and distribution of hard core pornography in this country will be legalised. Not only that but also, as Senator Lewis said, the question of blasphemy has been taken out too. Nobody has said anything about that. That is a matter which may be of concern to a lot of people in this country. I have not examined that situation carefully but at least the people of the nation ought to know that for the first time, by courtesy of the Attorney-General and the Australian Democrats -unless we disallow this ordinance now-we will have institutionalised in this country hard core pornography and extreme blasphemy. That is the situation proposed by Senator Mason. Under the existing law-if it is enforced-this material can be kept out of the country. He has made a great deal of the deletion of the word 'extreme'. So what do we have? The only material that is not allowed legally into the country will be that depicting child pornography, terrorism and violence. I will be careful and quote this section; it concerns 'goods' which: gratuitously depict in pictorial form violence or cruelty, especially when combined with any sexual element, to the extent they should not be imported . . . That is the other leg of the con-'to the extent they should not be imported'. Who will decide that? The Attorney-General! He will decide that, so he has conned the Australian Democrats both ways. I feel very strongly about this because I thought that Senator Mason would give the Senate the opportunity to disallow this legislation. Senator Mason —That has not been taken from you. The Senate is still able to look at the points you have made; all we are debating is the adjournment. Senator HARRADINE —Will the Australian Democrats consider what we have said when we come back to this matter and not agree out the back door to a fait accompli? If they will give that guarantee, I will sit down. Senator Mason —I have taken your point. Senator HARRADINE —Right. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.53) —Senator Jack Evans said in debating Senator Lewis's amendment that I had misrepresented the Australian Democrats' stand last night when I had said that the Democrats had backed down and that their vote had been bought by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. We will see how they vote today. Following Senator Mason's media release saying they would not vote for the disallowance today but would put it off until some time in the future because they had won certain points from the Attorney-General-and they took the kudos for doing that-I will be interested to see how they vote. To begin with, the Attorney-General has backed down on the compulsory section of the regulations. He was able to see that, on the numbers, he would lose on that anyway. That was part of the price paid. It is ludicrous and stupid, and typical of the Democrats, for them to say the Attorney-General backed down as a result of the Democrats' numbers. I put it to you, Mr Deputy President, that the Opposition has a few more numbers than the Democrats and without the Opposition' s assistance the Democrats could not do a darn thing. So for heaven's sake, they should not tell us that they accomplished this, because they did not. They did nothing about it. The Democrats have five votes, but there are also the numbers of the Liberal and National parties and Senator Harradine. So do not try to take your kudos from your five. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, will you address your remarks to the Chair, please? Senator WALTERS —Mr Deputy President, it is a bit irritating when a party with five votes tells us this action is as a result of its numbers. Senator Gareth Evans —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I suggest that Senator Walters ought not only to address her remarks through the Chair but also ought to address them to the motion. So far she has not come within a bull' s roar of addressing herself to the timing, the importance or the urgency of the matter. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, you must confine your remarks to the reason why the resumption of the debate should be at 12 noon rather than on 2 May. Senator WALTERS —As I said, the Democrats have been proved to have been bought, to have changed their minds and they will not support the disallowance of the motion at midday today. The extreme urgency of this matter is obviously completely misunderstood by the Democrats. They have said that if they move today to have this legislation disallowed it will be open slather for people to circulate hard core pornography all around the country. What on earth do the Democrats think has been happening since 1 February when the Attorney-General brought in this regulation? Exactly that. It is because this hard core pornography has been circulating around the country we are moving for a disallowance today. The Democrats want to put this matter off until some time in the future, maybe May. If the disallowance does not take place we will have the present situation for another month. If the disallowance takes place we will go back to the law of the country as it stood before 1 February. The Attorney- General could enforce that law and we would not have the open slather that we have at present. It would continue to occur if he chose not to enforce the law. I realise that some of the hard core pornography will get through Customs. Pornography will always be able to be hidden and will always escape the Customs net. But that does not mean that it is legal. It does not mean that it can come into this country in a legal fashion and be sold in every video shop in an open way. It has had to be done in a clandestine way; now, of course, it is open slather. Senator Jack Evans also said-I think these were his words-that I would like to set the standards according to my own ideas. If he had bothered to read the speech I made yesterday on this matter he would know that I called upon the Attorney, to prove support for his proposal, he having previously said that all the Australian people were behind him and wanted this- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, you must not resume the debate. The motion is purely concerned with the timing of the resumption. Senator WALTERS —No, I am not. I am expressing the urgency of this matter. I said to the Attorney-General: 'Find out before you do this'. I will read my comments from Hansard. I said: I ask the Attorney-General whether he has any evidence at all that suggests that the Australian people support the expansion of the range of hard core pornography available in this country. The range has been expanded to include X rates or Category 2 material. I asked the Attorney-General to find out from the people of the country whether they agree with him before he opens up the regulations, as indeed they will be opened up if we do not disallow this motion today. I am quite sure they will not agree with him. I am interested to see whether the Attorney-General will find out. Senator Jack Evans was incorrect when he said that I was putting up my ideas in this regard as the ones to be adopted. I asked Senator Evans to find out what the people of this country wanted. Senator Mason —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. We have the interesting situation where the debate on this motion has been overtaken by the clock. I seek your ruling on the point that the debate be resumed at 12 o'clock. It is now 12 o'clock. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! This situation has arisen before. A motion for the resumption of a debate at 12 noon, in accordance with practice, is interpreted as meaning at 12 noon or as near thereto as possible. In the past debate has been permitted to continue past the time mentioned in the motion, and I so rule on this occasion. Senator WALTERS —Sentor Mason said that one of his great victories in this matter was making compulsory the seeking of a classification of this sort of material. I believe that the Opposition was responsible for extracting from the Government that compulsory element. I come now to deal with material depicting extreme violence. If the Attorney-General removes the word 'extreme' what does that leave us? Will it mean that no material depicting violence will be able to come into the country? Senator Mason —But that is forbidden entry. Those are things that cannot come in . Senator WALTERS —I am well aware of that, Senator Mason. Will it mean that material that depicts no violence at all can come into the country? Senator Mason —In those terms. Senator WALTERS —In those terms. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Sentor Walters not to respond to interjections. Senator WALTERS —It will be interesting to see whether Senator Jack Evans sticks to that ruling of excluding material depicting extreme violence so that no material depicting any violence at all can come into the country. I have a feeling that he will come up with a different set of words rather than simply removing the word 'extreme'. It will be interesting to see whether he does. I shall take the Senate's time for only a couple of minutes more. The Classification of Publications Ordinance reads: Subject to this section, where the Censorship Board decides that a film- (a) depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person; or (b) is unsuitable for the viewing of a minor, the Board shall approve the classification of the film . . . However, that approval will be on a restricted basis. So we have the situation where the Censorship Board can allow in on a restricted basis material that is revolting or abhorrent in such a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person. The Attorney-General said that if material is revolting or abhorrent it will be allowed into the country but it will be given an X- rating. However, he says that material will not be let in if it offends against standards of morality, decency and propriety. What on earth is the Attorney- General talking about? If it is revolting and abhorrent and causes offence to a reasonable adult person, he will let it into the country anyway. But if it offends against standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by a reasonable adult person, he will not let it in. I really do not understand what the Attorney-General is talking about, and I am darned sure that the rest of the Australian community does not understand what he is talking about. Senator Harradine —But he does. Senator WALTERS —Yes, he does. He sees a big difference between something that is revolting and abhorrent and something that offends against standards of morality, decency and propriety. The Australian Democrats also see the difference between those two things. They are willing to allow all this sort of stuff to flood into the country and to be available to the Australian population for the next month or so. Indeed, the Australian Democrats have backtracked. They have let us down badly. They have done a deal. They have been bought. Senator Evans said in his speech, 'If that is what it takes to buy your lousy vote, I will do it'. That shows the sincerity of the Attorney-General of this country. Senator Mason —And he did it yesterday, what is more. Senator WALTERS —He bought the vote of the Australian Democrats. As Senator Mason said, he did it yesterday. This is the sort of language and sincerity we have in this place from the Attorney-General of Australia. The Opposition will not have a bar of that sort of sincerity. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.05) —I simply wish to indicate briefly that the Opposition will support the amendment moved by Senator Lewis. That motion seeks to bring on the debate on this matter at 12 o'clock today, but since it is now after 12 o'clock it will be at a later hour this day. If Senator Lewis's amendment is carried it will mean that the debate will continue as soon as this matter is resolved by the Senate. As Senator Lewis has already explained , the Australian Democrats seem to be under a very severe misapprehension as to what the effect of disallowing these regulations will mean. In fact, the effect of that disallowance would be that the old regulations would be revived. As I pointed out in my speech yesterday, there are a number of other laws in this country which, if enforced and administered by the States, would be able to deal with the sort of material we are talking about. Those laws would not be able to deal with that material in a totally satisfactory way, but certainly no hiatus would be created simply by disallowing these regulations. The Australian Democrats brought forward the motion seeking to disallow the regulations. When they did that they must have been aware of the situation that would arise if they succeeded in that endeavour. Yet now they are using as an argument against their own motion the effect that disallowing the regulations would have. They have adopted a completely illogical position in relation to this matter. They have done a complete U-turn in relation to their attitude to these regulations. They are satisfied with one miserable amendment that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) rushed through yesterday in order, as he said, to buy their lousy little vote. Yesterday the Attorney-General rushed through an amendment to these regulations. Have honourable senators ever seen anything more pathetic than an Attorney-General or a government in the course of a debate in this chamber rushing out to Government House for the purpose of making an amendment to their own regulations, regulations which the Attorney- General believed were a great bellwether for the new scheme in relation to which he thought he had the agreement of the States? Senator Harradine and other honourable senators have made it perfectly clear that as a result of the Attorney-General rushing ahead in bull-at-a-gate fashion and bringing down regulations at the federal level the matter is now a complete mess. He rushed through those regulations before the States had brought in their own complementary legislation, before the States had set up their new administration, before most States had made a decision about whether this material would be classified by the Censorship Board or by their own offices. A vacuum has been created as a result of the Attorney-General rushing ahead and bringing in these regulations before complementary State legislation was introduced. I have always admitted that the previous laws were not entirely satisfactory. When I was Attorney-General the Government of the day had commenced consideration of the matter and had sought Commonwealth-State agreement in relation to it. I fully acknowledge that obtaining Commonwealth- State agreement is the desirable course to follow. But we now have the worst of all worlds. A vacuum has been created at the federal level by these regulations, because whatever controls existed at the federal level have been virtually removed by the introduction of these regulations and by the fact that Customs officers have been given new instructions virtually to turn a blind eye to all of this sort of material. Senator Gareth Evans —You knew how effective the system was under you. You know how effective it was. Senator DURACK —Senator Evans knows that new instructions have been given to the Customs officers about how these new regulations are to be administered. He has said himself that very little material would be prohibited under the new regulations. Senator Gareth Evans —To bring them more into line with long-standing practice and you know it. Senator DURACK —The Attorney believes that very little material will be prohibited under these regulations. A flood of this material has come into the country. It has come in because of those regulations and because of the attitudes and policies of the Attorney-General which he is pursuing ahead of the establishment of any effective alternatives to the present laws. That is the immediate problem. That is why these regulations should be disallowed today. Then, when the Attorney-General meets with others Ministers responsible for censorship matters tomorrow-not all are State Attorneys-General-they will know clearly where this Senate stands in relation to the matter. They will then have a clear direction that they have to think again and come up with something much more satisfactory than they have so far. We will strongly support the move to have this debate continue and conclude and an attempt being made today by the Senate to disallow these regulations. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.11) -I will only take a minute of the Senate' s time to say that I am appalled at the ignorance of the Australian Democrats in denying the right of Senator Lewis to put his part in what is a most important motion. We have had many examples from the Democrats that they do not understand they have been conned by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). There would be very few people whom the Attorney-General could con in this place, but the Democrats seem to have been. At present the Senate is considering a very important issue. That is why Senator Lewis is so urgently seeking to be heard on the matter, which is his right. I remember the time when I first became a member of the Senate. At that time the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Country Party of Australia had a majority in the Senate; they had the numbers to say what went in this chamber. After I had been bored to tedium beyond expression by a member of the Australian Labor Party talking about something, I said to one of my colleagues in the Liberal Party who was sitting beside me: 'Isn't it time we moved to close off the debate?' and he replied: 'I have been here for a long time, and it is the right of everyone in the Senate to be heard. It is not a senator's right to be agreed with but it is a senator's right to be heard'. The Democrats have never learned that. I never expected the Labor Party, with its totalitarian, jack- booted approach to socialism to have those ethics, but I thought the Democrats, with their talk about fairness and justice in the community, might recognise the fundamental right of a senator to be heard in this chamber. It would be more appropriate if they were down in the House of Representatives, because they have that sort of mentality. The reason Senator Lewis must be heard is that there are no barriers under this Attorney-General's regulations to the importation of hard core pornography other than child pornography and publications which incite terrorism and publication containing extreme violence and/or sexual violence. Senator Gareth Evans —Not extreme. The law has been changed-last night. Senator MacGIBBON —My apologies. We will leave out 'extreme'; we are just fooling with words. It really has no relevance to the subject before us, which is the importance of hearing Senator Lewis. The only buttress we have against this apparently is the judgment of the Attorney-General, a judgment that is so bad that his own Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is publicly ridiculing him before meetings in this country; the judgment of a man who, it is rumoured, will be shortly removed and replaced by another Attorney-General, a man who, when Senator Reid pointed out that Canberra has brothels and that brothels are against the law, interjected: 'I haven't had enough complaints'. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator MacGibbon, you are getting rather wide of the point of why this debate should continue. Come back to the issue please. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr Deputy President, I take your point. The urgency of hearing Senator Lewis's case is that we have to rely on the judgment of this man , the highest law officer in the country, whose basic approach to law is that it is not what the law says that is the determinant of action, but the number of protests about the law being broken. On those grounds I state that Senator Lewis should be heard. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.15) —I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by Senator Lewis. There is patently an urgency that this debate should continue and the motion be put to the vote. Indeed, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has indicated that it is important that the Senate debate and the expression of the Senate should be made known to the State Ministers when they meet tomorrow. I ask the Attorney-General, as a matter of imperative need, to ensure that the Hansard of the whole debate be made available for perusal by the State Ministers before they reach their conclusions. Senator Gareth Evans —What were we doing all day yesterday? There was a cognate debate all day yesterday. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Attorney-General asks, by way of interjection: ' What were we doing all day yesterday?' All day yesterday we were under the impression, which was clearly given by the Attorney-General and the Whip to me, that we would have a full debate and that we would vote on the issue. So we know what we were doing yesterday; we were debating an important subject that had an urgency to it, an urgency which is implicit in Senator Lewis's amendment, that the expression of the Senate should be given to the State Ministers. There is now even more urgency because the debate has opened up a series of problems far wider than the two hasty clandestine amendments that were sneaked in last night by the Attorney-General. Senator Gareth Evans —There was only one and it was not clandestine. It was the most open exchange of views we have had in a long time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —On the contrary, at no stage yesterday did the Attorney-General have the courtesy to inform the Senate in a debate that was proceeding that he intended to take steps which would be imperative to the substance of the debate. That was a grave and gross discourtesy to this chamber. Let it be known: The amendment was certainly clandestine; nothing else. If there is a duty of a Minister to this chamber it is to respect the substance of the debate. To do something that is an insult to this chamber is, of course, part of the pattern and par for the course. To now say that there is no need to have a continuation of the debate and no need to put the matter to a vote is to imply that State Ministers are to draw a conclusion that the Senate is satisfied by the expedient amendments of last night. Fundamentally, the debate itself could not have shown in any way that by those two steps, whatever their merits, that is so. I give an example of that because I want to direct myself purely to the urgency aspect and not to the substance. The question that was implicit throughout the debate was a statement by the Attorney-General that there would be some absolute values and sanctions, and that a line would be drawn in a particular place. But the public outside had been arguing that the line might be drawn somewhere else; that, in fact, this is a wider and much more important subject. I wonder whether the Attorney-General and Senator Mason are interested in rejecting, for example, the views of a body called the New South Wales Women's Advisory Council. That body was set up by Mr Wran. It is scarcely some kind of prudish body; scarcely some body that is not representative of people. That body said fundamentally one thing; that the categories excluded were not good enough by far. The Council did not direct itself only to the word 'extreme' in terms of extreme violence. The Council said that material showing 'sexually explicit subordination of women, including showing women as things, commodities or objects' ought to be excluded. That is a pretty important kind of subject, is it not? What is happening is that the Senate is being invited to say to the Ministers meeting tomorrow: 'We have tidied this up. We had a debate and a couple of factors emerged'-- Senator Gareth Evans —Back to the Middle Ages. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Including a very garrulous Attorney-General, who is in retreat as always. We have tidied it up in terms of the word 'extreme' and in terms of making something compulsory. But, fundamentally, making a category compulsory does not enforce it. Indeed it does not get to the very heart of this . What is the Government doing to prevent video tapes, which parents would reject as inappropriate for juveniles, getting into the hands of those juveniles through corrupt measures? Nothing has happened. That is the very essence-the very guts, to use an Australianism-of the debate. Nothing has been resolved. The Australian Democrats can take no pride in this because they have failed to get to the important point: How do we protect juveniles in this situation? Secondly, how do we draw the line between what should and should not be excluded? Thirdly, how do we enforce those decisions? None of those questions has been asked or answered. In order to get what looks like an expedient result to save the face of the Attorney-General, there has been a compact between them to close the debate. It is a disgraceful tactic on the part of Senator Mason and his people. Let it be said that throughout the whole of this debate they have not directed themselves to the substance of the material. They are now, by a form of larrikinism, trying to force the people of Australia to believe that what they have done is good and wholesome and solves the problem. It does nothing of the kind. There is an urgency today that we express to the State Ministers tomorrow the grave concern of the Senate not only about the word 'extreme', not only about the compulsory or voluntary methods, but also about the whole range of matters. By this device of adjourning, the Democrats are trying to exclude that. Senator Mason —Do you want to pre-empt that meeting? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Mason, in one of his usual inane interjections , said: 'Do you want to pre-empt that meeting?' He asks that now. The fact is that what we want to do is to bring the views of the Senate to that meeting. Do the Democrats not want to bring the collective views of the Senate to that meeting? Do they want to pre-empt a situation in which that is so? Let me test this. I will ask the Attorney-General to give an assurance to the Senate that the whole of the transcript of this debate be made available to the State Ministers in time for them to read it before they actually come to their deliberations. I ask him to acknowledge that that will be done. I hope I do not have to take procedures in this place to see that it is done. Could I have his assurance on this? Senator Gareth Evans —Certainly. No problem. I have already made arrangements for yesterday's Hansard. Whether they will get today's in time I do not know. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Attorney-General will acknowledge that to this point in the debate I have tried to keep the substance of this debate non- combative. It is a great pity indeed that the intervention of the Democrats has made it into a form of warfare. They can take no credit for this. What was a very important debate on human values which was imperative to the understanding of the State Ministers tomorrow-it should not have been a debate on a word or two words but a whole debate on the philosophy of human values which was to be expressed to the State Ministers-has been denied to the Ministers by the action of the Democrats. When they vote against this amendment, it does not get them off the hook. They have not solved the problem. The aim was to have the status quo restored until a new situation had been developed. It is the normal practice of a parliament, and the Democrats must know this, that when something is being challenged, when it is shown to have grave defects as this has been shown to have grave defects, one resorts to the status quo while the new initiative is planned and implemented. What is happening is that instead the Democrats have refused to do that. They have taken part in a snide arrangement resulting in a patched-up situation. Senator Mason —It is still under review. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Here is another interjection from Senator Mason. My goodness, the brain fever birds are busy in this community. Those who know the habits of the brain fever birds can understand how the Democrats get their candidates. Senator Mason, by interjection, said: 'The fact is that it is still under review'. How much more important is it that the yeasting should have been allowed to go on, that the problems that still remain should be brought to the surface and a message sent to the Ministers? But no, none of the yeasting, none of the bringing out of the other points is allowed because the gag will be applied. The fact is that the clear understanding of the Democrats, given and accepted in good faith, was that this debate would proceed to a conclusion, there would be a vote and the expression of that vote would be conveyed to the State Ministers. Let this be on the heads of the Democrats. At least the Attorney- General has given an undertaking, and I respect it, that the transcripts will be made available to the Ministers so that they will have an understanding of it. Let it be understood by those Ministers that the Senate is far from satisfied that what happened last night is in any way an approach to the totality of this subject. It is looking at pimples and not looking at the body politic itself. In my judgment, the action of the Democrats is a disgrace. I therefore support Senator Lewis's amendment. (Quorum formed) Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Lewis's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Hamer, D. J. Scott, D. B. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. E. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Watson, J. O. W. Cook, P. F. S. Boswell, R. L. D. Ryan, S. M. Teague, B. C. Ray, RobertCrichton-Browne, N. A. Hearn, J. M. Rae, Peter Button, J. N. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 1 to 4 relating to the disallowance of certain regulations and an ordinance be postponed until 2 May. Debate resumed from 3 April, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.35) —The Torres Strait Treaty ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill 1984 deal with a very complicated subject and, as such, unfortunately are somewhat complicated. However, they certainly deal with a matter which is of very great importance to relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea and to Federal- State relations particularly in relation to Queensland. The Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984 implements the Torres Strait Treaty of 1978 which was made between Australia and Papua New Guinea as a result of very extensive discussions that the Commonwealth Government had with Queensland. The Torres Strait Fisheries Bill implements arrangements made under the Treaty in regard to the administration of what is known as a protective zone and the establishment of a protected zone joint authority. I will have something to say about the details of that fisheries legislation at a later point in my speech. The determination of the boundary between Australia and Papua New Guinea has had a very long history. In 1879 the islands lying to the south of Papua New Guinea were annexed by the then colony of Queensland. A line was drawn roughly between the coastline of Papua and the islands to its south, notably the islands known as Boigu, Saibai and Dauan. Their northern coastlines lie within three miles of the Papuan mainland. In 1972 the Whitlam Government opened negotiations with Papua New Guinea and there were also discussions with Queensland in relation to the problem. By that time the islands had become inhabited by persons who were Australian citizens but who crossed the narrow straits to fish and farm on the mainland. Equally, Papua New Guinean citizens travelled freely into Australian territory. At one stage the Whitlam Government sought to remove the matter to the International Court of Justice. Fortunately, that was not necessary. Negotiations commenced and were greatly hastened by the proposition of an environmental zone to cover this area. In 1974 the Queensland Parliament passed a motion calling on the Commonwealth to establish a marine park in the area. In all events, after the Fraser Government was elected and particularly due to the enthusiasm and a great deal of attention given to this project by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock, the present Leader of the Opposition, a treaty resulted in 1978. The major feature of the treaty is the delineation of a clear border between Papua New Guinea and Australia, the median line being drawn between Papua New Guinea and the islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai. This line in fact is a little to the south of the earlier 1879 line to which I referred. I also mention that a protected zone is to be established, the boundary of which will encircle the area from the north of the Thursday Island group to the islands off the Papua New Guinea mainland. The Torres Strait Islanders and coastal Papuans will be allowed to travel without restriction in this protected zone. As I said, there were separate negotiations between Papua New Guinea and Australia in relation to shared rights in this zone. A separate fisheries jurisdiction line is identical with the seabed line except in the Torres Strait area in the protected zone where it is drawn to include the islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai. But concessions had to be made in order to obtain a sensible balance between the rights of Papua New Guinea and those of Australia. If every island in the Torres Strait owned by Australia were given a territorial sea of 12 miles, the fishing rights of Papua New Guinea would virtually have been extinguished. So the islands did not extend the territorial sea beyond three miles and the fishing jurisdiction line is designed to restore rights to the islands which were lost to them in the decision to hold to a three-mile territorial sea. The fishing administrations of both countries are involved in balancing the conservation of species on which the traditional fishermen depend for a subsistence livelihood with the requirements of commercial fishermen. The administration of the conservation aspect will certainly present problems. The legislation empowers the Minister for Primary Industry to regulate commercial fishing by prohibition of certain activities; setting legal minimum or maximum lengths of fish; prohibition on the use of certain equipment; reserving certain fisheries for the local community and so forth. Australia must co-ordinate its arrangements with those of Papua New Guinea if the zone arrangements are to work for the purpose of conservation objects. Moreover, the Australian position has to be co-ordinated between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland. A joint Commonwealth-State authority will administer the policies to ensure a co-ordinated approach. The main aim is to keep the condition of fisheries under review and to formulate forward policies and plans. What has been worked out, however, between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland and between Australia and Papua New Guinea is a very great tribute to the process of negotiation and consultation. As I said, this work was put in place by the Fraser Government, particularly during the period that Mr Peacock was Foreign Minister. It is a very important example of the capacity of those who have the will to achieve co-operative federalism to work both at a State level and, of course, on an international plane. The Opposition is clearly in support of both these measures. I will move an amendment at the Committee stage to the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill 1984 but I do not propose to detain the Senate with details of that kind during this second reading debate. As I said, the Opposition is happy to support both Bills. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.43) —The Australian Democrats support the Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill 1984. We are very happy to see that, with the passage of the Bills, Australia will at least be able to ratify the 1978 Torres Strait Treaty. We have been impressed, having read the Bills, by the complexity of the task in preparing this legislation to complement the treaty. Finding consensus positions is never easy in such diverse matters. We can certainly find nothing in these Bills with which to disagree. I congratulate the Government on the legislation and look forward to similar legislation being introduced by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Queensland. As I said before, the Australian Democrats will be voting in favour of the legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.44) —I am indebted to the Senate for its support and I wish the Bills a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(1.45) —The first reading debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84 provides the opportunity for some consideration to be given to one of the major problems that confront Australia today and that is the plight of the Australian manufacturing industry. All honourable senators will be aware of the massive decline of the manufacturing sector over the last 20 years. Honourable senators with an interest in manufacturing will also know that the lack of considered community discussion on this subject is a matter of concern. Unfortunately, a change in methods used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics means that figures before and after 1968 are not comparable and because of this detailed analysis largely has to be limited to the last 15 or 16 years. Unfortunately, they are not a very happy 15 or 16 years. The statistics group of the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library has at my request compiled a table which demonstrates how the manufacturing sector fared in the period 1968-69 to 1981-82. I will seek leave to have that tabled incorporated in Hansard subsequently. One of the things that is revealed in the table is a decline in employment in the manufacturing sector. In 1968-69 the manufacturing sector employed an average of 1,264,037 Australians . This meant that more than one in every four working Australians were employed in manufacturing. In 1981-82 the manufacturing sector employed an average of 1, 154,659 Australians, approximately 110,000 jobs fewer than in 1968-69. Thus, in 1981-82 one in five Australians were employed in the manufacturing industry. Those who are more concerned about money than people should also take note of the share of gross domestic product contributed by manufacturing. It dropped from 27.2 per cent in 1968 to 20.2 per cent in 1981-82. As bad as all these figures sound they do not include the massive shake out that took place in the second half of the calendar year 1982. The magazine Australian Business reported that in the 12 months to October 1983, last year, 93,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector. That means that employment in manufacturing contracted to around 16.5 per cent of the work force by October last year. Approximately one in every six Australian workers therefore is employed in manufacturing. Of some importance is the fact that Australian Business also reported last October that the idle capacity in manufacturing was at an all time record level. Fortunately, the situation is changing but it has to be of great concern. It is quite obvious that to a very large degree this crisis in manufacturing was directly associated with the large jump in unemployment in Australia in the second half of 1982. Of course, these matters spell bad news for all Australians . An economy with high levels of idle productive capacity and unemployment is an unhealthy economy. The Hawke Government has taken a whole series of decisions in attempting to turn round the situation that we inherited a little over a year ago. I remind honourable senators and you, Mr President, that the dole is, at $ 73.50, well below the poverty line. On that kind of income the struggle for basic acommodation, food and clothing is demoralising and debilitating. The most prudent individuals in that situation face such a rapid decline in their savings that they will take a great time to recover even when they gain employment. Clearly, the two problems, the manufacturing crisis and unemployment, create a mutually reinforcing dilemma. The consumption of goods and services and the health of the manufacturing sector depend largely on the level of disposable income in the hands of ordinary Australians. When a significant proportion of Australians are unemployed and their disposable income is drastically reduced, consumption, or demand as the economists would refer to it, must be adversely affected. However, in the last few months there has been an upturn in the economy that the Hawke Government can claim so much credit for. The Bureau of Statistics reported on 27 February that there had been an increase in production across almost all the manufacturing sector in the last three months. This follows the pick-up in retail sales in the final quarter of last year. Whilst this undoubtedly reflects in part the breaking of the drought and perhaps to a lesser extent the important developments in the United States economy, the simple position is that two policies of the Labor Government have laid the basis for the increase in demand. The first is the implicit development of the 1983 Budget and, of course, the fillip to the economy that that Budget caused and the second is the rejection of the Fraser wage freeze and the reintroduction of wage indexation. Yesterday's decision means that there will be more money in the pockets of wage and salary earners. Disposable income will increase and this will assist the mass consumption and production that society depends on. I believe that full indexation ensures the maintenance of demand for goods and services. Without indexation, of course, and if we were to accept the piecemeal policy that the Opposition seems to be wedded to, we would lose the stimulus to the economy that yesterday's decision will finally mean. Despite the recent improvement, however, unemployment remains at an unacceptable high of 9.4 per cent. Getting back to the manufacturing industry I think that to put it in perspective, we have to compare the sectors of the economy, and look at the agricultural and mining sections. In those sections 7.5 per cent of the work force is unemployed. Any increase in mining or agriculture will certainly not significantly reduce unemployment. Of course, I have always taken the view that Australia cannot afford to be a mine or quarry and that if we follow that path we will become a Third World country. That is the reason why I put so much emphasis on the revitalisation of the manufacturing sector. It is the productive engine of the economy and as a nation we must be determined to revitalise the manufacturing sector in order to revitalise the Australian economy. This Government is doing that but I express concern with the general decline in the manufacturing industry over the 16 years to which I have referred. I refer to an industry that I have had some experience with, the printing and paper industry and kindred trades. The printing industry is a significant industry. It is the same size as the fabricated metal segment of the metal industry. The statistics group of the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library has compiled at my request, a table which shows how the printing, paper and allied industries fared between 1968-69 and 1981-82. I will seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard at the conclusion of my speech. The table shows that there has been a loss of some 5,000 jobs in the paper industry in the period to which I have referred. In contrast, employment increased by some 6,000 in the printing sector, giving a relative balance to the whole industry. Again, however, the Bureau of Statistics' figures on which this table is based do not include the period from July 1982. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has estimated that employment in the printing, paper and allied industries has decreased by some 10,000 since November 1980. Clearly this parallels the decline in employment in the manufacturing industry generally. The figure of 10,000 represents a decline of 8 .7 per cent in employment in printing. Two factors have a major impact on the printing industry. They are typical of the problem in manufacturing industry generally. The first of these is the trend towards taking printing off-shore. I give this particular emphasis because it is a great threat to the printing industry. In 1980-81, $286m worth of printing products were imported into Australia. This amount rose by 11 per cent in 1981- 82 to $318m. In the last financial year, 1982-83, imports of printed products into Australia rose by 13 per cent to $360m. Much of this off-shore printing is being done in countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong, both of which receive preferential treatment in relation to tariffs because they are classified as developing countries. Yet multinational corporations have injected large amounts of capital into printing operations in these countries to ensure that they are equipped with the most up-to-date machinery. This means that Australian printing workers are competing against workers in Singapore and Hong Kong. Those non-unionised workers are paid between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the wages of their counterparts. It is no wonder that they can sometimes print more cheaply. In response to these developments, the printing employees and the Printing and Kindred Industries Union have combined to support a campaign to keep printing in Australia. I speak partly today in support of this campaign. The printing employers organisations and the Printing and Kindred Industries Union realise that they have to take this step for the health of their own industry. They believe that if the $360m in off-shore printing were done in Australia it would produce 12,500 jobs for Australians. Part of the recovery we so much need would be achieved by this. I referred to the factors which have a major impact on printing in Australia. I have indicated that the first is off-shore printing. In the very short time I have left I will refer to technological change. It is another factor that has affected the printing industry in leaps and bounds as it has affected other parts of manufacturing. I do not have time to develop the argument about technological change because I want to refer to some research that was compiled by the Bureau of Industry Economics. It indicates that the labour co-efficient will drop by half in the printing industry between 1979 and 1990. I have indicated the rate of change in the printing industry which is reflective of the rate of decline in employment in manufacturing industry generally. It is of great concern that, if the estimate is correct, employment in the printing industry will decline by 50 per cent, and only half the number of people will be required to produce the same output. Alternatively, if employment is to be preserved in the printing industry, it will be necessary to increase its production by 100 per cent. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Senator Childs, do you wish to incorporate some material in Hansard? Senator CHILDS —I seek leave to incorporate the tables to which I have referred. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 MANUFACTURING SECTOR 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75(c) (1) Employment (a) (number) 1,264,037 1,296,640 (b) 1,301,639 1,297,095 1,338, 379 1,245,237 (2) Value added ($m) 7,475.5 8,261.7 (b) 9,696.6 10,725.9 13,149. 1 15,231.6 (3) Total Employment (August) . . 5,183,000 5,395,600 5,515,000 5, 609,900 5,783,000 5,855,200 (4) Manufacturing as a % of Total Employment 25.1 24.5 23.7 23.9 23.5 21.6 21.7 (5) Manufacturing % share of G.D.P. 27.2 26.7 26. 5 25.6 24.8 24.4 23.1 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 (1) Employment (a) (number) 1,200,440 1,175,831 1,144,549 1,143,891 1,154,170 1 ,149,838 1,154,659 . . (2) Value added ($m) 16,921.0 19,234.3 20,236.3 22,230.1 25,596.2 28,531.1 31,377.7 . . (3) Total Employment (August) 5,841,300 5,897,800 5,995,400 5,969,600 6,041,500 6,246,700 6,356,300 6,347,600 (4) Manufacturing as a % of Total Employment 21.3 19.9 20.2 19.7 19.4 18.8 18.2 . . (5) Manufacturing % share of G.D.P. 23.0 22.4 22.0 21.0 20.7 20.6 209.2 . . (a) Average over the whole year. (b) There was no Manufacturing Census held in 1970-71. (c) From 1974-75 employment and value added figures exclude establishments employing less than 4 persons. Compiled at the request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service from information contained in Manufacturing Establishments and, Gross Product by Industry, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 5 April 1984 SENATE 1265 1266 SENATE 5 April 1984 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Table 2 PRINTING, PAPER AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75(c) Printing and Allied Industries- (1) Employment (a) (number) 72,007 75,607 (b) 75,436 75,117 76,594 73,168 (2) Value added ($m) 416.1 467.9 (b) 541.1 614.1 739.0 863.9 Paper and Paper Products- (3) Employment (a) (number) 29,558 29,375 (b) 30,892 30,378 31,440 29,902 (4) Value added ($m) 204.6 233.9 (b) 277.0 301.3 371.5 415.5 Total Printing and Paper Industries- (5) Employment (a) (number) 101,565 104,982 (b) 106,328 105,495 108,034 103, 070 (6) Value added ($m) 620.7 701.8 (b) 818.1 915.4 1,110.5 1,279.4 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 Printing and Allied Industries- (1) Employment (a) (number) 70,567 69,767 70,176 71,987 75,564 77,195 78,271 ( 2) Value added ($m) 943.0 1,097.8 1,227.0 1,350.7 1,595.5 1,841.9 2,125.0 Paper and Paper Products- (3) Employment (a) (number) 27,322 27,618 26,968 26,055 26,008 25,215 24,642 ( 4) Value added ($m) 448.5 516.5 535.9 610.1 653.1 726.2 859.2 Total Printing and Paper Industries- (5) Employment (a) (number) 97,989 97,385 97,144 98,042 101,572 102,410 102, 913 (6) Value added ($m) 1,391.5 1,614.3 1,762.9 1,960.8 2,248.6 2,568.1 2,984 .2 (a) Average over the whole year. (b) There was no Manufacturing Census held in 1970-71. (c) From 1974-75 employment and value added figures excluded establishments employment less than 4 persons. Compiled at the request by the statistics group of the legislative research service from information contained in manufacturing establishments and Gross product by industry, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(1.02) —Senator Townley has agreed for me to precede him in this debate and I thank him for that. I use the opportunity of the first reading debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84 to highlight some points with respect to the nuclear industry. Of course, this subject is of great significance to Australia and has been the subject of many debates in the Senate chamber over the last year or so. It seems that a lot of the debate hinges on whether there is a demand in the world at the moment for our uranium and a lot of debate has surrounded the motive argument of how to deal with radioactive waste. Later I would like to incorporate in Hansard some facts associated with the disposal of high level radioactive waste. It seems that the Press is at last recognising intelligently some of the points that members of the Opposition have been trying to make with respect to the significance of the nuclear industry and our capacity to provide resources for the rest of the world. In the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday there was an interesting article headed 'Asia on the nuclear high road'. The article was written by Michael Richardson, reporting from Singapore. The first paragraph states: As Australian unions and the ALP agonise over whether to permit full-scale uranium mining and export, the list of Asian nations committed to using nuclear power to generate electricity is growing steadily longer. The article goes on to demonstrate how the expansion of electricity production through nuclear power stations is going on in that part of the world. Rather than waste time quoting from that article I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Asia on the nuclear high road As Australian unions and the ALP agonise over whether to permit full-scale uranium mining and export, the list of Asian nations committed to using nuclear power to generate electricity is growing steadily longer. Michael Richardson reports from Singapore. One newcomer, Vietnam, put its name on the nuclear energy roll-call last month. Two others, Indonesia and China, confirmed their intention to take the atomic route, and Malaysia announced it would build a nuclear research reactor with help from Pakistan. Many parts of Asia are going nuclear, whether Australia likes it or not. The question the Labor movement must decide is whether Australia will exploit its valuable uranium resources and exercise some influence over the course of events. Although the nuclear power industry has been bedevilled in recent years by controversy over safety and high capital costs in a number of Western countries, many Asian nations see it as essential for their future economic health and independence. In Asia, planners have been looking at the experience of Japan and two other rapidly industrialising countries in the region, South Korea and Taiwan, where nuclear power so far has proven to be cost-efficient and relatively trouble-free . Japan, the only country ever attacked with atomic weapons, has managed to contain public anxieties about nuclear power since the first commercial reactor went into operation in 1966. It now has 24 nuclear plants putting electricity into the national grid, 13 under construction and seven more planned. The atom generates 19 per cent of the country's electricity and the target for 1990 is 27 per cent. Japan which imports nearly all its oil and more than 83 per cent of its coal, has found that a kilowatt of nuclear energy costs 5.2 US cents, compared with 5. 8 cents for the same amount of electricity generated by coal and 7.3 cents for power from oil. South Korea's three nuclear power plants provide about 17 per cent of national electricity needs. Six more plants are due to come on stream by 1989 and will lift the nuclear share to 47 per cent. Taiwan has four atomic stations providing 40 per cent of total electricity generated. As Asia goes nuclear, three principle concerns are emerging within the region and outside: operational safety standards, disposal of spent fuel rods and dangerous by-products, and whether development of nuclear power for electricity generation will provide the means, and perhaps the inducement, to produce nuclear weapons, triggering a new and even more dangerous version of the arms race. NUCLEAR POWER: THE ASIAN VIEW South Asia may be on the threshold of just that kind of nuclear rivalry. India and Pakistan, which have fought three wars since British colonial rule ended and the subcontinent was divided in 1947, have both got nuclear power stations producing electricity. India has four plants which provide 3 per cent of electricity output and one more station is being built, with eight on the drawing boards. Pakistan has two nuclear plants, but they provide less than 1 per cent of electricity generated. But neither India nor Pakistan has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which binds signatories not to manufacture nuclear weapons. And both countries have moved beyond using nuclear power for producing electricity and have begun to scramble higher up the nuclear ladder. India exploded a nuclear devise in 1974, but insists its atomic program is entirely peaceful. In February last year New Delhi denied US reports that it had started stockpiling plutonium suitable for use in nuclear bombs. Vietnam announced on 19 March that it would build nuclear power plants to generate electricity, a move likely to worry its arch-rival China and some of its non-communist neighbours in South-East Asia, which fear that it will give Hanoi the ability to develop nuclear weapons. Vietnam said it had put its first nuclear research reactor into operation with Soviet assistance. It said the 500-kilowatt reactor, in Dalat in the central highlands province of Am Dong would be used to train personnel ''for the country 's future nuclear power generation program, analysing mineral or biological samples and producing necessary isotopes for medical and agricultural research institutions''. Vietnam's announcement coincided with a similar statement in Indonesia, where a new 30-megawatt research reactor, designed by a West German company, is being built at Serpong, 25 kilometres south-west of Jakarata. At the same time, a spokeswoman for the Energy Ministry in Manila confirmed that the Philippines which is heavily dependent on imported oil, is preparing to bring South-East Asia's first commercial nuclear power plant into full operation early next year. The big 620-megawatt station, nearing completion at Morong on the Bataan Peninsula north-west of Manila, will provide about 16 per cent of the nation's electricity. Indonesia-which has abundant supplies of oil, natural gas, coal and probably uranium-already has two small atomic research reactors in the cities of Bandung and Jogjakarta. The 30-megawatt Serpong reactor is due to become fully operational in 1987 and official spokesmen have said in the past that the Government would wait until then before deciding whether to launch a nuclear power program. However, President Soeharto was quoted last December by the official Antara news agency as saying Indonesia would need nuclear energy to provide power for future industrial development and should not become over-reliant on oil for future energy needs. Both Indonesia and the Philippines have ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and agreed to allow all their nuclear facilities to be inspected by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). So has Malaysia. The agency was set up in 1957 to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent its diversion for military purposes. Spent fuel from nuclear plants and research reactors contain by-products, including plutonium, which can be used to provide the massive explosive power of nuclear weapons. Eight kilograms of plutonium 239 would be enough to make an atomic bomb as powerful as that which devastated the Japanese city of Nagasaki at the end of World War II. More than 110 of the 158 members of the United Nations adhere to the non- proliferation treaty. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have all ratified the NPT, and Vietnam has signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. But China has refused to sign the NPT, on much the same grounds as India and Pakistan: that it discriminates unfairly between members of the original nuclear weapons club and other countries. China has built and tested nuclear weapons but does not yet have any nuclear power stations in operation. But Vice-Premier Li Peng, in a report on energy development to the people's consultative conference in Peking last month, said two nuclear plants would be built by 1985 and another two between 1986 and 1990. Construction had already begun on a 300-megawatt plant in Qinshan, Zhejiang province, and preparatory work had started on a 1,800-megawatt pressurised water reactor station at Daya Bay in Guangdong, which is being planned in co- ordination with nearby Hong Kong. Mr Li said China would set up a national safety supervisory committee and adopt strict protective measures for peaceful use of nuclear energy. Senator JESSOP —An article in today's Australian was written by Mr Leslie Kemeny who is a senior lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of New South Wales. The article commences: At the beginning of 1984, Australia stands at the crossroads in respect of its full scale development of the uranium mining industry and its potential involvement in other aspects of the global nuclear fuel cycle. I seek leave for that article to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- AUSTRALIA STANDING AT NUCLEAR CROSSROADS By Leslie Kemeny At the beginning of 1984, Australia stands at the crossroads in respect of its full scale development of the uranium mining industry and its potential involvement in other aspects of the global nuclear fuel cycle. With proven economically recoverable uranium resources which are possibly the greatest in the western world and the possibility of effective market penetration to meet the energy requirements of our industralised trading partners over the next four decades, the Australian producers are confronted with enormous challenges and opportunities. Unfortunately, the imponderable and unpredictable socio-political interferences of successive Australian governments with both the free market forces and the informed realism of technologists, economists and industrialists could adversely affect the industry. Unless care and discernment is exercised by our elected decision makers, Australia's reputation as a responsible and reliable supplier of a valuable fuel could suffer irreparable damage. The Hawke Government's recently announced willingness to modify the Labor Party 's official platform on uranium mining has, so far, enabled two existing major producers to fulfil contractural obligations and a third major producer has been able to take first steps to enter the market place. Senator Walsh, Minister for Resources and Energy, now appears prepared to recommend even further steps to expedite the growth of the industry. Competition However, the socio-political implications of a Federal Government and a Caucus divided on nuclear energy issues has already created tremendous problems in State-Commonwealth relationships. Antagonisms now exist between Canberra and State governments, which completely transcend party political affiliations. A typical example of this is in the Northern Territory, where both Labor and Liberal parties, the Aboriginal people and the Northern Land Council wish to see uranium mining proceed post haste at Jabiluka (Pancontinental Mines) and Koongarra (Dennison Mines). The declaration of Stage II of Kakadu National Park is seen by many as a blatant example of political expediency. The commonly held view, supported by professional ecologists and State legislators, is that the two projects should be allowed to proceed in their approved mining lease ''corridors''. Their impact on the environment would be minimal, in no way negating the tourist potential of the area. It is further recognised that the economic benefits to Aboriginal people, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth Government of these two projects would be enormous. Meanwhile, Australia's giant South-East Asian neighbours-designated patronisingly as ''Third World'' or ''developing'' countries-have all but eclipsed Australia in their practical development of nuclear power technology and their commitment to the peaceful use of the nuclear fuel cycle for base-load energy production. Within two decades, it is possible that Australia will have regressed to a position of being the poor, under-developed country of the Pacific Basin. All the buzz words of ''technological innovation'' and ''sunrise industries'' will become meaningless as we face the competition of cheap labor, plentiful and cheap energy and the aspiration for develpment shown by the ASEAN countries, China, South Korea, Taiwan, the countries of the Indian subcontinent and, in particular, our nearest neighbor, Indonesia. These countries represent over half the world's population. Recently, in China, I was a guest of the Ministry for Nuclear Industry and had the opportunity to visit many nuclear installations, to lecture and to take part in high-level discussions concerning China's nuclear power program. Construction At the Southwest Reactor Institute, near Chengdu, Sichuan Province, I was amazed to see a 125mW engineering test reactor of Chinese design. This facility will assist in the design and construction of two small power reactors in the Shanghai area, one for electricity production and the other to supply steam to the Shanghai Chemical Works. I was informed that negotiations were far advanced for three major nuclear power stations of possibly 1000mW each to be supplied by, perhaps, a French- English consortium. This could add as much as 20 per cent to China's presently installed electrical generating capacity. Even the impoverished nation of Bangladesh has established the technological, financial and environmental advantages of a small nuclear power station to be built at Roopoor, some 120km southwest of Dhaka. In Indonesia, the professional staff of the Atomic Energy Agency has been steadily increased in three separate research establishments to nearly four times that of our own Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The construction of a 30mW multi-purpose research reactor is well advanced in the vicinity of Jakarts in anticipation of the building of Indonesia's first power reactor-a 650mW unit-on the west coast of Java, 180km from Bandung. This unit, which could be either a Canadian Candu or pressurised water system, will itself add some 25 per cent to Java's total installed electrical generating capacity supplying a population of nearly 100 million people. While Australia continues to limit the staff and technical program of its Atomic Energy Commission and may downgrade the activities of its educational institutions in the field of nuclear engineering and nuclear technology, Indonesia has established a second major centre for the teaching of nuclear engineering at Yogjakarta at the Gadjah Mada University. The present enrolment in this department is in excess of 100 and steadily increasing. What could well have been a true ''sunrise industry'' for Australia two decades ago, leading to a significant high technology role for this country in the South -East Asia region, has been allowed to pass to more resourceful and more highly motivated hands. Mr Leslie Kemeny is senior lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of NSW. Senator JESSOP —I maintain successive governments have failed to recognise the significance of this industry to Australia. I say that in criticism of the previous Government. We were restrictive in allowing the industry to develop initiatives in this country. While we are failing to establish those initiatives other countries are taking advantage of our sluggishness and capturing a market that will be very important to the world from about the year 1990 onwards. The articles that I have incorporated in Hansard demonstrate how the demand for electricity through nuclear power stations will grow for that period onwards. I will read an extract dealing with prospects for increased uranium requirements in the United States of America. It states: Statistics show that most US nuclear utilities fail to produce as much kilowatt hours from their plants as comparable foreign utilities produce from theirs. With only improvement in control of plant outage time and without additional plant installations a potential annual increase in uranium requirement of about 1,000 tonnes could reasonably be expected in the United States of America alone. We listen to arguments from the left wing of the Labor Party and also from the Australian Democrats about making bombs through nuclear power stations. Those of us who have studied this matter know that it requires a special type of plutonium to make a bomb. It is certainly quite uneconomical even to contemplate making a bomb with plutonium that is produced by a commercial power station. That is a lot of nonsense and it ought to be exploded totally from a scientific and engineering point of view. I am talking about an emotional explosion. It interests me to learn that radiation is with us in our own environment. Senator Townley and I did a little research on the radiation occurring in the vicinity of Parliament House yesterday. An instrument called the scintillation counter measures gamma radiation. We found in the garden of Parliament House that the natural radiation emitted was about a third of the radiation evident in my office. The radiation in Canberra is probably about eight times that which would be evident in Melbourne. So I think it is about time we looked at the associated scientific facts. In the last few moments I have in which to speak I will talk a little about radioactive waste management. Before doing that though, I want to say that I read with great interest the other day that the New York railway station is emitting more radiation at any one moment than would be allowable in nuclear power stations in that country. I do not hear the environmentalists in America wanting to tear down the New York railway station. They would not do that, but if they only realised that that building is irradiating more than a nuclear power station would ever be allowed to they might start ripping down buildings throughout the world. I suggest, Mr Deputy President, that the documents I have relating to the disposal of high level radioactive waste would be of interest to people who read Hansard and others who might be interested in this subject. The documents come from a collection of organisations interested in uranium and nuclear energy. I will read a few paragraphs from the first page. It states: In public debate and the statement of political positions regarding the acceptability of uranium mining and nuclear electricity generation it is often asserted that there is no demonstrated method of isolating high level radioactive waste materials for periods sufficiently long to ensure the safety of future generations. Whilst it is true that no material has yet been actually placed in terminal isolation there is a high level of confidence amongst competent national and international bodies that this can be satisfactorily achieved. The following 24 excerpts assembled by the International Atomic Energy Agency of Vienna in 1982 give an indication of the level of confidence that exists. A background statement reads: A public concern about the worldwide development of electricity production by nuclear energy is the possible danger arising from high level radioactive materials which result from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. These so called high level radioactive wastes emit intense and dangerous radiation and whilst their radioactivity decays with time it is esential that they be effectively contained and isolated for several hundred years to ensure that neither the contained radioactive fission products or nuclides (i.e. high atomic radioactive elements) enter the atmosphere, water supply or food chain. Spent fuel, which contains the highly radioactive fission products from nuclear electricity power stations, has been handled and stored for 25 years and in some countries the reprocessing of spent fuel is now well established. The amount of high level waste produced by the nuclear electricity generating industry is quite small, of the order of 1,000 kilograms of material in solid form per year of operation for a 1,000 megawatt power station which under Australian conditions would serve the needs of approximately 750,000 people. Because high level wastes generate heat as a result of the radioactive decay processes it is necessary that they be contained in specially designed equipment for several decades before consignment to a permanent isolation repository. This is necessary in order the maximize the stability of the material before final intended disposal, in stable geological structures deep underground. Mr Deputy President, I have shown these document to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and he has agreed to the incorporation in Hansard . I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- URANIUM AND NUCLEAR ENERGY THE DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE In public debate and the statement of political positions regarding the acceptability of uranium mining and nuclear electricty generation it is often asserted that there is no demonstrated method of isolating high level radioactive waste materials for periods sufficiently long to ensure the safety of future generations. Whilst it is true that no material has yet been actually placed in terminal isolation there is a high level of confidence amongst competent national and international bodies that this can be satisfactorily achieved. The following 24 excerpts assembled by the International Atomic Energy Agency of Vienna in 1982 give an indication of the level of confidence that exists. Background A public concern about the worldwide development of electricity production by nuclear energy is the possible danger arising from high level radioactive materials which result from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. These so called high level radioactive wastes emit intense and dangerous radiation and whilst their radioactivity decays with time it is essential that they be effectively contained and isolated for several hundred years to ensure that neither the contained radioactive fission products or nuclides (i.e. high atomic weight radioactive elements) enter the atmosphere, water supply or food chain. Spent fuel, which contains the highly radioactive fission products from nuclear electricity power stations, has been handled and stored for 25 years and in some countries the reprocessing of spent fuel is now well established. The amount of high level waste produced by the nuclear electricity generating industry is quite small, of the order of 1,000 kilograms of material in solid form per year of operation for a 1,000 megawatt power station which under Australian conditions would serve the needs of approximately 750,000 people. Because high level wastes generate heat as a result of the radioactive decay processes it is necessary that they be contained in specially designed equipment for several decades before consignment to a permanent isolation repository. This is necessary in order to maximize the stability of the material before final intended disposal, in stable geological structures deep underground. INDEX Item 1 1975, U.S. Academy of Sciences Item 2 1976, U.S. Federal Energy Resources Council Item 3 1976, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Item 4 1976, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Item 5 1977, Ford Foundation, Administered by Mitre Corporation Item 6 1977, International Atomic Energy Agency Item 7 1977, Nuclear Energy Agency Item 8 1977, Reactor Safety Commission (RSK) and Radiological Protection Commission (SSK) Item 9 1978, American Physical Society Item 10 1978, Nuclear Fuel Safety Group Item 11 1978, Elkraft and Elsam Item 12 1978, AICHE Item 13 1979, U.S. National Research Council Item 14 1979, I.A.E.A. International Symposium Item 15 1979, U.S. Department of Energy Item 16 1979, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Item 17 1979, Iteragency Review Group (IRG) Item 18 1979, Electric Power Research Institute Item 19 1980, International Nuclear Fuel Item 20 1980, United States Department of Energy Item 21 1981, H M S O Item 22 1981, World Health Organisation Item 23 1981, Nuclear Energy Agency Item 24 1981, International Atomic Energy Agency Item 1 1975 US ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COMMITTEE ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT Washington, D.C. ''Interim Storage of High Level Radioactive Wastes'' ''The prospective accumulation of radioactive wastes derived from nuclear- fission reactors presents a challenging, but resolvable, problem to modern society. Sufficient knowledge is available to proceed immediately with developing a plan for interim, retrievable, and safe surface storage.'' Item 2 1976 US FEDERAL ENERGY RESOURCES COUNCIL MANAGEMENT OF COMMERCIAL RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTES Washington, D.C. Richardson, E. ''It is scientifically and technologically feasible to manage these radioactive wastes in a safe manner. This is based on the know-how and technology amassed through research, development and demonstration as documented in *ERDA's comprehensive report titled, 'Alternatives for Managing Wastes from Reactors and Post-Fission Operations in the LWR Fuel Cycle'. This document explains the technological options available to achieve multiple barrier isolation which includes three successive steps: (1) solidification of high-level nuclear wastes to a stable form, (2) the encapsulation of the solid, and (3) the storage of the containers in known, stable underground geological formations.'' * Energy Resources & Development Administration. Item 3 1976 ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION NUCLEAR POWER AND THE ENVIRONMENT London, United Kingdom Flowers, B. ''Nuclear Power and the Environment'' ''We have concluded that there are essentially two reasonable options for the permanent disposal of high level vitrified waste, namely geologic formations on land and below the ocean floor in stable areas. Although we are not ourselves able to judge at this stage whether either of these options would be safe, we are sufficiently persuaded by the arguments advanced by the IGS (Institute of Geological Sciences) and the IOS (Institute of Oceanic Sciences), who have no commitment to the promotion of fission power and who appeared to be expressing in consensus of views among their professional peers that each offers a big enough chance of success to be worth pursuing seriously.'' Item 4 1976 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REPROCESSING & WASTE MANAGEMENT PORTIONS Washington, D.C. ''Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle'', NUREG-0116 ''Long-term impacts will be non-existent if the repository performs as expected and maintains the wastes in isolation. The rationale for sequestration of the wastes in a geological medium follows the simple line: since the geologic formation has been demonstrably undisturbed for many million of years, there is reason to believe that it will remain undistributed into the future, even though mildly modified by placing the wastes into it.'' Item 5 1977 FORD FOUNDATION, ADMINISTERED BY MITRE CORPORATION ISSUES AND CHOICES REPORT Boston, Massachusetts ''Issues and Choices, Report of the Nuclear Energy Policy Study Group'' ''We are convinced that nuclear wastes and plutonium can be disposed of permanently in a safe manner. If properly buried deep underground in geologically stable formations, there is little chance that these materials will re-enter the environment in dangerous quantities. Even if material were somehow to escape eventually in larger quantities than seems possible, it would not consistute a major catastrophe, or even a major health risk, for future civilizations.'' Item 6 1977 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY IAEA TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES NO. 177 Vienna, Austria ''Site Selection Factors for Repositories of Solid High-Level and Alpha-Bearing Wastes in Geological Formations'' ''The general characteristics of geological formations and the factors to be considered for the emplacement of high-level and alpha-bearing waste into geological formations support the validity of this disposal concept, since the long-term containment of the radionuclides can be ensured by geological barriers without reliance being placed on additional measures by man.'' Item 7 1977 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION & DEVELOPMENT Paris, France ''Objectives, Concepts and Strategies for the Management of Radioactive Waste Arising from Nuclar Power Programmes'' ''The nuclear industry has the technical ability and means to ensure the safe handling and storage of all types of radioactive waste, for periods of time which could be as long as a century or more if necessary.'' Item 8 1977 REACTOR SAFETY COMMISSION (RSK) and RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION COMMISSION (SSK) Federal Republic of Germany ''Fundamental Realizability of the Waste Treatment and Storage Centre from the Safety Engineering Aspects'' ''In the view of the RSK and the SSK, if radioactive waste is properly treated and placed in final storage in suitable salt domes and if the recommendations stated are taken into account, safe sealing against the biosphere and the necessary protection with regard to the radiological effects of the final store can be ensured.'' ''Knowledge of the parameters decisive for the safe design of a final store mine, (e.g. temperature of the glass blocks, heating of the salt dome, thermal- mechanical loading capacity of the salt rock), is sufficient to state with certainty that salt domes suitable for final storage of radioactive waste are available in the North German area''. RSK-ReaktorsicherheitskommissionSSK-Strahlenschutzkommission Item 9 1978 AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY STUDY GROUP ON NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLES & WASTE MANAGEMENT U.S.A. ''Report to the American Physical Society by the Study Group on Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Waste Management'' ''For all LWR* fuel cycle options, safe and reliable management of nuclear waste and control of radioactive effluents can be accomplished with technologies that either exist or involve straightforward extension of existing capabilities. However, technical choices, including those for geologic waste disposal, require further delineation of regulatory policies.'' * Light water reactor Item 10 1978 NUCLEAR FUEL SAFETY GROUP HANDLING SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL & FINAL STORAGE OF VITRIFIED HIGH-LEVEL REPROCESSING WASTE Stockholm, Sweden ''Handling of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Final Storage of Vitrified High-Level Reprocessing Waste,'' Vols. I and IV, Kam-Bransle-Sakerhet, Nuclear Fuel Safety Group.'' ''The high-level waste from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is isolated by means of vitrification and encapsulation in a lead-titanium canister which is emplaced in sound rock at a depth of 500 m embedded in a buffer material (90% quartz sand and 10% bentonite). The safety analysis of such a final disposal reveals the following. For the severest identified case-a deep drinking water well in the vicinity of the final repository-it is calculated that the individual dose in the future could increase by max. 0.4 rem over a 30-year period, which would be reached after round 200,000 years. The most probable dose is less than one percent of the above-specified maximum value. The safety analysis shows that radiation doses for large population groups attributable to a final storage will be virtually insignificant and that the long-term effects on health will be negligible.'' Item 11 1978 ELKRAFT AND ELSAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN DENMARK Copenhagen, Denmark ''Disposal of High-Level Waste from Nuclear Power Plants in Denmark'', Vol. 1, Elkraft and Elsam'' ''The investigations have confirmed that it is possible to build a repository in a suitable salt dome and that it is highly probable that a suitable dome can be found among the Danish domes.'' Item 12 1978 AICHE 72ND ANNUAL MEETING Miami Beach, Florida Egan, D., ''Risk Assessments in Support of Environmental Standards: EPA's High- Level Radioactive Waste Standards'' ''Most high-level waste disposal concepts, were they to perform as planned and remain undisturbed by external forces, would not release radionuclides to the environment for extremely long periods of time. The threats to the environment concern the possibilities that the disposal techniques will either not work as planned or will be disturbed by external forces, particularly considering the long time periods over which many of the radionuclides will present a hazard. Our work to date leads us to believe that the techniques of risk assessment can provide sufficient insight into the potential impacts of high-level waste disposal to act as a significant part of the dialogue associated with setting environmental standards.'' Item 13 1979 US NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR & ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS Washington, D.C. ''Energy in Transition 1985-2010'', Final Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems.'' ''The technical problems of waste disposal are not considered major. Amongst the schemes that have been proposed, deep-mined repositories in geologically sound locations seem to offer storage at reasonable cost and acceptable risk.'' Item 14 1979 I.A.E.A. INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE UNDERGROUND DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES Helsinki, Finland S.R. Hatcher et al. ''The Canadian Program for the Development of Deep Underground Disposal for Canadian Nuclear Fuel Wastes'' IAEA-SM-243/167 ''The key to acceptance of the disposal concept by regulatory and licensing authorities and by the public is proof of the safety of the system . . . The General conclusion at this time is that the multiple barriers can provide sufficient protection for man and the environment.'' Item 15 1979 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Washington, D.C. ''Technology for Commercial Radioactive Waste Management'' DOE/ET-0028, Vol. 1. ''The objective for the final isolation of radioactive waste is to prevent it from becoming a threat to human health and safety during its hazardous lifetime. Isolation of radioactive wastes in deep geologic repositories is considered an effective means of permanent waste isolation within the scope of available technology.'' Item 16 1979 UNITED KINGDOM ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY London, U.K. L. E. J. ROBERTS, ''Radioactive Waste'' ''Field work will have to continue if it is required to find a site for an ultimate repository, which requires no human surveillance. The safety of a repository depends on the efficacy of a multiplicity of barriers-the properties of the solidified waste, the container, the design and sealing of the repository , and geologic barriers. Analyses of the data which are available indicate that the long-term radiation levels close to repositories which have been carefully sited should be well below accepted limits. The construction of a repository should be within present mining technology and the costs should not be excessive .'' Item 17 1979 INTERAGENCY REVIEW GROUP (IRG) REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT Washington, D.C. Deutsch, J., ''Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management'' TID-29442 ''The Interagency Review Group (IRG) was established by President Carter from the numerous federal agencies involved in nuclear waste management. No specific or technical reason is known that would prevent identifying a site that is suitable for a repository provided that the systems view is utilized rigorously to evaluate the suitability of sites and designs, and in minimizing the influence of future activities.'' Item 18 1979 ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE Palo Alto, California, USA ''Status Report on Risk Assessment for Nuclear Waste Disposal'' EPRI NP-1197 Several safety issues have been addressed with sufficient adequacy that they may now be considered resolved. Future assessments will not alter these conclusions: Disruptive events which could result in direct and sudden release of waste into the environment was extremely unlikely and have consequences that are only serious within a small region neighbouring the repository site. Appropriate site selection can all but eliminate the occurrence of such events. Therefore, no further consideration of major disruptive events (meteorites, volcanic explosions, etc.) beyond that required for site selection is warranted. The only important process for release of waste is slow transport by groundwater. For a reasonable site location and design there are no plausible mechanisms whereby release can occur prior to a thousand years after disposal. By this time the fission products that dominate early risk will have decayed to harmless levels. Generic risk assessment studies have demonstrated that many locations and designs are available that can assure such containment. It is generally accepted that the potential level of future risk can only be determined by assessments performed at specific repository sites. The Swedish Nuclear Fuel Safety Project carried out just such analyses for several repository locations in granite. On the basis of their work the technical and scientific feasibility of mined disposal of high level waste and spent fuel has been established. Item 19 1980 INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR FUEL SUMMARY VOLUME Vienna, Austria ''INFCE* Summary Volume'' INFCE/PC/2/9 ''It was concluded that the contribution of waste disposal to the collective dose commitment is a very small fraction of the annual exposure to natural background radiation and is of the same order as that of the other phases of the fuel cycle. A substantial portion of the contribution of waste management and disposal to the collective dose commitment is attributable to the natural radioactivity in mill tailings from uranium mining operations and from the uranium-238 that for certain fuel cycles is emplaced in the underground repository. Employing technology as assumed, the radioactive wastes from any of the fuel cycles studied can be managed and disposed of with a high degree of safety and without undue risk to man or the environment.'' * 66 countries and 5 International Organisations participated for 2 years in the study that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes should be made widely available to meet the world's energy requirements. Item 20 1980 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY US DOE REPORT ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING Washington, D.C. ''Statement of the Position of the United States Department of Energy'' DOE/NE- 0007 ''Spent nuclear fuel from licensed facilities can be disposed of in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner. The Federal Government's plan for establishing geologic repositories are an effective and reasonable means for developing a safe and environmentally acceptable disposal system. Spent nuclear fuel from licensed facilities can be stored in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner on-site or off-site until disposal facilities are available.'' Item 21 1981 HMSO RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE London, U.K. ''Second Annual Report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee'' ''The report confirms that storage of vitrified waste at or near the surface for a very long period is a realistic and acceptable proposition.'' Item 22 1981 WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION NUCLEAR POWER Copenhagen ''Nuclear Power: Health Implications of High-Level Waste Management:'' Health Organisation, Regional Office for Europe ''Methods for the management and interim storage of high-level radioactive wastes are operational and well proven.'' Item 23 1981 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Paris, France ''State of the Art Report on Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle'' ''Adequate safety assessment methodology and procedures already exist either in detail or in their essential principles and will only need gradual improvement and adaption in order to match developing technologies and licensing requirements. Safety evaluations tend to over estimate accident consequences, because they are based on conservative assumptions. In time, a growing data base will help to refine these studies and should lead finally to more realistic accident assessments, possibly using quantitative risk estimates. In many cases, those accidents which could, in theory, lead to releases of radioactive materials to the environment, do not do so because the necessary containment barrier breaching mechanisms and energy levels are not present.'' Item 24 1981 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY SAFETY SERIES NO. 54 Vienna, Austria ''Underground Disposal of Radioactive Wastes. Basic Guidance.'' ''While various concepts have been proposed and studied, it is generally agreed that underground disposal, with the wastes appropriately immobilized, should provide the necessary protection for man and the environment from the potential hazard they pose.'' Senator JESSOP —We are all concerned about the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. Nobody could be more concerned about that than I and my colleagues who represent the Liberal and National parties in the Opposition. But it seems to me that the sensible way for Australia to exercise a strong voice with respect to international safety standards and the non-proliferation of weapons is to become a major supplier. We have something like 25 per cent of the world's uranium readily accessible in our country and I believe that if we were to start now to develop our interests overseas and exercise a strong voice on the matters we are concerned about that would be the right path for us to follow . It must be remembered that it takes years before the uranium industry can compete on the world market effectively. As I said, the demand for uranium now may not be great but by 1990 countries like South Korea will be generating 51 per cent of their electricity requirements through nuclear power stations. That is one example. I have told honourable senators about the United States which certainly will become a major importer of that material probably within the next two decades, if not a decade. There is a tremendous opportunity for Australia to progress our interest in that industry. Apart from exercising a strong voice in dealing with international safety, other things would flow from the development of our uranium such as employment, subsidiary industry development and so on. It interested me the other day to read that Red China is offering to store highly radioactive waste from other parts of China. It might be an interesting point to make that Australia, having a geologically stable environment, and the synroc technology that is being perfected at the Australian National University, may well think about that. The Chinese are not silly. They recognise that they can profit by the storage of these highly radioactive wastes and perhaps, in the future, they will use that material to generate power through their own power stations. So there are many things that we ought to be thinking about. Another thing we should do as a government is provide more scientists to assist the International Atomic Energy Agency in scientific audits in power stations that are using Australian uranium today. We need to educate the people. We should spend more money educating science teachers in Australia so that the children of today can be presented with scientific fact and knowledge about this important subject that will very seriously affect our future unless we embark upon an accelerated program in the development of this significant industry. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(1.17) —Following Senator Jessop's speech I have a few points to make in regard to uranium and its useful purposes. As I have often said in this place, I am very much against the use of uranium for anything but peaceful purposes but I think our attitude towards not exporting it because it may be used in bombs is quite crazy. We might as well say we will not export wood because it might be used in spears or we will not export steel because it might be used in bombs or tanks. Radiation in this world is quite a natural thing. We all live surrounded by it all the time; we are bombarded by it. Yesterday Senator Jessop and I took a scintillation counter out on to the lawns of Parliament House. We were able to measure the gamma radiation by means of this detector. We took it out on to the lawn and then brought it back, as Senator Jessop said, into his office and into my office. We found that the reading inside his office was almost double what it was outside, a little away from the building. The machine operates by counting the number of gamma radiations that pass through a little crystal that is inside it. Honourable senators will be pleased to hear that it is operating now and the radiation level is roughly the same as it is outside the building so they do not have as much to worry about as Senator Jessop and I do in our offices. People in Canberra, as Senator Jessop said, get much more gamma radiation from outer space than people in Melbourne. That is because of the altitude. I do not think he quite made that clear. The clouds stop a lot of gamma radiation; they split up the radiation that comes in, absorb it and change it. In fact, people who fly in aircraft a lot get considerably more radiation than those who stay at sea level. We had hoped to demonstrate to the Senate with this machine that things like red wine, brazil nuts and even some brands of mineral water are recognisably radioactive but because of the surrounding radiation that is now making this little machine tick as it is we would have had to wrap the whole thing in lead to stop the ambient radiation before we could have shown honourable senators those things. So we did not go ahead with the experiment because if the machine were wrapped in lead we would not be able to hear it ticking anyway. There are, of course, some people who say any radiation is bad but it cannot be avoided. I think that members of parliament who encourage hysteria about radiation do a lot to damage this country. As Senator Jessop said, they should be trying to educate the people on scientific facts about what radiation does and how much of it there is around rather than tending to scare people. There is radioactivity in the air, in sea water, in our houses and in hotels and buildings. As I said, those who live at altitude get more radiation from outer space than those who live at sea level. But if we go into the sea, we cannot get away from it because , I think, something like 5,000,000 tonnes of uranium is dissolved in the oceans of this world. We grew out of the seas, so for aeons past the human race has been associated with radiation. It has actually been shown to be possible, but expensively possible, to make yellowcake from treating sea water. Before I go on about educating people and talk about what I call hysteria about uranium I wish to seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two articles. I have mentioned them to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). One is a letter in the Australian. I am not sure of the date. The other is an article from Mining Monthly of March this year. I seek leave to have those articles incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Hysteria over nuclear waste The Eldridge letter (9/2) left a lot unsaid on the matter of nuclear waste dumping in the ocean. Our Australian policy in this matter had been determined without any public debate and with little, if any, regard for the facts. It is entirely understandable that the popular environmental movements should be concerned, with the evidence before their gaze of polluted rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. It is unfortunate that the abysmal lack of numeracy, coupled with a general unwillingness (or incapacity) to research published scientific data, had led to an entirely emotion-based campaign of hysteria. Within the constraints of a letter to the editor, let me set down a few salient facts: 1. Courtesy of Mother Nature, there is dissolved in the ocean over a billion curies of uranium 238 with tens of millions more in the top five centimetres of the ocean floor. Just one of the world's rivers, the Mississippi dumps some 365 curies a year into the Gulf of Mexico! I have no figures for the great rivers of Asia pouring into the western Pacific , but we are certainly looking at orders of greater magnitude. Now against this background we are talking of dispersing, in very slow release form, no more than tens of curies a year. 2. Ocean water is radioactive, each litre decaying at around 750 disintegrations a minute, mostly due to potassium 40. Apart from potassium 40 of which the ocean contains some 400 billion curies, there is at least 100 million curies of radium, as well as 40 billion curies of rubidium 87. Marine organisms tend to concentrate polonium 210, and have done so for tens of millions of years as it is the decay uranium-radium polonium. They have evolved to cope. Further, the radio nuclides produced by man are shorter lived and generally less toxic than the natural ones which have existed since creation. Long after all the plutonium created by man has gone (assuming we are too stupid to use it as fuel), the natural uranium in the ocean, replenished by the world's great rivers, will be providing radium, polonium and rubidium to marine organisms. 3. A Japanese laboratory scale pilot plant has successfully (expensively, but successfully) extracted uranium in the form of yellowcake from sea water. There are at least five billion tonnes of uranium in the oceans of the world-and man evolved from primitive life in these very oceans! 4. My concern as to the innumeracy of the emotional protesters may be illustrated by this example of the vastness of the ocean. If the entire continent of Australia were to be dumped in the Marianas Trench and Basin, it would disappear with at least a kilometre of ocean above it! So the insignificance of, in volume, a couple of container loads of packaged waste is obvious. And we are objecting to the conclusions of comprehensive multi-disciplined research, recorded in disciplined scientific reports which must by now exceed in bulk the waste we are talking about! Please let us have a properly conducted public debate on this matter in the form of a proper judicial inquiry (like Parker J; Flowers J; and now the Sizewell inquiry) with evidence properly introduced before we dash off in all directions with policies relating to one of Australia's-and the world's-most significant energy resources determined solely by the vote-catching emotionalism typifying our present posturing. D. S. STEWART Dural, N.S.W. MEDIA HYSTERIA ABOUT URANIUM By John MacPherson On the subject of social and controversial aspects of nuclear-generated electricity, one of the observations recorded by Bernard Cohen, oft-published physicist at the University of Pittsburgh in the United States, is the news media propensity for gross overkill over events purported to expose the public to great danger but which, in fact, present no danger whatever to anyone. The word more likely than any other to trigger that condition in news media is radiation. This observation was clearly illustrated yet again in an incident at a Canadian uranium mine recently. An open-pit operation at Key Lake in Northern Saskatchewan lies in an area where the water table is relatively high. Surrounding the exterior and ringing the interior of the pit are huge ''dewatering'' wells intended to steer the ground water into the wells and away from the pit. But for a small degree of seepage into the pit, the system is effective. The water in the wells is pumped into reservoirs and is used in the milling process. In this way the water not only serves the mining operation, but it receives decontamination before it is returned to the environment. On January 5, one of the reservoirs was inadvertently allowed to fill to overflowing. About 70,000 cubic metres overran the embankment and turned to ice on the frozen muskeg. What followed is by now all too familiar to the nuclear power industry. The early news coverage, capped with front page headlines conveying such messages as ''Danger Spill'' and ''Big Radioactive Spill,'' described a chaotic scene in which radiation 400 times the level acceptable in drinking water had escaped containment. The next round of coverage brought out the unionists and the opposition politicians with hints of cover-ups, speculations as to blame and urgent telegrams to governments remindful of all the other aspects of nuclear power that also are worrisome. Next came the anti-nukes. From these appeared such reports as scare stories exposing the perilous position in which the industry places the public. Expressions of fear that the water would find its way into other lakes and streams and contaminate them and demands that legal charges be laid. Meanwhile at Key Lake, instruments checking the environment directly above the surface of the spill were unable to detect change in the background radiation level for that area. In the water itself, the alpha emissions measured 17 becquerels per litre, a rate not 400 times above drinking water acceptability but 45 times, all of which would have been pertinent had the water the least likelihood of being consumed. It hasn't of course. The presence of arsenic in the water was not deemed worthy of mention-only the dreaded radioactivity. Nevertheless, the coverage continued for days. But by this time, instead of 400 times above acceptable drinking water levels, it was reported simply as 400 times above level acceptable for any use. During the 10 or so days following the leak, anyone receiving news from Canadian radio, television or print media was told that the Canadian candu: Finally had been exposed as unsafe. Was as dangerous as 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. Violated the Canadian licensing requirements. Produced the most deadly substance on earth-Tritium. Finally had been exposed as too costly to continue with. Was not perfect. Had been infiltrated by Libyan terrorists. Would not sell nearly as well now and would not be wanted by anyone anyway. No part of that picture, presented to the public as fact and in some cases repeated daily, carried any degree of accuracy whatever. Further, the President of the Canadian Nuclear Association submitted to the country's three largest print operations articles correcting the gross misinformation. All three refused to print the material submitted. John MacPherson is a graduate of Edinburgh University and Glasgow College of education in Scotland. A former teacher and radio/television producer with the British Broadcasting Corporation, he joined the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in 1972. Since 1977 he has been the Manager of Public Affairs for Candu Operations, the AECL Power Engineering Group. Senator TOWNLEY —In that Mining Monthly of March 1984 Mr Don Zimmerman details the history of radioactive research in the world and in Australia. He also points out in that article that elemental uranium averages about three to four grams per tonne in the earth's crust. That is about the same amount as there is tin in the earth's crust. Granite is even more concentrated. Up to 20 grams per tonne is not uncommon in acid volcanic rocks in and around the eastern gold fields of Australia. I think it would be of benefit to the Senate if I were to seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard as well. Leave granted. The document read as follows- URANIUM COMMON ELEMENT By Don Zimmerman Uranium was discovered as a naturally occurring element in the mineral pitchblende in 1789, while the First Fleet was struggling to establish Australia 's first European settlement in Sydney. Roentgen discovered X-rays in 1895, and in 1896 Becquerel recognized that uranium ores gave off rays similar to x-rays. Madame Curie named these rays radioactivity in 1898 when she also showed similar emissions are derived from thorium. This was also the year she succeeded in isolating radium, one of the products of radioactive decay of uranium. She and her husband had joined Becquerel in his research in 1895 and she continued to work with highly radioactive, concentrated uranium oxide, mainly as pitchblends, until her death in 1934. She is the only person to win two Nobel prizes, and one of her daughters also earned a Nobel prize in 1935. Few people realize uranium is a relatively common minor element in the earth's crust, or that it formerly played a significant role in medicine for the first half of this century, in what is now known as nuclear medicine. Radioactivity from artificial isotopes is now used extensively in sterilisation of materials and some foodstuffs. Elemental uranium averages about 3-4 g/t in the earth's crust, roughly the same concentration as tin. Uranium also occurs in sea water which has been researched as a possible supply source. Higher concentrations are found in the more acid ( siliceous) rocks such as granites and acid volcanics. Concentrations of 20 g/t U308 are not uncommon in the more acid granites of the Eastern Goldfields district of Western Australia. Uranium now has the dubious distinction of attracting more political attention than any other commodity, including oil. This is because it is the most concentrated form of naturally occurring energy yet discovered. One pound of uranium oxide is equivalent in energy to about 8 tonnes of black coal or 25t of brown coal. Controlled release of this energy was mastered in the forties under military stimulus to survive and outgun the aggressors. The effects of nuclear weaponry at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were so devastating and horrific that many observers believe they have discouraged major wars since then. In the 1950's the energy in uranium was harnessed as electricity for military ships and domestic power, first by Russia. The first commercial nuclear-powered electricity station in Russia started in Obinsk in 1954, while the first Western one started at Calder Hall in the United Kingdom in 1956. The demand for uranium for electricity sparked a boom in exploration in the early 50's which, as usual, turned into a slump by 1960 after apparently adequate supplies had been found. This boom saw the discovery and development of Australia's first three significant uranium mines-Rum Jungle, Northern Territory, Mary Kathleen in Queensland, and Radium Hill in South Australia. Other significant discoveries were made in the South Alligator River valley, Northern Territory, where several small, rich mines operated briefly, and in the Pandanus Creek-Westmoreland area- straddling the Northern Territory-Queensland border 100km south of the coast. By the mid 60's nuclear electricity was well established in the major industrial countries, and far-sighted planners recognized that future demand would again expand. Predictably exploration for uranium again began to accelerate in Australia, U.S.A., Canada, Africa and South America. Many new discoveries were made, the most notable of which were the large, high grade Rabbit Lake deposit in Saskatchewan in 1968, and the large tonnage, low grade Roessing deposit in Southwest Africa (now Nambia) shortly afterwards. In Australia Bill Siller, formerly of Oilmin, was one of the first to resume uranium exploration by reactivating search in the crystalline rocks of the Mount Painter area in South Australia in 1967. This led to the discovery of the Beverley deposit in the outwash sandstones of the Frome Embayment some four years later. The spectacular discoveries for Australia came in 1969-70 when systematic airborne radiometric/magnetic surveys of the East Alligator River-West Arnhem Land (now called Kakadu) district disclosed several hundred anomalies; three of these were quickly proved as economic discoveries, viz., Ranger, Nabarlek and Koongarra, respectively by the Peko-E.Z. joint venture, Queensland Mines Ltd and Noranda Australia Ltd. Systematic exploration on a small piece of ground in this area by the Pancontinental-Getty joint venture found the first of the Jabiluka deposits in 1971. Meanwhile the Cluff Lake deposits had been found by the French in Saskatchewan, and in Western Australia, Western Mining Corporation had anxiously awaited the end of a ban on claim pegging to stake the large, new-type Yeelirrie deposit in calcrete host-rock in January 1972. In the space of two years Australia repeated the story of iron ore reserves whch had expanded exponentially after the export embargo was lifted in 1961. Uranium reserves in 1969 were a few thousand tons but by 1973 well over 200 000 tons of economically recoverable reserves had been drilled out. Australia had earned a place as potentially a major supplier of uranium, for which it had no use domestically. It had also identified two new uranium provinces-the Alligator Rivers district, Northern Territory, and the Northeast Yilgarn, Western Australia. Regrettably however, through a lack of confidence and purpose, Australia literally 'fumbled the ball' and blew many of its opportunities to gain markets at that time, and so it did not capitalize on these remarkable discoveries. In 1973, while Australia was moving to reduce foreign investment and control, and to entrench tight government control of all energy resources, the OPEC oil price shock occurred. The uranium price had started to move in 1973 from its long time level of $6 US per pound U3O8, and it climbed through $30 per lb in response to the OPEC shock and bullish predictions of expanded nuclear electricity to reduce oil dependency, especially imported oil. The then Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy, the late R. F. X. Connor, recognised the potential and value of uranium by supporting the reopening of the Mary Kathleen Mine, initiating government exploration, and a government take-over of 50 per cent of the equity in Ranger. By 1979 the price was around US $43 per lb U3O8 but it has since declined to less than US $25 per pound currently, due to soft demand, excess inventory and high interest rates during the recent world-wide recession. In Australia exploration of the rich Alligator Rivers district was quickly choked off by a combination of environmental enquiry, and withdrawal of most of the area as national park, government reserve or aboriginal land. Intense exploration in Western Australia failed to find any more ''Yeelirries'' though minor deposits were found nearby at Lake Way. Small deposits were also found in the Frome Embayment of South Australia, and the Georgetown district of North Queensland. Meanwhile in 1975 the discovery of the large, very rich (2-3 percent U3O8) Key Lake deposit in Saskatchewan catalysed another exploration boom there resulting in several more discoveries. Exploration also boomed in the USA throughout the 70's, resulting in a significant increase in high cost, sand stone uranium reserves. Exploration has continued in Saskatchewan virtually without restriction since 1975 while the only known geologically comparable area-the Alligator Rivers district-has remained inaccessible. Key Lake was discovered in 1975 and commenced production in October 1983. Australia's Nabarlek and Ranger, discovered in 1969-70, commenced production in 1980 and 81 respectively; Koongarra, Jabiluka and Yeelirrie are ready to start but have to get markets and then government approval. Neither seem attainable at least until the Hawke government rationalizes its policy on uranium. While the companies controlling these deposits are not authorised to seek sales contracts, Australia's competitors-Canada, USA, South Africa, Nigeria and other Central Africa suppliers-are very active securing most of the available market, even into the longer term. Australia has blown many opportunities In the meantime three more significant discoveries have been reported in Australia. These are WMC's massive Roxby Downs deposit, first drilled in 1975; press reports only of a discovery east of Kalgoorlie by the Japanese PNC Exploration (Australia) Pty Ltd in 1982; and the French Total Group's small vein deposit in Ben Lomond, west of Townsville, Queensland. Mining Monthly, March 1984 At the end of 1982 Australia's reasonably assured reserves, recoverable economically within a sales price of US$80 per kg U3O8 (US$30 per lb) were 370, 000 tonnes U3O8. An additional 435,000 tonnes were estimated recoverable within this price structure. These reserves amounted to about 22 percent of the Western World's reserves as estimated by the OECD for 1982. The latest estimates of reserves at Roxby Downs mentioned 450 million tonnes averaging 0.08 percent U3O8, plus copper and precious metals. This amounts to 360,000t. U3O8 or 45 percent of Australia's assured and estimated reserves in 1982. If the global reserves for Roxby Downs of 2 billion tonnes averaging 0.06 percent U3O8 are mineable economically, they amount to about 1.2 million tonnes of uranium oxide, or 60 percent of the Western World's reasonably assured reserves, or one-third of its total reserves as known in 1982. In addition to Roxby there is significant uranium potential in the Alligator Rivers district, Northern Territory, and this has remained effectively unexplored since 1973. A respected consultant, Mr G. S. Eupene, who worked on the Ranger deposit from 1970, and who has remained familiar with geology and exploration in the district to the extent possible since then, has expressed his belief that ''at least one million tonnes of U3O8 will be recovered from the Alligator Rivers Uranium Province.'' The presently known reserves are about 350,000 tonnes limited to the four known and explored deposits. Thus by combining Roxby Downs and the Alligator Rivers district we have potential global reserves of 2.2 million tonnes of uranium oxide. Thus Australia potentially, has nearly 60 per cent of the presently known uranium reserves of the West, (3.6 million tonnes oxide) or 43 percent when these local potential reserves are added to those of the free world. Undoubtedly Canada can further dilute Australia's percentage with its new discoveries such as Waterbury Lake and Mid-west Lake. However, it is almost certain that Australia would have 30-40 percent of the Western World's uranium reserves if exploration and mining were allowed to proceed as they are in Canada. Regrettably the recent declaration of Stage II of the Kakadu National Park by Prime Minister Hawke and Environment Minister Cohen suggests to the rest of the world that Australia is not interested in realizing its uranium potential. In his submission to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner hearing evidence for an Aboriginal Land Claim over the proposed Stage II of Kakadu in 1981, Mr Eupene stated his belief that ''at least 500,000 tonnes are likely to be extracted, in time, from within the area subject to the Alligator Rivers Stage II Land Claim ( including the Jabiluka resource'' (of 208,000t)). Thus if the Federal Government proceeds with the declaration of Stage II as a National Park, and does not allow exploration and mining in the Park, it will be locking away uranium resources of one and a half times Australia's current reasonably assured reserves. Applying the general factor that one pound of uranium is equivalent to the energy of about 8 tonnes of coal, this is equivalent to locking away 8,000,000, 000 tonnes of coal! This is hardly a decision to be taken lightly. According to 'The Bulletin', Minister Cohen promoted the idea of declaring Stage II of the National Park by circulating a folio of photographs, most of which were of Stage I of the Park. Such an enormous potential energy resource surely deserves more in-depth consideration than a folio of scenic photos. Worst of all, the advocates for the Park seem unable to accept the practicality that a National Park and mines can coexist and support each other, even though the example of Ranger is already working in the area for all to see! Uranium is now used to generate more than 10 percent of the World's electricity , or more than one percent of total energy use. Belgium, France, Finland and Sweden each have more than 40 percent of their electricity from nuclear plants. This will give them a significant cost advantage in future manufacturing because the uranium fuel is a minor part of the cost of nuclear electricity compared to the cost of construction, particularly in terms of 'present values' at the respective times incurred. By way of contrast fuel is a major, escalating cost in oil and coal-fired power plants. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the IEA forecast at the end of 1982 that ' total domestic coal production in the OECD countries is expected to increase by more than twice between 1990 and 2000, while the nuclear component . . . is expected to quadruple.' The West German marketing agency Nukem recently reported that '1983 will probably be the first year during which total consumption exceeds uranium production.' Coal is coming under more and more criticism environmentally because of fears of the 'greenhouse' and 'acid rain' effects. However there is no way uranium will replace coal even in the mid term, but environmental regulation will cause the cost of coal power to increase. Nuclear waste disposal technology exists and is being demonstrated. Australia's SYNROC process offers another alternative about to be pilot tested in joint Australia-United Kingdom-financed research. In any case the amount of waste to be disposed of is miniscule compared to ash and emissions from coal, e. g. all the highly active liquid waste from the entire United Kingdom nuclear electricity program since 1956 would fit into a four bedroomed house.* Nuclear proliferation remains a threat but commendably, Australia is taking a leading role in trying to strengthen non-proliferation and safeguards treaties. Australia can only remain credible and effective in this area by continuing as a stable and reliable supplier of uranium for peaceful uses. If it becomes a major supplier, commensurate with its reserves, obviously it will have more say internationally. Australia could also play a major role in stabilizing world uranium prices, and the supply of uranium for peaceful purposes, by accelerating development of its known deposits and encouraging exploration of its potential reserves. Uranium is currently Australia's ninth most valuable export worth $360 million in 1982-3, and fourth in the ranking of mineral exports after coal, bauxite and iron ore. Australia needs this revenue to maintain its standard of living and social programs. However trade is a two-way matter; while Australia may wish to dictate terms on uranium unilaterally the facts of economic life will dictate otherwise. No such major item of trade can be considered in isolation. Once again Australia has the chance to 'grab the uranium ball' and run with it. The 1984 ALP biennial conference will review uranium policy and it will be the single most important event in deciding whether Australia takes its oportunity or fumbles and loses it once again. There may not be a third opportunity! Canada and the USA as major supliers will be most interested spectators. * See the CEGB and Nuclear Power. Questions and Answers 1981, P.41. Don Zimmerman is the General Manager of Uranerz Australia Pty Ltd, and a recognised expert on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. His views are presented as the final part of Mining Monthly's special uranium feature. Senator TOWNLEY —There was an article today in the Australian headed 'Australia standing at nuclear crossroads' by Leslie Kemeny, who is a senior lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of New South Wales. I think we have to recognise that that is very true. The world dependence on electrical energy supplies, in particular nuclear generated energy, I think will continue to increase into the next century. This continued expansion of the nuclear power industry seems assured regardless of Australia's attitude or actions. This seems particularly true of nations such as France, Japan and Korea whose national energy security needs can be met only by an ever-increasing reliance on nuclear power. Australia has on this continent, under one single government, one of the largest national resources of uranium in the world. Despite a generally depressed world uranium market at present the prospects for Australian exports appear bright for several reasons. The first is the generally high grade of ore and its low cost recovery. Secondly, I believe we have a better political stability compared with other essential suppliers such as Namibia. Thirdly, there is a perceived tendency for the United States to link its nuclear fuel supplies to foreign policy rather than to non-proliferation considerations and, fourthly, there is the ever-increasing reliance of our trading partners on the use of nuclear energy. However, as Mr Kemeny from the University of New South Wales said, the situation is fairly fragile and could easily be irreparably damaged by a government that is seen by some in the industry as essentially hostile to resource development and inately contemptuous of private enterprise. At present Australia is regarded as a supplier of last resort. That to me is not good enough. What is required is a stable and reasonable uranium export policy by the Federal Government to restore confidence in Australia's ability as a reliable mineral exporter. The whole nuclear fuel cycle is one area in which Australia may be able to play a significant strategic role. If Australia is to effect an improvement in the possibility for nuclear non-proliferation and safety standards it will be by active participation and direction and not by a futile policy of isolation and non-co-operation. If the world is to develop into the next century with its goods, welfare and quality of life shared peacefully and more equitably great demands will necessarily be made on the earth's energy resources. Such demands will require the optimal use of all available sources. Certainly, I believe, there will be an ever-increasing dependence on electricity generated from nuclear power. It is important, I think, to distinguish between two forms of energy. Firstly, primary energy is energy in the form of its natural resource, for instance, wood, coal, wind or hydro-power. Then we have secondary energy forms-those to which primary energy may be transformed for distribution or direct use by customers. The share of electricity in total energy consumption is expected to increase from 31 per cent in 1980 to 46 per cent by the year 2000 in the more industrialised nations. For the developing nations this rate of increase will be even more dramatic with electricity's share of total energy consumption doubling from 16 to 32 per cent over the same period. Those figures come from a publication entitled 'Nuclear Power, the Environment and Man' which is a joint publication of the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency. It was printed in Vienna in 1982. It is expected that concomitant with this increased reliance on electrical power will be an increase in the share of that power generated from nuclear energy sources. It is estimated that this increase will be twofold during the next five years and more than threefold during the next 10 years and by a factor of between six and seven during the next 20 years. Those figures came from page 17 of the same publication. At 1 January 1983, there were 294 nuclear power stations in operation in 25 countries around the world. There were also a further 215 such power stations under construction in some 27 countries. This will mean that by 1990 to 1992 there will be 31 countries world wide generating electricity from nuclear power stations with a capacity of over 350,000 megawatts which is, I think, more than 10 times Australia's total coal fired capacity. That figure comes from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Uranium fuel generation accounts for about 11 per cent of the world's total electricity production and by the mid-1990s that figure will rise to more than 25 per cent. Mr Deputy President, I would have liked to have continued reading this document. I do not have time to finish it and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. It is a straightforward document. Leave granted. The document reads as follows- SYNOPSIS World dependence on electrical energy supplies, and in particular nuclear generated electricity, will continue to increase into the next century. The continued expansion of the nuclear power industry seems assured regardless of Australia's attitudes or actions. This would seem particularly true of those nations such as France and Japan whose national energy security needs can only be met by an ever increasing reliance on nuclear power. Australia has on one continent, and under the sovereignty of a single Government, one of the largest national resources of uranium in the world. Despite a generally depressed world uranium market at present, the prospects for Australian exports appear bright for several reasons: (i) the generally high grade ore and low-cost recovery. (ii) political stability when compared to other potential suppliers such as Namibia. (iii) a perceived tendency for the United States to link its nuclear fuel supplies to foreign policy rather than non-proliferation considerations. (iv) the ever-increasing reliance of our trading partners on nuclear energy. However, any optimism is rather fragile and could easily be irreparably damaged by a government that is seen by some in the industry as essentially hostile to resource development and innately contemptuous of private enterprise. At present Australia is regarded as a 'supplier of last resort' for uranium. What is required is a stable and reasonable uranium export policy on behalf of the Federal Government to restore confidence in Australia's ability as a reliable minerals exporter. The nuclear fuel cycle is one area in which Australia may be able to play a significant strategic role. If Australia is to effect an improvement in the possibility for nuclear non-proliferation and improved safety standards, it will be by active participation and direction, and not by a futile policy of isolation and non-cooperation. If the world is to develop into the next century with its goods, welfare and quality of life shared peacefully and more equitably, then great demands will necessarily be made on the earth's energy resources. Such demands will require the optimal use of all available source of energy and, almost certainly, an ever -increasing dependence on electricity generated from nuclear power. World Electricity Generation from Nuclear Power: It is important to distinguish between two forms of energy: Primary energy refers to energy in the form of its natural resources, e.g. wood, coal, oil, wind, hydropower etc. Secondary energy forms are those to which primary energy may be transformed for distribution to, or direct use by, customers, e.g. petrol , electricity. The share of electricity in total energy consumption is expected to increase from 31% in 1980, to 46% by the year 2000 in the more industralised nations. For the developing nations, this rate of increase will be even more dramatic, with electricity's share of total consumption of energy doubling from 16% to 32% over the same period.1 It is expected that concomitant with this increased reliance on electrical power, will be an increase in the share of that power generated from nuclear energy sources. It is estimated that this increase will be twofold during the next five years, more than threefold during the next ten years, and by a factor of between six and seven during the next twenty.2 As at the 1st of January 1983 there were 294 nuclear power stations in operation in 25 countries around the world. There were also a further 215 such power stations under construction in 27 countries. This will mean that by 1990- 1992 there will be 31 countries world-wide generating electricity from nuclear power stations with a capacity of over 350,000 megawatts (which is more than ten times Australia's total coal-fired capacity)!3 Uranium fueled generation accounts for around 11% of current world total electricity production. It is estimated that by the mid-1990s this figure will have risen to more than 25%4 However, many of Australia's trading partners are far more dependent on nuclear generated electricity than the 11% world average would tend to indicate. For example:5 Percentage contribution of uranium to electricity Country generation Finland 40.3 France 38.7 West Germany 21.0 Japan 20.3 U.K. 16.4 U.S.A. 12.6 The share of nuclear power for electricity generation in some of these countries, notably Finland, France and Japan, may rise to as much as 70-80% by the year 2000.6 Australia and the World Uranium Market: The part played by minerals and energy in Australia's export economy has increased dramatically over the last ten years. In 1971-2, minerals and energy exports accounted for 20% of total Australian exports. By 1981-82, that figure had risen to 35% of the total, and energy alone accounted for 17%7. This year, Australia will export about 4,000 tonnes of uranium to the U.S.A., Western Europe and South East Asia, with a total value of over $400 million. The Department of Trade and Resources has estimated that Australian exports of uranium will expand to about 10,000 tonnes per annum8. This will increase the annual value of uranium exports in the early 1990s to some $1200 million ( expressed in today's prices). This is a figure comparable with the current revenue from the export of wool, wheat, meat or iron ore. However, it is clear that Australia's uranium resources will only maintain their value if there is a market for them in the future. An estimate of world- wide demand for uranium indicates that some 900,000 tonnes of uranium will be needed up until the year 2000 for reactors currently in operation or under construction. In the United States alone, it is estimated that there is a need for 200,000 tonnes of uranium, between now and the end of the century, which is not as yet covered by contracts.9 It should be noted, however, that at present there is a marked slump in the world uranium market. Production of uranium is now several years in advance of demand because of a slowing down in nuclear power station construction. This in turn is due to a number of factors: general world economic recession; and increased emphasis on energy conservation leading to decreased energy consumption, including electricity; opposition to nuclear energy in a number of countries giving rise to highly restrictive licensing procedures, notably the United States. This has led to a decrease in the price of uranium by almost 50% since 1978.10 However, Australia is uniquely well positioned to continue to prosper even under these depressed market conditions. There is a good prospect that Australia can take a more dominant stance in the uranium market because of, among other things, a greatly reduced production capability in the United States which will see that country become a net importer of uranium for the first time. The National Energy Advisory Committee has predicted an increased demand for Australian uranium towards the end of the 1980s, stating that ''utilities can be expected to seek major contracts commencing around 1987-7''.11 Also, Australia has a number of advantages in terms of the competitiveness of its mining operations. Australian producers are favourably placed, because of new plants and high grade ore, to protect themselves against extreme fluctuations in price, by long term contract negotiations independent of the '' spot'' price. THE POLITICAL DEBATE: The policies of the Liberal/National Party coalition, and those of the Australian Labor Party remain almost diammetrically opposed on the question of whether to continue to mine and export Australian uranium. The Liberal and National Parties are committed to: 1. International uranium trade subject to proliferation and waste controls. 2. A minimum of interference by the government with free trade market forces. 3. The development of new uranium mining projects and the sales of uranium concentrate to energy deficient nations. 4. The operation of all mining and concentrate preparation with the goals of special regard for the health and safety of the workers, the surrounding environment and the economic viability of the mines themselves. The ALP has adopted a platform that is very much contrary the one outlined above. Two particularly relevant statements of policy from the ALP platform are: 63 (c) . . . our minimum position would be a total unequivocal commitment to phase out Australia's involvement in the uranium industry. (d) as an ALP government we give total commitment to preventing any new mines from being developed during our period of office.12 On the 7 November 1983 Labor Caucus decided, by a vote of 55 to 46, to continue to export uranium and to approve the development of the Roxby Downs/Olympic Dam uranium reserve. This was apparently not inconsistent with Labor Party policy, in that section 64 (c) of the ALP platform states that in government they would 'consider applications for the export of uranium mined incidentally to the mining of other minerals on a case by case basis and on the criteria of whether in the opinion of the Labor government the mining of such minerals is in the national interest;' (The Olympic Dam Project will also produce copper, gold and silver.) However, it was restated that 'with the exception of Roxby Downs if commercially feasible, the Government will not permit the development of any new uranium mines.' The future of Australian exports of uranium is to be determined by the report of an inquiry to be conducted by ASTEC under Professor Ralph Slatyer; the report is to be produced no later than May of this year. Caucus also decided to continue the existing suspension of uranium exports to France. The decision would not be reviewed until the report of the Inquiry was received, or until some progress was made towards cessation of French nuclear testing in the Pacific. The Federal Labor Government has also announced its intention to declare Stage II of the Kakadu National Park, although this will not actually occur until some time during 1984. This declaration does not include the Jabiluka and Koongarra uranium reserves, although one press report indicated that it will effectively cancel more than three hundred mineral exploration leases. When the Kakadu National Park Stage I was proclaimed in April 1979, it excluded the land proposed for the develoment of Koongarra. The land remained Aboriginal land. The government is now expected to open negotiations with the owners to acquire the Koongarra and Jabiluka areas so that it can be included in the Park and thereby preclude mining. The Federal Government's actions have not pleased either the Northern Territory Government or Aborigines who stand to lose a considerable amount in royalty payments. For example, in 1982-3 the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account received $ 11.7 million from the existing Ranger and Nabarlek operations (which are unaffected by the declaration of Stage II). Opposition to mining and export of Australian uranium: Most groups opposing the mining and export of Australian uranium (including the ALP as stated in their platform), base their opposition on two main points: First, that the nuclear power industry contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons; and second, a perceived safety risk in the nuclear power industry. Nuclear proliferation: It is difficult to understand exactly what the ALP platform is referring to when it claims 'the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war'. It is significant to note that most technologically advanced countries (e.g. Israel, Brazil) could now produce nuclear weapons if they chose to do so, irrespective of whether or not they have nuclear power stations. This can best be illustrated by noting that all the present nuclear weapons states, except India, produced their nuclear weapons several years before they had a nuclear power station, and all did it without help or information from countries possessing nuclear weapons . Moreover, it is certain that India did not use its power station to make the material for its 'explosive device'. In other words, not one nuclear weapons state has acquired its weapons through civil nuclear power. The simplest and cheapest way to produce weapons grade uranium 235, uranium 233 or plutonium 239 is with low-power, research-type reactors, or via isotope separation techniques which separate U235 from natural uranium. These reactors can be built quickly and with relatively simple technology. Thus it would seem that even if banning civil nuclear power were a feasible objective, which it is not, it would not significantly hinder those countries who wanted to produce nuclear weaponry. Thus, it would seem clear that technologically sophisticated countries can eventually develop a weapons capability in the absence of civil nuclear facilities. However, it may be that such countries could produce weapons more quickly (in the order of a few months) using fast reactors and reprocessing plants which were built for civilian use. Fast reactors are particularly sensitive because they routinely produce large quantities of weapon-useful plutonium in their breeding blankets. Two points should be noted with regard to these plutonium fast-breeder reactors . Firstly, all signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty agree to allow IAEA staff to inspect their facilities, set up monitoring facilities etc. This acts to ensure that any reactor fuel which is diverted from its normal use will readily be detected. The Australian Government will only sell uranium to countries which accept international safeguard procedures and which are party to the Non Proliferation Treaty. Secondly, Australia may be inadvertently encouraging the growth of the plutonium market and fast-breeder reactor programmes. These reactors require far less uranium fuel, and in fact produce 20% more plutonium fuel than they consume . Thus, by making reliable supplies of uranium more difficult to obtain, Australia may be encouraging some nations which rely on nuclear power to build plutonium reactors in preference to the thermal uranium type reactor. Australia cannot hope to stop the possible development of a nuclear weapons capability in other countries by simply refusing to export uranium for use in civil power programmes. It may be able to play a far more useful role by becoming more involved in both the technological and energy utilization strategies of uranium. Nuclear Safety: One apparent safety threat arises from the risk of terrorists using nuclear materials such as fission product waste or plutonium to hold communities to ransom. Uranium ore and fuel for thermal reactors do not represent good potential weapons for the terrorist. They are extremely difficult to convert into nuclear weapons, and are much less poisonous than many other commonly found substances. Fission products and plutonium also present a difficult problem. In order to steal the fuel, the terrorist must take over the power station, be able to use the fuel loading and unloading machines; then he must choose between tranporting the fuel in an ordinary truck, in which case the radiation will swiftly become lethal, or use a heavy, slow and easily detectable fuel transport truck. The threat is increased, however, after the plutonium has been reprocessed as it can be handled relatively easily and in certain chemical forms is extremely poisonous. Plutonium from moderm commercial ractors is stored in the reprocessing plant as plutonium oxide. A crude nuclear weapon can be made from this rector-grade plutonium oxide, although the critical mass is 25 kg and as well, the terrorists would need to have access to machining equipment and conventional explosives expertise at a very sophisticated level. The theft of 25 kg from a reprocessing plant would be extremely difficult because plutonium is detectable in very small amounts, of one gram or less. The misuse of plutonium in small quantities could be achieved by threatening water supplies etc. However, plutonium in water is less dangerous than some common weedkillers. Far more devastating effects could be achieved through release of anthrax, foot-and-mouth virus, or a host of other poisons and diseases. Possibly the most potent threat would come from exploding a device wrapped in plutonium oxide. The oxide particles dispersed into the air would form a lethal aerosol. However, the area would not presumably be too large to evacuate and decontaminate. Also, those people who do inhale the aerosol would not be immediately, or necessarily, adversely affected. This would tend to deny the terrorist any swift and spectacular effects. In short, whilst the development of civil nuclear power generation will increase the opportunities for terrorists, they will be extremely hazardous, difficult to achieve and unrewarding compared to the many options already available. Unfortunately, with the current state of misinformation and irrational fear of nuclear energy, such an event would probably have a publicity value far beyond the real threat posed. The IAEA in reviewing three decades of nuclear commerical power plant operation reports that nuclear reactors have now accumulated approximately 2800 reactor- years of operating experience.13 In the United States alone electric utilities have accumulated more than 730 reactor years, over 25 years, in which time no member of the public has been injured or killed by a reactor accident at a commerical nuclear power plant; and no plant employee has exhibited clinical evidence of serious injury from radiation. The accident at Three Mile Island did not alter this record. In that accident the radiation escape was 20-30 man Sieverts, which gives rise to a probability of only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 that a single death will occur in the next ten to twenty years!14 As far as the radiation released during the normal operation of the nuclear power industry is concerned, the levels recorded are so small as to be almost insignificant. One year of operation of the nuclear power industry at 1981 levels is estimated to yield a collective exposure, delivered at a varying rate over the next 10,000 years, corresponding to about one day of natural background radiation!15 In other words, the radiation dose from all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, reactor operation and waste disposal was about .01% of that of naturally occurring background radiation!16 In fact, a study conducted in the U. S. by Professor N. Rasmussen has calculated the risk of an accident large enough to cause at least 10 cancer deaths over the next 10-20 years as being 1 in 100, 000 per reactor per year.17 By way of comparison, in California alone there are 12 dams with failure probabilities estimated to be as high as 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 per dam per year, whose failures could cause between 10,000 and 250,000 deaths!18 The number of direct and developed deaths from the mining of sufficient uranium to supply England's current needs for electricity is less than 1 per annum. This compares with the death rate, if the same electricity were generated from coal, of 5 miners killed in accidents and 30 to die later from pneumoconiosis contracted at work.19 It has been said that the media generally pays far more attention to the risk of fatalities from commercial nuclear power plants than they do to actual deaths that occur in the production of other forms of energy. In 1982 there were at least 16 non-nuclear energy related accidents that resulted in 1662 deaths.20 The recent fire in a Japanese coal mine that claimed the lives of more than 80 miners is a tragic example. Further prospects for Australian involvement in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle The fundamental nature of the nuclear fuel cycle means that low-, medium-, and high-level radioactive waste products will occur at different stages. Those which cause the greatest concern are the high-level radioactive wastes which have both a long half-life and intense radioactivity. The fission of uranium in nuclear power reactors produces a wide range of highly radioactive by-products, including caesium-137 and strontium-90, and the actinide elements, including plutonium and neptunium. These ''high-level'' wastes are removed from the spent fuel by reprocessing. It is essential that these wastes be isolated from the biosphere for long periods of time, at least 10,000 years and possibly as long as one million years. Spent fuel from uranium power stations may be stored indifinitely in above ground facilities in its original form; the main reason for seeking long-term storage or disposal arrangements are economic. The World Health Organisation stated in 1981 that the methods for the management and interim storage of high- level radioactive wastes are operational and well proven. While various concepts for the long term disposal of radioactive wastes have been proposed, it is widely accepted that underground disposal, with the wastes suitably immobilised, would provide the necessary protection to man and the environment. Such a system effectively establishes two major barriers to the possible reintroduction into the biosphere of dangerous radionuclides: an immobilisation barrier, and a geological barrier. A typical scenario may be: first-the liquid wastes are incorporated into a matrix that will immobilise them in a stable and insoluble form that will not leak or corrode when placed in the earth for long periods. Australia has made a significant breakthrough in this field with the development of a substance called SYNROC (synthetic rock) by the Research School of Earth Sciences at A.N.U. working in conjunction with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Secondly-the glass/synroc will be surrounded by metallic cannisters composed of titanium and lead which are highly resistant to corrosion by groundwaters. Thirdly-when finally buried, the cannisters will be surrounded by highly absorbent ''over-packs'' of compacted betonite which will greatly impede access of ground water and will selectively absorb and bind any radioactive elements which might be released from the waste package. Finally-geological disposal of the waste packages. Traditionally this had been envisaged in terms of a mined repository consisting of a vertical shaft to a depth of 500-700 metres, in a favourable geological environment, at the bottom of which would be a series of horizontal drives, and in these, short vertical holes in which the waste would be placed. However, Professor Ringwood of the Research School of Earth Sciences at A.N.U. has suggested an alternative. This would involve initial immobilisation in SYNROC and then burial in single discrete holes. These holes would be as deep as four kilometres or more with diameters of one to three metres. The bottom 2500 metres of the hole would be filled with waste cannisters, and the top 1500 metres backfilled.21 It may well be that if Australia is to be effective in seeking to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and improve the safety standard of waste disposal, it will need to become more involved in the world fuel cycle, rather than retreating into futile isolationism. For example, Australia could seek to develop a reprocessing industry to extract uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel for future re-introduction into the fuel cycle. The resultant high level wastes could be converted into SYNROC for burial in deep geological formations. It is almost certain that Australia possesses many sites which are geologically suitable for the disposal of such wastes, combined with the advantage of large expanses of arid, unpopulated land. It would seem preferable for such measures to be undertaken here rather than in geologically unstable areas such as Japan, or even in deep ocean trenches in the Pacific. In this manner, plutonium produced from Australian mining and export of uranium would remain under Australian control at all times. Reprocessing and solidification services are in great demand and firm markets could readily be secured. These services would, in addition, provide considerable leverage in obtaining export contracts for Australian natural or enriched uranium. Australia should recommence its study of the feasibility of establishing a uranium enrichment plant here. Whilst it would appear that Australia alone does not possess the technological capacity at present to develop an enrichment industry, one should not forget that the value of yellowcake is roughly doubled by conversion and enrichment. The Federal Labor Government has withdrawn from the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia which was investigating the viability of establishing such an industry in Australia. This needlessly negative approach by the Government came despite the belief of the chairman of the group (which was established by four major Australian companies-CSR, BHP, Peko-Wallsend and WMC) that the case for establishing an enrichment industry in Australia was encouraging. Nuclear Energy vs Fossil Fuels The relative safety records of uranium mining and coal mining have already been discussed (p. 12 above). However, it is worth noting that the actual impact on the environment, in terms of the pollutants emitted during power production, is actually far greater from coal-fired stations than from nuclear stations. Nuclear energy is inevitably connected with the production of large amounts of radioactive materials that must and can be controlled. However, nuclear energy releases into the atmosphere neither the chemical and particulate pollutants, nor the large amounts of carbon dioxide associated with the burning of fossil fuels. These waste products of coal and oil fired power generation have an effect on the environment that has yet to be fully assessed but the so-called '' greenhouse effect'' and ''acid rain'' may have consequences that prove far more catastrophic than any possible nuclear power station accident. As well, coal stations produce sulphur dioxide and a product which is a known carcinogen, benzopyrene. In fact, it has been estimated that one hundred times more cancers are produced as a result of coal generated power than by nuclear powered production of electricity!22 APPENDIX I The Uranium Fuel Cycle Uranium is mined generally as low grade ore, and processed at the mine site to concentrate the uranium into a form which can be transported economically. Commercial concentrates of uranium ore are called ''yellowcake''. It is frequently represented as U3O8, although it is really a complex mixture of oxides. Naturally occuring uranium contains only about 0.7% of the fissionable isotope of uranium, U235. Nuclear reactors currently in service generally require fuel that contains about four times the proportion of U235 that occurs naturally. Thus, the crude yellowcake is first converted to pure uranium hexafluoride, a compound of uranium which is readily vapourised by heating. Once vapourised, the 'light' (U235) and 'heavy' (U238) atoms of uranium in the vapour are altered in their proportions of the total, such that the product contains 3 to 4% U235. This process is referred to as ''enrichment'' of the uranium. Commercial enrichment processes operate on the principals of gaseous diffusion, where light molecules pass faster than heavy molecules through a porous barrier, or gaseous centrifugation where a mixture of atoms is rotated at high speed allowing the heavier atoms to accumulate at the periphery of the rotating cylinder. The next step in the cycle is fuel fabrication. This requires the processing of the enriched UF6 into UO2 (uranium dioxide) which is then pressed and sinterd into fuel pellets, each about 1.5 cm long and 1 cm in diameter. These pellets are then loaded and sealed into tubes which are then assembled into precise mechanical array to form a fuel element. Fuel elements are normally left in a nuclear power reactor for about three years. After this 'burn up' period, the depletion in the proportion of U235 in the element through atomic fission requires that it be removed and replaced. Used fuel elements can be reprocessed to separate and recover uranium containing U235 atoms, as well as plutonium that has been formed from uranium in the reactor. Both of these products can be reintroduced into the fuel cycle. Reprocessing also separates out the highly radioactive waste products formed by the fission of uranium and plutonium atoms. For a typical 1000 megawatt electrical (MWe) light water reactor the annual fuel materials requirements (assuming a 6lb/tonne ore) are as follows: 69,000 tonnes of ore are mined, to produce 158 tonnes of yellowcake, which is then converted into 183 tonnes of UF6. this is then processed in an enrichment plant to produce 29.8 tonnes of enriched UF6 which is processed to produce 29.5 tonnes of fuel. this in turn produces the same quantity of spent fuel which on re-processing produces 6 tonnes of high level solid waste. By way of comparison, the annual fuel requirements of a 1000MWe plant operating at a capacity factor of 75% would be: 69,000 tonnes uranium ore 2.5 million tonnes coal 10 million barrels residual fuel oil 64 billion cubic feet natural gas 25,000 acres of solar cells. APPENDIX II Morgan Gallup Poll conducted 9-16 July 1983 1. Do you think Australia should-or should not-develop and export uranium for peaceful purposes? VOTER PREFERENCE Response A.L.P. Democrat Lib./N.P. Other Yes, should 58.6 61.0 77.6 58.4 No, should not 33.1 34.1 16.4 31.9 Can't say 8 .3 4.9 6.0 9.7 STATE Response N.S.W. Qld Vic. Tas. S.A. W.A. Yes, should 66.6 62.9 62.0 53.8 70.6 77.2 No, should not 25.3 28.4 29.1 29.2 26.2 14.4 Can't say 8.1 8.7 8.9 17.0 3.2 8.4 National Response figures Yes, should 65.8 No, should not 26.1 Can't say 8.2 A similar statistical response was received to the question: Do you agree or disagree with mining Australia's uranium? 2. Is there anything about mining and exporting uranium that worries you? VOTER PREFERENCE Response A.L.P. Democrat Lib./N.P. Other Yes 59.2 71.1 50.4 69.4 No 34.8 23.7 43.9 17.8 Can't say 5.9 5.2 5.6 12.8 STATE Response Qld N.S.W. Vic. Tas. S.A. W.A. Yes 56.1 55.4 57.9 56.5 60.0 48.1 No 37.9 37.7 36.7 33.1 36.5 42.2 Can't say 6 .0 6.9 5.5 10.4 3.6 9.7 National Response figures Yes 56.0 No 37.6 Can't say 6.4 Notes: (i) There was majority support for uranium mining and export from all States, age groups, political preferences and demographic groups. (ii) Australian Democrat voters, whose leaders Don Chipp and Colin Mason have been outspoken critics of all Australian mining and export of uranium, were overwhelmingly in favour of mining and export. (iii) Australians quite clearly still harbour doubts about mining and export of uranium. It would seem that some action would be indicated in order to allay the ''worries'' of the Australian public with respect to the uranium mining industry . (iv) The two main mining States, South Australia and Western Australia showed the greatest levels of support for the mining and export of uranium. In South Australia, the development of Roxby Downs will be a great boost to the State Labor Government and the State economy. Similar results could be expected for the Western Australian economy from the development of projects such as Yeelirrie. REFERENCES 1. Nuclear Power, the Environment and Man, a joint publication of the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna, 1982. p5 . 2. ibid. p17. 3. IAEA figures. 4. OECD figures. 5. IAEA & OECD, 1983. 6. IAEA & WHO, 1982. 7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 8. Natonal Energy Advisory Committee Report, Trade in Energy, July'8 9. Uranium Information Centre, Melbourne. 1983. 10. Mining Review, Issue 6, August/September 1983, p12. 11. NEAC report, Trade in Energy, p69. 12. Australian Labor Party Platform, Constitution and Rules, As Approved by the 35th National Conference, Canberra, 1982. 13. Mining Review, Issue 6, Aug./Sept. 1983, p11. 14. Shaping Tomorrow: Chapter III, ''Energy and Material Resources: the Case of Nuclear Power''. Published by Home Mission Division of the Methhodist Church, London, 1981. p14. 15. IAEA & WHO, 1982. 16. Nuclear Power, The Environment and Man, p166. 17. Rasmussen Report, Reactor Safety Study: An assessment of accident risks in US commercial nuclear power plants. US NRC Wash-1400 (NUREG-751014), October 1975. 18. Benefit Cost Studies in Socio-technical Systems. Chapter in Chapter in Perspective on Benefit-Risk Decision Making. US National Academy of Engineering Report PB-213685, NTIS (1972) 19. CEGB and Nuclear Power, CEGB G859, January 1979. & Annual Report and Accounts, National Coal Board, 1978/9. 20. Uranium Information Centre Newsletter, No. 8, August 1983. 21. see A. E. Ringwood, Australia's Uranium and the International Nuclear Industry. Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University. 22. W. Ramsay, Unpaid Costs of Electrical Energy: Health and Environmental Impacts From Coal and Nuclear Power. Resources for the future, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(1.30) —The plight of Indo-Chinese refugee students is a matter that I have referred to previously and which I wish to raise again because a solution has not yet been found to the problem. I urge the Government to make special arrangements for these students, if not sooner then at least in the Budget this year. I seek leave to incorporate a copy of a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 12 July 1983. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- July 12, 1983 The Rt. Hon. R. J. Hawke, A.C., M.P.,Prime Minister,Canberra My dear Prime Minister, I am writing to you concerning a matter which came up recently in discussion with a constituent-but it has also been raised with me on previous occasions. It is a matter which may fall within the ambit of Social Security, Education or Immigration but it seemed important enough-in my opinion-to draw to your personal attention. As far as young refugees are concerned, if they come to Australia on their own, they presently receive a Special Benefit for the first six weeks. They then go on to unemployment benefits, in which case they are only able to go to school for about eight hours per week. If they wish to proceed with their schooling-and I am talking about people between the ages of 18-21 years, there are two different situations which apply: (a) If the young person has an elder brother or sister, they can apply for a Family Allowance and a double Orphan's pension to assist in the support of the student, or (b) if there is no elder brother or sister, there is no benefit to allow a person of this age to pursue schooling. In any event, the point I have raised in (a) may be the case as far as the elder brother or sister is concerned, however, I consider that probably both of them should be full time at school, if they are going to receive the best possible opportunity of developing themselves and participating in our society. In some situations, I understand that they are in fact encouraged to receive unemployment benefits and to go to school part-time which, of course, is not permitted. In actual fact, they are really being encouraged to 'work the system' from the early stage of their arrival in Australia, which is most undesirable. I would be grateful if you could have this matter investigated. How can we best enable young people in the age group to which I have referred, obtain the education we should make available to them? Yours sincerely MARGARET REIDSenator for theAustralian Capital Territory Senator REID —I set out in that letter the problems which refugee students are faced with in getting education in this country. If they are on unemployment benefit they are able to go to school for only about eight hours per week which is nothing like adequate and there is no other benefit which specifically enables them to live and study. The special secondary student allowance of $1, 076, of course, is quite inadequate for the purpose. I had a letter from the Prime Minister acknowledging the matter and indicating that he had referred it to relevant Ministers. I received a letter from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in which he acknowledged the problem and specifically referred to the work that his Department was doing and the report that was being prepared. I had a letter from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) in which she acknowledged the problem. The Indo-China Refugee Association also wrote to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the contents of that letter, dated 24 October 1983. The letter refers to the Association's delegation meeting with Senator Ryan and also points out to him the two suggestions it made to deal with the problem. Leave grant. The letter read as follows- I.C.R.A. (A.C.T.) Inc. INDO-CHINA REFUGEE ASSOCIATION A.C.T. (INC.) Griffin Centre, Bunda St P.O. Box E269 Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601 Canberra A.C.T . 2000 Telephone: (062) 47 9532 24 October 1983 Senator the Hon. D. Grimes Minister for Social Security Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, In response to ICRA delegation to Senator Ryan's office on the deplorable situation of young people dropping out of school for lack of income support, we have just received a most hopeful reply from her. Senator Ryan has promised to take up with you and Mr West the urgent need to help refugee young adults. Our delegation made two suggestions to fill the gap in present income support provisions for students wanting to study fulltime at the secondary level who are ineligible for any income support. We think the quickest and most cost-effective interim measure is for the Government, through your Department, to give them Special Benefits until other more suitable arrangements are agreed to by the bureaucrats. Our second suggestion was to recognise all intensive English courses such as that at the Introductory English Centre at Telopea Park High School in the A.C.T . in such an official way that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs could pay students over the compulsory school leaving age the Living Allowance available to them if they attend courses which are part of the Adult Migrant Education Programme. That would advantage only a small proportion of the students in need. It would also most certainly take a lot of time to implement, were the Department willing to do this. Young refugees are dropping out of education every day. The strain of poverty on top of end of year exams and assessments and the personal traumas of all new settlers, is too much. If they drop out now, what chance that they'll re-enrol next year? The Participation and Equity Program courses for young people disadvantaged and 'at risk'' aren't the answer: mainstream schooling with specialist help is. Our purpose in writing to you direct is to urge you to act now, so some young people can see the year out and continue in 1984. Our Association has lobbied on this issue for more than three years. Your predecessor was sidetracked into looking at more longterm equitable solutions, and finished up doing nothing. The rounds of interdepartmental discussions did not come up with a Governmet solution to a very real problem. We don't think these young Australians of the future are expendable. Please direct your staff to help them this week. Yours Sincerely, Marion Le President ICRA (A.C.T.) Senator REID —The Association received a response from Senator Grimes, the Minister for Social Security. I acknowledge his awareness and interest in this matter in that I had a meeting with him myself with some members of the St Vincent de Paul Society who were concerned about these students. He acknowledged my remarks in this chamber on another occasion. His letter deals specifically with the question of education. It refers more to the problems that a number of full time students have in continuing as full time secondary students and supporting themselves. Nobody is denying that there are students who have that problem. Why I specifically refer to the Indo-Chinese refugee students is that we hold ourselves out as a nation that accepts refugees and we bring young people here frequently without their parents, maybe with only relatives of a more distant nature, perhaps sometimes with another brother or sister. We are not giving them any opportunity whatever to become integrated into our community if we do not give them the opportunity to study, learn English and acquire the sorts of skills that will give them some prospects of making a life for themselves here. I repeat that I am not denying that there are other full time students who have difficulties but I urge the Government to recognise the refugee young people as a special category of people that we have brought here, holding out to them that this country has something to offer them. It is at the very beginning of their stay here, when that they need the education that we can provide, that they ought to be supported in a way which will enable them to pursue their education. I had a letter from the Indo-China Refugee Association at the beginning of this academic year. It says that its members and its committee of management have reached the end of their tether. I seek leave also to incorporate this letter which sets out the despair, of those in our community who are working towards assisting the young people, who are right there with them and who are most aware of the problem. As I said, if it cannot be solved sooner the Government should at least introduce some special benefit in the 1984 Budget to provide relief in this area. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- I.C.R.A. (A.C.T.) Inc. INDO-CHINA REFUGEE ASSOCIATION A.C.T. (Inc.) Griffin Centre Bunda St P.O. Box E269., Canberra City, A.C.T. 2601 Queen Vic. Terr. Telephone: (062) 47 9532 A.C.T. 2600. 24 February, 1984 Senator Margaret Reid, City Mutual Building, Hobart Place, Canberra. 2601 Dear Senator Reid, Members of I.C.R.A. and its Committee of Management have reached the end of their tether. We have reported a crisis situation to all relevant Ministers and Departments, over some years, without success and are very disheartened that at the beginning of the 1984 school year young adults in the ACT have their participation in full-time education jeopardised by a lack of adequate and appropriate income support. Sponsors and friends of young Indo-Chinese students and the young people themselves are in a moral quandary. Do we encourage or turn a blind eye to the illegal practice of receiving Unemployment Benefits and studying full time? Do we counsel young people with no family support to stay honest and starve? Do we undermine their independence by offering them charity? Do we advise them to drop out and qualify for U.B.? or to take an inappropriate TAFE or PEP course? Do we tolerate the illegal recipients of Unemployment Benefits sneering at those who stay honest? If the CES rigorously applied its regulations, between 50-100 Indo-Chinese and an unknown number of students of other backgrounds including the Australian born will be forced out of our school system and increase the level of youth unemployment in the A.C.T. An interim solution to the immediate problem is the payment of Special Benefits by the Department of Social Security. It is already paid to homeless youth under 16 years of age, we would be grateful for your urgent public and political lobbying for this interium solution and your public support for those young people who struggle to stay honest. Yours Sincerely, MARION LE, President Senator REID —I wish to refer to another matter that has been raised with me by residents of Hall, which is a small village just outside Canberra. The specific letter that I mention firstly came to me from Robyn Murray. In part she says: I personally came to Hall 4 years ago, looking for a peaceful, quiet place to live after originally moving to Canberra from a small country town. Until recently I found it a very pleasant place. I used to take my small baby for a walk at the public recreation area each evening until being nearly attacked by a German Shepherd dog. Luckily, a passing motorist saw what was happening and stopped his car to chase the dog away. She refers to similar problems that other residents of Hall have had and the dog control vans which control in the area from time to time. Since raising this matter the residents have apparently been told that there will be more patrols in the area. It raises the question as to whether the dog control ordinance is adequate to protect people from the events which are described in a letter, dated 20 November 1984, to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren). Rather than read out the whole of that letter I seek to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Feb. 20, 1984 The Right Honourable T. Uren, Minister for Territories and Local Government, Parliament House Dear Sir, We, the undersigned residents of Hall, are writing to express our developing concern over the increasing number of German Shepherd dogs being housed in what used to be our small (approximately 70 household), quiet village, and the effect this is having on the other residents of Hall. We believe that one household has from 10 to 15 dogs housed in the back yard. Another has approximately five dogs, and recently a new homeowner in Hall has brought three more fully grown German Shepherds to the village. There are other households with one or two German Shepherds. Some owners are using their residential leases for breeding purposes. Our objections are on two main grounds. One: That the twice-daily exercising of the dogs in public areas of the village is limiting use of these facilities for other residents, since the dogs are uncertain in temperament, often not adequately controlled. Two: That there has been a quite significant increase in the level of noise in the village due to these dogs, to the extent that several of the immediate neighbours have seriously considered selling their properties. One resident who did try to sell her expensively renovated home was unable to do so because interested buyers were horrified at the dogs, noise and kennels over the fence. The use of public grounds by the German Shepherd dogs for exercise is causing growing discontent. There have been various incidents which indicate that the dogs are not kept under proper control. Without detailing each of these, it could be said that such incidents generally occur when the dogs are being exercised in public places. They have bailed people up, run aggressively at people and horses while their owners have attempted to call the dogs to order, and one dog has actually bitten a child, causing serious injury. Apparently children playing in the recreation areas have been told by the dog owners to leave while the dogs are being exercised. Parents of some children no longer allow children to play in recreation areas because the dogs may be there. Morning joggers and afternoon strollers alike prefer to stay at home rather than risk a possible confrontation with the dogs. Details of these incidents can be provided on request. The noise created by so many big dogs housed in a small residential area is considerable. It often goes on intermittently all day and night and can be heard blocks away. This is extremely aggravating, especially since the owners of the dogs are often away at the time and therefore don't have to endure the noise themselves. One household arises at 6 a.m. to be begin taking their dogs to the public park, much to the annoyance of neighbours who are woken each morning at this time by the loud barking of the dogs as they are loaded into their vehicle. Even casually walking past the blocks where these dogs are housed usually causes a session of loud barking and one wonders what might happen if any of the dogs were to escape. Many residents over the previous year have made numerous complaints to the Dog Control section of the Department, but we have had little or no effective response. It appears that there is very poor legislation in this area, there being no limit, as far as we understand, to the number of dogs which may be kept on one residential lease. *The Hall Progress Association has also written to the relevant D.C.T. department on this subject, without reply. Because of the large number of residents concerned about the effect these dogs are having on their pleasant lifestyle in Hall, especially with regard to children's safety, we request that you begin immediate action to limit the number of dogs that may be kept on a residential block in Hall to two, to discourage any further migration of 'dog packs' to our village. We would like to point out that we are not objecting to the particular breed of dog concerned. Many people in the village have pet dogs but they are not kept in large numbers and consequently are less of a health hazard, nor have they demonstrated aggressive behaviour . . . * Following the writing of this letter, a reply has been received from the Deputy Dog Controller stating that the Dog Control Van is prepared to patrol the Village after hours on an ad hoc basis. Senator REID —It is signed by 100 people who live in Hall. It sets out details of what has occurred. It alleges that there is one household that has from 10 to 15 dogs housed in the back yard and another with five dogs. Apparently these dogs are allowed out into the oval recreation area and they make it impossible for people to enjoy that area when they are there. Of course honourable senators will appreciate as well, I am sure, the fact that these dogs also foul the area and make it a place unsafe for babies and young children to play. That is a matter of concern to the residents. Perhaps the legislation needs to be reviewed to see whether some tightening is necessary in relation to the number of dogs that can be kept in any one suburban sized house block and whether the rules for allowing dogs out in public are adequate. I have no doubt that most of them appear to be under control if the dog patrol happens to pass by but I think the Minister ought to note the complaints of the residents in this area and give his attention to the steps that might be taken to make it the place that most people want Hall to be, that is a pleasant village to live in. Sitting suspended from 1.38 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that Senator Grimes will be absent from the chamber this afternoon and that Senator Ryan is absent as she is ill. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Grimes should be directed to Senator Evans and those to Senator Ryan should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I preface it by wishing Senator Ryan a speedy recovery. I preface it further by reminding the Leader of the Government of the resolution of the Senate of 30 March which called on the Government to make a full statement as a matter of urgency on the content of and decisions taken by the Government on the document known as 'Strategic Basis of Australia's Defence Policy 1983' and the steps taken by the Government to keep the document secure. I also remind the Leader of the Government that in Question Time yesterday the Attorney-General provided some additional information about the distribution of the document and the joint Australian Secret Intelligence Service and Australian Federal Police investigation into the leak to the National Times and that the Leader of the Government promised Senator Durack a reply as soon as possible on the question of the timing of any statement from the Government. I again ask the Leader of the Government whether the Government will abide by the terms of the resolution and make a full statement on this matter. If so, when does it propose to make that statement? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to help the Leader of the Opposition as to a precise date when the Government might make a response to this matter. The Prime Minister has announced that an inquiry has been set up to deal with it. The inquiry has already begun this work and when the task is completed the Parliament will be informed of the result. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question just to make sure that I fully understand that answer or so that it is fully understandable to all of us. Is the Leader of the Government saying that in fact the Government will make a statement in the terms of the Senate's request when the inquiry is completed? Senator BUTTON —I cannot answer that with absolute precision. The Government will make a response at the appropriate time when the task has been completed. I am sure that the Government will do all it can to meet the requirements of the terms of the Senate resolution, but I cannot be more precise than that. Senator JONES —Is the Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications aware of a ruling by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal last Friday rendering illegal a television commerical for the Australia Ballet Trust which mentions the Ballet's major sponsor, the Benson and Hedges Co. Pty Ltd, and which contravenes section 100 (5A) of the Broadcasting and Television Act? Is he further aware that the commercial in question belongs to the Australian Ballet, not the Benson and Hedges company, and that the Australian Ballet is faced with the possibility of losing its $400,000 sponsorship from Benson and Hedges as a result of this Tribunal's decision, thus creating a major financial crisis? Is there any avenue of appeal open to the Australian Ballet over this decision; if not, will the Minister for Communications intervene on its behalf to see whether a compromise can be reached over the continued screening of this commerical in view of the value to Australia of a viable national ballet company? Senator BUTTON —This is a somewhat complex matter. It is true to say that with regard to the Australian Ballet advertisement the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on 13 March this year decided that that advertisement was an advertisement for cigarettes within the meaning of section 100 (5A) of the Act. In its decision the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal stated that the advertiser is the Benson and Hedges Company. The reason it gave for that decision was that the advertisement contains a sponsorship announcement which is identical to that in the test cricket advertisement called 'Field of Battle'. That advertisement was found to be in breach of section 100 (5A) of the Broadcasting and Television Act. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal stated: An advertisement placed by B & H (rather than the relevant sporting body) which gives as much prominence to promoting the B & H Company as this advertisement does can reasonably be assumed to be intended to promote, or obtain goodwill for the only product universally identifiable with that company, namely cigarettes. I understand that the Australian Ballet Foundation contacted the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal requesting that the matter be reconsidered. The Foundation advised that the advertisement in question was produced and paid for by the Australian Ballet and was not the subject of any input from the Benson and Hedges Company. In its response to this approach the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal issued its amended decision of 30 March, which stated: While the fact that such an advertisement has or has not been placed by the B & H Company is relevant, it is only one factor to be taken into account. Primary intention must be focused on the actual form of the advertisement itself. The Broadcasting Tribunal maintained that the advertisement seeks to promote cigarettes; that is the relevant point. The question of who placed the advertisement is not as relevant as what it seeks to promote. The Tribunal has advised that the ruling could be challenged or appealed against in the Federal Court. I just make the point again that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is an independant body and under section 16 of the Broadcasting and Television Act it has the responsibility for regulation of both public and commercial broadcasting services. The Minister for Communications has no power in relation to this matter. The Broadcasting Tribunal has power which it can exercise and which is capable of appeal to the Federal Court from any decision of the Broadcasting Tribunal. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Has the Government decided to hold a referendum to change the Australian Constitution in conjunction with the next Federal election which it proposes to hold later this year? If so, what questions will go to referendum at the time of the proposed early election? If the Government does not propose to hold a referendum at the time of the election, does it propose to do so at any other time? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has made certain decisions in this respect. They will be announced in due course. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. Could the Attorney-General be a little more forthcoming and enlightening as to when the announcement will be made? Senator GARETH EVANS —No. Senator COLSTON —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Does the Commonwealth have any plans to dispose of the Toowoomba rifle range or the Army Reserve property in Margaret Street, Toowoomba ? If so, what are the details of those plans? Senator GIETZELT —The Minister for Administrative Services, whom I represent in this place, in his first year of that ministry has been very energetic in reviewing all of the properties owned or used by Government as well as reviewing properties for which we pay a substantial amount of rent. I am advised that as part of the ongoing land review program the occupants of these properties in Toowoomba, that is the rifle range and the Army Reserve property that have been referred to by Senator Colston, have been identified as having potential for relocation on the basis that the uses of the subject sites were not commensurate with their land value. The Department of Administrative Services is seeking agreement from the Department of Defence. Consultation is taking place with the Department with a view to relocating both the sites referred to by Senator Colston. If agreement is obtained from the Department of Defence the proposals would be put forward for consideration in the context of the 1985-86 Budget. That indicates that there will a thorough-going review of the sites in question . All the factors will be taken into consideration, including local interests, the requirements of the Department of Defence, and the question of whether the Government is getting the best utilisation of the assets held by the Commonwealth. I assure Senator Colston that all factors which need to be taken into consideration will be taken into consideration by the Minister. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government aware of a report in yesterday's Canberra Times that for the second time in a month the Australian Capital Territory's liquor ordinance has been found to be defective and that it now appears that a prosecution for selling liquor to under age persons is impossible? Is he further aware that in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court last week the ordinance was described as 'screaming for attention'? Will the Minister say whether the Government will undertake as a matter of urgency whatever action is necessary to ensure that minors are not able to be served alcohol in the Australian Capital Territory in contravention of the intention of the law? Senator GIETZELT —I think it would be agreed that health authorities in general are concerned about the over-consumption of liquor, whether by over age or under age persons. Certainly the Government is concerned about the general social problem that exists not only in the Australian Capital Territory but throughout the Commonwealth. All State governments are plagued with the same sort of problem of under age drinking, which has become a feature of recent years. The problem is generally recognised as one which exists throughout Australia. However, in the Australian Capital Territory, to which Senator Haines made specific reference, under age drinking is dealt with under the Australian Capital Territory Liquor Ordinance, which is administered by the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority. Currently a legislative review is taking place over a wide range of liquor issues, but there are difficulties in administering laws on under age drinking. The Minister accepts that this is a problem and it is receiving his specific attention. The difficulties in enforcing the under age liquor provisions of the ordinance have been highlighted in recent and pending court actions, as Senator Haines said. In addition, the Australian Federal Police section of the Australian Capital Territory Federal Liaison Advisory Council has drawn the matter to the attention of the Minister for Territories and Local Government. In recognition of the social ramifications of under age drinking, the Minister has decided to refer the matter to the proposed Australian Capital Territory welfare inquiry. In due course the results of that inquiry will be published. Senator HAINES —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Given that this is a severe social problem, can the Minister give the Senate some idea of what the phrase 'in due course' means? What is the timetable involved? Senator GIETZELT —I think the specific matter of the timetable and the approach to that problem should be answered by the Minister for Territories and Local Government. I shall draw Senator Haines's question to the Minister's attention and I hope I shall be able to provide a specific answer before the Senate rises today. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, refers to the current study into simplifying government departmental forms. Can the Minister advise whether the current study also applies to departmental information brochures? Will the Minister consider extending the expertise gained from this study to future government information and advertising campaigns? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge to hand of the matters to which Senator Elstob refers. I will seek an early reply from the Minister for him. Senator ARCHER —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, relates to the Sala case and the actions of the then Attorney-General, Senator Lionel Murphy, in ordering the return of Mr Sala's passport against the wishes of the police involved in the case. Will the Attorney-General confirm the accuracy of a report in the Age of 3 April which attributes to Senator Evans, or his office, the information that Senator Murphy was told by a departmental officer on 29 May 1974 of strong police objections to the return of Mr Sala's passport? What other matters did the departmental officer bring to Senator Murphy's attention on 29 May or the next day? Was he told of Mr Sala's links with major crime figures? Was he told of suspicion that Mr Sala may be linked to an international drug smuggling operation? Was he told that representations on Mr Sala's behalf had come from the firm of Morgan Ryan and Brock? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is nothing in the Age report to which Senator Archer refers which is not consistent with what I have already told the Senate on the numerous occasions on which I have responded to questions on this matter, and nothing which I need to correct. As to the latter run of questions, I do not believe that the then Attorney-General was told anything more than that there was a concern that the passport may have been forged, a matter to which I have referred on numerous occasions, and I do not resile in any way from that. The Attorney-General of the day was aware that there was concern about this, but the reason he made his decision, nonetheless, was that which I indicated, that he believed it was inappropriate for mere suspicions, unaccompanied by an actual charge which for whatever reason had not been laid, to justify the continued open-ended detention of the person in gaol. No doubt he was also aware that representations in relation to Mr Sala had come from the firm of Morgan Ryan and Brock because there had been a telegram to that effect delivered to the Attorney, as I have said in this place, some days before that discussion took place. I do not believe there is any foundation for believing that the then Attorney was aware of any of the other matters to which Senator Archer refers. But I will check that and give him a further answer if the facts are any different from those I have indicated. Senator CHILDS —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to the recently advertised off-shore petroleum acreage and to his statement last week that he hoped to be able to make some announcement about applications for exploration permits in that acreage this week. Is the Minister now able to advise the Senate of the results of advertising that off-shore acreage? Senator WALSH —Yes. Senator Chaney asked me a question about this last week and I said that I would release the results after contacting the two relevant State Ministers. Twelve off-shore areas were advertised last November, 10 off the Western Australian coast and one each off South Australia and Tasmania. The applications closed on 23 March. It should be noted at the outset that all these permit areas had previously been allocated and either surrendered or cancelled. In respect of the 12 areas, a total of five applications were received, two for the Tasmanian acreage, one for each of the two Bonaparte Gulf areas, and one application for a small part of one of the eight Exmouth Plateau areas. The interest in the Tasmanian area is encouraging and reflects, in a significant way, the results of the marine geophysical work carried out by the Bureau of Mineral Resources in the Bass Basin region a couple of years ago. That same work has been a significant factor in attracting experienced companies to farm in existing permits in that area. The BMR's deeper seismic survey work has provided the geoscientific framework which has been of great value in reassessing the Basin's potential and has assisted in planning future detailed exploration. Recent advances in seismic technology have also improved the prospects of defining attractive drilling targets in the prospective but largely untested Bass Basin sequences. The response in relation to Western Australia, especially the Exmouth Plateau, is disappointing and probably reflects the increasing perception that whatever hydrocarbons are in that area are more likely to be gas than oil. It would also appear that for the most part the exploration companies have decided not to take up less prospective acreage, at least at this time. It has been suggested in the Press that they prefer to focus their attention on the impending release of more highly prospective areas between Australia and Timor. Senator WALTERS —My question is to the Attorney-General. Following his refusal to make available to me the guidelines for classification of video tapes and discs for sale or hire, I ask: Firstly, will he reconsider his refusal? Secondly , if not, will he inform the Senate why the Senate or indeed the people of Australia should not know what is in those guidelines so that they can understand how the members of the Film Censorship Board are asked to reach their decisions and, thirdly, will the information be available to me on my application under the Freedom of Information Act? Senator GARETH EVANS —The guidelines to which Senator Walters refers are at this stage, on my understanding, simply draft guidelines prepared by the Chief Censor , Ms Janet Strickland, for the guidance of her officers. They have not yet been the subject of discussion or agreement by the Federal and State Ministers responsible for censorship. Hopefully they will be as a result of tomorrow's meeting in Sydney. The reason why I was not keen to make the material available to Senator Walters was not just to protect her from exposure to material of a potentially salacious kind, but rather because I thought it was appropriate that the Ministers in question have an opportunity to determine their position on it before the material becomes broadly available. As to the question of whether the material would be available under FOI, I expect it probably would be. Senator Walters is welcome to try to find out. I will certainly reconsider the question as to whether the material should be made-- Senator Durack —Haven't those been made public? Senator GARETH EVANS —They may well have been. We are pretty relaxed about freedom of information in this Government and certainly, on matters of genuine public interest and importance, such as this is, we are all too willing, once the policy process has worked itself out, to put material of this kind into the public domain. One would only wish for and hope that the result of putting this material in the public domain would be a slightly more rational and less twisted debate than the one we have heard over the last 48 hours. But I live in hope that a supply of information will contribute in due course, maybe with a change of generations in the Opposition benches, to a more rational consideration of these matters. I will certainly give further consideration to the matters which Senator Walters has raised. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Since the Film Censorship Board has had to classify X rated videos as from 1 February, I presume the Board is already using those draft guidelines. Why is the Minister saying that they are not yet in place? Why is he saying that they have yet to be decided upon? Why is he not allowing the people of Australia to understand what guidelines the Film Censorship Board is at this moment using to classify X rated videos? Is he frightened of the people of Australia realising what the guidelines are indeed all about? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing further to add to my previous answer except to say that yes, it is the case clearly that the guidelines to which Senator Walters refers have been used by the Chief Censor and her officers since the new system came into place on 1 February. But they have not yet, to repeat, been discussed or certainly endorsed by the Federal and State Ministers, and to that extent I do not believe it is appropriate, until we have had a chance to look at them, that the material be made more widely available than that. But with a little bit of help from Senator Harradine, Senator Walters does not seem to have had any difficulty in getting access to the material, and clearly it has not improved the quality of her contributions to this debate, having had that access . Senator MAGUIRE —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the appropriation, as part of the Government's community employment program, of $20m this financial year for country towns' water supply improvement programs. I ask the Minister: What progress has been made in the selection of projects and in the commitment of funds under the program in South Australia? Will the program provide benefits to a number of centres in the mid-north and upper south-east regions of my State? Senator WALSH —Senator Maguire specifically asked what progress had been made in projects which have been approved under this new program for supplying better quality and/or more abundant water to country towns, which was introduced by the present Government. It has recently been announced that the Commonwealth will be providing just over $1m to provide a decent water supply for Coober Pedy, in the north of South Australia. That amount will be supplemented by contributions of, in round figures, $500,000 from the local community and $500,000 from the State Government. This is something, of course, that has been badly needed for a very long time, and something for which I might add the people of Coober Pedy can thank primarily their local member, Mr O'Neil, who pushed the Coober project very strenuously with me and with the Government. Secondly, of course, they can thank the present Government for having had the imagination and initiative to introduce a program such as this. It was something that was conspicuously lacking in the programs of previous governments which were much more interested in throwing away, for example, $20m on the Mitchell River dam project in Victoria which the Victorian Government has already torpedoed just to oblige a few of Peter Nixon's friends, or $5m on an engineering investigation study for the Bradfield scheme and for turning back coastal rivers in northern New South Wales, which ought to be regarded as employment creation schemes for consultants based principally in Brisbane. Previous coalition governments had wilfully neglected over many years the great need both for a water supply in the absolute sense, and a supply of better quality water which exists in very many towns, particularly in the eastern and south-eastern parts of Australia. That long standing defect has been remedied by this Government. While I could go on at greater length, in closing I do want to put on the record that in New South Wales 17 projects have already been approved ; that is actual or improved water supplies for 17 country towns, and for 42 in Victoria, four in South Australia, 24 in Queensland and 12 in Tasmania. As yet in Western Australia no projects have been approved because the water supply position traditionally has been somewhat different in that there is, over most of the south-western part of the State, a pipeline, laid many years ago, which has supplied most of those country towns. It is difficult to find country towns in Western Australia which do not have a reasonable water supply. I have just yesterday put to the Western Australian Minister, a proposal, the details of which I do not intend to elaborate on at this stage, as to how we may overcome the problem which has been encountered in Western Australia, and that is, finding potential projects which meet the overall guidelines laid down for this program. Finally, I should have mentioned earlier, in a specific response to Senator Maguire, that in the mid-north of South Australia, among other towns that have been supplied or will have their water supply improved by this initiative are, notably, Clare and Port Augusta. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Has he considered whether the Prime Minister's possession of an amount of United States currency in Sydney on or about 21 February 1982 was in contravention of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations, or any other law? If so, has he taken any action concerning this matter? Has the Attorney given any advice to the Prime Minister or to any of his colleagues, or indeed to anyone else, about the Prime Minister's possession of this money? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge whatsoever of the matters to which Senator Lewis refers. I have certainly had no occasion, as a result, to look at any legal or other matter that might arise from that, nor have I taken any action in relation to it. Senator SIBRAA —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to Press reports that the Government of North Korea has proposed talks with South Korea concerning the possibility of a joint Olympic team, a proposal first put forward by South Korea in 1981. Can the Minister inform the Senate of Australia's attitude towards this proposal and the possibility of reducing tensions in the Korean peninsula? Senator GARETH EVANS —Obviously the recent announcement about the willingness of North and South Korea to discuss the composition of a joint Olympic team is one that is very much welcomed by the Australian Government as an obvious and striking symbol or demonstration of an easing of tension in the troubled Korean peninsula. The Australian Government also welcomes recent moves among countries with a close interest in the Koreas, including Japan and China, to consider taking part in negotiations aimed at reducing tensions in the region generally. Whether these moves will come to anything we do not yet know but it is the desire of the Government to urge all countries involved to take a pragmatic and conciliatory approach and to explore to the fullest any possibilities for a change from the present historic situation of confrontation. In this respect it is the Australian Government's view that there is a need for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to recognise the Government of the Republic of Korea as the legitimate representative of the South Korean people. Whatever the format of negotiations, they must involve direct contact between the North and the South on an equal basis if real and lasting progress is to be achieved. In the long term it is the hope of the Australian Government that the DPRK will be able to play a more co-operative role in regional affairs. However, after its responsibility for the Rangoon bombing was clearly established, the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs took the view that any change in our presently interrupted bilateral relationship would have to await an assurance that such unacceptable international behaviour would not be repeated. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of Senator Grimes's recent comments in Question Time that there needed to be reforms to the system of occupational superannuation in Australia, can the Minister confirm that the recent report in the Australian Financial Review that the Government is considering imposing higher levels of taxation on superannuation funds as well as taxing lump sum benefits, as already announced, is part of its policy? Will the Minister confirm that if tax at around 50 per cent is imposed on superannuation funds' income, the final benefits payable to members may fall to only one-ninth of the levels of benefit currently being enjoyed by them? Does the Minister agree that this would be tantamount to destroying the system of occupational superannuation in this country and would impose intolerable burdens on the social security system in the future? Senator WALSH —I have not seen that report in the Australian Financial Review to which Senator Messner referred, nor do I have any advice on this matter from the Treasurer. I can only say that I have no knowledge of a proposal to impose higher levels of tax on superannuation funds. It is my understanding that they are exempt from tax. Senator Messner —Only in some circumstances. Senator WALSH —For practical purposes, anyway, they are exempt from tax, so though suggestion of a higher level of taxes may be technically correct in some instances it is rather misleading in the full context. I can say that last year the Government, when assessing both the methods of dealing with the enormous prospective Budget deficit it had inherited from the irresponsible administration which preceded it, was compelled to look at a wide variety of means of both reducing expenditures and increasing revenues. At that stage we had the option, in looking at the existing very generous treatment of superannuation schemes, of imposing a tax on lump sums drawn when an employee took out his or her entitlement or, alternatively, taxing the income received in the hands of the funds. As is well known, the Government's decision at that time was to impose a tax which would gradually become more significant on lump sum payments from those funds. As far as I know there is no current proposal to tax the income in the hands of the funds. That was an alternative. As for Senator Messner's final comment, about the enormous burden on the social security system, it ought to be noted that the treatment for taxation purposes of superannuation schemes which existed up until the election of this Government imposed an enormous burden on all the other taxpayers of Australia because in total the taxation benefits of those superannuation schemes amounted to about $2 billion a year. It ought to be borne in mind that because of those very generous concessions other taxpayers-I suppose in some cases the same taxpayers, but taxpayers in general-were required to pay $2 billion a year more in income tax than they would otherwise have had to pay. So while the Opposition is attempting to big note itself with superannuitants and superannuation funds, the corollary of its proposal ought to be noted; that is, if the Opposition's attempts to big note itself are ever successful and more concessions are provided in this area, everybody else will have to pay more tax to make up for the tax revenue forgone. That will happen if the Opposition's ostensible policies or beliefs are put into practice. It ought to be noted that perhaps there is a benefit for some in the line that the Opposition puts but there is a cost to all. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Will the Minister acknowledge that more than half of the $2 billion tax deduction of which he spoke is due to the contributions made by employers on behalf of employees, and that in the event of those tax deductions and tax rebates being abolished, there being no occupational superannuation available, people would automatically claim more than that sum on the society security system. Senator WALSH —In answer to the first part of the question, I think the employers' contribution is approximately half. Senator Messner apparently thinks that comes out of thin air. From where do the employers get their contributions? Sooner or later they get it by adding to the prices they charge for their goods and services. Senator Messner apparently has a cargo cultish belief that the employers' contributions are obtained without cost to the rest of the community. In regard to the second part of the question, concerning even greater demands on the social security system, it is possible that under some circumstances there would be. While the system which the previous Government apparently was resigned to allowing in perpetuity prevailed, the people who had obtained benefits through the taxation system, amounting in total to $2 billion a year and who at the end of their superannuation scheme took a lump sum, 95 per cent of which was free of tax, still put in a claim for social security payments as well. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Walsh to bring his remarks to a conclusion. Senator WALSH —I am winding up, Mr President. This Government, to its credit, took steps last year to end the pernicious system known as double-dipping. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen Press reports concerning proposed talks between the Portuguese and Indonesian governments and Fretilin about a possible peacekeeping force in East Timor and a referendum on the future of East Timor? The report suggests that Australia would be asked to become involved in this process. Has the Government received any such request and if it does receive such a request what response will it make? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Portuguese Foreign Minister Jamie Garmo is reported to have said to a committee of the Portuguese Parliament on 28 March that informal contacts between Portugal and Indonesia have taken place on the situation in East Timor. The Foreign Minister noted, however, that such contacts have not been considered diplomatic negotiations. The Foreign Minister is quoted as saying that it is necessary to develop a diplomatic dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia within the provisions of the mandate conferred on the Secretary- General of the United Nations. It is also reported that the Government of Portugal intends to give further impetus to the issue of East Timor, and an overall decision of the situation is now being awaited. As to the question of Australian participation in these talks, I do not have any information as to whether Australia has been expressly asked by anyone to do anything in this respect. If I am able to get any further information on that matter I shall supply it to the honourable senator. Australia has taken the view that the principal forum for the consideration of the East Timor issue has been the United Nations. The Australian Government has consistently supported the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to achieve a lasting settlement of the East Timor issue. At the last sessions of the United Nations General Assembly it was decided, as we know, to defer consideration of the issue until later this year. The Australian Government remains hopeful that the emergence of a less divisive and more co-operative atmosphere may ultimately lead to a satisfactory lasting settlement. Senator PETER BAUME —I refer the Minister representing the Prime Minister to that part of the resolution passed by the women's caucus of the Australian Union of Students at that body's annual council in January that stated that married women are prostitutes and to the news release issued subsequently describing marriage as a form of prostitution. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government and the community, immediately dissociate the Government from this expression of view by the Australian Union of Students? Will he, on behalf of the Government, specifically deny that marriage is a form of prostitution? Will he confirm the honourable place of marriage as the basis of most Australian families? Senator BUTTON —I am not sure of all of the details contained in that interrogatory which was directed at me. Let me say on behalf of the Government that I affirm that married women are not prostitutes, that marriage is not a form of prostitution. I was asked to make some other denials on behalf of the Government. I do not remember the precise details of them, but I make them. Senator RICHARDSON —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a question asked in the Senate on 3 April 1984 and directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. It concerned the effect on the Sydney-Moomba gas pipeline of the proposed Army firing range in the shire of Cobar. Is the Minister aware that the proposed firing range would result in the compulsory acquisition of two million hectares of land which would include a great number of rural properties, many of them soldier settlement blocks? Does the Minister see any conflict between the Army proposal and the original purpose of the war service land settlement scheme ? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that I have received representations in relation to this proposal by the Army, which has the tentative endorsement of the New South Wales Premier. In particular, it has been put to me as Minister for Veterans' Affairs that the proposed acquisition does frustrate the arrangements and operations of the soldier settlement scheme which was introduced in 1945 by the Labor Government to provide for the settlement of suitable and eligible ex- servicemen on the land. The scheme arose from the concern of the Labor Government at the time over the wider question of what could be done for ex- servicemen and women after their service in World War II had ended and they returned to civilian life. The soldier settlement scheme was designed to regenerate rural industries which had been seriously affected during the war years. The Department of Defence is seeking to acquire two million hectares of land in the western part of New South Wales as area to be used for field training exercises, including live firing, up to brigade strength. In a joint news release of 24 March 1983, the Minister for Defence, the Hon. G. Scholes, and the New South Wales Premier indicated that land in the Cobar area would be subject to an extensive study and survey with a view to the possibility of its being used as a large scale manoeuvre area. Since that time representations have been made to me, to which I have responded by writing to the Minister for Defence. I understand that the Department of Defence does not intend to submit the proposal for the Government's final consideration until 1986-approximately two years away-because of the complex social and economic issues involved and the need therefore to study it in some depth. However, it seems clear to me that some soldier settlement blocks will be affected by the proposal. Since the proposal is so recent, I have not had an opportunity to consider it other than in a superficial way. In the circumstances, I have asked the Minister for Defence, as part of the ongoing process of consultation which this Government is bound to follow, to take into account the interests of those veterans who would be affected and also to consult with the Australian Workers Union which has expressed a public view on the matter. Members of that union in the shearing and grain growing industries will be affected by the proposal. Therefore, wide-ranging problems may arise from the proposal. That is why the Government will delay its decision at least until 1986. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who today is representing the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment. Whilst I realise that the Leader of the Government may not have all the details to respond to this question, nevertheless the question is concerned with matters that I understand would have been considered by Cabinet. Therefore he should have some knowledge of them. Is it a fact that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment will shortly be determining a number of appointments and re-appointments to the Australia Council? Will the Minister consider making the membership of that Council more widely representative and dispersed both geographically and by occupation and qualifications? When does the Minister anticipate making an announcement on the future membership of the Council? Before making any appointments or re-appointments, will the Minister table in Parliament the attendance records of the present members of the Australia Council? Senator BUTTON —I understand it to be correct that a number of appointments are to be made to the Australia Council in the near future. I am asked whether the Minister will have regard to a spread of background and interests and so on in making those appointments. I am not privy to the Minister's state of mind on that matter, but I will ask him to do that and convey the burden of Senator Martin's question to him. As I understand it, the Minister will be going overseas in the next two weeks, but I believe that announcements will be made about some appointments to the Australia Council in approximately a month's time . In respect of that part of the question which asks whether the Minister will publish attendance records of the existing members of the Australia Council, I thought that information was available in the Australia Council's annual report. Perhaps it is not. I shall certainly ask the Minister whether he will consider adopting the course suggested. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of growing dissatisfaction in provincial Queensland about some Federal Government consultative committees conducting public hearings in Brisbane only? As more than half of Queensland's population lives outside the capital city, is it possible to ensure that such hearings are conducted in north, central and western Queensland to demonstrate the Federal Government's commitment to regionalism? When it is not possible for these committees to visit provincial cities, will Government departments ensure as standard procedure that travel assistance is available so that there is some regional input to policy consultation? Senator BUTTON —I understand how people in north Queensland feel about this question, and I sympathise with them. I think the course of conduct of committees that Senator Reynolds describes is outrageous. Of course, whether it was appropriate for a particular committee to go to north Queensland or whether it was appropriate for it even to go to Brisbane would depend very much on the task set for and the composition of that committee. I am sure those are matters that ought to be taken into account. I will convey the honourable senator's request, as indicated in the question, to the appropriate Minister and see whether I can obtain an answer as quickly as possible. Senator MACKLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and refers to the Government's revision of the Repatriation Act. Is it true that two officers of the Department of Veterans' Affairs addressed a meeting of representatives of the Returned Services League and Legacy held in Melbourne recently on the purposes and intent of a Bill to be known as the Veterans' Pension Bill? Is it also true that these departmental officers told the meeting that no totally and permanently incapacitated pensions would be granted to people over 65 years of age from a particular date; that from that same date the allowance of $4.10 to wives of TPI pensioners would be phased out, with these women being given a lump sum payment based on their entitlements; and that certain TPI pensioners were at risk of losing their TPI pensions because of a means test which would be introduced with the new legislation? If these assertions are true, can the Minister explain why officers of his Department would make such statements in light of the statements that the Minister has made that no decisions have been made and in light of his reply to Senator Colston's question on 30 March 1984? Senator GIETZELT —There has been an on-going review of the Repatriation Act, to which I have referred in other questions over the last six or eight months. That legislation would have been presented for the consideration of the Parliament in the current session except that the veterans' organisations requested that it lie on the table for a period, to which I agreed in principle without necessarily agreeing with the length of time. As I say, it was the Government's intention to introduce the legislation. The reason for that is that ex- servicemen and women are being disadvantaged by the various interpretations that are placed upon an Act which was written in 1920. Obviously the Act requires modernisation and rationalisation in respect of its application to an ever- increasing number of people who are applying for benefits. Senator Macklin was kind enough to provide me with a copy of his question about half an hour before Question Time began so that I could have an opportunity of checking the facts that he has presented in his question to me. Having checked the information to which he alluded, I give to Senator Macklin and indeed the Senate a categorical assurance that the statements were falsely attributed to my departmental officers and in no way represent the views of either the Department or the Government. In answer to the specific questions which the honourable senator raised, I think that he will be aware that under the decision of the Full Federal Court in what is known as the Bowman case, a ruling has been established that to be eligible for a TPI rate a veteran must be prevented from continuing in employment by his or her war caused disability. This test will not be changed in the new legislation. With respect to the second question that Senator Macklin raised, a proposal has been discussed by the advisory committee on the repatriation legislation which would give recipients of the dependant's pensions the option to commute the pension to a lump sum equivalent to three years' payments. An additional option was suggested at a conference between Sir William Keys, the Prime Minister and me last week, that the dependant's benefit be paid to the veteran so that one sum would be paid rather than two particular pensions paid to the same address. These matters are still under consideration, but none of the proposals have been put before the Government at this point. So there is absolutely no substance in the allegations that have been made. The answer to the honourable senator's third question is that to the best of my knowledge no proposal has been discussed at any time since I have been the Minister for the means testing of the TPI pension. I think that if Senator Macklin reads closely the letter upon which he based his question he will find that there is a misunderstanding in the statement regarding the TPI pension and the means test which, of course, as the honourable senator is aware, will apply to service pensions when the matter of the assets test is ultimately considered by the Parliament. There is no proposition either by the Government or in the proposed legislation review that a means test be applied to the TPI pension. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to recent claims by some self-help groups for the adult unemployed in South Australia that they are failing to deliver an adequate service because of lack of funding from the Federal Government. In view of the very desperate situation many of these projects are experiencing at present, and in view of the relatively long time spent in unemployment by mature age people, will the Minister consider providing funding to these self-help groups in the next financial year? If not, what can the Minister do to ensure the survival of these very worthwhile support groups? Senator BUTTON —The Government is aware of the problems facing the mature age unemployed and the financial restraints under which self-help groups operate. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has asked the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs specifically to examine the employment training and retraining needs of mature age unemployed, particularly the longer term older unemployed, and to look at the existing programs relating to that section of the unemployed work force. The Department will be making a submission to that Committee of Inquiry. One of the aspects of the submission will relate to the question of the disabilities of mature age unemployed. That Committee will complete its review by the end of this year. In the meantime, I suggest to Senator Foreman that it might be helpful if he advised those groups which are endeavouring to assist older workers who are in the unemployed category that special assistance might be available under the Commonwealth employment program and that such special assistance would be available through Commonwealth Employment Service offices. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy: Has the Government or some group of senior Ministers decided to abandon the idea of imposing a resource rent tax on the Fortescue oil field in Bass Strait and settle instead for a new special levy? If so, what are the reasons for the decision? Does the Minister agree that the imposition of an additional impost by way of special tax levy effectively negates the arguments which the Australian Labor Party has advanced since 1977 about the need for a profit as opposed to a production tax approach to resource development? Does the Government intend to pursue the resource tax rent concept for other discoveries? Senator WALSH —Obviously Senator Chaney has been reading the newspapers. He is not following the example set by the one-time occupant of his position of Liberal Party leader in the Senate, Senator Withers, who boasted that he never read the newspapers. Senator Chaney has not taken over that rather slothful, indolent habit. Senator Chaney will have to be a bit more patient. He is not going to get a definitive answer to that sort of question. I am not going to fuel or deny newspaper speculation. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister indicate when the industry and indeed the rest of Australia will be informed of decisions which are having a significant effect on activity in Australia? Senator WALSH —With the caveat that the Government will not be held rigidly to this timetable, I would say in the order of three or four weeks. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Is the Minister aware that the State Electricity Commission of Victoria , in a report recorded in the Age in December, claimed that putting power cables underground for the Yarra valley and Merri Creek valley is too expensive at $36m and so power lines will be put above ground at the cost of $5m? Is the Minister aware that this year the Victorian State Electricity Commission estimates its payments for the Mount Macedon and East Trentham fires will amount to over $100m and that the Electricity Trust of South Australia may well face enormous compensation payouts after the findings of the inquest into the Ash Wednesday fires? Does the Minister agree that $30m outlay to prevent possible fires and subsequent hideous costs in dollars and lives is not unreasonable compared with the outlay? Given that the Federal Government's payment of many millions of dollars as compensation to Victoria and South Australia after the recent bush fires mean that the Federal Government has a real concern to promote the prevention of further loss of life and huge expenditure, will this Government give consideration to raising these issues with the Victorian Government, the South Australian Government and indeed all State governments? Senator WALSH —At one stage-I think it was last year-I had a piece of paper lying around with some information on this matter. It does not seem to be here any more. But the figures quoted by Senator Crowley have sufficient merit to warrant some further investigation of this. Of course, it is a matter either for the various electricity commissions or the State governments which ultimately control them, not for the Commonwealth Government, to make this sort of policy decision. It is the practice in at least some States, Victoria being one of them , that the electricity commissions pay insurance premiums to protect themselves against claims such as those lodged last year and in previous years. Indeed, I remember one case when there was a fire in the Western Districts and the discredited former Prime Minister's brother-in-law collected $180,000 in full compensation for the loss caused by the fire, then double dipped with a 4 per cent loan from the Commonwealth and State governments. I will ask the Department to do a study on the apparent economics of burying power lines or continuing to pay insurance premiums against the risks of liability should overhead lines cause fires. Depending on the outcome of that review, I may or may not seek to raise the matter at a future meeting of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —During Question Time yesterday Senator McIntosh asked me a question about the compilation on a national basis of statistics on industrial accidents. I am now in a position to provide the following further information to the honourable senator. The Australian Bureau of Statistics collects occupational health and safety data through State offices. However, this data is generated from information provided under workers compensation legislation in each State. Because of differences in the legislation, coverage and classification of workers and methods of presentation, there is great difficulty in using this data to paint a national picture. Also, the statistics collected relate only to people covered by the State workers compensation legislation and do not cover large numbers of employees, such as most self-employed persons, Commonwealth Government employees or employees covered under separate legislation. The standardisation program initiated by the ABS has resulted in some upgrading of the available information . Despite these initiatives, while it must rely on existing administrative systems, it will not be able to produce the type of data sought by the many users in the field. The Government has established an Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission which is investigating these dificiencies amongst other issues in this area. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —At Question Time yesterday Senator Peter Rae asked me a question relating to the testing by Customs in Melbourne of imported fabrics, which was supplementary to a question asked on an early date. I can now provide the following further answer to Senator Rae. I undertook to investigate a claim that the Melbourne branch of the Australian Customs Service is refusing to accept reports of the Australian Wool Testing Authority on the composition of certain fabrics. The Melbourne branch of the Customs Service has accepted as recently as yesterday afternoon Australian Wool Testing Authority test results on fabrics. The Service can only recognise the results of the analysis of goods where samples have been drawn under the supervision of an officer of the Customs Service in accordance with section 218 of the Act and the regulations thereunder. It is a fact that some importers have submitted to Customs reports of analyses by the Australian Wool Testing Authority, but on samples of goods not subject to the control of Customs. The Australian Customs Service, while not doubting the technical validity of such analyses, does not accept them for official purposes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —In Question Time yesterday Senator Messner asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, who authorised the distribution of the Defence Committee document 'The Strategic Basis of Australian Defence Policy'. The answer is as follows: The distribution of the document was authorised by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, who is the Secretary of the Department of Defence, for those copies issued within the departments of Defence and Defence Support, to the members of the Defence Committee and certain of their senior officers, to senior intelligence authorities and to the Secretary of the Department of Finance. The Minister for Defence authorised the issue of copies to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. The distribution of copies for Cabinet was authorised by the Cabinet Office. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Yesterday Senator MacGibbon asked me a question concerning statements made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the retiring Chief of Defence Force Staff, Sir Neville McNamara, on the nature of the super-powers' strategic arsenals. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer: The essential point is that the super -powers' nuclear forces are asymmetric. In strategic weaponry, for example, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has more land based intercontinental ballistic missiles than the United States of America, whereas the United States has more missiles on board submarines and more long range bombers than has the Soviet Union. These differences mean that attempts to quantify such abstract notions as the theoretical destructive potentials of the various components of the super-powers' nuclear arsenals, and to make comparisons between their respective overall destructive capabilities, are fraught with difficulty. The obvious conclusion is that we should not waste time in unproductive, complex and frequently confusing argument over who is or is not ahead, whatever that means. It would be better to recognise that both super-powers have sufficient capability to destroy both themselves and the world many times over and that it is far better to work unremittingly, as the Government does, for real progress in arms control and for disarmament. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Yesterday a question was asked by Senator Boswell of Senator Gietzelt, as the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, concerning coastal surveillance issues. Since that now falls within the portfolio of the Special Minister of State, I am able to reply to him as follows: With regard to the first part of the question, the Government has not done a sweetheart deal with Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd. It is proposed that the areas to be covered by Skywest be extended but with retention of current flying hours. This is a matter for negotiation. It was deemed administratively more simple to vary the scope of Skywest's existing contract than to cancel all contracts and draw up a new one. The simple fact is that there is, as a result of the Department of Health's reduced requirements for littoral surveillance, necessity for less hours to be flown. There was therefore no need to recall tenders when existing contracts would suffice. The second part of Senator Boswell's question related to alleged deficiencies in Skywest's strike aircraft radar system. The answer is that radar operates regardless of whether it is day or night. The Nomad aircraft did not conduct regular night surveillance either. It was used on trial night surveillance exercises and the Special Minister of State has said that the investigations of this will continue. Senator Boswell's third question was premised on the assumption that search and rescue was one of the major puposes of the Government's coastal surveillance program. This is not the case. It is the responsibility of a number of State and Commonwealth agencies. Assistance will be given with this whenever it is sought. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan. I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report relates to the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Japan from 23 October to 29 October last year led by Mr Scott, a member of the House of Representatives. This report highlights many of the advantages that accrue to members from such visits. The only possible way that members of this Parliament can adequately be informed of other nations and of the factors that influence their relations with Australia is through visits of this nature. Members of this delegation were able to obtain comprehensive explanations of many of the matters which are of primary importance to Australia and Japan and to witness at first hand the mechanics of these matters. After all, Japan is Australia's largest trading partner and it has many other things to offer in terms of cultural heritage and tourist dollars. If Australia wants Japan to provide a market for its goods and it wants both Japanese people and goods to come here, it is essential that members of the Federal Parliament have a knowledge of what is entailed and take a vital interest in international trade, especially the Japanese trade, and in the Japanese people themselves. Ill-informed discussion on international issues by members only detracts from the input into decisions which affect the very sensitive balance that Australia and Japan particularly have evolved on two points, trade and tourism. It is a visit of this kind that reinforces links that have taken years to build and refine to their current standard. Just as the Japanese must inform Australians of Japanese ways, and they do this by coming to Australia and seeing what Australia has to offer and how readily those offerings fit in with their way of life, Australians must also participate in reciprocal arrangements and inform the Japanese of Australian opinions and decisions by taking them to Japan . I have every confidence that the members of this delegation are far better informed by the visit than through any studies they might have made elsewhere. Likewise, I am convinced that the delegation created a good deal of interest in Australia and what Australia could provide. In this regard, I can only reiterate how extremely worthwhile and beneficial these exchanges are and how grateful I am to the Presiding Officers of the Japanese Diet and particularly to the Japanese House which invited us for extending the original invitation. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the eighth report of the Publications Committee. Motion (by Senator Elstob)-by leave-agreed to: That the report be adopted. Consideration resumed from 2 April, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 2 April, on motion by Senator Martin: That the Senate take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Senator Peter Rae: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(3.15) —In speaking to this report and ministerial statement on coastal surveillance I want to express concern regarding the attitude of the Federal Government to the surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef and the treatment of Queensland companies in this regard. The statement which was brought down by the Government is of particular importance to the people of Queensland and I suppose for that matter to everyone who lives in northern Australia. The statement by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is remarkable for what it does not contain. It does not say that surveillance in Australia has been downgraded along the Great Barrier Reef. It does not say that lives could be at risk because search and rescue operations are no longer to be part of surveillance duties. It does not say that the proposed radars to be fitted to the 15-year-old Shrike Commanders will have a capacity to search only 120 degrees to one side of the aircraft. I wonder what might happen to somebody who was lost at sea on the other side of the aircraft. Senator Button —Why don't you get Joh to go up and look out for them? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am sure if my husband were flying up there he would do a very good job, Senator Button. He was in an aircraft race there just recently. Unfortunately, he did not win. Senator Chaney —I feel sorry for people who beat him, Senator. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Nothing happened about that. I want to keep on with my speech on this subject. The latest surveillance aircraft has the capacity to search 360 degrees in all weather day and night. The report certainly does not address the plight of the 80 people who will be put on the dole queues. That is a problem in these days of unemployment. The statement does not refer to Mr Beazley's findings on page 4-9 which states: Five State Governments (NSW, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia) and all of the Commonwealth's relevant Departments considered that the present surveillance and protection system was . . . adequate . . . That quote relates to the present surveillance system. Finally, the statement does not refer to the conclusions reached by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in its 1982-83 report. That report states: The professionalism of the crews and their use of sophisticated technical equipment, such as 360 degree search radar and a global navigation system, ensure that the reports are accurate, comprehensive and not greatly affected by poor visibility. A recent development has been the use of a Coastwatch Nomad aircraft for night surveillance. The 360 degree search radar and global navigation system are essential for this purpose. What the statement makes clear is that an inferior radar system is to be used which has less than half the capacity of the present system. To top it off, the statement indicated that no tenders have been called and government funds are being spent at the whim of a Minister without the test of public scrutiny. Many people in north Queensland are very concerned at what they see as cutbacks in aerial surveillance. In view of the incursion of Indonesia into Papua New Guinea and the defence cutbacks in so many areas I consider that we definitely need aerial surveillance. There is also an increased need for surveillance because of the amount of drugs being flown into north Queensland. Mr Beazley, in his report, said that almost 50 per cent of Customs follow-up emanated from the Great Barrier Reef reports and 100 per cent of prosecutions over a period of two years came from the same source. Yet the Federal Government maintains that new arrangements will enhance concentration on drug smuggling in northern Australia. Mr Beazley also stated that visual surveillance adds to information on patterns on the Great Barrier Reef. Our radar operators maintain that 70 per cent of contacts are made via radar, I feel that the Government certainly should be very concerned at maintaining vital air surveillance and giving better protection to the people of the north. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.20) —Five minutes is quite insufficient in which to discuss a report of such urgency as the report on Australia's peacetime coastal surveillance and protection arrangements. I believe that debate on the report should be adjourned and brought on again when the Senate meets in three weeks time when sufficient time will be available to debate this report much more widely. When one inquires of the Parliamentary Library as to copies of the report one is told that they are not available and will not be available for 10 days. So it seems that some people have copies of the report and some do not. The Beazley report as I will term it is a very interesting report and inquiry carried out by the Minister for Aviation. Obviously, he fully realises the necessity not only for a review but also for stepping up surveillance in the north. He says in that report: In particular, the review also found that greater efforts probably need to be made in northern Australia to counter drug smuggling. This would be done while maintaining effective levels of surveillance against breaches of quarantine, fisheries, environmental and immigration regulations. If this is to be the result of this inquiry, I commend the Minister. Honourable senators may recall that for a long time now I have indicated that I believe that the surveillance and the security of the north are quite insufficient. I believe that the number of Customs officers is stretched far too thinly around the northern coast. I believe that for surveillance to be carried out only in the daylight hours is quite insufficient and I note the thought that there should be night surveillance. This is only reasonable because it is only a little while ago that the people on the north coast used to set their watches by the time that the surveillance aircraft flew along the north coast. How ridiculous. Of course there are reports now of unusual movement along the north coast. When I say 'unusual movement' I mean that there have been reports of the sound of aircraft at night when no aircraft have been reported in the area. There have been continuing suggestions that there are signs of aircraft landing on the 900 or more small or remote strips throughout the north where no one lives. There are reports of tyre tracks on those strips without any reason. I note also that the Beazley report has put the responsibility for surveillance in the hands of the Federal Police. I support that move also. Putting responsibility into the hands of the Federal Police will give it strength and recognition of a much superior role than it now has. I notice also that a standing committee will be formed in which various organisations-Federal State and Territory-will participate. The Government has decided that a coastal protection unit will be established within the Australian Federal Police with responsibility for directing and co-ordinating overall coastal surveillance response and enforcement. The unit will operate within the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre, which is an extremely wise move because very strong liaison will develop with the Department of Transport which is responsible for the maritime safety, search and rescue and associated functions. I can say no more on this report in five minutes other than, as I said, that I find it most interesting. I think it is a carefully prepared report into which a lot of thought has gone. I have no doubt that other honourable senators who are interested in northern coastal surveillance and security will support me in my call to have debate on this report adjourned today and have it brought on again for debate in some three weeks time, on the first Thursday, under General Business, whereupon we will be able to debate it more fully. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(3.25) —It is interesting to hear Senator Kilgariff being critical of coastal surveillance under the present Government as I was in the last four or five years of the Liberal Government. However, it is very pleasing to note that he does see a move towards an improvement of the situation. In essence, the Federal Government's new coastal surveillance arrangements offer a well co-ordinated and effective approach to safeguarding our nation against breaches of quarantine, fisheries, Customs, environmental, immigration and health regulations. I do not think there is any doubt that the report of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) on Australia's peacetime coastal surveillance and protection arrangements is by far the most complete and thorough set of recommendations we have ever had. I commend also the establishment of the coastal protection unit within the Australian Federal Police. This means that officers will be readily available not only to detect offenders but also to apprehend them when they are detected. Honourable senators will recall that under the old system offenders could only be detected and reported. This certainly was not a satisfactory situation. In response to this unsatisfactory situation, a major review was undertaken of how our nation's surveillance needs could not be met. I think it is worth noting that the Beazley review worked in very close consultation with the surveillance needs expressed by Federal government departments and both State and Territory government departments. In line with their well considered needs, it was decided to rationalise contract aerial surveillance arrangements. The existing 21,000 hours per annum were cut to 14,600. But I make the point that these reductions were achieved after discussions with all government departments which make use of the coastal surveillance facilities. As has been mentioned by my colleague, previous arrangements were that surveillance flights occurred regularly and along the coast. New arrangements mean that flights will be random and will be out from the coast to detect offences before the offenders reach the shore. Much has been made of the detrimental effects of the system's rationalisation in terms of lost jobs and terminated contracts. This is no more so than in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory News had a field day over recent events. Monday's editorial is a scathing criticism of the new policy. It says: That-- That is, the coastline from Karratha in Western Australia to the Great Barrier Reef-- is an enormous area to patrol, the business of providing effective surveillance, complicated. But we must note that Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd currently provides civil surveillance along the Western Australian and Queensland north coasts and the addition of the Northern Territory sector will not be a difficult management task. Skywest has 11 sophisticated Rockwell Shrike Commander aircraft in service every day on coast watch duties from Broome in Western Australia to Townsville, plus three back-up Shrike Commanders located at Townsville, Bamaga and Broome. Some of these aircraft and the personnel from them will be redeployed into Darwin as a result of the changes. Skywest is a rapidly expanding company which has only recently taken over East- West Airlines and H.C. Sleigh Ltd. It is well on its way to being the third biggest airline in Australia. The company's expansion in the Northern Territory will, I am sure, have significant benefits for the Territory. I hope the Northern Territory Government gives every assistance to the new contractor. There was a reason why the contract did not go to tender. Skywest's existing contract runs until March 1986 and with the reduction in requirements by the Government, that firm can meet all the existing work load. Furthermore, the assessment of the Department of Transport in the light of its experience in the field of coastal surveillance since 1978 was that no other firm would be able to redeploy its resources with the necessary expertise in the time available. I should point out that the Federal Government took note of the benefits and economies of the current private contract coastal surveillance system. Had the Government not upheld the principle of the contract system, the loss to the private aviation industry would have been substantial. In another article, the Northern Territory News claims that the report gave scant attention to the frequency of aerial surveillance for the detection of quarantine breaches. The report in fact recommended the retention of the user pays principle. The Department of Health, relying on experience of many years, judged that it could maintain a safe level of surveillance with a reduced number of flights. That internal review was undertaken by the Department of Health in 1983. There are many other matters that I would like to deal with in respect of this report but I think it appropriate that I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.30) -I intend to adjourn the debate at the conclusion of just a very few words on the subject of surveillance. I think that all Australians should be aware of this enormously important matter which covers a very wide field and which is referable in particular to the north-east, the north-west and the north of this continent. Surveillance is significant in the control of drug trafficking in this country. As we were discussing only a day or two ago, it is equally significant in quarantine terms in the control of various diseases which affect both plant life and animal life. It is also of great significance in our method of combating possible on-shore and off-shore terrorist attacks against facilities in this country. Surveillance also has a relevance to our widespread fishing industry and to the illegal entry of persons to this country. I believe it is also significant to remind ourselves, as Senator Bjelke- Petersen did, that five States and the Commonwealth itself are of the opinion that the measure of surveillance, generally speaking, is acceptable. Yet, there is equally the view that it is certainly no more than should be expected. We should be concerned that there appears to be a downgrading of surveillance activity, in spite of the encouraging reference by Senator Robertson to the new Sky West Shrike Commander aircraft. My information seems to indicate that this aircraft does not compare favourably with the Nomad aircraft in terms of a capacity to survey the coastline and reach significant distances off-shore and in terms of highly sophisticated radar equipment. Yet the Nomad aircraft has been abandoned for search and control work. As Senator Robertson indicated, there are some reasons for this. However, I wonder why, as I have been advised, no tenders were called. It seems unreal and unreasonable that a decision should have been arrived at without looking at competitors which could supply the equipment necessary to perform the surveillance necessary in that part of Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 3 April, on motion by Senator Martin: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.35) —I move: That the Senate- (a) draws the Government's attention to the campaign by Amnesty International against torture and the evidence provided of the practice of various forms of torture in the 1980's in at least 98 countries; (b) calls on the Australian Government to assert influence to dissuade governments from continuing to use or to connive in the practice of torture within their national boundaries; (c) urges the Australian Government to support the United Nations Voluntary Fund for victims of torture; and (d) requests the Australian Government to seek the expediting of the completion of the proposed international covenant against torture. I trust that the motion will have the support of the Senate and will be part of the continuing campaign which Amnesty International is waging on the pressing problem of torture in this world. I will explain the points of this motion and make some general remarks about the position of torture in other countries. I will be supported by other speakers from all political parties who are also pledged to this campaign. The Amnesty organisation has of course been campaigning against torture and other vices of a similar nature in this world for many years, but it is now launching a new campaign. It is basing that campaign partly on the evidence which has been accumulated. It deals primarily with torture in the 1980s. It remains a very bad and serious problem. Yesterday the Amnesty organisation published a report entitled 'Torture in the Eighties'. It is a horrifying record of the extent to which torture is taking place throughout the world. Indeed, torture occurs in 98 countries. Because there are many countries large and small it is important to realise that those countries in which torture takes place represent 85 per cent of the population of the world. They are the larger countries of the world; torture in fact occurs in all five continents, with the one blessed exception of Australia, the continent which has the opportunity to produce this book on behalf of Amnesty International. Thus it can be seen that the problem is very widespread in the world. Since 1980 the Amnesty organisation on a world-wide basis has investigated and taken action on behalf of 2,687 torture cases covering a total of 45 countries. As honourable senators will see, there are many other countries where Amnesty would wish to take the same sort of action. Thus the first part of this motion is designed to bring forward this campaign, to urge people to read this report, to act in accordance with its recommendations and to try to stop torture throughout the world. The second part of the resolution relates to the Australian Government and the influence it can exercise as a democratic decent country to help the termination of this 'disease' which is a breach of all the things civilised communities should stand for. We know that respective Australian governments from time to time have taken strong stands on human rights issues and they are to be encouraged to do so. I particularly urge this Government, as I hope this Senate will, to do so in respect of torture in accordance with the terms of this motion . In the last few days there has been some Press speculation about changes in the present Government's policy in regard to human rights. There has been a suggestion that the Government's policy might be somewhat 'toned down' to quote an editorial. I was pleased to see yesterday the clear statement by the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, in answer to a question asking whether the Australian Labor Party would dilute its strong support for human rights in its foreign affairs platform. He answered in this way: Accordingly, I respond by declaring that there is absolutely no change in the attitude or the practices of this Government as against the declared intentions, attitudes and practices of the Labor Party in this Parliament when in opposition . The view which has been taken on a completely non-Party basis for years is that human rights remain an important part of foreign affairs policy for Australia. As one of the few democracies in the world, we take that stand most strongly. To complete that assurance one has only to read the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made to the Amnesty group at its last annual meeting two months ago when he said: The Government attaches a strong priority to human rights issues. . . . . The Government has pursued a number of cases of political prisoners and has supported relevant United Nations initiatives on human rights. We have expressed concern about human rights violations to a variety of governments of different ideological persuasions and in different areas of the world, whose relations with Australia are of differing degrees of closeness. One welcomes that and also the continuing use of the influence of Australia in dealing with governments, particularly in respect of this problem. It is prevalent in nations which are close to us and countries with which we have strong economic and cultural ties. The third part of the motion relates to the support which we urge for the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short statement from the Department of Foreign Affairs giving some information about that fund. Leave granted. The document read as follows- UN VOLUNTARY FUND FOR THE VICTIMS OF TORTURE The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture was established through General Assembly resolution 36/151 of 16 December 1981 to receive voluntary contributions in order to provide humanitarian assistance to victims of torture and their relatives. The Voluntary Fund is administered by the Secretary-General with the advice of a Board of Trustees composed of five members appointed by the Secretary-General and acting in their personal capacity. The Secretary-General stated in a message to the first session of the Board of Trustees that the Voluntary Fund would 'provide an excellent opportunity to demonstrate to the peoples of the world that the United Nations, in addition to its role as the conscience of mankind in promotion respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, is able to respond in a concrete way to the needs arising from violations of human rights''. So far the fund has attracted a limited degree of international support, mainly from Nordic countries as follows: CONTRIBUTIONS/PLEDGES 1981 to 14 September 1983 Government US$ Cyprus 500 Denmark 114,600 Finland 81,729 France (FFr. 150,000) +19,480.52 Germany 1/ (DM 150,000) -57,600 (Federal Republic of) Greece 5,000 Luxembourg 2,019.84 Netherlands 45,000 Norway 100,000 Sweden 150,000 Individuals 200 Senator MISSEN —That short report points out that not a great amount of money has yet been contributed to the fund. The money has come mostly from European countries, particularly Scandinavian nations. Useful contributions have been made to the fund and it is important not only that torture should be stopped but that something should be done to help the victims of torture-not only the people who are injured but their families and others who suffer as a consequence. The fourth part of the motion, with which I shall deal in a little more detail later, relates to expediting the completion of the proposed international covenant against torture. It has taken, one might say, a tortuous route in trying to get to the position of becoming a covenant. It has been discussed by international organisations over the years. It is sad to see the way in which reservations are held by some countries and the nitpicking that takes place as to the terms of a covenant which should be in existence. The adoption of a covenant alone will not be adequate to deal with the position, but it puts on an international plane the offence felt by the civilised world against torture. We should try to get such a covenant in place as soon as possible. Australia has played a fairly effective and positive part in securing this covenant and it now needs to be pushed along. I turn from the motion to say a few words on the subject of Amnesty. No doubt other members of the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International will give the Senate more specific details. I hope the honourable senators will read the group 's report to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Torture has been a long standing problem in the world. It is certainly not new. Up to the eighteenth century it was fairly prevalent. For many years after that torture declined sharply. Unfortunately, in the twentieth century, and in the time of the last World War, there were dreadful examples of torture, often leading to people's deaths. Following that war international organisations and the United Nations, in its Declaration of Human Rights, proceeded to take steps to try to ensure that this should not happen again. Unfortunately in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s other countries have come to adopt the practice of torture. Dictatorships of all sorts that prevail in the world have been determined to obtain information from prisoners and to use the torture weapon to do it. The definition of torture adopted by Amnesty International is: The systematic and deliberate infliction of acute pain in any form by one person on another or on a third person in order to accomplish the purpose of the former against the will of the latter. It is a matter in which the power of the State and of its police forces can be misused for the purpose of obtaining information. It is not only states that are the offenders. Often independent organisations within a country inflict torture. It is not merely a matter of dealing with states as the states do not often control the situation within their own territory. Amnesty International in its 1981 report said: Torture is used extensively to obtain information, forced confessions and to punish, intimidate and terrorise. Torture humiliates the victim and dehumanises the torturer. Among the techniques reported during the year were: hanging people upside down and pouring water into their nostrils; electric shocks; beating the soles of the feet; smashing toes and fingers with a hammer; rape; forcing prisoners to eat live frogs and beetles; pushing people's heads into a bathtub filled with water, blood, vomit, excrement and food; deprivation of sleep; mock executions; and threats against relatives, including children. In some countries certain methods, such as flogging and amputation, were carried out in public. That gives a rough series of examples. Senator Haines —No doubt it was amputation without the benefit of anaesthetic. Senator MISSEN —There is of course no benefit of anything like that. There is a great variety of modern skills which can be used in the carrying out of torture. The opportunity has been taken by some organisations to create pre-conditions for torture. The Amnesty report points out that the accumulated evidence also gives a clear picture of the pre-conditions for torture. Emergency or other special legislation that allows wide powers of arrest and detention may facilitate torture. Suspects can be held on the vaguest of suspicions. Crimes against the state are given broad elastic definitions. It states: Torture often occurs during a detainee's first days in custody. Those vulnerable hours are usually spent incommunicado, when the security forces maintain total control over the fate of the detainee, and deny access to relatives, lawyers or independent doctors. As we all know, torture has become a skill which many countries have perfected in recent years. The fact that torture has such influence in the world is known partly because of the work of the Amnesty organisation and its splendid research team in London and the work of other organisations, such as the International Commission of Jurists, who have managed to expose so many of the things that have been done. The work of such organisations also owes a lot to the bravery of informants, of victims, of people who have made statements. People have presented themselves so that doctors are able to see the results of torture. These things and the bravery of non-government organisations in countries practising torture have had an effect. People have risked their own lives and have put themselves in danger of being subjected to torture by standing up and speaking. There are many martyrs to this cause. However, it is fortunate that information has come along and often had the effect of causing governments to take action to save themselves from international humiliation. Torture can never be justified. There can never be a case for torture. Sometimes states try to find explanations for torture and cite the security situation. However, I repeat that there can never be any justification for the use of torture. It is an offence against the inherent dignity of human beings and we know it must be stamped out. In regard to the form of such torture, there is a great variety. One sees in the report, examples of the blinding of people in Bihar in India when 35 people were blinded by the police. One can find records of the misuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union as well as the use of torture in Timor by the Indonesian authorities. The report draws attention to the statement in the secret Indonesian army manual of which Amnesty obtained possession which says: If the use of force in interrogation is required there should not be a member of the local population present to witness it so that the antipathy of the people is not aroused. I am sure that that form of explanation applies to many other countries too. One of the unfortunate situations is that whereas in democratic countries, such as in Europe, human rights organisations are able to do a lot when occasional incidents of torture are found, regrettably this is not the case in the Americas . The American convention of human rights applies to all the American countries, but little has been done there to curb the practice of torture. A change can occur when a government is overthrown or is voted out in occasional democratic elections. One then obtains some exposure of the situation in that country. Regrettably, otherwise countries deny any torture in their ranks. They proceed to support resolutions deploring torture in international assemblies while at the same time practicing it. I think only one country in South America, Costa Rica, has no evidence of torture being used. Let me say this about the international efforts which are being made, which I hope we will support. For three decades all kinds of resolutions have been carried and all kinds of covenants have been agreed to, for instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Geneva Convention, dealing mainly with the prohibition of the use of torture in war; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of Article 7 which forbids torture. There are many other efforts. There are at the moment two new international instruments which are proposed and which will be useful in themselves and of which Amnesty urges support. The first is the draft convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which I have mentioned already, and which would give legal, binding force to the standards included in the declaration against torture for states which ratified the convention. It would establish universal jurisdiction, meaning that an alleged torturer could be brought to justice wherever he or she might be and whatever the nationality of the perpetrator or the victims. It could provide that no one shall be forcibly returned to a country where he might reasonably be expected to risk being tortured. That, in itself, would be a very valuable document to be accepted by the world community. The second is the draft body of principles for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment, which would establish additional safeguards. It could provide, for example, that relatives should be promptly informed of the whereabouts of prisoners, that prisoners should be promptly informed of their rights, that there should be regular, independent visits of inspections to places of detention and that there should be inquests into deaths in custody. These are I think very important standards for the world community to adopt. Let me say finally that in the report before us are 12 specific proposals which Amnesty makes and to which I invite the attention of honourable senators. I will read the headings briefly. They are all valuable suggestions. The first is: ' Official condemnation of torture'-that the authorities in each country should demonstrate their opposition by such declarations. The second is: 'Limits on incommunicado detention'-that detainees should be able to contact people outside who can help them when they are in prison. The third is: 'No secret detention'- that there should not be secret centres kept where people can disappear. Disappearance is one of the terrible problems in this world. If we do not know where the person is, it is very difficult to take any steps. The fourth is: ' Safeguards during interrogation and custody'. This is something which obviously needs to be improved in most countries. The fifth is: 'Independent investigation of reports of torture'-not by the Government concerned but by people and bodies and international bodies outside. The sixth is: 'No use of statements extracted under torture'-it being forbidden in law to use in legal proceedings those confessions obtained through the use of torture. The seventh is: 'Prohibition of torture in law'-making it a punishable offence which can be dealt with under criminal law. The eighth is: 'Prosecution of alleged torturers'-the idea of this being that there should be no haven for torturers, that wherever they are in the world they can be prosecuted for actions which are crimes against humanity. The ninth is: 'Training procedures'-it should be specifically ensured that officials who have custody of or who interrogate prisoners, do not use torture. The tenth is: 'Compensation and Rehabilitation'-for victims of torture. I have mentioned in the motion that we propose something of a practical use in that way. The eleventh is: 'International response'-governments should use all available channels through intergovernment mechanisms to investigate all reports of torture and to try to facilitate the stopping of it. The twelfth is: ' Ratification of international instruments'-such as I have referred to. Those are the practical conclusions which this terrifying report brings to our attention. I see the media are here in no strength today. The regrettable thing is that the Australian media want to report this Parliament only when we scrap and squabble and not when there is some unity and some desire to seek out something of national and international importance. I hope the media will take an interest in this campaign. I hope they will take note of what people are saying here today, and will do their duty to promote in Australia a better knowledge of the situation abroad and add resolution, because it is political will throughout the world that will be necessary to ensure that torture comes to an end. We must have the political will. Our governments must have the political will. We must have some courage of our convictions when other people suffer for their lives for their convictions. I urge honourable senators to support this motion and to do what they can to spread the knowledge of this problem throughout Australia. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(3.55) —I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Missen. I think my contribution will be brief, and I will try to take an approach that will avoid duplication. It seems to me to be unnecessary in this debate, and for that matter in any other, for people to get up one after another and say the same thing. I have no doubt that colleagues on both sides of the chamber will deal with the Amnesty International report 'Against Torture' in detail and give information about the proposed campaign. Senator Missen drew to attention in his contribution that we are looking at this in a bipartisan way. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the motion calls for some action. In other words it is not one of these motherhood motions with which everybody agrees and then does very little. It is also not a motion to ease our consciences, such as with our once a week Christians who are good for one day of the week and then go away and enjoy themselves, shall we say , for the rest of the time. We are looking for three specific actions from the Government. I think it is worth while reading those again, although Senator Missen has read the motion. It states: That the Senate- (b) calls on the Australian Government to assert influence to dissuade governments from continuing to use or to connive in the practice of torture within their national boundaries; (c) urges the Australian Government to support the United Nations Voluntary Fund for victims of torture; and (d) requests the Australian Government to seek the expediting of the completion of the proposed international covenant against torture. The first part of the motion deals with the report on the campaign. I believe the report is an excellent document, and I commend it for the study of all honourable senators, particularly the early part of it. I believe that its matter of fact style is far more dramatic than an emotive style. I think the examples which are put forward in a very matter of fact manner shock us more than if they were described with emotive language. Page 4 of the report sums up what we might call the philosophy or the goals of the campaign and sums up the report itself. It states: Torture can be stopped. The international legal framework for its abolition exists, as do the investigative methods to verify and expose it. What is lacking is the political will of governments to stop torturing people. It is as simple and as difficult as that. Amnesty International hopes that this new report about torture as well as its continuing campaign against torture will contribute to creating this political will so that our generation can banish torture from the earth. One might ask how we should define torture. It is very difficult to get a precise definition, although one is given in the report. Perhaps we could simply say that the key elements of the definition are that there is some sort of mental or physical suffering or pain. There is a recognition here of the psychological torture which affects people. I personally believe the psychological torture to be the most abhorrent. Unfortunately it is the most successful. There are numerous examples given throughout the report of psychological torture with drugs and without drugs. It is interesting to see the refinements that have been introduced, particularly in the 'without drugs' section of the psychological torture. I suppose this is the sort of thing that has been popularised, if one can use that word, by spy stories and films that come before us. The second element is the deliberateness of the act. In other words it must be intentional, not simply part of war or not simply part of the application of 'normal' law and order. The third element is the fact that the act had purpose. The purpose in most cases is to get information or to get a confession from someone or to indicate to the people watching the torture, or seeing the effects of it afterwards, that torture has been carried out. The examples that have been given in the report would chill the blood simply by reading them through. They seem to be directed against an individual or through an individual. The torture is effected on a person to inflict pain on him, or is inflicted on someone else to cause suffering to him. In other words, the torture might be effected on a wife to make a husband confess or give information, or it might be carried out on children to make parents give information. There is no mention of group torture; of the situation in East Timor, for example, where people were starved to death by the Indonesians. It seems to me that this would meet the requirements of the definition as it is explained in the report. It was a deliberate attempt to starve people to death and it was done with a purpose-to suppress the so-called uprising. It was clearly done to inflict suffering on the people of East Timor and to indicate to them who would be the masters. Senator Kilgariff —Hear, hear! Senator ROBERTSON —I acknowledge the contribution made by Senator Kilgariff, who agrees with the proposition. Mention is made in the report of the rape and beating of Tamils in Sri Lanka. That also seems to meet the criteria but I suppose because each of the cases was taken individually we came to consider them all as an individual case. I put the proposition to the Senate: Why is this motion necessary; why is it necessary for Senator Missen to come into this place , to put such a proposition and for others to support it? That is a question we ought to contemplate. What are some possible answers? Is it simply apathy-the great Australian malaise, 'she'll be right', or the 'couldn't care less' syndrome; it has nothing to do with us and we could not care less what happens outside our shores? I find it rather disturbing to think that we had a debate yesterday, which ran on into today, about children seeing tapes which were regarded as undesirable for them. There was a great deal of heated debate on this issue. Yet, to use the same sort of analogy, we seem to be quite happy for children to sit and watch their mothers being raped-not see pictures of it. This does not arouse the same amount of heated debate as looking at some pornographic rubbish that is brought into our country. That is the level at which we have to consider this matter. Surely one is far more obscene than the other. The second proposition might be that it is nothing to do with us at all. Certain rationalisations are brought forward in support of that proposition: 'I believe in the philosophy of live and let live'; 'I believe in minding my own business'; and 'I don't interfere with others and I don't want them to interfere with me'. That is the sort of rationalisation normally used by a person who lives in an enlightened country, who is well fed, well housed and safe from the sort of torture-since we are looking at that particular issue-that goes on in the rest of the world. The next proposition might be: 'Well, it doesn't happen in Australia so it is not our concern'. Mind you, I think it is fair to say that some of the acts by some police against what they call troublemakers might qualify. I can think of a number of teenagers who have been tortured by some police-certainly not all-so that they might take certain actions or provide confessions at appropriate times . Certainly acts against Aboriginal people would qualify, even at present. Certainly in the early days, and even in the not so early days, Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, and no doubt in the rest of Australia, were tortured. We should be ashamed of this, and we are, but we ought to recognise it . The next proposition is: 'Well, those countries are different; they are not the same as us. If their governments allow it, it must be okay'. Senator Missen —Or life is cheap, in fact. Senator ROBERTSON —Yes. 'They have a different religion and their religion allows this sort of thing to happen, so it must be all right and we shall accept it'. An extraordinary proposition put by some people is that the people in those countries are of a different colour and do not feel the same as we do, perhaps they do not feel pain the same as we do, and other such complete and utter nonsense. These are the sorts of rationalisations used. Unfortunately another approach might be what we call the 'so what?' syndrome. I am convinced that we in Australia have become desensitised. We pretty much compare what we see happening overseas to a movie or a television show we have seen. The same syndrome applies in regard to appeals such as Austcare and Freedom from Hunger with which some of us are associated. We find it more and more difficult to convince people, because they are becoming immune to suffering, that they ought to assist others less advantaged overseas. We show them pictures of babies dying and pictures of hundreds of people starving to death, and they shrug their shoulders. They are what I call desensitised. Unfortunately, a good deal of this desensitisation is as a result of the news-not films and commentaries but just seeing the brutality of actions overseas which are conveyed to us so explicitly on the news media. I do not want to be accused of criticising any of the media in particular but some of the things that we see on television are far more obscene than the extraordinary actions we are likely to see on videos. Of course another group will say that it is necessary to maintain order. Others , in maintaining order, will say: 'We need to get information to keep down subversion, we need to torture this person because we have to find out where the rest of his companions are'. The same group of people would say they need an example to deter others. I believe this is one of the most dangerous rationalisations that can be used-'We need to set an example; if we chop off this man's hands, other people might not thieve'. He certainly will not do it again, but does it deter anyone else? We accept this proposition. If a person is flogged, others will see that flogging and may be deterred from action. In the Sri Lankan situation, as it has been reported to me-I can only give the information second hand-some groups seem to think that if they rape the women of the village and brutally attack the men the others in that same village will say they now recognise who are the masters and will not get involved in any more ' uprisings'. We have to be wary of this justification. The last group I want to mention briefly is the group that says 'Well, there is nothing we can do about it'. I suppose that is the most common point of view of the lot-'We are very disturbed about it; we have read about it and are shocked by the incidents and by the brutality and by the way man can be inhuman to another man but there is nothing we can do about it because it is outside our sphere of influence'. The report itself gives the lie to that. It basically says two things: Firstly, that we can do something about it and, secondly, that we have a responsibility to do something about it. Why a responsibility; why an obligation? It is difficult to comment on this without using text from the scriptures; so many of them spring to mind. I will avoid them, for two reasons-the case stands on its own without their use, and some people feel that if one uses text from the scriptures it weakens the argument and frightens some people away. Why should we be concerned about these matters? Firstly, I believe we should because we are citizens of the world. A philospher once put the proposition which basically can be summed up as 'inhuman action against a fellow creature diminishes me as a person'. It was much better said than that but I cannot remember the quotation. I am sure that honourable senators will recall it. If an inappropriate action is taken against another human being, it diminishes me as a person. Surely it is better to stamp out actions which are against the conscience and often law of the country in which it happens. I will look in a few minutes-others will do so also-at the way in which we can do this. The second reason is that I believe that as a citizen of an enlightened country-I use that word very carefully-with all of the advantages we have, we have the same obligation to bring succour to those people who are wracked by disease, to bring food to those people who are hungry, as we have to try to avoid the torture of people by their fellow men. The report calls for broad action. I refer to a couple of specific points. Firstly, I think that through education we can develop a sensitivity to suffering. I am aware that attitude change is one of the most important but most difficult areas of all in education. In this case, I indicate that education is not at all confined to schools. In fact, the major role of education in this area will be outside the school, because it is the attitudes of parents at which we must look. The attitudes of the parents will be reflected in the children. We have to find out why people have become insensitive. When we find that out, we have to develop some sorts of programs that will counter this acceptance of violence and suffering that we have in our community. I think also we must publicise examples of torture. This publication of detail seems to be the best deterrent. I suppose it is a little like one seeing a police car on the street when one is driving one's car; one automatically slows down a little. What I am saying here is that if the community and the country itself have a conscience which is opposed to torture-an examination of the report reveals that there are many countries like this-we ought to publicise to its people what is happening in the country so that the collective conscience of the people of that country will cause the necessary action to be taken. Some will say that we should not interfere with our inter-country relationships. They say that we should not say things about a particular country because that country might think harshly of us. The response I make to that suggestion is the same sort of response I made to similar comments made in respect of East Timor. I am convinced that the courage and integrity of a country will be respected by others if that country has the courage to speak out. I am still convinced that the situation in East Timor would not have happened, that the degradation and suffering there would not have happened and that there would not have been the subjugation of the people by another state, if we had stood firm simply by making firm, courageous but quite clear statements. Let us look at the possibility of the reduction of aid or assistance to countries that violate the Convention. Again many people will say that such action would affect our relationships with other countries, but surely we have the right to say to a country to which we are giving a lot of aid that we believe its actions in a particular area are inappropriate. Many Tamil people have suggested that we stop giving aid to Sri Lanka because, according to the Tamil people and the Sinhalese people, the Sri Lankans are attacking the Tamils. Of course, that proposition would not receive much support from the Department of Foreign Affairs under any government. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable proposition. People in the East Timor region will say that we seemed to give a lot of aid to Indonesia, even aid that could be used against the East Timorese, at a time when the Indonesians were taking an action that we believed to be inappropriate. In this regard we might consider also whether we want as friends states that condone torture and whether we want to assist those states. That is a matter worth thinking about. The final suggestion I make is that governments make a direct approach at a government to government level. In the words of the motion governments could ' use influence to dissuade'. Some people would say that that is a naive approach. I do not believe that that is so. Judging from a comment I read in this morning' s newspaper, certainly a person from Sri Lanka holds a belief similar to mine. The newspaper report reads: The Tamil problem in Sri Lanka was like a family dispute, a spokesman for the Eclam Tamil Association, Mr Sara Pavan, said in Canberra yesterday. If a husband and wife were fighting, it was often a neighbour who could intervene-and Australia could act as a neighbour in the conflict between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. Some people might not think the analogy is a good one; many would be reluctant to interfere in the affairs of a husband and wife. I do not wish to joke about this serious matter. The proposition that is put forward is that a friend will try to assist. I believe that a great deal more can be done than is being done. I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the motion put forward by Senator Missen. Senator MASON(New South Wales (4.15) —We live in a world in which we are told, I think reliably, that more than one-third of governments now use torture on some sort of regular basis as part of the disciplinary apparatus that they like to inflict on their own people. That is a very sad point upon which to reflect, because it indicates that the world is not improving but, as in so many other areas such as education and public health with the spread of the ancient killing diseases, the world is going backwards. I do not believe that the practice of torture ever stopped in the world, but at least for a brief time it was believed by most people on the planet that torture ought not to be an instrument of policy and that every opportunity ought to be taken to end it. Of course, the world went through the dreary centuries when torture was used regularly. We were able to get to the stage briefly where at least it was under some sort of control. That gain was won with great difficulty. We are now at the stage where we are at grave risk of losing completely the ground we have gained. It is for that reason that I regard this debate as being so very important and why I regard the work of Amnesty International as being so important. Amnesty International tries to hold the battle line in an area which is of great consequence to every human being. Surely it should be part of the expectations of life in this world that every human being should be able to live through his life without being exposed to mental or physical torture. I would have thought that to an ordinary human being whose view was not at all perverted the whole idea of torture would be repugnant. Since the majority of human beings would share that view-I am confident that they would-it ought to be possible for the human race to get together, as it has done before on this issue and similar issues, to ensure that this terrible drift back to the use of torture is diminished and, if possible, ended. Senator Missen during his contribution to the debate referred to Amnesty International's 12-point program for the prevention of torture. I wish to comment on two or three of those 12 points because they seem to me to be of particular importance. The first of those points deals with the official condemnation of torture. That point is rightly put first by Amnesty because it seems to me to be one of the most vital and important areas that we could consider. It reads: The highest authorities of every country should demonstrate their total opposition to torture. They should make clear to all law enforcement personnel that torture will not be tolerated under any circumstances. I think that refers to the authorities in every country looking at the situation in their own country. If that situation could be achieved, torture would not happen. Influence has to be brought to bear somehow on those higher authorities to make them understand something that I believe is very true, namely, that torture may present to them an attractive way of securing the compliance of the population and to induce a climate of fear sufficient to achieve the political ends of the particular regime but that in the long run and even in the short run it is simply not worth those objectives, and that such a regime will not be on a firm foundation for very long if it has to rely on that kind of suppression of its own people. The second point in the program to which I refer is No. 3 and is headed 'No secret detention'. It seems to me that the secret nature of torture is one of its most unpleasant aspects. What occurs is that a person going about his or her business at home, already knowing that he or she is under suspicion, perhaps being in some degree of fear, is simply taken away at night or in the early morning. The rest of society does not know what has happened to that person. But we know Amnesty International's work has been terribly important to the world because it has brought to public attention all over the world just what does happen to these people who are taken away in covered vans at night. It is important to those people and to the world in general that that is known. We have to try to get to the bottom of secret detention where it is occurring-the whole idea of people being arrested and taken away and society not knowing what is happening to them. The whole force of law should be encouraged to be brought to bear in these countries to ensure that whatever has happened to a person who is accused of a crime or is detained is brought to the clear light of public knowledge and publicity. I believe if that could be done the incidence of torture would be very much less, because it is one of those unhealthy and unwholesome things that breeds in secrecy. The seventh point in Amnesty International's program is headed 'Prohibition of torture in law'. It reads: Governments should ensure that acts of torture are punishable offences under the criminal law. In accordance with international law, the prohibition of torture must not be suspended under any circumstances, including states of war or other public emergency. In other words, there is not really any reason or grounds for rationalising torture. There is no reason at all for saying that there is a national emergency ; that this has been done or that has been done and, therefore, we have to torture people to achieve our objectives. The eighth point, under the heading, ' Prosecution of alleged torturers', states: Those responsible for torture should be brought to justice. This principle should apply wherever they happen to be, wherever the crime was committed and whatever the nationality of the perpetrators or victims. There should be no ' safe haven' for torturers. In the countries which use torture there are now safe havens for torturers. Who are the torturers? Presumably they are people of warped minds since they are prepared to administer this type of peculiar agony on other human beings, either mentally or physically. Not to put any fine point on it, these people are criminals. They are people of a criminal, evil and obscene nature. Senator Missen —They are even trained in criminality. Senator MASON —As the honourable senator said, these people of an already perverted nature are trained to go further in this sort of activity. They sit there secure, because of the protection of the regime in their country, and indulge in carrying out their worst and most depraved instincts on other people. That, of course, is their objective. I think that is a very important point to make. These people do not torture other people because they think they must do it for the state, that it is a patriotic duty. Of course they do not do it for that reason. They do it because they are evil, criminal types to whom the state has given the opportunity of indulging their depraved appetites. It is as simple as that. Any state which unleashes that kind of thing on the world and on its own people is carrying out an immensely dangerous activity which I think is to be deplored. I think that when one looks at it from that point of view one can see how serious and dangerous it is. If we look into history, we can see that other activities of the human race were finally or substantially abolished in the world-there again, not completely -because of public reaction against them. I think of slavery. Slavery was not abolished because of any particular battle for rights on the part of the slaves, nor because of an initiative or action by the majority of people. It was because a relatively few dedicated people who felt terribly strongly on the issue and who were in a position to make some input to world opinion did so. They went on relentlessly without any thought of giving up until they succeeded. Through those people that institution of slavery was substantially, certainly in most parts of the world, overcome. I think that we may see the model that Amnesty sees it must pursue. Amnesty must attract the membership, the attention and the assistance of as many men and women of good intent as it can. Those people, being members of Amnesty, then have a duty to fulfil its objectives as far as they can. What an unpleasant duty it is to hear, think and read about these things. This is something which is painful and repugnant to any normal human being. Nevertheless, that must be done if there is to be a clear understanding of what goes on. I support the comments made by Senator Robertson that we ought to properly consider what is going on in our own backyard, that what is closest to us ought to be of some concern. I support his comments about what is happening in East Timor. I have spoken many times in the Senate on the subject of East Timor. Honourable senators will know my views well enough, so I will not repeat them at length other than to say that one of the most unpleasant aspects of the East Timor operation is the assault on a whole people in secret. Whenever anything like this goes on one finds that the government concerned goes to great lengths to make sure that nobody else knows about it. That in itself is a very telling comment on the activities of such governments, because they are not prepared to justify their actions in the public fora of the world. The fact that they will not do that obviously begs the question and indicates that something is terribly wrong. Of course, there is something terribly wrong in East Timor. As I have said again and again-I will go on saying it as long as I am here-it remains a terrible indictment on the conscience of Australia that this small community which is so close to us has murdered a number of our own citizens in cold blood- the journalists who went there-and has given no reason or justification whatever and does not propose to do so. That regime has killed virtually a third of the Timorese people, to whom we owe a debt of honour because they helped our soldiers in World War II and to whom we have every kind of duty which we have betrayed. That is something which no person in this country should ever forget. It is on the conscience of all of us. That takes me to my next point, which is that torture and brutality are the inexorable consequences of war, revolution and social dislocation caused by violence. I believe a society of human beings which is unaffected by such things and has what I would call a normal way of life, that is, happiness, a reasonable degree of freedom and pursuit of its own affairs within the scope of normal rivalry-that is fair enough-is not inclined to become a torturing nation. The fact that our own country is not a torturing nation is an indication of that. I am not being smug in saying this-things could get worse here at any time-but at the moment we are not that way because of the conditions of life we have. That visits a particular responsibility on those of us who interest ourselves, or say , as we all do here, that we have some kind of influence on world affairs and on world zonal rivalry. Too often that zonal rivalry is rationalised in this way. We will say to ourselves: 'This administration in this country or that country is evil or oppressive. We know that country uses torture; we know it attacks other people; we know it is doing things which are wrong and evil, but we are prepared to rationalise and accept it because we use the principles of the end justifying the means. These people have to be supported. These repressive and unpleasant regimes have to be supported in the interests of the zonal balance of power'. Here again I believe we must recognise our own obligations that if we support, without comment, organisations and nations near to us, which it seems to be in our strategic interest to support, without commenting on and accepting their transgressions, we are committing a crime against the human race. That again-I return to the point I made earlier-is a good reason for continuing to insist on having some knowledge and thought about the evils being carried out by Indonesia against the East Timorese. The Australian Democrats wholeheartedly support Senator Missen's motion. In 1972-that is, 12 years ago-Amnesty launched its long term campaign to have torture abolished throughout the world. The project is an ambitious one. Any effort that the Australian Government can make to further it will be time, money and effort very well spent. Although we do not believe torture is practised by our governments, symbolically it would be very helpful to Amnesty's campaign if the Australian Government publicly attested and stated its wholehearted support for the 12-point program and our absolute determination to adhere to the program 's 12 principles. I think this is something which, while it may not seem necessary, is something that we could well consider doing. I ask the Government to consider that course of action purely for its psychological and public relations value and to impress on those countries which do use torture that not every country does, for its own good reasons. I think that most of us in this country are quite unaware of the extent to which torture is practised throughout the world. It is universally condemned, but the growth and the extent of it is quite alarming. The diabolical variety of tortures which it is possible for the human mind to develop is very sinister. I do not think that it is necessary to sicken anybody with the intimate details of the various forms of torture. I do not propose to do that, but I commend any honourable senator who is interested in finding out about the true horror of these things to get hold of a copy of some of Amnesty's material and look at it so that they understand the true nature of this problem. I wish to comment briefly on Amnesty's origins. Amnesty began in quite a small way. It began in 1961 with a newspaper article entitled 'The Forgotten Prisoners ' by British lawyer, Peter Benenson. One man wrote something from which Amnesty came. I believe all good intentions in the world tend to come initially from one person, as everything has to have a beginning. Benenson urged people everywhere to begin working impartially and peacefully for the victims of political persecution. The article stated: Open your newspaper any day of the week and you will find a report from somewhere in the world of someone being imprisoned, tortured or executed because his opinions or religion are unacceptable to his government. Within a month more than a thousand people from various countries had sent in offers of practical help. That is interesting as it shows just how many people in the world have the good intent and desire to do something about these things. What started as a brief publicity effort became a growing international movement which now has more than half a million members, supporters and subscribers in over 160 countries and territories. Those people come from every walk of life and reflect a very wide variety of views and politics. It is interesting that the Amnesty Parliamentary Group in this Parliament consists of honourable senators and members of all political parties. Of course, that is as it should be. They are able to carry out activities which transcend our political differences which may preoccupy us from time to time. Of course, the Parliamentary Group is not a very precise concept. The President of the Victorian section of Amnesty International approached a number of members and senators here in 1970 and from that came the Parliamentary Group. As a group , it looks at political torture and imprisonment of parliamentarians and ex- parliamentarians. It is right and proper that we should do that because they have a special affinity with us and we have with them. The activities of the members of the group, when proposed, were being seen as encompassing: 1. Reading and noting any material on human rights sent them by Amnesty; 2. Where appropriate, on their own initiative or at Amnesty request, promoting in Parliament debate on 'Amnesty issues'; 3. Similarly, supporting or promoting legislation or international initiatives in support of Amnesty issues; 4. Individually or as a group, interceding through channels or directly with governments when requested by Amnesty; a number of us do that by letter- 5. Keeping Amnesty informed of moves in Australian Government circles and overseas which would be of interest; The last point involves informing Amnesty of coming visits by international figures of note, who might be able to advise Amnesty on furthering its objectives, and how best to approach members of mission who come here-and perhaps trying to influence them. I put that in by way of a brief commercial and suggest to any honourable senators who are not members of Amnesty International that they ought to become so in their interests and in the interests of humanity . The Australian Democrats agree with Amnesty International that human rights are a human responsibility because wherever they are violated, no matter where it is, people are the victims. In his fine speech, Senator Robertson made the point very eloquently and quite passionately that people are the same everywhere. It is very evil and wrong to have the suggestion that because a place is overpopulated it is good to have a few people killed off, that where Asians are involved, because they do not feel pain the way we do it does not matter, and all such monstrous rubbish which people go on with to rationalise their position. That cannot be tolerated. But, of course, the people who are violated need practical help. The protection of human rights is an international responsibility which major powers and world bodies accept. Where they are failing is at government level. The principles of accountability are there. Not enough work has been done. Not enough determination has been exerted by the individual governments of the United Nations to put to shame those countries which use torture or to raise the matter often enough, persistently enough or annoyingly enough to persuade those countries to change their ways. We support without reservation Senator Missen's motion. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.33) —The Senate is debating the motion moved by Senator Missen in the following terms: That the Senate- (a) draws the Government's attention to the campaign by Amnesty International against torture and the evidence provided of the practice of various forms of torture in the 1980's in at least 98 countries; (b) calls on the Australian Government to assert influence to dissuade governments from continuing to use or to connive in the practice of torture within their national boundaries; (c) urges the Australian Government to support the United Nations Voluntary Fund for victims of torture; and (d) requests the Australian Government to seek the expediting of the completion of the proposed international covenant against torture. I am pleased to associate myself with this motion. I am proud to be an executive member of the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International which has been referred to by Senator Mason. Of course, I note that Senator Missen, the mover of this motion, is the Chairman of that group. I am pleased to associate myself with the work of Amnesty International and in particular its campaign to eradicate torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, wherever they occur. The report details instances of such torture occurring in some 98 different countries. It claims that more than one-third of the world's governments have used or tolerated torture or ill treatment of prisoners in the 1980s. A more shocking condemnation of the world's society than that I simply cannot imagine. It is important also to appreciate that this is not a sudden whim of Amnesty. It is part of a continuing program which dates back to at least 1972 when Amnesty International launched its campaign for the abolition of torture, following it in the next year, 1973, with a report on that subject. Ever since that time it has worked to expose cases of torture and to bring pressures on governments to act. One method it has adopted that deserves particular publicity on this occasion is what is referred to as its urgent action network which was established in 1974. It encouraged some 30,000 people from 47 countries to participate by writing to governments and expressing concern on behalf of some 1 ,143 individuals in 32 countries who were deemed to be in danger of torture. It is a practical way in which Amnesty has been able to involve the citizens of the world in expressing their concern to governments at the intolerable behaviour that has taken place, which regrettably is continuing. Despite the good work of Amnesty, it is of course very difficult to assess what has been achieved. If one looks at this report and the extent of the number of countries in which torture is practised, and the many thousands of specific instances contained therein, it might be said that very little has been achieved. However, it is worthwhile to note that this report indicates some encouraging signs. At the international level it reminds us that we now have the declaration on the protection of all persons from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. I briefly remind the Senate of Article 3 of that United Nations declaration, which is in the following terms: No State may permit or tolerate torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That is important. It is a point that has been made by previous speakers, that no circumstances can justify torture. It is inhuman behaviour and an affront to the dignity of man and in no circumstances can it be tolerated. We should be aware also that in 1975 the United Nations put down its declaration against torture. Before the United Nations presently there is a draft convention which is referred to in the motion moved by Senator Missen. It is a draft convention which Amnesty indicates at page 3 of its report it believes can be of very considerable assistance to the world community in outlawing torture and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It can play a worthwhile role in the development of that convention and the process of persuading states to sign and ratify it in due course. That is what Senator Missen is seeking in part of his motion today and it is something that I commend to the Australian Government. In the meantime Amnesty acknowledges the role of other international achievements, particularly establishment of the Human Rights Committee in 1976 pursuant to the terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Its report-I do not have time to detail it now-indicates some specific ways in which the Committee has been able to assist the world community in this very important task. It might be worthwhile, however, to remind the Senate of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It states : No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. Amnesty makes reference to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under which the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was set up. It states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Working groups have been set up by that Commission and have examined situations in southern Africa, Israel's occupied territories and Chile. It is also interesting to note from the report that special rapporteurs of that Commission have moved further. Work has been carried on in the international communities and the international covenants, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, make clear the international situation that torture is clearly internationally illegal. It is also worth noting the acknowledgement of Amnesty International as to the role of regional organisations such as the Organisation of American States, the Council of Europe in the work it has done in this regard and also the Organisation of African Unity although in that regard, I think what might be said might be related more to its potential to assist in relation to Africa than what it has been able to achieve because the report reminds us that, although the African Charter on Human and People's Rights was adopted in 1981-article 5 of which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment or treatment-the Treaty will not come into force until a majority of member states ratifies it. As of May 1983 only seven of the 51 member states had done so. I think there is another case where perhaps the good offices of the Australian Government and the good standing that it has within the African continent can be put to worthwhile use in putting the arguments to African states about the importance of ratifying that Treaty and complying with its provisions. The problem, of course, is the lack of enforcement machinery. Whether states act depends upon political pressure. It underlines, I believe, the importance of the use also of all available bilateral channels to stop torture and to comply with the findings of these international human rights bodies. I am pleased that this point was taken up by Senator Robertson. At a bilateral level we have opportunities through our diplomatic offices, through our aid and through trade to attempt to persuade other countries as to our attitudes on matters such as torture and the totally unsatisfactory behaviour that we regard it to be. We should have suggested in this report-I think it is worth considering-the encouragement of our embassy officials to collect information in the countries in which they operate. We should have also suggested that we send observers to trials. That is a process that we have adopted in a small way which I think can be developed further in the future. We should be prepared to come out and name and condemn those countries in which torture is a practice. As Senator Robertson said, we should not be afraid to do so because of any detrimental effect that that might have on our bilateral trading position, for example. We should not underestimate the international political embarrassment in making these statements and in making the world community aware that torture is still a practice that is taking place in so many countries of the world. Amnesty International also looks at the tremendous role being played by international non-governmental organisations. I think that should be mentioned also in this debate. I recall Senator Missen mentioned the excellent work and contribution being made by the International Commission of Jurists. We should also mention the work that has been carried on in this field by the International Committee of the Red Cross which receives particular mention in the report for the role that it can and does play. For example, at page 46 of the report we are reminded that in 1981 alone the International Committee of the Red Cross visited 489 places of detention. Between 1971 and 1981 its delegates carried out approximately 15,000 visits in some 80 countries. It is concerned with the conditions of the prisoners' detention. Its delegates attempt to establish the facts about those conditions including allegations of torture and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. We should recognise the work these international non-government organisations are carrying out. One that I have particular interest in and which I have raised in the Senate before is Lawasia's human rights committee and the work that it is doing to protect lawyers throughout the Asian region in the roles that they carry out in protecting the rights and freedom of people in their countries. We should recognise the role that these groups carry out. There is certainly a role for us and our Government to play in encouraging the good work they are doing. The report of Amnesty also recognises the role being played by national groups. This is an area that probably does not receive quite as much attention as perhaps it should. It makes mention of such organisations as the Detainees' Parents Support Committee in South Africa. It gives particular credit to various bar and medical associations throughout the world that have played active parts in attempting to suppress torture within their countries. It makes mention specifically of the Human Rights Society of Pakistan and the work it has done. It makes mention of the Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka and the Legal Aid Institute in Indonesia and the work it has done and is doing in relation to the unfortunate, totally unsatisfactory situation in Indonesia at the moment with large numbers of persons being abducted, tortured and killed without trial. Senator Missen —Always doing this at great danger to themselves, too. Senator HILL —As Senator Missen indicates, they are always doing it at great danger to themselves. The work of these groups should be commended and encouraged by the Australian Parliament. Church groups have also been specifically mentioned in the report and deserve our recognition and support for the work they have done. The Press deserves some credit. I know it was mentioned earlier in this debate but it seems to be difficult to enthuse to the Press in debates in the Senate on Thursday afternoons. Nevertheless the report indicates the important role that the news media is carrying out in this regard and gives particular credit to it. At page 2 of its report, Amnesty International states: The news media carry many more items about torture and other human rights abuses than they did a decade ago, not necessarily because there are more such abuses in the 1980s than earlier, but because more independent organisations are investigating these abuses and because editors and journalists are more concerned to conduct their own research into torture allegations and to report on their findings. I believe that should be recognised and encouraged. Despite these signs of promise that Amnesty has identified and which I have mentioned today, the report does evidence a continuing use of torture to an extent that can only be described as shocking. It is governments that are responsible for torture and it is only governments that in the end can effectively prevent it. We are looking at a dual situation, equally to be condemned. We are looking at a situation where there is a conscious decision to torture by some governments and also where there is a lack of will by many other governments to stop torture. What Amnesty International has done therefore is to list a set of legal and administrative safeguards and remedies that any government can introduce if it seriously wishes to abolish or prevent torture and ill-treatment. I remind the Senate that clearly a simple legislative prohibition is insufficient because torture is already prohibited by the laws or constitutions of at least 112 countries, regrettably, many of which are detailed in this report as still having torture carried out within their areas of responsibility. But where the political will exists there is no doubt that a government can stop torture. Conversely, if few objectively verifiable preventive and remedial measures have been taken then it is fair to conclude that a government's opposition to torture is less than serious. That, I think, leads to the most important and constructive part of the report because it attempts to detail a list of preventive measures which a government that is serious can take in order to prevent torture taking place. It also lists a series of remedial measures which a government can take which are important in that they will deter future ill-treatment. I do not have the time today to detail these measures but I will simply run through the list that appears in the report. I commend them to honourable senators for more detailed consideration. Preventive measures include: Official directives condemning torture, which in so many places simply does not occur; restrictions on incommunicado detention-the access of the detainee to lawyers, for example; domestic legislation, which makes torture a criminal offence-I remind the Senate that the United Nations declaration against torture calls on each state to ensure that torture is an offence under its criminal law; the repeal of provisions of emergency legislation which diminish detainees' rights-in many cases as indicated in this report, torture is facilitated by the existence of states of emergency whether or not such states of emergency really are necessary; the encouragement of a regular system of visits to places of detention-by such groups as the Red Cross; training in human rights norms for all security agents; an attempt to separate the detaining authority from the interrogating authority; notification to detainees of their rights; the urging of a commitment to an independent judiciary, and the prohibition against the waiving of certain rights- unfortunately in some places it is possible for somebody who has been arrested to waive his right to appear before a court in a specific period of time. Amnesty says that such a right to waive should not exist, for obvious reasons and, I believe, it makes sense. Amnesty says that medical safeguards should exist, records should be kept by the detaining authority as an important indication of whether a state is determined to ensure that proper behaviour occurs within that authority; the procedures an interrogating authority may use should be clearly outlined and obvious, and there should be a code for treatment of detainees. Amnesty also recommends ratification and declarations concerning international human rights norms and mechanisms, something that I mentioned earlier. Under 'Remedial measures' it indicates that it is important to take remedial measures to provide a satisfactory complaints machinery and other domestic legal remedies. In conclusion, I say that this report is helpful not only in that it sheets home the blame to governments rather than individuals but also because it alerts us to the methods, the victims and the agents. It points out a clear picture of accumulated evidence of the preconditions for torture. It shocks us with the methodology of torture and it is prepared to name governments where torture has occurred. But as I indicated, it is also particularly helpful in setting out a constructive program for improving the position. The Amnesty International report invites all concerned individuals and organisations to join in promoting its program. I am pleased to do so and I urge the Australian Government to do so . Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(4.55) —As normally happens when we have a debate of this nature and one is the last speaker, one finds that preceding speakers have used those parts of the report to which one wished to refer. I think it is an accepted fact on both sides of the House today that this is a very important motion that has been brought forward by Senator Missen. There are many areas throughout the world where violence and torture are practised and accepted perhaps as a 'way of life'. That is not to say that because we know that those various forms of torture exist we should ignore them. Nor is it to say that because they happen in other countries, setting aside the matters raised by Senator Robertson earlier, we should remain silent. Nor is it to say that we should not use the forms of this chamber and the other House to bring them to the attention of the Australian people. As Senator Missen commented, it will be those people who read the Hansard of today's proceedings who are more likely to learn of our concern than those who read the Press reports, because there is only one member of the Press Gallery here. I understand that there has been only one during the whole of the debate. I do not want to castigate the Press but I point out to it that there is a role that the Press has to play in the area of 'human rights' as there is a role for it to play in many other areas of the society in which we live. One of the particular roles that the Press can play is to publicise those areas where torture is practised, where perhaps we have a means of offsetting to a certain extent some of those practices. One of the other roles that I would see the Press playing is that of highlighting to the people of Australia the genuine concern that members of the Government and of the Opposition, the members of this Parliament, are expressing about the reports coming through. We are all horrified at the report of what is happening in East Timor that was referred to earlier in the debate. I do not intend to go through that matter except to say that I find it a most disgusting element of our society but I recognise that it is there and nothing that we say today will change that situation. But if we can get enough people and enough governments saying it then we can change the situation. The Amnesty International organisation has put out a number of publications over the years. It is interesting that its latest publication, Torture in the Eighties, brings out a number of the reports that Senator Missen and I certainly have had for many years because of our involvement with the parliamentary group of Amnesty International, highlighting the effects of torture and violence in a number of countries. It does not seem to matter, whether one looks at countries where there is a socialist goverment or whether the countries are republics, whether the country be in the Middle East, in Europe, the Africas, Asia or the Americas; the fact remains that someone, somewhere, has this means of physically or psychologically subjecting another human being to torture. For instance, the briefing paper circulated by Amnesty International says: Revulsion at the extermination camps of the Second World War led to a convention outlawing genocide for all time and today's torture chambers demand a similar international response. The torture and ill-treatment can be stopped. The international framework for its abolition exists. What is lacking is the political will of governments to stop torturing people. It is therefore on the government. Amnesty has said that it is a government responsibility. As a government, as a parliament, we should be taking every step we can to ensure that other governments know of our concern about the situation. The plain fact is, as all have acknowledged, torture has been with us from time immemorial. Nothing has changed, just the methods have changed. Advancing technology has intruded even into the area of torture. There are now much more sophisticated means of torture than were ever dreamed possible even 10 or 20 years ago because of that change in technology. The kind of torture which is applied is more frequently psychological torture, not necessarily of a person but of a person who is forced to watch another person being tortured. I am reminded of the plight of women prisoners in Evin prison in Iran. One mother who was tortured by being held screamed that she was ready to confess when she could no longer stand the agony of her three-year old daughter being forced to watch. How does one gauge the emotional extent of the stress on that three-year old child? How does one measure the psychological torture of that mother, who was not only tortured physically by being beaten but tortured by the fact that she knew that her three-year old daughter was watching that torture. One has to presume that there is an element of madness in those who devise such means of torture. There is a set method of torture, particularly against women, and it is normally in the form of rape. I mentioned a little earlier the role of the Press . One can pick up any daily newspaper in Australia, and in all probability one will see on the front page reference to a sexual violation of a female person. Some newspapers rehash a previous incident to sell more newspapers. Rape is the worst form of torture that perhaps a woman can experience. If it is taken out of the context of life in a 'relatively free' civilisation in Australia, and if it is put in a context where women are deliberately raped as a form of torture, it becomes a much more heinous crime. I do not belittle the other forms of rape that take place in a society such as ours. I am simply referring to the fact that it is a more heinous crime when carried out as a form of torture against groups of women rather than an individual. Senator Missen said that torture is a disease, a breach of all things civilisation stands for, and that one sometimes has to question whether we are a civilised world because of what goes on. He called for the Government to have a strong priority on human rights issues. I have read some of the report, and because of the time constraints today I shall not go into it in great detail. However, I looked closely at some of the forms of torture used and at some of the countries that employ such methods. It does not seem to matter where one comes from in the world today, there is an acceptance that torture is a form of life. For example, I noted that in Iran the popular, if one can use that word, form of torture is whipping and amputation. In Yugoslavia the popular form of torture is to beat men on the genitals and then brag that they will never be able to father children. China, where little information has been made available , has suddenly come into prominence in this respect as a result of a number of articles which have been published in some of our more popular newspapers recently. In Afghanistan one woman who was held said that during detention she was continually interrogated and denied sleep for up to a week. One has only to think of that as a form of torture to realise what it involved. We sit in this place on Tuesdays to an extended hour late at night. I suppose to a lot of people parliament is a form of torture. Certainly listening to it may be! However, I ask honourable senators to imagine being denied the right to go to sleep for a whole week and the emotional effect that must have. That woman was then subjected to electric shock torture. Look at the situation in Uruguay, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Indeed, there is hardly a country that misses out in the report. The report makes clear that at present 98 nations practise a form of torture. Amnesty has collated information on 66 of those countries. One young boy aged 12 years was detained by security forces in Iraq from 25 February to 5 March a couple of years ago. His corpse was subsequently handed back to his family and was badly marked by torture. It was bad enough that the corpse was handed back, but so much worse that it was in a mutilated form. If anybody saw the mothers of the missing on television some months ago, they would have been impressed by the psychological torture that was exerted on those women who had no idea whether their families were alive or dead , whether they were being tortured or incarcerated. In this situation Australia can play a singularly important role. Because of my concern in this area, which I have expressed on many occasions and which I do not need to repeat, and because of my work in the parliamentary group of Amnesty International, I contacted the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to tell him that I would be speaking on this subject. I was given an assurance by him that the draft convention of the United Nations on this subject is apparently now prepared. He informed me that if there were any suggestion of a weakening of that draft resolution, such a move would be strongly resisted by the Australian Government. That gives me a great deal of heart. I firmly believe that although the United Nations may not be everything we want it to be, we must recognise that it is the only body that could be considered to be influential, particularly in those areas. One other matter that we must take into consideration when discussing torture, and the reasons for it, is that we now have a great disparity in society. There are the haves, who are very well placed, and the have-nots, whether they be individuals or countries. There are very influential countries which are financially independent and have the means of borrowing money on the world market. However, there are other countries that are destitute because they have no national security. If there is no national security, there is no individual security. Until we can bridge that gap we are not likely to be able to change things, to any great extent. But we can at least make our voices heard. We can say to other governments: 'What you are doing is not recognisable by us'. I have no compunction about holding a threat over people's heads. We should say to those governments that if they do not desist from torturing people, if they do not conform with what we consider to be a civilised manner of living, we will take such and such action. If it comes to that situation, I believe that is what we should be prepared to do. If there are other means of getting around it, I would prefer to see those go through, with the aid of the United Nations international covenant against torture. I understand that will be some way in the future, but there is nothing to stop us right now expressing the concerns of all the people in this place and in the other place about what is happening in the world. I commend to the Parliament the report by Amnesty International ' Torture in the Eighties'. It is not light reading but is very readable. It is not the sort of book one should take to bed after a very heavy day in this chamber, but it is certainly one everybody should read. I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.10) —I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on behalf of the Government because it is I believe an important one. The Government very much welcomes the report of Amnesty International and the campaign against torture and has no quarrel at all with the general terms of Senator Missen's motion. The facts documented by Amnesty unequivocally demonstrate that it is vitally important to raise international awareness of the scope and gravity of torture. It is very disquieting to note, as did Senator Missen and Senator Coleman, that Amnesty names 98 countries in all in its report. The report gives detailed consideration of 66 of these in its global survey of countries which countenance torture and ill-treatment of prisoners. Australia has been consistently active in international efforts to bring an end to torture. We have, for example, made a significant contribution to the Working Group of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which has been drafting an international convention against torture. That Commission adopted a draft text of the convention at its last session. This draft, with some few articles remaining to be agreed, will now be considered by the next session of the UN General Assembly. The principal remaining obstacle to agreement is the question of whether the implementation provisions of the convention should be mandatory or optional. Australia firmly favours the former option and the Government will be redoubling its efforts to see an effective convention with mandatory implementation provisions adopted at the Thirty-Ninth UN General Assembly. Australia has also expressed strong support for the UN's standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners and the draft body of principles for the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment being negotiated within the United Nations General Assembly. Respect for the principles embodied in these instruments and other due process safeguards found in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would have a major impact in reducing the incidence of torture. Australia has made representations on a bilateral basis in a number of countries where allegations of torture have been made. We shall continue to pursue our concerns about torture with individual countries as appropriate opportunities arise. The Government does not underestimate the difficulties involved in taking effective action against torture. As Amnesty points out, the evidence of torture reflects not only in discipline and cruelty at grass roots administrative levels , but also in many instances conscious, calculated government policy to deal with dissent. An important beginning is to bring the problem to light, a task in which Amnesty has succeeded admirably. Another key step is to strengthen respect for internationally recognised safeguards for prisoners, including rights of access to lawyers and family as embodied in instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. The present administrators, the police and the military, require proper training and effective supervision. While the emphasis should, of course, be on preventive action, the Government is also aware of the need for assistance for those who have suffered torture. The Government has therefore decided to contribute to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture next financial year, and the amount of that contribution will, I imagine, be announced in the Budget context. The fund is used to finance valuable work on the rehabilitation of torture victims whose long term suffering is often forgotten. The Government wishes Amnesty's campaign against torture every success. The Government values greatly the efforts of responsible non-government organisations, such as Amnesty, to protect and promote internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.12) —in reply-There is no call for me to reply in this debate, but I merely wish to thank my colleagues of all political parties who have contributed to the debate, for their generous and individual contributions, and their support for the campaign against torture. I also thank the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who was speaking on behalf of the Government, for his encouraging statement and the particularly encouraging news that there will be a practical demonstration of that in the contribution to the fund for the assistance of victims of torture. I trust that by the carriage of this motion-I trust the Senate will carry it-we will be able to demonstrate the strong feeling which we, as representatives of the Australian people, have on this subject and help towards eliminating torture in this world. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 6 May 1982, on motion by Senator Mason: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.14) —Senator Mason's Bill, the Rainforest Preservation Agreements Bill 1982 [1983], has been introduced with the very laudable aim of promoting the conservation of Australia's remaining rainforest resources. Senator Mason is to be congratulated for his efforts in this very important area. However, we do have some difficulties with his Bill, which I shall state as briefly as possible. In its present form we believe it contains several definitional administrative and financial inadequacies. Briefly, the definitional inadequacies primarily relate to the concept of rainforest itself, which is undefined in the legislation. The difficulty is that environmentalists, geographers, botanists and almost everybody else disagree among themselves as to what rainforests are. There are many different kinds-sub-tropical, tropical, temperate and so on. For example, Queenslanders tend to laugh at Victorians or Tasmanians claiming that they possess rainforests. It is not a term of such precise scientific connotation, as I understand it, or denotation. I had better get corrected on that. Senator Macklin —Denotation. Senator GARETH EVANS —Denotation-that that term, by itself, is really terribly satisfactory when left as the centrepiece of a Bill of this kind. The administrative difficulties tend to arise out of the reliance adopted in the legislation on really joint action with the States. The essentially parallel approach here foreshadowed does depend on the goodwill of the States which may, of course, not be forthcoming, to secure the objectives of the legislation. There may, indeed, also be some constitutional problems flowing from the problems posed by section 99 which prohibits, among other things, a preference to a particular State. It might be argued, to the extent that the Bill is variable in its application, depending on whether the State in question has a rainforest, that there are some constitutional difficulties. That particular aspect of it may be over-exaggerated but it certainly needs further consideration before his legislation is passed in its present form. The financial difficulties are largely those associated with the compensation provisions. The cost of acquisition and assistance that is contemplated by the legislation is not quantified and could be anything in the range from $2m to $ 200m. Naturally any government is going to be cautious about accepting a legislative commitment of that kind. In cases of acquisition there is the further difficulty that the valuation method and process is unspecified, leaving it doubtful as to by whom the process is to be carried on, whether or not the value of timber is to be taken into account, and so on. Moreover, the difficulty , as we discovered in the context of the Tasmanian dam case, is that any given valuation method may not stand up to the scrutiny of the High Court of Australia under section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution, which demands that any acquisition of a compulsory kind be on just terms. That creates all sorts of difficulties for this kind of legislation. I am not saying that this legislation-nor is the Government-is necessarily incapable of remedying or amendment in some of these respects, but certainly the Government sees very real difficulties about accepting it in its present form. Moreover, we take the view, the rather larger view, that the Bill would not assist the aim we all share of promoting the conservation of Australia's remaining rainforest resources. It may, in fact, by being introduced at this time, be counterproductive to some of the measures the Government has already set in train and is planning. Those measures I will now, on behalf of the relevant Minister, Mr Cohen, endeavour to describe. No doubt the Government has been vigorously active in this area and there are a number of things occurring otherwise than in a legislative context. The Australian Labor Party 1982 platform contained a very firm commitment to promote the conservation of rainforests, in recognition of the fact that they constitute a valuable and diminishing world and national resource. As the first step towards implementing this commitment, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen, as I said, convened the Conference on Tropical and Subtropical Rainforest Conservation in Cairns on 2 and 3 February this year. The conference was chaired by the Acting Secretary of his Department, Mr Galvin. It was attended by about 50 invited participants, representing the major groups with an interest in the question of rainforest conservation includ- ing the New South Wales and Queensland governments, the conservation movement, local government, the timber industry, unions and the scientific community as well as various Commonwealth interests. Mr Cohen opened the conference and attended much of it. The conference proved to be a great success, I am told. It established that much common ground exists between conservationists, foresters, national parks authorities and persons engaged in rainforest timber industries. The Minister tells me he was particularly pleased with the level of co-operation and goodwill shown by the New South Wales and Queensland governments. At the end of the conference a statement was issued which was unanimously supported by the participants and acknowledged the need for a Commonwealth rainforest conservation policy. It stated: is consistent with the National Conservation Strategy for Australia; recognises the responsibilities of State and Local Governments; provides a stable basis upon which future developments in the timber industry and in rainforest management can be planned, recognising commitments given to industry in the allocation of virgin rainforest timber resources; recognises that Australia's future timber needs should be met without placing undue pressure on the rainforest resources of other countries; seeks to ensure that adequate representative areas of all rainforest ecosystems and their genetic diversity are maintained in perpetuity. Senator Archer —That was unanimous, wasn't it? Senator GARETH EVANS —That was unanimous. The conference agreed that any policy which calls for changes to existing practices should result from the fullest consultation between all interested parties-government, industry, unions and conservationists-and should take account of the need for appropriate structural adjustment assistance for the industry and employees whose livelihoods would be affected. Furthermore, the conference agreed that a co-ordinated national research program should be undertaken to provide the information necessary to allow management practices to embrace the elements of the proposed policy. The conference supported Mr Cohen's suggestion that a working group be established to develop a set of policy options for the Government to consider. Action is under way to establish the working group. The Government is hopeful that, building on the agreement reached in Cairns, a policy will be developed that promotes the conservation of rainforests while catering for the needs of the industries and individuals involved in rainforest utilisation. I repeat that the Government, while wholly sympathetic to the objectives of this legislation, given the moves that have been occurring that I have just retailed, does not believe that legislation of this kind, whatever its conceptual merits, is appropriate at this stage. Moreover, we see a number of difficulties, in particular in the drafting and formulation of it, such as to make it not possible for us to give this measure, whatever its initial attractiveness, our support. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.22) —Mr Deputy President, I wish to speak on behalf of the Liberal and National parties on this debate on Senator Mason's private member's Rainforest Preservation Agreements Bill. The Opposition will not be supporting the Bill. That is not because we are not supportive of the sentiments that Senator Mason has expressed in relation to rain forests; we are not supporting it for the same reasons that the Government is not. We think it is not a practical or workable solution and we think that there are other ways of handling the problem that we certainly face with rainforests. We also think that Senator Mason's Bill is too restrictive. The Bill itself provides only that there will be agreements between the Commonwealth Government and State governments so there is not prescription for any State government as to its attitude or behaviour towards rainforests. However, a schedule to the Bill sets out the form of the agreement. We find this defective and deficient for a number of reasons. I state first of all the Liberal and National parties' attitude on the subject generally. The Attorney-General, Senator Evans, when speaking on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), referred to the Conference on Tropical and Subtropical Rainforest Conservation held in Cairns. This approach of involving all interested parties-governments at all levels, people involved in the timber industry and those who are interested in conservation-is one that the Opposition supports. We note with interest the statement which Senator Evans has referred to. I draw attention to a couple of parts of that statement which are consistent with our views on the subject of rainforests. We note that the conference adopted the definition of conservation used in the world conservation strategy, noting in particular that it embraces 'preservation , maintenance, sustainable utilisation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment'. We claim that the schedule to Senator Mason's Bill is in conflict with that definition of conservation. It is also-I will come to this later-in conflict with a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce on the subject of Australia's forestry and forest products industries. Its recommendations agree closely with the statement from the Conference on Tropical and Sub-tropical Rainforest Conservation. One of the effects of the agreement in the schedule to Senator Mason's Bill would be to prevent any utilisation of declared and agreed areas after a period of a couple of years. We think that this is unrealistic in all cases and could actually be a deterrent to Commmonwealth and State governments reaching agreement on the management of rainforest areas. Senator Evans very properly pointed out that one of the biggest problems-it is not an insoluble one but is a very real one-is the problem of the definition of rainforest. There are several types of rainforests in Australia-tropical, cool-temperate and littoral. Rainforests often merge into surrounding vegetation and these transitional rainforest communities form significant habitats and buffer zones associated with mature rainforest. A variety of definitions may take narrow or wide views of what rainforest is. Therefore, one would need in any Bill on this matter some sort of agreement on definition. I have received, as I am sure many other senators have received, a number of representations from individuals who are interested in supporting the thrust of Senator Mason's Bill. So far as the thrust of his Bill is to do something constructive to protect rainforests, that sentiment is one with which we agree. However, I reiterate that we do not agree with the definition in his schedule as to the best way to do what the Bill seeks to do. I have been approached by people who claim that there are still in existence a couple of areas in Queensland of what could be called virgin rainforest. I understand that that term in itself is a fairly controversial one; some people believe there is no such thing as virgin rainforest. I have certainly had it put to me that once a rainforest is disturbed it cannot be restored to its original condition. It can be restored to a satisfactory condition but it is unlikely, because of the very intricate connection of species, that we could get the rainforest back to its original condition. That being so, very little rainforest is left in Australia in that condition and probably none of our rainforest is capable of restoration to originality. The suggestion therefore, that we might look at better management of rainforest areas is a more practical one. Nevertheless, there are rainforests in north- eastern Australia and adjacent Pacific islands which contain the greatest assemblages of primitive flowering plant families in the world. About one quarter of north Queensland rainforest flora genera are found only in that region. That means that we do have in Australia something that is of world importance, which is very precious and which therefore puts a heavy responsibility on us to make sure that we do proceed properly and with care. As I said earlier, large areas of rainforest have been logged and are being logged. Some would say that in some of the areas involved the method of logging and the conservation that goes with that logging are satisfactory. I have seen a few of those areas in Queensland and some of them are quite impressive. The Opposition, without necessarily concluding what the outcome of this series of consultations will be, thinks that it is a sensible way to go about something that is important. Of course we are not committed to whatever the outcome might be because we do not know what the outcome will be. Whilst we agree with the Government on the need to follow this course, we are not necessarily committed to whatever conclusion the Government itself might draw. The subject of land use is one that is very much involved with rainforest preservation and unless our land use decisions and methods improve Australia will have larger deserts and erosion will spread. Natural forest areas will continue to dwindle. Plant and animal species will become extinct. As I have indicated, some of the plant and animal species, in some of our rainforests at least, are unique. Another deficiency of Senator Mason's Bill is that it covers rainforests on public land only; it does not extend to private land. I remind the Senate that when we were in government we provided money for the purchase of private land which we thought was important for conservation reasons. This land was provided as national parks area. So we do have a commitment to national parks areas and when in government we faced the difficult issue of what has to be done about private land. A further criticism that needs to be made of Senator Mason's Bill-perhaps it is one that he can come back to but it is a criticism that is open to be made at the moment-is that it provides for the Commonwealth and the States to be involved in an arrangement under which they share the costs of maintenance of agreed areas on a 50-50 basis. The great problem is that the Bill provides for absolutely no limit on such costs. The States will draw up a conservation program and determine what that will cost, and the Commonwealth Government will be committed to meet half of that cost. It may well be that there would be a view that that is not entirely appropriate, that there should be some sort of notional limit or some sort of idea provided of what sort of expenditure a government would be likely to have to meet if this Bill were carried. Of course, the Bill contains no enforcement provisions either, except it provides that there shall be an agreement. I have already mentioned that the agreement referred to in the Schedule requires a cessation of all rainforest logging in the agreed areas within two years. It is entirely possible that at some stage in the future a Commonwealth government and a State government, or several State governments, will agree that an area should not be logged in the future. One needs to have a rather better basis for proceeding than is contained in this Bill. Neither the Bill nor the Schedule contains any guidance as to the grounds on which it is to be decided that an area is not to be logged at all. The provisions of this Bill would apply only to those areas that are not to be logged at all, in which case it would preclude agreement about many areas in relation to which the Commonwealth and the States might want to reach agreement. The other possibility is that all areas in relation to which the Commonwealth and the States might wish to reach agreement for the purpose of general conservation will be too restrictively treated. I draw the Senate's attention to the recommendations of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce following its inquiry into Australia's forestry and forest products industries. I understand that the former chairman of that Committee, Senator Archer, has indicated his intention to speak in the debate on this Bill. I am sure that he, too, will make reference to this report. I do not intend to refer to it at length. I just want to place on the record the recommendations of the Committee in relation to rainforests. The Committee recognised that the issue of rainforests is a very difficult one but a very important one. The Committee recommended as follows: All areas of rainforests in Australia be conserved, maintaining the characteristic diversity and vitality of the original forests. Where publicly-owned rainforests are managed for timber production, management prescriptions must include as a minimum standard the attainment of sustained yield as a high priority; selective logging; canopy retention provisions appropriate to the rainforest type; marking by forest service staff of each tree to be removed; tree marking to ensure the maintenance of the species mix of the forest in its original proportions. Consistent with those recommendations, the Committee recommended: The margin between royalties applying to rainforest species and those to other species be increased to ensure that rainforest timbers are used sparingly and only for purposes where other timbers and other materials are not suitable substitutes. Apart from Senator Archer, Senator Coleman, who was also a member of that Committee, may wish to speak in the debate at some stage. I am sure that those honourable senators will expand on those points. I draw them to the Senate's attention at this stage to point out how strongly at variance with those recommendations is the Schedule to Senator Mason's Bill. The Committee recognised that some logging is necessary and, indeed, inevitable. Nevertheless, it recognised some very sensible conservation principles that ought to be applied to any logging that is carried out. I commend the recommendations of that Committee to the Senate and to people who are interested in this general subject. Whilst I have commended the Government on moving into its conference format, it does have a couple of matters to answer for. I realise that Senator Gareth Evans was representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment when he read to the Senate some information that had been provided to him on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I would like a Government senator to address himself seriously in the debate to the issue of how the interest the Government has professed for some time in rainforests squares with its actual performance. When Senator Mason introduced this Bill originally, the Labor party in Opposition indicated that it would probably support the Bill if some amendments were made to it. Now it is no longer interested in moving amendments and it intends to oppose the Bill. The Federal Government has been the centre of some controversy, as indeed has been the Queensland Government in recent months in relation to the Daintree area . It is an area with which I am a little familiar but, unfortunately, it is an area that I do not get to visit often enough. It is located in quite an exquisite part of Queensland. The Senate will recall that there has been some controversy in relation to the building of a road through that area by the State government and the subdivision for private sale of areas of that rainforest by a land developer. I have already covered the matter of this Bill not addressing itself to private land. I think that is a matter to which the Government must address itself. I indicated earlier that when in government the coalition parties did address themselves to this matter and on occasions it acquired private land for inclusion in national parks. The problems associated with rainforests on private land are very much an issue in the Daintree. The Government in opposition professed, and it professes today, a great interest in rainforests. When faced with this issue of the Daintree, the Government really stands condemned. All that the Minister did in relation to that matter was to send one telegram to the Premier of Queensland, in which he expressed some criticism of what was happening at the time. I understand that the Premier of Queensland did not reply to that telegram. That may or may not surprise honourable senators. At that point the Minister washed his hands of the matter. He said that he really could not do any more. He said he had tried to do something about the Daintree, he had not received co-operation from the State Government, and that was that. The model of co-operation that the Government might be trying to follow by holding conferences on rainforests was markedly absent when it was faced with a real issue, and in recent times, the issue of the Daintree has been the issue concerned with rainforests. The Government simply decided not to pursue the matter any further. I think it is a great pity that the Government did not try to enter into serious negotiations with the Queensland Government, the land developers, the local authorities who approved certain land development, and so on. I know it would have been late in the day for the Government to enter into negotiations, but the issue involving the development of the Daintree did not arise on the day that the bulldozers moved in to commence construction of the road; it had been an issue for some time. The Minister could have moved on it much earlier than he did. Given that he had not, when he finally moved in December, he hardly moved at all. He is deserving of criticism for his lack of genuineness concerning the issue involving the Daintree. The time for debate on this Bill has almost expired. I do not wish to speak at any greater length. I wish to state the reasons that the Liberal and National parties will not be supporting Senator Mason's Bill. I wish to state our views on the subject of rainforests, both in government and in opposition. Whilst undoubtedly senator Mason will be disappointed that we will not be supporting his Bill, I trust that he will nevertheless recognise that we will be supportive of what we see as better types of moves towards assisting with the very difficult but very important issue of rainforest preservation in Australia. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(5.40) —Let me say at the outset that I view the preservation of Australia's rainforest as an absolute priority and so does the Government. The Rainforest Preservation Agreements Bill is an attempt by Senator Mason to establish an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States to preserve those recognised areas of Australia's rainforests. While I can accept the intent of Senator Mason's Bill, it has in essence been pre-empted by decisions and actions of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen , as already outlined in the Senate this afternoon by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans). Furthermore, there are certain inadequacies in the Bill. The legislation contains clauses which are of some concern to me, because they assume that all State governments can, in fact, be relied upon to view the preservation of rainforests as supportively as does the present Federal Government. Historically, there is little evidence to support this optimistic assumption and, in reality, State government priorities can alter drastically in regard to the pressures put on them by the timber industry. Therefore, what is required in my view-it is also the view of the Government-is a much more water- tight agreement than is contained in the Bill. By convening the rainforest conference in Cairns in February the Federal Government has already clearly demonstrated its commitment to the preservation of Australia's rainforests. The Minister said: The platform on which the Hawke Government was elected recognises that rainforests are a valuable and diminishing world and national resource, and contains a commitment to develop policies which will provide a balance between economic, ecological and recreational needs for Australia's forest resources. In developing a proposal for a rainforest conservation policy I want to ensure that we prevent further degradation of our forests so that future generations will continue to have the same access to rainforest as we have today. If we can adopt a policy that will enable us to undo some of the damage already done, so much the better. There is no doubt in my mind that the National Government has a role in protecting a resource that is part of our national heritage. At present rainforests are one of the most threatened parts of that heritage. The communique which was issued after the Cairns conference endorsed the need for the Commonwealth rainforest policy which would realistically, in co- operation with the States, preserve Australia's rainforests. Following the rainforest conference in February, the Minister is setting up a working group to work out and cost a national rainforest preservation policy which will go to Cabinet for approval. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated under sessional order for the consideration of General Business has expired. Senator Mason's Bill, having been interrupted by sessional order will, under standing order 75, remain on the Notice Paper. As is the custom adopted recently in the Senate, it will remain in its present position on the Notice Paper. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. The Bills. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.44) —In relation to the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill I move: Clause 39, page 26, lines 15 and 16, omit ', where it considers it appropriate to do so,'. Clause 39 provides for a Protected Zone Joint Authority, which is referred to in the second reading speech. The clause reads: The Protected Zone Joint Authority shall, where it considers it appropriate to do so, seek the views of members of the Joint Advisory Council established under Article 19 of the Torres Strait Treaty who are traditional inhabitants and Australian citizens on any matter relating to a Protected Zone Joint Authority fishery where the matter may affect the interests of traditional inhabitants who are Australian citizens. I have already referred to the complexity of the legislation, the way in which the Protected Zone Joint Authority will work and the complications there are with the operation of the protected zone and so on. It seems clear that the legislation will work only with the utmost co-operation of all the parties involved. Unfortunately, because of the way clause 39 is drafted, the Torres Strait Island members of the Joint Advisory Council will not be involved to the extent which we in the Opposition believe would be desirable. The amendment would leave out after the words 'The Protected Zone Joint Authority shall', these words 'where it considers it appropriate to do so'. The result would be that it would be mandatory for the Protected Zone Joint Authority to seek the views of the Joint Advisory Council on all occasions where any matters arise which affect the interests of the traditional Australian inhabitants. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.46) —The Government opposes the amendment, for reasons which were stated with compelling effect by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West, in the House of Representatives, which reasons I now repeat: The text of the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill was arrived at after extensive negotiations with Queensland. Clause 39 was drafted in its present form on the understanding that the Joint Advisory Council would be consulted only on broad policy issues affecting the traditional inhabitants and on important matters which could not be easily resolved by other consultative processes. It was never intended that the three Islander members of the Joint Advisory Council be consulted on day to day fisheries management matters handled by the Protected Zone Joint Authority. The amendment would oblige the Joint Authority to consult the three Islander members of the Joint Advisory Council about every matter which the Joint Authority was considering that was likely to affect the Australian traditional inhabitants. Given the role of the Joint Advisory Council, this would be clearly impractical. The Joint Authority has power under clause 40 (7) to establish advisory groups, the membership of which may include Islander and commercial fishing industry representatives. It is envisaged that this will be the principal mechanism through which Islanders will be able to express their views to the Joint Authority on detailed fisheries management issues. Commonwealth and Queensland officials are already consulting with members of a consultative group formed by the Islanders themselves to discuss management of protected zone fisheries whether for traditional fishing or for commercial fishing. A similar consultative group exists for the commercial fishing industry . It is planned to continue and build on these consultative arrangements once the Joint Authority commences operating, to ensure that the interests of the Islanders and the commercial fishing industry are properly recognised and catered for. It is, therefore, necesary to leave clause 39 in its present form as it would be clearly inappropriate for the Protected Zone Joint Authority to consult the Joint Advisory Council on every matter under consideration by the Authority. For those reasons I repeat, although we understand the thought that lies behind the amendment, we simply cannot accept it. It is quite unworkable. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.48) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I indicate that we will not be supporting this amendment. Unfortunately, we received notice of it only at the Committee stage. I believe the explanation that was given in the House of Representatives was indeed adequate. I cannot understand why the amendment was moved again in the Committee. Amendment negatived. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.49) —I wish to make a few remarks concerning two of the criticisms which have been made of the legislation in the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The report was tabled yesterday. Because of the lack of copies I do not believe any honourable senator has received a copy. I realise there is a great shortage of time but I think it is important that, briefly, the matters which are commented on in that report ought to be drawn to the attention of the Committee. It relates to a number of clauses and to two particular items. I do not propose to move any amendments but to draw the attention of the Committee to these criticisms which have been raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. This is in connection with the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill. In the course of a Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest of 2 November 1983 we raised certain matters. We have had responses from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) since then that I think must be referred to in this chamber. With regard to clauses 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 the Committee had complained that there ought to be some form of review. These clauses all relate to a discretion in relation to the granting, endorsement, transfer, renewal or revocation of licences and of conditions which would apply to them. The Committee thought there should be some review of the merits. In fact the Attorney-General's Department has responded. I quote the relevant part of its response: The Bill was introduced in its present form with the option of including review provisions at a later date, because of the difficulties outlined above-- It outlined the difficulties, as this is a treaty, in that Queensland has very strong views on this and there are difficulties arising from that. It continues: and the need to have all the necessary legislation in place to enable ratification of the Torres Strait Treaty later this year. It is the Commonwealth's intention that the Torres Strait legislation should in due course be brought into line with administrative review arrangements settled with the States for fisheries generally. However, from the Commonwealth viewpoint it is undesirable that the Torres Strait legislation-which affects relations with Papua New Guinea-should become the central issue in a disagreement that needs to be considered in the wider fisheries context. The Committee acknowledged the response from the Department and sought to draw it to the attention of the Senate. I do that now in Committee. We regard it as inadequate that there are no such provisions for review in this Bill. It is interesting that the Government proposes to do something about that at a later stage. The second matter to which I wish to draw attention, and which is in the report which has been tabled but is not yet available to honourable senators, is one in relation to clause 57, a burden of proof clause. I will read the explanatory memorandum to give an idea of what the Government says this clause does. It states that it: Confirms the persuasive onus borne by the Crown in cases where officers give evidence of their suspicions about certain matters of which only the defendant has knowledge. The various matters in the Bill relate to whether the fish taken in a particular part of the zone were taken in that part for private purposes and whether the charge relates to fish taken in the course of traditional fishing. In relation to a person who gives evidence of an offence, that he suspects that those things have happened, the clause states: . . . together with evidence of the grounds on which he so suspects; and (b) the court considers that, having regard to the evidence, the suspicion is reasonable, the fish shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be deemed to have been taken in that area, for those purposes . . . It is a deeming clause. One might say that it is in the form of an averment clause. Senator Gareth Evans —It is only evidentiary onus that is being placed, not a persuasive onus. Senator MISSEN —That may be. What is said both in the explanatory memorandum and in the response from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is what the Attorney-General is saying now. Senator Gareth Evans —I know. I rewrote the clause in Cabinet. Senator MISSEN —Then I am sorry but we have to disagree with the Attorney- General and not just the Department. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you going to fight about it? Senator MISSEN —No, I do not propose to have a fight about it. I propose to draw the attention of the Committee to a different point of view. Senator Gareth Evans —I have already had a fight about it with someone else. Senator MISSEN —I am sorry that the Attorney-General won the fight. Senator Gareth Evans —You should have seen the clause in its original form. Senator MISSEN —I am glad I did not see it. It was probably too horrible to believe. In the statement which the Attorney has made in response to the criticism which our Committee made of this clause he said: In conclusion, I would strongly support the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill, that clause 57 (1) '. . . confirms the persuasive onus borne by the Crown'. It is erroneous for the Committee to suggest that the provision 'appears to require of the prosecution something less than proof beyond reasonable doubt'. This is so since, even if no 'evidence to the contrary' is presented by the defendant, the prosecution still has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds the matters in clause 57 (1) (a) i, ii, or iii. We dispute that and say that the Minister is in fact wrong. But then he stated: On the other hand, if 'evidence to the contrary' is presented, then the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the matters in clause 57. We agree with that part. But the Committee in its comment said: The Committee while accepting the greater part of this opinion remains unconvinced that, in the absence of 'evidence to the contrary' presented by the defendant, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officers suspicions were reasonable. I draw attention to the clause which states that if no evidence is given, in the absence of the evidence it is deemed that some evidence is given by a prosecuting officer and then, if the court considers that is reasonable suspicion, it is deemed to be so. It is only if evidence is given that there is a need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that a provision is being put in and, if one reads the burden of proof in criminal proceedings report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, to which the Government has not yet responded, one will see the great dislike of those clauses unless there is good cause for them. The fact is that in my view and in the Committee's view the explanatory memorandum and also the statement of the Attorney-General in respect of this clause are not accurate. It is like the curate's egg. Part of it is accurate and part of it is not. The attention of the Committee needs to be drawn to that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.56) —I will be brief as I understand the Committee wishes to go on with other business. Senator Missen has given his own answer to the first problem. The Commonwealth wants to have Administrative Appeals Tribunal review proceedings, but the vagaries of the Federal system, which is so avidly supported by Senator Archer and others who are waving at me from the other side of the chamber make that impossible at this stage. However, I remind Senator Missen that the Ombudsman still has jurisdiction and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act still has an application. So the areas of decision making under this legislation are not wholly immune from administrative review. As to the latter point that Senator Missen makes about clause 57 (1), I simply say that I beg to differ with him. I believe that the clause as presently drafted does confirm the persuasive onus as being borne by the Crown in proving beyond reasonable doubt the existence of any matters listed in the court which an inspector has reason to believe. The defendant under this clause has the burden only of presenting evidence to the contrary rather than proof to the contrary. This is a tricky and difficult technical area about which it is possible for reasonable men and women to differ, I readily acknowledge, and this is obviously something that we will have to go on debating. Incidentally in that context I hope that the Government will be shortly in a position to table its response to the excellent report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on the onus of proof. But the matters to which Senator Missen draws attention have been taken into account and we have done our best to get them right to the extent that it was possible to do so. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.58) —Briefly on this point, as Senator Missen said, the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills was unavailable. This is regrettable because the last time we met there was much eulogy for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee reports and how useful they were for legislation. If honourable senators do not have them available when they are considering legislation in their party rooms, they are not able to make use of them at this stage of the legislation. Wherever the problem arose I hope that in future we will be able to solve it and make sure-- Senator Missen —A printing problem. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Missen assures me that it was only a printing problem and therefore one hopes that it may not occur again. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Assent to the following Bills reported: Judiciary Amendment Bill 1984 Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1984 Automotive Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill 1984 Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1984 Debate resumed from 3 April, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(6.00) —I rise to speak on the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill having made representations on behalf of a number of New South Wales refiners over the past 12 months. I briefly refer the Senate to the history behind the introduction of the Bills. In September 1970 the crude oil absorption scheme was introduced. This has had the effect over the past 14 years of creating a significant imbalance and inequity between southern refiners-that is, those companies refining in Victoria such as Shell Refining (Aust.) Pty Ltd, BP Australia Ltd, ESSO Australia Ltd and Mobil Oil Australia Ltd-and the northern refiners in Sydney and Brisbane, in particular Caltex Oil (Aust.) Pty Ltd, and Ampol Ltd. In Looking at how much the transportation costs are for those refiners, it is generally acknowledged that the average cost for Victorian refiners runs between 6c and 14c a barrel. It has to be understood, of course, that the reason that transportation costs are so cheap in Victoria is that those refiners had to bear the initial overhead costs of constructing and establishing a pipeline network. Nevertheless, Caltex, which of course runs the large Kurnell refinery in Sydney, claims that at present its transportation costs are approximately $1.15 per barrel to get the oil by ship from Bass Strait to Sydney. It estimates, therefore, that it is facing an annual competitive disadvantage of $22m. That is an enormous amount for any company to bear. It is something that its shareholders have had to bear. It has put pressure on margins such that over the last decade Caltex has lobbied successive governments. Prior to this day it has been unsuccessful. The problem has worsened over recent years because shipping costs have risen so dramatically. Between 1975 and 1982 they rose from 35c per barrel to a dollar per barrel, which is an extraordinary increase in such a short period. The effect of the old system was that those refiners which had to use ships-that is, the refiners of Sydney and Brisbane-had a very serious disadvantage. The flat rate allowance system of the old absorption scheme had entrenched those inequities and, unfortunately, the New South Wales refiners in the main have had to bear that cost over such a long period. The new levy of 20c per barrel on all crude oil produced from Bass Strait should go some way towards redressing that imbalance. It is a compromise; it is not what the northern refiners would say is perfect. Of course it means that the southern refiners will give up some of their advantage. Bearing in mind the equalisation scheme concerning costs to all capital city motorists for their petrol or oil, those northern refiners, although they may not say the measure is perfect, acknowledge that this compromise at least goes a large part of the way towards doing something decent for them. We should examine for a second why there is a 20c levy now and not the 36c levy that existed prior to today. It should be noted that by adjusting the import parity price all refineries receive a reduction of 36c per barrel in the price of their oil, the same price as the rebate under the old system. In recognition of those costs to which I have been referring, the Government has reduced the rate from 36c to 20c. The Government's position reduces the inequities facing the northern refiners but it does not harm the sourthern refiners to any great extent. I note that there has been no real scream from southern refiners. Senator Chaney —They have lost too much blood. Senator RICHARDSON —No, that is unfair. New South Wales is finally getting some equity out of the system. There are those who say that the federal system was designed to harm New South Wales in the first place and it has successfully worked to do so in some years. Senator Jack Evans —Never. Senator RICHARDSON —Senators from Western Australia would always say that. Caltex, which has provided a number of honourable senators with material over the last few days, acknowledged in a document that I received yesterday that these Bills at least partially satisfy its demands. The document states: We commend the Bills as substantially correcting the inequity which had been institutionalised through past government regulation. It will now enable Caltex to be more cost-efficient and competitive in the market place and thus protect its employment and investment position in New South Wales. If these Bills can achieve that they will have achieved something that the northern refiners, in particular Caltex, have been clamouring for for many years . Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.05) —The Opposition does not oppose the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill. Indeed, we wish to see the Bills have a speedy passage. Both the Government and the affected industry would like to see the legislation in place. The Opposition takes the view that whilst this may not be a perfect solution to the problems which are dealt with by the legislation there is probably no perfect solution because in the case of the northern refiners it is true that they have substantial additional transport costs occasioned by the need to transport the oil from Bass Strait north, while in the case of the southern refiners it is fair to say that at least some of their facilities were put there because of the cost advantage which applied. They, therefore, invested their money on the basis of the existing system. To accept totally the argument of either the southern refiners or the northern refiners would result in an injustice to those whose argument was rejected. Essentially, the Government was faced with the need to find some sort of compromise. The Opposition does not necessarily endorse the precise allocation which has been made, but it accepts that there is some greater measure of justice in the arrangements which have been put into place by the legislation. We are a little concerned at the fact that the legislation has been introduced at a time when the crude oil allocation system is under review. Of course, the matters that are dealt with by the legislation are very intimately connected with that system. We have put up with the inadequacies of the present system for about 15 years. Now it has been changed, perhaps half a year before the allocation system has to be dealt with. We see this as potentially short term legislation given the other changes which may come about. We note that nobody is totally happy with the proposed legislation. But the fact that nobody is totally unhappy is some indication that the Government has struck some sort of fair bargain. A number of technical questions have been raised by the Opposition but in light of the sort of considerations which I have just outlined the Opposition does not believe that it should seek to amend the legislation. It has been queried why the payments to refineries should be on the basis of a notional rather than actual transport cost. I can see that there are good economic arguments why one might want to put it on the basis of notional costs. It has also been put to us that part of the 36c varies whereas the 20c is fixed and that is not very logical. Again, although one might want to pick that up if one thought that this legislation was gong to be in place for a very lengthy peiod, it does seem to the Opposition that is not necessary to deal with it given the uncertain situation about the future of the crude oil allocation system. We are having this debate at a time when it is very easy for members of the Opposition and members of the Government to say: 'We have cut the baby in half and everybody has had some measure of justice'. But it is probably not much consolation to companies that are really suffering at the moment. Many of them have announced losses and are trading under very considerable difficulties. Over recent weeks we have had a series of such announcements. Caltex has indicated that it has lost $73.8m. There has been an indication that BP has lost just under $100m. Mobil has lost somewhere around $53m. So the spectre of large oil companies necessarily minting large amounts of profits is being laid to rest. I do think that the Government needs to examine-we have raised this matter in the Senate before-some of the difficulties that are being imposed on the companies by government regulation at both the State and Federal level. The situation is that there is a petroleum pricing authority at the Federal level which is shortly to be replaced by another body. We have at the State level, under Labor State governments, a series of price control arrangements which do, I think, make the trading conditions of the industry extremely difficult. Although this is not a matter raised by this legislation. I raise it now simply to say to the Government again that the Opposition believes that the industry is being put in a quite unfair position. Although it is, in the short term, very satisfying politically to be able to point to the fact that a State government is holding down petrol prices below the level that the Commonwealth authority might permit, in the long term consumers must suffer if people are forced out of the business to the extent where there is really a lack of competition. At the moment, consumers do get a lot of benefit from price competition between the majors. In fact, oil companies cannot go on suffering the sorts of losses that have been made; something has to give and in the end that will affect consumers in a way which cannot be in their interests. I simply use this legislation as an opportunity to raise this matter again with the Government and suggest that whilst it has State governments in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales which are of its same political colour, the Government might use its influence with those governments to suggest more rational and fairer arrangements for the companies. I commend the Bills and wish them a speedy passage. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.12) —I speak very briefly just to indicate the support of the Australian Democrats for the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Bill and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Bill and also to support, in the main, the comments just made by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, but to disagree mildly with one aspect. I believe the legislation is appropriate even though a change is mooted for later this year to the whole formula and process of exporting to Australian bases. I believe that this legislation will have the effect of putting both the Government and all of the oil companies into a better negotiating position than would have been the case had these Bills not gone through. So I think it is timely that the Bills be introduced and passed by this Parliament at this time. The Democrats support the Bills. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.13) —This problem has a very long and complex history. It is one which I understand on repeated occasions the industry has given indications that it would resolve itself but which it never seemed to be able to resolve. Therefore, the Government has taken some action, which we recognise is not beyond valid criticism, and indeed in these circumstances I do not think it is possible to devise any measure which is beyond valid criticism. I want to make two comments in response to the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. I did consider the point that the allocation scheme is up for review at the end of this year and therefore it is possible that this legislation could have an effective life of only one year. But if we decided to defer this measure for that year and then found that the allocation system ultimately continued in similar form to that which it is now, the problem would still exist. For better or worse, we decided to act now. The point that Senator Chaney made about price control and the losses suffered by Australian refiners and distributors is, I think, valid, but there is much more than price control involved. For example, I was in Surfers Paradise yesterday and noted that super petrol was selling at the bowser at less than 40c a litre. I do not think it is lower than that anywhere else in Australia, even though there are no price controls in Queensland. So there are a number of interacting factors in this industry, most of which I think can be substantially attributed to the fact that there is very substantial surplus refining capacity in Australia. I thank the Australian Democrats and the Opposition for their support. I do not propose to delay the passage of the Bills any further. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time The Bills. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.16) —Mr Chairman, I would like to make some quick comments before someone takes a point of order on me. I just wish to make a brief response to the point made by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh. I would accept what he said, that there are other factors in the matter that I raised and that competition for market share has certainly led to some heavy discounting. That does make some of the arguments of those who are concerned about the dual system of price control look a bit odd at first examination. I will quote just one paragraph from the annual report of the Chairman of Caltex Australia Ltd because I think it makes the point in a way which is quite appropriate. He said: The State price controls have contributed signficantly to your Company's losses . Petrol discounting occurs in cycles and in different markets at different times. When prices are firming State Government controls constrain the upward movement and over time inhibit a gradual return to correct pricing in the industry. The situation is, I suppose, that by putting a lower maximum price level it simply means that in the peaks and troughs business, the troughs remain low and the peaks are cut off, and so the overall trading conditions are affected in a way which does make it difficult for the companies. I accept the Minister's comment that there are other factors and factors such as the whole energy usage situation and the economic situation and so on all come into play. Price control is one of the problems but it happens to be one of those problems which are susceptible to government remedy; some of the others are not. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a ministerial statement on behalf of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, who represents the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). Leave granted. Senator WALSH —Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to have the text of the statement relating to the National Film and Sound Archive incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Government will establish a new National Film and Sound Archive. The Archive will preserve moving images and recorded sound as part of Australia's twentieth century cultural heritage. The Archive, based on the existing film and sound archives presently located in the National Library of Australia, will develop presentational material such as literature and artefacts relating to the history of Australian film and recorded sound. It will contain facilities to encourage public and industry access to the collections, and for screening old films for public viewing. The National Film and Sound Archive will be made administratively independent of the National Library immediately and will initally be an Office within the Department of Home Affairs and Environment reporting to that Minister. Its staff and finance will be separated from the National Library immediately and its accommodation as soon as possible. The position of Director will be established and advertised nationally. A National Film and Sound Archives Advisory Committee will be appointed to develop planning for the future development of the Archive. It will advise the Government on a range of matters including accommodation, staffing, regional representation, appropriate charges for services, preservation program and timetable, relations with the industry and trade, and deposit requirements. The Advisory Committee will be asked to report within 12 months of its appointment. The Government has also decided to provide increased resources in the form of staff, funds and equipment to develop the film and sound archives. The increased resources should permit preservation of more nitrate film and the handling of newer technical conservation problems. The new National Film and Sound Archive will be more accessible to the public and the film industry. Offices will be opened in New South Wales and Victoria and the Advisory Committee will examine the desirability of opening offices in other States. The National Library's management of its holdings of film and sound recordings has been criticised but I think this criticism is unfair. It must be remembered that the Library took the initiative to preserve this vital inheritance. The Library, as a whole, was restrained by its allocation of resources from the previous Government, but its film and sound sections have received at least a fair share of those limited resources and some, apparently unrecognised, success has been achieved in building up the collections and establishing a working relationship with the industry. Nevertheless, the Government has decided that there is a need for a separate institution with a charter of its own and guidelines established by the Government after consultation with all the interests concerned. In addition, an interdepartmental committee will inquire into and advise on policy generally concerning all the Commonwealth's holdings of film, sound recordings and related issues. Policy advice will include matters such as the co -ordination and rationalisation of all Commonwealth activities in this area- acquisition of material, cataloguing, conservation, reproduction, access arrangements, and co-ordination with relevant State and private sector interest. There are many complex issues involved in consideration of how other Commonwealth holdings of film and sound recordings will relate to the National Film and Sound Archive. In view of these issues, and the need for consultation, the Government will consider the requirements further after receiving the reports. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. A few minutes ago the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen, made this statement in the House of Representatives. At last the Government has made a decision on the future of the National Film Archive, and what an extraordinary decision it is. The Government's decision to remove immediately from the National Library the Australian film and sound archives staff and finance and transfer them to an Office within the Department of Home Affairs and Environment is startling to say the least. There has been much speculation in recent months as to the future of the film archives. This has been the result of concern at the risk of our losing through deterioration valuable and irreplaceable early Australian film records. The National Library has claimed that insufficient government funding has led to this situation. The Minister today says he believes that that criticism of the Library is 'unfair'. Nevertheless, the Government has decided to move the film archives from the Library immediately and without any personal confrontation with the National Library Council by the Minister. Tomorrow the Minister, who has been a Minister for over 12 months will for the first time meet with the National Library Council. The decision of the Government raises some issues of legality as well. The National Library Act required the National Library, among other things, to maintain and develop a national collection of library material, and the definition given in the Act of 'library material' includes films and sound recordings. It has been part of the National Library's charter to establish a collection of film and sound recordings. The National Library has done this and it has done a very valuable job. The Minister in his statement paid tribute to the Library, but for its trouble it is unceremoniously having this function removed from it immediately. The issue of whether it can be done immediately will have to be settled. There has been much speculation in recent months as to the future of the film archives. There has been little speculation in relation to the sound archives. I am aware there has been some comment. I understand that the National Library is surprised that the sound archives have been included in this decision in this way: The subject of the sound archives has not been a matter of discussion with the Library. A number of options have been publicly canvassed in recent months. More money could have been given to the National Library with a direction that it be used for the benefit of the film and sound archives. Another possibility was to create a new statutory authority. Other alternatives were to place it with the Australian Film Commission or the Australian Archives. Each one of those has some shortcomings. If the archives were to be removed from the Library , if that were the decision arrived at, for whatever reason, I personally think that probably the best alternative would have been a new statutory authority. However, I understand that the Government was not prepared to do that. I have personal reservations about suggestions that the archives should be placed with the Australian Film Commission because it is a participant in the film industry and the users of the film archives are not only the film industry. There are other people who use these archives for other purposes of research, which is important and valuable. The Government has decided on a course which will need much greater public expenditure and expenditure which is not referred to in the Minister's statement. It will remove the archives from whatever independence it enjoyed as part of the National Library and make it part of the bureaucracy. One must conclude that this is the worst possible option. I personally was unaware that anyone had ever suggested it. Of all the options that have been canvassed, I have not heard a discussion on that one. It saves no money and, indeed, will cost more than several of the alternative facilities. As well as needing additonal staff to which the Minister has committed the Government-a commitment which was welcomed-because the archives has been removed from the Library, additional overhead costs will necessarily be incurred. Secondly, it does not assure any form of independent cultural development and, thirdly, runs all the risks inherent in becoming part of the bureaucracy. The Minister says that it will initially be an officer within the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, reporting to the Minister, so it will come directly under the Minister and that Department. He then said that national film and sound archives advisory committee will be appointed to develop planning for the future development of the archives. It will have to advise the Government on a range of matters and must report to the Government within 12 months. Therefore, its function, so far as we can tell, is only to undertake that investigation and report to the Government. There is absolutely no commitment on the part of the Government that the archives will have any sort of independence from the bureaucracy either under the present arrangement or under any new arrangement. It is an extraordinary thing indeed when something like an archive, which is a very important national research resource, is placed into the bureaucracy. Only time will tell whether this arrangement will meet any of the criticisms of the previous one; that is, its placing within the National Library. However, all things considered, the Government should not be surprised if the public reaction is not optimistic. The Opposition awaits the legislation that will be necessary in order to put this decision into effect. I reiterate that in those circumstances, given that the National Library Act must be taken account of and that legislation will be necessary to establish this arrangement, it is all the more surprising that the Minister has announced that pre-emptorily, immediately, tomorrow staff and resources are to be transferred from under the control of the National Library. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(6.25) —I wish to speak on the navigational aids in Northern Territory waters. The navaids as they are called in the industry are situated in the Darwin region. Perhaps the matter on which I now speak is in some degree parochial; however, I make no apology for this as I believe the Senate is a most suitable venue to air what I believe is a grave deficiency and what could at any time bring about a disaster of either minor or major proportions. I wish to speak briefly of the concern of many people in the north, mainly seafaring people and also those very many Darwinites with pleasure craft who have taken to sailing the northern waters, about what appears to be a shrinking of the Commonwealth's most important responsibilities in regard to navaids-that is beacons, buoys and so on-in Northern Territory waters. Off the northern coast there are dangerous reefs, some unmarked such as the reef inside Lorna Shoal and Bass Reef, to take an example. There are shoals, narrow channels, sand banks, all of which are hazardous, particularly at night and in foul weather-which is the norm in the wet, the monsoon period. Yet with more and more movement of boats in connection with the development of Darwin harbour and so on, and also the defence and security presence, together with the fishing industry, it seems too incredible that navigational aids are being removed and not replaced, others considered to be unnecessary, or just plain inefficient with poor light. Port landfall lights are being neglected, despite the growing, not lessening urgency, for such facilities. I draw attention to specific situations. The Narrows beacon is located at the northern end of Apsley Strait which separates Bathurst and Melville islands. The beacon was erected by the Commonwealth because of numerous requests within the Northern Territory. It has since been destroyed by heavy north-west weather conditions as the site is exposed. I understand that the Commonwealth does not intend to replace it, despite its close proximity to the main shipping channel. Another important beacon, the Oliver Reef beacon, marks the entrance to an important shipping route through North Channel adjacent to Melville Island and the Vernon Island group. I am disturbed to hear that the Commonwealth does not believe that this aid requires attention or upgrading, despite the fact that the Oliver Reef passage close to Melville Island not only shortens the north bound track by 10 nautical miles but is much beter protected from prevailing north- west weather and avoids the worst of the strong southerly current flow. Depending on tides, the Oliver Reef passage saves upwards of five hours' steaming for vessels on the north bound track. Surely a careful review of what appears to be the head-in-the-sand bureaucratic attitude is most necessary, particularly when it appears that the requirement for a flashing light is very necessary, and it should be urgently provided. As a result of representations made by the Northern Territory some three or four years ago, the Department of Transport programmed for a light buoy to be placed on either Lorna Shoal or Bass Reef. Both locations are to the south-west of Charles Point. A light on either reef would prove a valuable aid to vessels navigated out of Darwin harbour to and from Daly River mouth, Bynoe Harbour area and Peron Islands, all popular fishing grounds. Such projects seem to have been cancelled, although much of the coast inside Lorna Shoal and Bass Reef is a series of dangerous unmarked reef. The main light at Charles Point does not have sufficient strength to serve as an early warning to vessels approaching these reefs from the west. A light further to sea at either Lorna Shoal or Bass Reef is required not only as a warning to pleasure craft and fishing vessels but for regular shipping route vessels plying from the west and north-west into Darwin. Yet it appears that the Department of Transport, in Adelaide, mind you, says that there is no need to establish any navigation aid in the area and the project, as I understand it, has been cancelled. What a strange divergence of opinion by this Adelaide person who is unnamed and unmarked. He is obviously a maritime hazard himself for the north coast; as I say, yet unnamed. Take now Emery Point light. Emery Point is an important landfall light at the top of the Larrakeyah Peninsula area. The Commonwealth, as I understand it, has always accepted responsibility for main port landfall lights on the Australian coast. This is quite apparent when one sees the various channels that are being opened up, particularly off the Queensland coast. There is a firm view that Emery Point is such a light even though it is located within port limits. No other feasible landfall could be used further to sea. It was erected by the Commonwealth many years ago and has been maintained by the Department of Transport ever since. I am perturbed to hear it suggested that the Commonwealth is considering reneging on this beacon and even contemplates, of all things, closing it down and actually selling it up, that is, if it has any other value than protecting the ships, their crews and passengers. Any conclusion or even implication that this unit is superfluous or of diminished usefulness should be rebutted in the strongest possible terms. The light is a very efficient navaid guarding Channel Rock and the Middle Ground through Charles Point and clear of Channel Rock. It opens from Elliot Point, giving a turning cut-off for both in and out bound vessels. It should not be forgotten that Emery Point was the only Darwin navaid serviceable after Cyclone Tracy. From the north and from Clarence Strait, Emery Point is more useful than Charles Point. Structurally the light is in sound condition, despite its age. Very little work would be required to sandblast obvious rust, whipblast existing paint and repaint to good standard. It is understood that all the controls and operating gear were renewed in 1983 and a battery stand-by unit was installed in case of mains failure to replace the former 1920 model acetylene equipment. Being on Commonwealth, that is, Army, land it is not likely to suffer vandal attention. It is interesting to note that most visiting shipmasters are emphatic that Emery Point is a vital component of port and coastal navigational aids. Under no circumstances should it be downgraded or discontinued without an equally useful replacement. Charles Point has a very feeble light too which requires upgrading. I am more than concerned. The problems I have indicated are very serious. Perhaps there is more hidden neglect which will be revealed only by a tragedy. Perhaps these few examples are but the tip of a mountain of problems underneath. One would have to ask: What is the condition of other navaids along the north coast? Are there areas of dangerous, hidden reefs, et cetera, which are close to sea routes, hazards to small craft, still unmarked in the area? It is apparent now that the Department is standing back from its responsibilities, which could seriously endanger life and very valuable boats and equipment. I would like the Department to accept more responsibility for such matters. I ask the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) to inquire into the matter and at the same time ascertain the views of practical, experienced people of the north, of government , of those who are in daily contact with the sea and the citizens of the northern coast, to ensure that necessary steps are taken to put the navaid system into a secure and required order. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.35) —Earlier today I was speaking about the uranium issue in Australia and for several reasons did not have sufficient time to complete the things that I wanted to say; so I want to use this opportunity to add to what was said at that stage. During that speech I mentioned an article in today's Australian headed, 'Australian standing at nuclear crossroads', by Mr Leslie Kemeny, senior lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of New South Wales. I seek leave to have that article incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- AUSTRALIA STANDING AT NUCLEAR CROSSROADS By Leslie Kemeny At the beginning of 1984, Australia stands at the crossroads in respect of its full scale development of the uranium mining industry and its potential involvement in other aspects of the global nuclear fuel cycle. With proven economically recoverable uranium resources which are possibly the greatest in the western world and the possibility of effective market penetration to meet the energy requirements of our industrialised trading partners over the next four decades, the Australian producers are confronted with enormous challenges and opportunities. Unfortunately, the imponderable and unpredictable socio-political interferences of successive Australian governments with both the free market forces and the informed realism of technologists, economists and industrialists could adversely affect the industry. Unless care and discernment is exercised by our elected decision makers, Australia's reputation as a responsible and reliable supplier of a valuable fuel could suffer irreparable damage. The Hawke Government's recently announced willingness to modify the Labor Party 's official platform on uranium mining has, so far, enabled two existing major producers to fulfil contractual obligations and a third major producer has been able to take first steps to enter the market place. Senator Walsh, Minister for Resources and Energy, now appears prepared to recommend even further steps to expedite the growth of the industry. Competition However, the socio-political implications of a Federal Government and a Caucus divided on nuclear energy issues has already created tremendous problems in State-Commonwealth relationships. Antagonisms now exist between Canberra and State governments, which completely transcend party political affiliations. A typical example of this is in the Northern Territory, where both Labor and Liberal parties, the Aboriginal people and the Northern Land Council wish to see uranium mining proceed post haste at Jabiluka (Pancontinental Mines) and Koongarra (Dennison Mines). The declaration of Stage II of Kakadu National Park is seen by many as a blatant example of political expediency. The commonly held view, supported by professional ecologists and State legislators, is that the two projects should be allowed to proceed in their approved mining lease 'corridors'. Their impact on the environment would be minimal, in no way negating the tourist potential of the area. It is further recognised that the economic benefits to Aboriginal people, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth Government of these two projects would be enormous. Meanwhile, Australia's giant South-East Asian neighbours-designated patronisingly as ''Third World'' or ''developing'' countries-have all but eclipsed Australia in their practical development of nuclear power technology and their commitment to the peaceful use of the nuclear fuel cycle for base-load energy production. Within two decades, it is possible that Australia will have regressed to a position of being the poor, under-developed country of the Pacific Basin. All the buzz words of ''technological innovation'' and ''sunrise industries'' will become meaningless as we face the competition of cheap labor, plentiful and cheap energy and the aspiration for development shown by the ASEAN countries, China, South Korea, Taiwan, the countries of the Indian sub-continent and, in particular, our nearest neighbor, Indonesia. These countries represent over half the world's population. Recently, in China, I was a guest of the Ministry for Nuclear Industry and had the opportunity to visit many nuclear installations, to lecture and to take part in high-level discussions concerning China's nuclear power program. Construction At the Southwest Reactor Institute, near Chengdu, Sichuan Province, I was amazed to see a 125mW engineering test reactor of Chinese design. This facility will assist in the design and construction of two small power reactors in the Shanghai area, one for electricity production and the other to supply steam to the Shanghai Chemical Works. I was informed that negotiations were far advanced for three major nuclear power stations of possibly 1000mW each to be supplied by, perhaps, a French- English consortium. This could add as much as 20 per cent to China's presently installed electrical generating capacity. Even the impoverished nation of Bangladesh has established the technological, financial and environmental advantages of a small nuclear power station to be built at Roopoor, some 120km southwest of Dhaka. In Indonesia, the professional staff of the Atomic Energy Agency has been steadily increased in three separate research establishments to nearly four times that of our own Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The construction of a 30mW multi-purpose research reactor is well advanced in the vicinity of Jakarts in anticipation of the building of Indonesia's first power reactor-a 650mW unit-on the west coast of Java, 180km from Bandung. This unit, which could be either a Canadian Candu or pressurised water system, will itself add some 25 per cent to Java's total installed electrical generating capacity supplying a population of nearly 100 million people. While Australia continues to limit the staff and technical program of its Atomic Energy Commission and may downgrade the activities of its educational institutions in the field of nuclear engineering and nuclear technology, Indonesia has established a second major centre for the teaching of nuclear engineering at Yogjakarta at the Gadjah Mada University. The present enrolment in this department is in excess of 100 and steadily increasing. What could well have been a true ''sunrise industry'' for Australia two decades ago, leading to a significant high technology role for this country in the South -East Asia region, has been allowed to pass to more resourceful and more highly motivated hands. Mr Leslie Kemeny is senior lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of N.S.W. Senator TOWNLEY —I thank the Senate. The beginning of that article states: At the beginning of 1984, Australia stands at the crossroads in respect of its full scale development of the uranium mining industry and its potential involvement in other aspects of the global nuclear fuel cycle. With proven economically recoverable uranium resources which are possibly the greatest in the western world and the possibility of effective market penetration to meet the energy requirements of our industrialised trading partners over the next four decades, the Australian producers are confronted with enormous challenges and opportunities. Further on it states: The declaration of Stage II of Kakadu National Park is seen by many as a blatant example of political expediency. I do not want to be provocative. I will refer to that in a moment or two. Toward the end of the article it states: While Australia continues to limit the staff and technical program of its Atomic Energy Commission and may downgrade the activities of its educational institutions in the field of nuclear engineering and nuclear technology, Indonesia has established a second major centre for the teaching of nuclear engineering at Yogjakarta at the Gadjah Mada University. The present enrolment in this department is in excess or 100 and steadily increasing. What could well have been a true 'sunrise industry' for Australia two decades ago, leading to a significant high technology role for this country in the South -East Asia region, has been allowed to pass to more resourceful and more highly motivated hands. I mention the part about Kakadu National Park as I want to relate that to what I feel was done with Roxby Downs. Senator Jessop —Olympic Dam. Senator TOWNLEY —Olympic Dam. Senator Jessop may not be pleased to hear what I say in a moment, because it is my belief that the Government, instead of using the excuse that the uranium is almost a by-product of the mining actions that are proposed in South Australia, should allow the market forces and the companies that are involved to operate within this country to see whether they can make it a commercially viable operation. With the price of copper fluctuating, and as low as it is at the moment, I believe it is very difficult. I will seek leave in a moment to have some figures incorporated in Hansard. I believe that when those figures are seen honourable senators will realise it is very difficult to justify the establishment of the big venture that will need to be undertaken in South Australia at Roxby. Senator Jessop —There is quite a lot of gold. Senator TOWNLEY —There is a lot of gold, yes, and silver I believe. In spite of that, I am not sure that there will be enough. Basically copper is the mineral which is going to help it continue. Relate that operation to Jabiluka, for argument's sake. Jabiluka has high grade ore, up to 0.8 per cent U3O8 in the early years, and it will have a low cost underground operation. It will also have a long life operation of some 30 years. It is economically viable at any level of production above 2 million lbs per year-that is, 900 tonnes-of U3O8. It will create minimum environmental disturbance. Specifically, all initial environmental approvals have been granted. It has royalty and other approvals completed with the Northern Land Council and the Northern Territory and Federal governments. However, the Federal Government has not approved letters of determination for sales contracts nor given approval to commence construction and development of the Jabiluka project. I believe Jabiluka would be of great benefit to Australians because all revenues will be from overseas. All employees could well be Australians and 90 per cent or more of expenditure and costs will take place in Australia. The royalties will be distributed within Australia to Aboriginals, which will reduce their cash requirements from the Federal Government. The Northern Territory Government will gain jobs both directly and indirectly through support activities during both the construction and operating phases, and of course company taxes will be paid to the Federal Government. I suppose I can understand the Government's view that Roxby Downs appears to hold hope of employing more construction and operating personnel than either Jabiluka or Koongarra, in the Northern Territory, but it should be recognised that the Roxby project is not a sure thing at this time. Some reasons for this are: Existing Australian copper producers now provide all domestic needs and, as I mentioned, other lower cost copper producers are awaiting entry into the world 's copper market. Copper must be sold from Roxby to make it a viable operation and the Rowe and Pitman report shows Roxby providing a lower return on investment than either Jabiluka or Koongarra. Therefore, the financial return to the Federal Government will be slower and possibly less than from those projects . That report is undated but it is fairly recent, and I will later seek leave to have it incorporated. Even if Roxby does proceed, it is not likely to produce at rated capacities until at least 1995. I now seek leave to have that fairly short article by Rowe and Pitman on the investment promise of those three projects incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ROWE & PITMAN City-Gate House, 39-45 Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1JA Telephone: 01-606 1066 Telex: 8952485 AUSTRALIA THE UPSIDE DOWNS OF DOWN-UNDER INVESTMENT Investment promises There was a time, not so long ago, when investment in Australia's natural resources potential brought benefits-to the investor who put his money at risk, and to the Australian economy, which could thereby bring into production new sources of wealth and income. True care had to be exercised. Assumptions were to be made and analysis undertaken, before making an investment. The well known recital goes: Size of the market for the commodity and expected evolution of prices. Share of the market available to the project/company in question-dependent on costs, revenues, grade, etc. Analysis of returns-DCF on capital, on shareholders funds: pay back periods and other more sophisticated allowances for risk and uncertainty. Thus one would be able to make absolute judgments and, from the standpoint of a foreign investor, to rank Australian investment opportunities against the competition of other free-enterprise countries such as Canada and U.S.A. It could also be compared with investments in less free countries wherever the rules were clear. Investment Actualities-Uranium Alas, this procedure may well not do for the Australian uranium industry and may not, we suggest, do for other Australian extractive projects. To make the point, we carry out a back-of-envelope calculation on three Australian uranium projects. The analysis is an extremely simple one based on payback periods. Because the capital intensity of the projects varies, we have arbitrarily assumed no corporation tax during the pay-back period. There are assumed no royalties. Full production is assumed to be reached immediately. Prices and costs assumed constant. The three projects Note: These key figures are based on a more detailed exposition, which forms the Appendix. Roxby Jabiluka Koongarra $ $ $ Capital cost per annual tonne of ore produced 261 1000 300 Value of tonne of ore produced (includes Copper, Gold, Silver in the case of Roxby) 1. With U3O8 at US $ 24/lb (spot price) 70.5 348.8 145.25 2. With U3O8 at US $ 36/lb (contract price) 83.9 553.2 218.00 Operating costs per tonne milled 40 100 55 Operating surplus per tonne milled- 1. 30.5 248.8 90.25 2. 43.9 253.2 163.00 Payback Period- (1) 8.5 years 4 years 3.3 years (2) 6.0 years 2.4 years 1.8 years Comment The figures above are not meant to be refined. They are merely to give a ranking order of projects. (Payback is an important proxy for rate of return or profits). However they suggest that if a market for U308 is available later in the decade and into the 1990s, then certainly Jabiluka/Koongarra should be able to take that market and build on it. This accords with the position of Koongarra and Jabiluka as two of the lowest cost uranium mines in the world. For example they should be able to displace and/or prevent the re-establishment of U.S. higher cost producers. At the same time, at current prices for base metals and for precious metals, and at the U3O8 spot price, Roxby looks quite shaky. Even at a U3O8 price of U$ 36 per lb it does not appear capable of generating really comfortable returns. There is a possibility, even if it went ahead, of capital being lost. Viewed as a project, it would not be very attractive to private risk capital. It is interesting to note that in the Labor government's statement it says that 'IF' the joint venture parties find the project to be feasible, then 'the government would permit the export of uranium produced from that mine.' In summary, in a competitive environment, Koongarra and Jabiluka would most likely be developed first-if markets and prices improved, Roxby would also be developed. Why Roxby Downs at the expense of other projects 1. Politics The South Australian Labor Party would have had difficulty in regaining power without supporting Roxby Downs-held to be vital to the improvement of the economy of one of the most depressed states. At the national Labor Party Conference of July 1982 provision was made to allow Roxby as an exception to the 'phase out uranium' policy which was actually adopted. This was to be achieved by allowing uranium to be mined where it was necessary to make the co-product(s) viable. Roxby was not mentioned by name. 2. Attitude to markets-Omniscience Labor embraces fully the government knows-best attitude. It has pre-determined that the market for Australian uranium is what it determines it to be. By apparently pre-determining the market at 3000 tonnes U3O8pa and by favouring Roxby, other projects are effectively blocked (see below). (Note: if this attitude forms the basis of a restrictionist policy, it has to be self- fulfilling-the rest of the world obviously will provide whatever Australia doesn 't provide in any market situation). 3. Political/Economics-The higher lunacy In a most remarkable statement, the minister for resources and energy has spelt out a whole new mercantilism. It is such an astonishing doctrine that we reprint below the account of it as it appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, November 9, 1983. ''Speaking on the government's decision to give the go-ahead to Roxby Downs, Senator Walsh told the Senate: 'The decision made by the government was a responsible decision made in the best interests of Australia.' We were confronted with a choice of making it possible for the Roxby Downs project to be economically viable or for some alternative uranium project of similar output-that is 3,000 tonnes of uranium oxide per year to be so. The government was faced with the fact that Roxby Downs was certainly competitive with, and possibly mutually exclusive to, any of those other ( uranium) projects. Yes, it made a decision in favour of Roxby Downs because the total value of product from that mine, given that it is to be primarily a copper mine, is very much greater than it would be from any alternative mine producing the same amount of uranium oxide. Therefore the total employment generated from that project would be very much greater.'' Profitability disregarded This makes it quite clear that normal criteria of profitability are not to apply. Provided that the project is ''competitive with'' meaning presumably could produce at some level of profit, then that project will be favoured if the ''employment returns'' are greater than the competitors', no matter how profitable or super-profitable the latter might be. Of course labour intensity and low profitability very often are correlated. Why should not the same approach be adopted in manufacturing industry eg. motor vehicle manufacture where for reasons of a restricted domestic marker projects are often mutually exclusive. Why not choose a less profitable project if more employment is generated? Primitive Economics No matter that capital may be lost or diverted from its best use, no matter that from the point of view of the economy as a whole, the optimum use of capital is going to have a better effect on employment as a whole and on the standard of living than if it is employed non-optimally. This primitive case by case approach to the problem of employment would be appropriate to one of the less sophisticated third world countries. How do Australian governments intervene and what should investors reactions be? Export Control The Federal government has a control over exports which it can use arbitrarily and without any basic principles applying. For example, the previous (Liberal) government, wanting to stop a sand-mining enterprise for environmental reasons, used the revocation of an export licence to achieve that environmental goal. Minimal compensation was offered. The repercussions throughout the world financial and trading community were considerable. The granting of export licences could obviously be used to impose all sort of pressure on the business community and discriminate, even if covertly, between other extractive projects. Conservation Control If export control is not to be used, no matter, the declaration of a national park over the area in question can also be used. What should investors do? Under a Federal Labor government, look out for the companies whose projects are in states which are marginal politically and then go in for some sophisticated political analysis as to whether this will in fact favour the project or not. Try to find those projects which have reasonably good profit returns but also employ much labour. Don't necessarily invest in the companies which may appear to be potentially the most profitable. If the employment-generating projects are not very rewarding, don't invest. And perhaps that's the best solution of all. Faced by a government which is essentially hostile to resource development and innately contemptuous of private enterprise perhaps it would be better to leave investment in Australia to the international institutions just like any other third world country. Appendix Roxby Jabiluka Koongarra Capital Costs $1.7bn $500m $120mill (est. Dec. 81) (est. June 79) @ 1.4bn @ 80m Annual Ore Production 6.5 mill 500,000 400,000 Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Head Grades CU 2.5% - - U3O8 0.05% 0.6% 0.27% AU 0.6gm per tonne (No credit for AG 4.0gm possible gold per tonne production). Annual production CU 150,000 - - Tonnes U3O8 3,000 3,000 1,000 Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes AU 3,400kg - - AG 23,000kg - - Prices CU A$1540 per tonne 1. U3O8 U$ 24 per lb (spot); 2. or U$36 per lb (contract) AU U$381 per oz. AG U $9 per oz. U.S./Australian exchange rate $A=U$0.91 Revenues $m $m $m CU 231 - - With U3O8 at U$24/lb (spot price) (1) 174.4 174.4 58.1 With U3O8 at U$36/lb (contract price) (2) 261.6 261.6 87.2 AU 45.8 AC 7.3 - - Totals (1) 485.5 174.4 58.1 (2) 545.7 261.6 87.2 Operating costs per tonne milled 40 100 55 Annual operating costs 260m 50m 22m Gross Operating margin (1) 198.5m 124.4m 36.1m (2) 285.7m 211.6m 65.2m Pay Back period (1) 8.5 years 4.0 years 3.3 years (2) 6 years 2.4 years 1.8 years Important Note It has been assumed that both Roxby (which recently announced a higher grade part of the deposit) and Jabiluka (which has easily mineable areas of significantly higher grades) will high-grade in the early years of development, for obvious economic reasons. It has also been assumed that full production will be reached on start-up. This must be very unlikely in the case of Roxby which will take time to build up to the considerable level of production represented by 6.5 million tonnes p.a. Therefore, the figures may overstate the return on an investment in Roxby. D. A. Childs Senator TOWNLEY —I suppose it is fairly clear from what I have said that my attitude is quite contrary to that of others in this chamber. I am one of those- I suppose it is because I am an engineer-who believe that the engineering problems of uranium mining and the construction of uranium fuelled power stations and reactors can be of great benefit not only to the world but also, eventually, to this country. I believe we should be encouraging uranium exploration. Instead of cutting back on our nuclear research, as Mr Kemeny mentioned, we should promote the development of private enterprise nuclear facilities for the manufacture of things like radioisotopes for research and industrial and medical purposes. We should give priority to establishing nuclear training and research facilities at selected tertiary institutions instead of seeing this industry leave Australia. It is an industry which, if expanded, could do a lot of good for this country. As I said earlier today, if we stay out of it it will not make one bit of difference to the development of nuclear power stations in any part of the world. They will get their uranium from some place. As I mentioned earlier, 5,000 millions tonnes of uranium are dissolved in the oceans of the world which can be extracted if necessary, even though yellowcake made in that way is obviously more expensive than it is when it is dug and treated from a concentrated ore body. I believe also that we should take steps to re-establish this country as a reliable supplier of uranium to countries that show common sense and are prepared to go along with the appropriate health, environmental and other safety parameters, and, as we would all agree, the United Nations Treaty for the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons should be insisted upon. It is important for this country to make up its mind quickly as to whether it wants to become one of the world's major reliable sources of uranium or whether it intends effectively to leave in the ground in this country energy that is equivalent to thousands of millions of tonnes of coal. If it were coal, there would be no question about what to do with it. We would be digging it out and supplying it to the world even with all its inherent dangers to the forests of the world. The uranium that often comes out with coal is dispersed into the air and anyone who knows the way the atmosphere is going over Europe and other parts of the world will recognise full well that any country with any common sense would make the long-term decision to phase out coal burning and establish nuclear power plants to supply the ever-increasing power needs of this planet. It is an important matter, one in which I have a lot of interest and it is one about which I believe we should be informing the young people of this world-not hysterically, but in practical ways and not only at universities but also at an earlier stage that that. We should tell them of they way atomic reactors work and the way that uranium, if used sensibly for peaceful purposes, can be of benefit to mankind. I am quite confident that if we do those things eventually this world will be a much better place to live in and will be able to support a lot more people in the future than it otherwise would be able to do. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(6.48) —Madam Acting Deputy President, it is probably unusual for a Minister to take advantage of an adjournment debate to make a statement to the Senate. It had been my intention to do so at the time for ministerial statements this morning but it was not possible to prepare what I have to say by then so I am taking advantage of the adjournment debate to reply by way of a ministerial statement to Senator Macklin. On Thursday, 29 March 1984 Senator Macklin addressed the Senate during the adjournment debate on the contents of a letter of complaint from a veteran. Senator Macklin said: . . . on some occasions one is confronted with what to do with a constituent's complaint or problem. I suggest to Senator Macklin that there is a ready answer, and that is to avail himself of the invitation I have offered all honourable senators and members. If they have a complaint or representation to make on behalf of a constituent that comes within my portfolio, I have indicated my availability and willingness to initiate an immediate and thorough investigation. Indeed, I believe a feature of my approach to the administration of my portfolio has been the emphasis I have placed on resolving quickly constituent representations put to me by honourable senators and honourable members. Upon assuming office as Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I found a totally unsatisfactory situation existed in relation to the answering of such representations. A year ago, for example, it took on average three to four months for the Department to supply me with the facts necessary to provide the detailed answer required. In point of fact, in the early days of my assuming office as Minister, it took 64 days to receive a detailed response in relation to one such representation raised by Senator Macklin, another took 60 days, and another 54 days. In another 15 cases about which Senator Macklin has made direct representations to me, the responses have come on an average within 20 days. As I found that to be an unsatisfactory situation, I immediately instituted new procedures which, I am pleased to say, have now reduced the average response time to three weeks. I want eventually to be able to guarantee that representations made by any member of the Senate or House of Representatives are answered comprehensively within two weeks. I realise that it is important that members of Parliament receive prompt replies to representations they make in respect of complaints made to them by constituents. Long delays in the receipt of those replies reflect not only on the member concerned but also on the Government. I have taken the steps that I have in the interests of providing a competent service and ensuring effective representation by the members concerned. Consequently, I am disappointed that Senator Macklin, knowing the approach that I have taken to these matters, chose not to approach me personally but to take a postulating position in the Senate and elsewhere. Honourable senators, having heard the detailed contribution Senator Macklin made in the adjournment debate, could reasonably have concluded that here was a case of a lone individual battling unsucessfully with the bureaucratic machine and being heartlessly refused his entitlements at law. I assure the Senate that the real picture is not quite like that. A preliminary point I make with great emphasis is that the veteran concerned gave most meritorious service to Australia under extremely arduous and dangerous conditions. Because he gave such wonderful service during World War II, he is deserving of the best possible response. Since 1946 he has been dealing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and its predecessor and, where it has been possible to do so at law, repatriation determining authorities have granted his claims. For many years he has been in receipt of a disability pension at varying levels from the Department. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will appreciate, as I am sure honourabale senators generally do, that the Department has to deal with hundreds of thousands of applications for disability and other pensions, as well as applications to vary such pensions. As honourable senators will know, a person might be entitled to only 10 per cent or up to 100 per cent of the disability pension, depending on the nature and the degree of success of the claim before the determining authorities. However, in this case I accept that there have been administrative shortcomings and mistakes in the handling of this case over the years, and for that I apologise. What this personal case highlights, however, is the wider problem of the urgent need for reform of the repatriation system and, in particular, for action to overcome the totally unacceptable delays that occur in settling pension claims. In the four-tier system some veterans have to wait up to three years to have their case finally dealt with, and not necessarily satisfactorily. Their claim could be rejected but they have had to wait that length of time-more than 800 days-to have their case dealt with. My Department at present faces acute difficulties with the backlog of claims and appeals that has developed in recent years. The causes of these difficulties are threefold. Firstly, the Repatriation Act has not been consolidated, rationalised or simplified since 1920, and it now rivals the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Income Tax Assessment Act in complexity and difficulty of administration. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Senator Messner, who set in train the review of that legislation, the results of which are currently before the Government for consideration. Senator Messner recognised how unsatisfactory the situation was. The Act had been in operation since 1920 when a completely different set of social circumstances applied. That is why he set in process that review of the Act. Secondly, the determining system has not been reformed since it was established and is now quite inadequate in the current framework of administrative review. Every veteran who served in World War II is now in his or her sixties and quite often therefore is finding that disabilities occur. Maybe such disabilities arise because of age. Nevertheless, he or she believes that they have arisen as a result of war service. Thirdly, I believe that the administrative mechanisms by which claims are processed for determination are both procedurally inadequate and underresourced. I have established a task force within the Department to address these matters. I believe that reform of the legislation and the determining system will resolve the problems that claimants for veterans' benefits now face in obtaining a timely recognition of their legal entitlements. It is puzzling that despite strong ex-service support for measures to overcome the present backlog, the same honourable senator, Senator Macklin, has criticised the reforms and threatened to oppose the legislation that gives effect to them. As I have said, this particular case is a complex one and has been compounded by the veteran's apparent lack of understanding of the procedures required at law in a complex field such as repatriation. I make no criticism of the veteran concerned in this case, because ordinary citizens find it difficult to comprehend all of the complexities of the processes of government and of the law . I am in no way criticising the person concerned. I know how difficult it is, particularly for many of the frail veterans with whom we deal, to live in our highly complex society and to understand all of the processes that they have to go through in complying with the Government's requirements. I have requested that a senior officer of the State branch concerned make personal contact with the veteran immediately to seek to resolve the problems worrying him. The Repatriation Commission will review all the entitlements of the veteran and the incapacities in relation to which he has been refused a pension to see whether any further improvement can be made to the situation. I indicate the Government's determination to take up this specific case urgently. I have used the adjournment debate to raise this matter because once the Senate adjourns tonight it will not resume until early in May. Therefore I have taken this opportunity to put on the record the Government's determination to do what it can to rectify the situation in a short time. I have today written to Senator Macklin informing him of the results of my investigation, and I have in that letter dealt with issues that he raised on behalf of the veteran. The letter answers in detail all of the questions and major problems raised by Senator Macklin. I have found it necessary to reply to the specific questions that he raised. That letter was delivered to Senator Macklin this afternoon. For the benefit of those honourable senators who were concerned, as I was, about the statements that Senator Macklin made, I seek leave to have that letter incorporated in Hansard. It does not reveal the identity of the applicant but it answers very many of the questions that were posed by Senator Macklin. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 5 April 1984 Dear Senator Macklin, I refer to the letter from a Veteran from which you read in the Senate during the debate on the adjournment motion on Thursday, 29 March 1984. Subsequently, you were kind enough to pass on the name of the Veteran concerned. I have had a close and thorough investigation made of his case and can now respond to the issues raised. May I say at the outset that the Veteran had a distinguished service record, the equal of any other which has been brought to my notice. He has also now had a long association with my Department. However, the history of that association as recorded in the Department's records is different from the description you gave to the Senate. The first point to be noted is that the Veteran is in receipt of disability pension from my Department at 70% of the General Rate. He has been in receipt of pension at this level since 1970. He has the following accepted incapacities: small epididymal cysts right scrotum, accepted by a Repatriation Board in 1946; appendicitis with appendectomy, accepted by the Repatriation Commission in 1957 ; anxiety state with functional colitis, accepted by a Repatriation Board in 1957 ; haemorrhoids, accepted by a Repatriation Board in 1958; orchidectomy left, accepted by a Repatriation Board in 1960; cervical spondylosis and associated fibrositis, accepted by a Repatriation Board in 1978; cataract left eye, accepted by the Repatriation Commission in 1984. The actual history of his claims is slightly more complex than the preceding paragraph suggests. For example, a Repatriation Board had accepted functional dyspepsia in 1957, but this incapacity was then merged into the accepted incapacity of anxiety neurosis with functional colitis later that year. This change followed further medical investigation. Similarly, in 1947 a Repatriation Board had accepted fibrositis of neck and shoulders, but this incapacity was later incorporated into a further decision accepting cervical spondylosis. Polyarthritis and rheumatic symptoms are also related to this decision. I might add that, in 1947, a Repatriation Board had accepted malaria as related to service but this entitlement was removed in 1957, when it became apparent that it was no longer causing actual incapacity. There have been other claims from the Veteran which have not been accepted, including for astigmatism, refused by the Repatriation Board in 1947, hypermetropia and presbyopia, refused by an Entitlement Appeal Tribunal in 1972 and villous adenoma of the rectum (excised), refused by a Repatriation Board in 1978. There was also a claim in respect of polyarthralgia, refused by a Repatriation Board in 1978. The various claims and lines of correspondence have been complex and tangled. They have covered several decades and residence in two States. He has dealt with Branch Offices in three States. The Veteran has also spent considerable time working offshore and, more recently, some distance from his State capital during the week. It has not been easy to make personal contact with him. From an examination of the files, it is evident that there have been some administrative breakdowns which have caused the Veteran concern. The Department has decided to interview him to see if all outstanding matters can be identified and action taken to resolve them quickly. The Repatriation Commission has also decided to review this case, although, on the record, the relevant entitlement decisions appear to have been taken properly and in accordance with the law. It is possible, however, that a particular decision in recent years by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal could throw fresh light on the Veteran's claim in respect of Villous Adenoma. You raised a number of questions on behalf of the Veteran. I do not propose to go into detail on all the matters raised as perusal of the Hansard record would show that many of the questions are irrelevant and have no relationship to the Repatriation system. I will, however, traverse those matters directly bearing upon the case. The Veteran asked why claims have been refused, allegedly on grounds of lack of medical evidence when in fact the medical evidence is in the files of the Armed Services. The refusals to which the Veteran refers were made in years before reasons for decisions had to be furnished by determining authorities. For that reason it is impossible to determine now what was taken into account and why. Certain decisions were taken, but there is no ground to conclude that any were made on the basis of lack of medical evidence. Indeed, the original acceptance of malaria by a Repatriation Board was a favourable decision made in spite of the absence of any recorded malarial attack on service. On the other hand, while the Veteran's service documents showed that he suffered amoebic dysentery during service, no amoeba were seen when pathology tests were conducted in the period immediately after the war. The Veteran has asked why drug entitlements for returned soldiers were reduced. It would seem that in his particular case one of the drugs which was being prescribed for this incapacity was one intended to be withdrawn when the drug list was being reviewed under the previous Government. One of my first decisions as Minister was to postpone that review and the drug was reinstated. Any review of prescription drugs under my jurisdiction would be an objective review ensuring that those drugs necessary remain available. Unnecessary duplication of the prescription list and the continuation of prescriptions no longer medically necessary will be discontinued. Just because an individual drug is withdrawn from the list does not necessarily mean that the quality of treatment is in any way lessened. The Veteran refers to the practice of insurance companies placing loadings on insurance premiums for Veterans. Insurance companies will place loadings on insurance premiums, not only on Veterans, but on any members of the community in certain circumstances suggesting an increased risk. The purpose of the Repatriation system is to provide compensation payments as well as medical treatment where incapacities arise from war service. One of the side issues in this is that pension payments offset problems such as having to pay increased insurance premiums. He raised the question of why the Army failed to include all medical history in the records of ex-diggers, making it impossible to prove what diseases or illnesses or wounds he has suffered. In a war time situation, particularly in the very adverse circumstances in which this Veteran served, any medical record must be less than perfect. It is for this reason that the Parliament has included in the Repatriation Act the provisions of sub-section 47 (1). These require determining authorities under the Repatriation Act to take account of the fact that records would be missing, thus ensuring that Veterans are not penalised. The evidence suggests that this provision has been applied in this case. The Veteran asked why there is an 8 month delay in obtaining a specialist appointment. In this instance the appointment was with the National Acoustic Laboratory. While it is acknowledged that delays in arranging appointments with the N.A.L. have been excessive, these delays are being reduced with the co- operation of the Minister for Health and his Department which has the responsibility for the N.A.L.. I might add that, in fact, the Veteran did not have to wait 8 months for his appointment. After writing to me he was given an appointment within a month. He asked how the Repatriation system can refuse to accept a disability for up to 7 years, and in one case 30 years, and then when it does accept a claim, refuse to fully backdate the decision. Specifically, he referred to a refusal of a claim for dysentery. There is in fact no record of the Veteran ever having claimed for dysentery. He certainly mentioned it when giving medical history in the years immediately after his war service and again when claiming in respect of an abdominal problem in 1952, but it was never the subject of a specific claim. As to the question of delay of 30 years, I presume that the Veteran is referring to his claim for ''cataract left eye''. He wrote to the Department in 1971 and that letter was taken to be a claim for acceptance of this disability. The claim was refused by a Repatriation Board and the Veteran then pursued his claim through to an Entitlement Appeals Tribunal which refused the appeal in 1972. No further approach was made on this matter until April 1983, when the Veteran lodged further information which was reviewed by a delegate of the Repatriation Commission under section 107VM of the Repatriation Act. The Veteran received a statement of the reasons for decisions given by the delegate. I would have thought that the statement of reasons was self-explanatory. The delegate explained that the law as to the standard of proof under section 47 of the Repatriation Act had been amended substantially in 1977 and, by applying that law, as amended by this Parliament, the delegate was then able to accept '' cataract left eye''. To say that the Repatriation system had been refusing a claim for 30 years but then granted it, without regard to this very substantial amendment to the law in the interim, is misleading. As to the question of backdating, that is a matter that is dealt with under section 107VZG of the Repatriation Act and the delegate must determine the date of operation of his decision in accordance with that section. The Veteran asks how 'Repat' can divulge a ''digger's'' personal medical history to an employer and so endanger his employment. This appears to relate to an incident of some years ago, the details of which are not altogether clear but possibly involved the provision of a list of medical entitlements to a medical officer of the company then employing the Veteran. I should add that the medical officer was also the Veteran's personal medical adviser, the situation being unusual and in a very remote location. I note, however, that the Veteran recently wrote to my Department and actually asked the Department to supply details of his accepted incapacities to his present employer so that he could obtain the privilege of a special leave scheme. He also asked why 'Repat' seeks employment and wage details of a recipient of disability pension. As I mentioned earlier, the Veteran is in receipt of pension of 70 per cent of the General Rate. His pension is currently being re-assessed, following acceptance of ''cataract left eye'' and as a result of his application for an increase in pension. In view of Court decisions as to the requirements before decisions are made for the special rates of pension under the Repatriation system, my Department requested certain information from the Veteran on his current employment and earnings. The Department would have been negligent in the discharge of its duties had it failed to do so, should the medical and other evidence point to the Veteran being entitled to pension above 100 per cent General Rate level. I note that the Veteran said in his letter 'it is not until 1983 when under the Freedom of Information Act 1983 I found out that the Repat had evidence of some of my illnesses . . .'. The Department of Veterans' Affairs and its predecessors have had for many years a practice of allowing access to personal files by Veterans. The Veteran never sought to take advantage of his access. Given his long absences from Australia this is perhaps understandable. However, the point I make is that he did not have to wait for the Freedom of Information Act. I note that in 1972, when he pursued an appeal to the War Pensions Entitlement Appeals Tribunal during an absence from Australia, he was advised that a summary of his file had been handed to his advocate by the Tribunal. Surely this would have indicated to him that there were arrangements for access. In summary, this is a complex case but it is not as grim a picture as portrayed by your remarks to the Senate. It is a case of a Veteran who has been in frequent contact with the Department since his discharge from the forces at the end of World War II. It is a case of a Veteran with a number of accepted incapacities, involving most of the body's systems. You might note from what I have said that most claims were accepted by Repatriation Boards, the first level of determination, without any significant delay. The Veteran was not required to pursue appeals on them. It is also a case where there have been administrative breakdowns occasioned largely by communications difficulties. In my view the only way to deal with this difficulty in a complex case, such as this, is to assign one officer to deal with all matters. Unfortunately, it is not practicable to do this over a long period. Nonetheless every effort will be made to resolve all outstanding matters as quickly as possible with the co-operation of the Veteran. I would also appreciate your co-operation in this regard. Yours sincerely,(A. T. GIETZELT) Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 May 1984, unless otherwise called together in accordance with the Sessional Orders. The following papers were presented: Lands Acquisition Act- Land, etc., acquired for- Telecommunication purposes- Rylstone, New South Wales. Telecommunication purposes-Basin View, New South Wales. Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 55. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1984 No. 52. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 54. Therapeutic Goods Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 53. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 681) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) What is the total value of trade between Australia and South Africa. (2) What are the major imports and exports. (3) Has the Government considered ways of reducing this trade in the light of the continued apartheid policy of that Government. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total value of Australia/South Africa trade was $229.4m in 1982/83 made up of $144.5m of exports and $84.9m of imports. (2) The major imports and exports in $ million in 1982/83 were as follows: Imports- Fish, fresh, chilled or frozen 11.1 Fish, dried salted or in brine; smoked fish 5.1 Textile yarn 3.8 Other crude minerals 3.5 Fertilisers, manufactured 3.4 Pig iron, et cetera 3.3 Glass 2.7 Inorganic chemical elements, et cetera 2.6 Exports- Parts and accessories for motor vehicles 9.5 Crustaceans and molluscs fresh, chilled or frozen 7.5 Internal combustion piston engines and parts 7.2 Motor vehicles for the transport of goods, et cetera 7.3 Animal oils and fats 6 .5 Crude vegetable materials, nes 4.2 Agricultural machinery and parts 3.6 (3) The honourable senator will be aware that the Government has expressed total opposition to the apartheid policies of the South African Government. The Government will also continue to co-operate in moves in international fora designed to bring pressure on South Africa to end apartheid. The Government would support comprehensive economic sanctions approved by the United Nations Security Council and implemented by South Africa's major trading partners. In the meantime, in the absence of international obligations to the contrary, the Government's policy is to permit normal commercial relations to continue but without avoidable official assistance. Consistent with this policy, trade is permitted to continue but there is no government promotion of trade with or investment in South Africa. (Question No. 645) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Were the two Royal Australian Air Force jets which collided on 15 December 1983 being used for aerobatic practice; if so, why is this dangerous activity fostered by the RAAF. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The two RAAF jets which collided on 15 December 1983 were being flown by members of the RAAF Roulettes formation aerobatic team on an authorised training flight. Aerobatics and formation flying are important parts of military flying and are practised by training and operational elements of the RAAF. During pilot training, aerobatics are introduced early in the flying training syllabus to teach the student to control the aircraft accurately and competently in all flight attitudes. Operationally, complex aerobatic manoeuvres are flown to exploit the operational capabilities of aircraft and their weapons. The Roulettes, which are formed from experienced instructor pilots from the RAAF Central Flying School, combine aerobatic and formation skills to provide a display team to personify the skills and professionalism of the RAAF to the general public on occasions of significance. (Question No. 663) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: What measures can the Federal Government take, apart from refusing to issue export licences, to prevent mining of mineral sands on Moreton Island if mining companies decide to risk stockpiling mined sand in the hope of a future change in government policy? Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has no reason to consider that mining companies are likely to mine and stockpile mineral sands on Moreton Island. Should such a project be planned, however, the measures available to the Commonwealth would depend on the nature of the proposal. The honourable senator would be aware that Moreton Island is on the Register of the National Estate and every Commonwealth Minister, Department or Authority of the Commonwealth is bound by section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act. This section provides, inter alia, that before any action is taken which might adversely affect an item on the Register of the National Estate, that action shall not be taken unless the relevant Minister is satisfied that there is no prudent or feasible alternative and that further, the Minister shall before taking any such action, consult with the Australian Heritage Commission. Accordingly, a mining proposal which involved any action at all by the Commonwealth would be subject to the provisions of section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act. (Question No. 668) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Are the reports in the Canberra Times on Thursday 23 February 1984 which state that a brand of imported pasta has been withdrawn from sale in Australia because it is contaminated by deadly golden staph bacteria accurate; if so, how is it that contaminated food products are being passed by the Commonwealth Inspection Service. (2) What plans does the Government have to ensure that future inspection procedures are carried out properly and efficiently so that the health of Australians is not threatened by contaminated products. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Initial advice on contamination of the particular brand of pasta was received from health authorities in the United Kingdom on 17 February 1984 and immediate action was taken to have the product withdrawn from sale in Australia. Initial testing in Austraalia did not confirm the reports received from the United Kingdom. Testing and further examinations did indicate that such contamination had occurred and further tests are proceeding. At the time the product was imported into Australia there was no indication that any contamination existed. (2) Problems in the implementation of inspection of food imported into Australia are currently under consideration. I will be discussing this issue with my State colleagues at the Health Ministers' Conference in April 1984.