Thursday, 31 May 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: 1. that governments have responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes; 2. that it cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not adopt the X Classification for films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that. 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a 'first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia army barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Primmer (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 111 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 298 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens shows that: 1. The Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: there is demonstrated evidence of a need for child care facilities by staff, users, and potential users of the National Library of Australia and surrounding buildings in Parkes, Australian Capital Territory; there are at present no such existing facilities; provision has already been made for inclusion of the facilities in planned extensions to the Library, Humbly petition that your Honourable House reverse the decision by the Minister of Home Affairs and Environment disallowing provision for child care facilities in the extensions to the National Library of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law: the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; the powers to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; that, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 30 citizens), Bjelke-Petersen (from 39 citizens) and Harradine (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: We believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitioners most humbly pray that: (1) No new uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 43 citizens). Senator Button —I seek leave to present a petition from 146 citizens which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders. Leave granted. The petition read as follows: We, the undersigned, being aware of the Draft Report from the Industries Assistance Commission on Certain Electronic Equipment and Components, wish to express our concern for the effect of the recommendation contained in the draft, on the employment in, and the viability of Colour Television Manufacturing in Australia. We believe the mass production of consumer electronic equipment, particularly of colour television receivers, forms the logical industrial base to take advantage of the opportunity to supply the needs of the constantly expanding use of electronic assemblies in almost all fields of manufacturing. We therefore petition the Senate to ensure that measures (of which tariff is only one) be adopted to retain the 95% share of the large screen television market for Australian manufacture. Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that it is my intention, when notices of motion are given on the next day of sitting, to withdraw Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos. 1 and 3, standing in my name. I seek leave to make a brief explanation. Leave granted. Senator COATES —The Regulations and Ordinances Committee was concerned about a number of reversals of onus of proof and conclusive certificate provisions in the Ordinances concerned. The Committee has been discussing these provisions with the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) over the past three months. As a result, the Committee has satisfied itself that the reversal of onus provisions are intrinsic to policy, which of course, is outside the scope of the Committee's normal principles or terms of reference. The Committee has also received an undertaking from the Minister to amend the other series of provisions which relate to decisions made by a single medical referee. The Minister has promised that a wide range of such decisions will, where at all feasible, be made by a panel of medical practitioners rather than a single medical referee. A full account of the Committee's action will appear in its next report to the Senate. The Committee has also had some three months of discussions with the Minister for Territories and Local Government over the Dangerous Goods Ordinance 1984. Again, as a result of those discussions, the Committee is now satisfied with the amendments promised by the Minister-correcting in one case a serious misprint, and in three other cases reversal of onus provisions so that the defendant bears only an evidentiary, and not a persuasive, burden as currently provided for. I should also add that the Minister has satisfied the Committee that two other reversal of onus provisions are warranted by the legislation in circumstances where the defendant's own belief, rather than objective criteria, is the saving factor. In addition, the Minister has promised to improve the quality of explanatory statements and is also pursuing a consolidated reprint of all dangerous goods legislation relevant to the Australian Capital Territory, as requested by the Committee. I thank the Senate and commend the Minister for his co-operation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Immigration Program 1984-85-Text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs made in the House of Representatives on 30 May 1984. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising, adjourn till Friday, 1 June 1984, at 10 a.m. Motion (by Senator Coates) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of the High Court Directions No. 1 1984, be postponed till four sitting days after today. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I present the report on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 is the Government's cherry picker tax avoidance Bill providing for retrospectivity to 1 July 1977 as distinct from Senator Jack Evan's Bill passed by the Senate which provided for retrospectivity to 7 December 1983. The Bill was referred to the Committee to examine the need for retrospective legislation to counter tax avoidance which is associated with misuse of employee superannuation funds. Information was sought in a public hearing on the revenue loss as a result of these schemes, the number of schemes identified to date and the action taken by the Commissioner of Taxation to recoup revenue under existing provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. To the extent possible in the short time available, the Committee has obtained information on these questions. In evidence to the Committee the Commissioner indicated that current remedies were 'so uncertain that some legislation is required to give certainty to the situation'. The scheme is one of those which would clearly fall within the category of 'blatant and fraudulent', thus justifying retrospectivity. The Commissioner has so far identified 70 cases of abuse of the taxation law using cherry picker schemes, these cases occurring in every year going back at least to 1978-79, including the largest case in that year, amounting to a total of $16m identified so far, including $7m in the 1978-79 year. Based on this information the recommendation of the Committee is that retrospectivity is justified and that the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 be passed by the Senate. If this recommendation is rejected by the Senate the Committee has recommended that the Bill lie on the table for a period of not less than 12 months to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to pursue the matter of taxes avoided by the use of section 23F superannuation funds through the courts using the existing provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I would point out that there are minority reports attached to the report indicating dissents from recommendation 1 but supporting recommendation 2. Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.10) —In speaking to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations I want to seek guidance from the Senate as to how it wishes to debate the report. A Bill to which the report refers is still in the Senate. I wonder whether this report, together with its recommendations and the dissenting reports will be dealt with at the time the legislation is before us or whether we wish to refer to the recommendations this morning. I have noted the recommendations with interest. I have also noted with some interest the dissenting reports by Senator the Rt Hon. R. G. Withers, Senator Jack Evans and Senator Michael Townley. It is of interest to me that Senator Jack Evans, in his dissenting report-of course he can speak for himself at the appropriate time-states: Whilst agreeing with the body of the Report and whole-heartedly supporting recommendation 2, I dissent from recommendation 1 for the following reasons: 1. Recommendation 1 does not in my opinion, follow logically from the body of evidence in the Report. That is a very significant statement to be made in a dissenting report. In his opinion a recommendation carried by the Committee does not follow logically from the body of evidence in the report. In his dissenting report he also states: Before the Parliament is forced to consider such retrospective tax legislation it is imperative that all existing avenues for reclamation of lost taxes be pursued by the Commissioner of Taxation. That was the very point on which the Opposition thought that this matter ought to be referred to the Committee. When we debated the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 we referred to the very precise legislation that was in the hands of the Commissioner of Taxation throughout all the years in question to deal with superannuation funds set up for the benefit of employees. He had precise legislation under which, at any time, he could disallow the section 23F advantages given to those funds and the proprietors of the companies who set them up. We could not understand why, with the various avenues that he had available to him under the Income Tax Assessment Act, he was not able to deal with the matters that were raised by this retrospective legislation. I note with some interest also the dissenting report of Senator Withers. He draws attention to some of the evidence and the response of the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr O'Reilly, to the precise question that was raised by him. He states : I find it extraordinary that an independent statutory officer charged with the administration of the taxation laws of Australia should be taking notice of what 'came through loud and clear' from the Government of the day. The Income Tax Assessment Act gives powers to the Commissioner of Taxation to collect, fairly and equitably, taxes from the people of Australia in accordance with the law. For him to use, as a reason for not taking action, or for taking particular action, noises that were coming through from the government of the day, ignores the law which he must administer on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Senate Committee in this instance was able to do precisely what the Senate had asked it to do-that is, take a reference quickly, hear evidence, deal with it and bring forward its recommendations to the Senate. We are indebted to the Finance and Government Operations Committee for the way it has discharged its responsibility. As I suggested at the outset, I presume this report will be debated more fully when the Bill is again put on the Notice Paper for debate in this place. At that time it is obvious that we will have to dispose of the Bill and place on record our own reactions to the Senate Committee's report and recommendations by the way we deal with the legislation. I commend the Committee for its work and the way it has assisted the Senate in dealing with this legislation. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.15) —I endorse the suggestion of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that this debate should be a cognate debate with the consideration of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and therefore my comments will be very brief. I believe that the reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has been proven to be totally justified. The vindication comes about as a result of the discussions of the Committee with representatives of the Australian Taxation Office and deliberations of the Committee on what measures were available, and have been available for many years, to the Commissioner of Taxation. In the opinion of many honourable senators, these should have been applied and pressure should have been applied to the Taxation Commissioner by successive Treasurers. That point needs to be stressed as well. The onus does not rest entirely with the Commissioner. It must be clearly understood that the body of the report has the support of the Committee. But it must be equally understood that three members of the six- person Committee would not support the recommendation that the retrospective application of this legislation is relevant at this stage. In a sense the minority members are saying that there is still not sufficient evidence, simply because the matter has not been pursued adequately through the courts yet, to justify having this retrospective legislation at this time. The purpose of my minority report and recommendation No. 2 is to give the Senate the opportunity to have proven for it the viability of existing laws to collect the taxes that have been avoided under schemes under section 23F of the Income Tax Assessment Act. If in 12 months time it has been proven conclusively that the Taxation Commissioner does not have powers to retrieve the taxes that have been avoided, the Senate must reconsider the position at that time. The Commissioner has indicated that some taxes may have been lost in the interim simply through the funds having been dissipated but I believe it is more important for honourable senators to see justice done in this situation before they take their decision than it is for us to pick up a few dollars that might be lost in the forthcoming 12 months. My position is that, whilst agreeing with the report and recommendation No. 2, the agreement does not say that there should be no retrospective legislation for the cherry pickers scheme. It says that there should be no retrospective legislation for the next 12 months for the cherry pickers scheme but if, as is believed by many honourable senators, there is existing legislation to cater for this anomaly, steps need to be taken in the meantime through the courts to prove or disprove the viability of that existing legislation. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.18) —I wish to speak briefly on the procedural point raised by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle because it raises the issue of the deficiencies of our present Sessional Orders. There is a sessional order dealing with the reference of Bills to legislative and general purpose standing committees. Although this sessional order has been in force for nearly five years it has been used only once because it has clear deficiencies. Senator Teague —Multicultural broadcasting. Senator HAMER —Yes. The sessional order has been used only once in the five years it has been in force. The reason it has not been used is that it is deficient in a number of ways. Bills can only be referred, under the Sessional Orders, after the second reading stage. It is probably desirable to have this sort of material available before the second reading stage. The procedure in the committee has to be as nearly as practicable the same as the procedure in the Committee of the Whole. This limits the way in which a committee can conduct its deliberations. The point I wish to raise is that, because of the deficiencies of the sessional order, we have adopted the procedure, when we refer Bills to committees, of referring them to committees at large to conduct their inquiries in the way they choose. That seems to me entirely desirable and it should be done at any point in the cycle of consideration in the Senate that suits the wishes of the Senate. But one aspect that I think is relevant to this debate now is that a provision in the sessional order, clause (7), reads: A report from a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee, relating to a Bill, shall be received by the Senate without debate and its consideration deferred until the reading of the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Bill . . . That seems to me entirely appropriate. Although we are adopting an ad hoc procedure in referring them at large to committees, I think when we get the Committee report back we should follow that procedure otherwise we will have two debates on the same subject. In other words, the consideration of this report should be deferred until we consider the Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Mr President , I seek leave to make a statement. The PRESIDENT —There is a motion before the Chair, that the Senate take note of the report. Senator WALSH —I just want to speak very briefly and reserve my right to speak on the motion later, so I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —Firstly, I am advised-although I am not certain of the reasons why-that there will be an opportunity, since the cherry pickers Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, has not been given a second reading, to have it returned to the Senate so that further debate can take place. Senator Harradine —It has been given a second reading. Senator WALSH —If it is the case that the second reading motion was carried, I will give an undertaking to see what can be done to take care of that. On the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations itself, Senator Withers gave at some length reasons for his dissenting report, but his logic has not improved. If the reasons he gave for opposing the recommendation of the Committee are soundly based there is no need to pass any legislation at all, regardless of the date upon it. Senator Evans gave some reason and Senator Townley gave none. Whether that can be attributed to arrogance or indolence I am not sure. On the general question of retrospectivity, if that option is ultimately taken it will be applied at least one year further back than it would have been if the Government's Bill had not been resisted in the first place. In the meantime, the Kellys and their ilk can retain their ill-gotten gains, and possibly even the would-be Kellys can retain the hope that they will be able to repeat that sort of exercise in the future. Senator Harradine —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that if one fails to speak now on this motion, does that mean, in view of the fact that the Bill has been read a second time and is about to be considered in Committee, that there will be no further opportunity for a Senator to make comment on this report? The PRESIDENT —Technically the point of order that you have taken is correct in that there is now a general debate on this report, Senator Coates having moved that the Senate take note of the report. But I would assume that, bearing in mind the circumstances, when the Bill is dealt with in Committee, a certain amount of latitude will be allowed in debate on the matter. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.24) —Just in case that does not apply, I will speak now on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I do so having had the report for just a few minutes. My concern with the report is that it has not addressed the problems of the employees who are the ostensible beneficiaries of these schemes. Appendix A on page 18 of the report outlines the operation of these schemes. It indicates: Funds are established ostensibly for the purpose of providing superannuation benefits for employees including the principal in the business. After taking advantage of the taxation concessions for contributions and the tax-free treatment of the income of the funds, the funds are wound up and the accumulated assets of the funds are paid out, not to the employees, but to the proprietors of the business concerned. Generally, the employer includes a large group of employees in the fund, however steps are taken so that they will not qualify for a benefit. The report then lists a number of ways by which it is done. That is to say, they employ people who they know will not be in their employment at the time the benefits mature. Another method listed is termination of employees, employment under some pretence shortly before they would otherwise become entitled to substantial superannuation benefits from the fund. I am very concerned about that. If that is the case, the Committee should have examined in all possible ways how those beneficiaries could have received the benefit. Senator Coates —By 31 May? Senator HARRADINE —It has to be done. It is not suggested by anybody that the Commonwealth does not have the power. The Commonwealth, under its insurance power, has the power to make those considerations. I believe that the Committee should have examined this question or at least raised it. I certainly raised it initially. The Committee should have examined whether or how the Commonwealth's insurance power could be exercised so that the worker got first bite of the cherry. Senator Coates —We had the Bill to refer to. Senator HARRADINE —All right, there is the Bill. It allows the Australian Taxation Office to get its fangs into the money. As I have said here time and again, it gets its fangs into the money of workers too often. As I have also mentioned on a previous occasion in bankruptcy cases it gets its fangs into the workers' money. If there is a possibility for workers who had been diddled and whose employment had been terminated under some pretence shortly before they would otherwise become entitled to a substantial superannuation benefit from the fund to receive compensation, the Committee should have considered how the Commonwealth's insurance power could be used to ensure that justice is done. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.28) —I was going to leave discussion of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations until later, but in view of what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) said, I feel I should say a little right now. First, I do not think that anyone in this Senate feels that all intelligence resides inside the skull of the Minister. If ever he wants to get leave in this Senate to do anything in future he had better be a little bit more polite in the way he talks about people. If he thinks for a moment that I would agree with recommendation 1 of this report he must be more stupid than most people in this place recognise him to be. When he was an Opposition member he used to make snide remarks, particularly to Senator Sir John Carrick, that quite often he had to withdraw. I thought that since he had become a Minister he had shown a little more intelligence, or perhaps control of his language, than he had when he was obviously trying to bait Senator Sir John Carrick in the years gone by. Senator Sir John Carrick —He was just a larrikin. Senator TOWNLEY —He is not much better than that now. Some of his ministerial colleagues have proven to me on occasions that they are just as petty and small- minded as that gentleman is. Let me read recommendation 1 of the report, Mr President, just in case you think I am straying away from it. The recommendation states: In view of the fact that identified cases of abuse of the taxation law using cherry picker schemes have occurred at least since 1978-79, and that the largest case identified so far occurred in that year, the Committee concludes that retrospectivity is justified and recommends that the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 be passed by the Senate. On not one occasion when retrospective matters have come before the Senate have I agreed to them. Why on earth the Minister should think that I have to give very many reasons why I dissent from such a recommendation, I do not know. Senator Coates —You should not have bothered sending the Bill to the Committee. Senator TOWNLEY —The Senate sent the Bill to the Committee. Senator Coates —You supported it. Senator TOWNLEY —I certainly did support it. Having listened to the evidence that was given I was even more sure that retrospectivity was not the answer in this case. I do object to the way the Minister feels that in every case one has to spell out exactly why one objects to something like that. Surely, where there is a little bit of simple English in a recommendation of that kind it is easy to see why one objects to it, particularly if the Minister has paid any attention to things that have been said in the Senate even with respect to this Bill. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.32) —I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Senator Harradine raised the point that the Committee lacked diligence, if you like, in its approach to the matter because we did not consider the employees or the insurance aspects of it. Senator Harradine would have had adequate opportunity, as he was in the chamber when the reference was made, to add that as a reference if he so desired. Further, the Committee was given a very limited time in which to report. I know that at the time Senator Harradine opposed the Committee meeting on parliamentary sitting days. We did not have much time other than to look at the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2). I do not necessarily extol the virtues of the Finance and Government Operations Committee on being able to come back with this report. I see nothing particularly glorious in it. I think Senator Townley demonstrated today that basically his mind was made up on the issue before he attended the meeting. I guess I was not that far behind him in that regard. I guess the reference of Bills to committees in these circumstances fulfils a couple of functions. First, it allows people to get the heat off them at the time and send the matter away and, secondly, apparently it allows people to reinforce their prejudices by interpreting the evidence that comes forward so as to support those prejudices. One of the things that concerns me about these rushed inquiries is that if one has long term commitments, as I had earlier this week, one may be placed in the position I was in, in that I was not able to attend the final Committee meeting during which it made its final deliberations. I do not regard that as satisfactory. I do not criticise the Committee for that. I think that if the Senate is continually to refer legislation to committees it should set some sort of timetable that is realistic. On the issue itself and the question of who is affected by it, I simply reiterate my view that retrospectivity is a weapon against tax evasion and avoidance. It is the best weapon known if it is provided consistently. If it is provided inconsistently it is no weapon at all. This chamber has ensured that it is an inconsistent weapon and, therefore, not an effective one. Senator WITHERS(Western Australia)(10.34) —I was not going to speak this morning, for a very simple reason. I think it is somewhat ludicrous to try to have a debate on a report which has just been put down when all of my colleagues in this place have not had an opportunity to read it. Nor, of course, would they have had an opportunity to read the Hansard of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which I also think is important. I intervene in the debate for one reason only, and that is because of the matters raised by Senator Harradine. I say to Senator Harradine that if he reads the transcript of evidence he will see that I did raise the problem of vesting and the employees' possible capacity to recover. I have followed with interest the remarks that Senator Harradine has made in these debates. It was quite obvious that due to the limited amount of time we had we could not range across all the superannuation problems. I did raise the matter with the Commissioner of Taxation, and it was fair enough, from his point of view, that he was not terribly interested. We touched on the problems of people not getting their just desserts. I did ask him-I am speaking from memory as I do not have the transcript in front of me-whether or not an obligation should have been imposed on the Australian Taxation Office to oversee these schemes and not allow these sorts of rorts to happen, but the representatives from the Taxation Office did not seem to be terribly interested in that sort of thing; they were just interested in revenue. To the best of my very limited ability, I did attempt to raise with the tax authorities some of the points raised by Senator Harradine. I suggest to Senator Harradine that he is really looking at another aspect altogether and that is superannuation funds. I do not know whether that should be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations or to some other committee. I think this exercise is really separate from the reference of this Bill to the Committee at that stage. I regret that I was not able to pursue the ideas of Senator Harradine with better ability that I did. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.37) —I wish to add a few words on what is happening to the reference of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and to what will happen to this Bill. Like other honourable senators, I have seen this very slender report in the last few minutes. I have read it in a sort of a way but I cannot say that I am completely familiar with it. Questions were raised by Senator Harradine and Senator Withers. I am concerned as to how this matter will be handled. If this is the debate on this report, which has come down rather quickly, and if we proceed to debate this Bill in Committee and take it clause by clause, it seems that some initial questions have to be determined. If at the end of the day the Bill will not be passed, we will be back to the second aspect of the recommendation. Senator Walsh —I intend to move that the debate be adjourned, if that will satisfy the honourable senator. Senator MISSEN —I think that would certainly be a help because it seems to me that it is important that major questions be determined, such as whether we will take note of the second suggestion which the Committee made or whether we will take note of what Senator Withers said, in his dissenting report. He has raised important questions. We should look also at the Hansard and at the evidence that came before the Committee and see whether the matter has been dealt with adequately and whether the Commissioner of Taxation took an interest in the major matters involved or whether he and his staff were just concerned with the collection of money and not with looking after the rights of employees, a matter with which Senator Harradine seems to be more concerned. I believe that these matters ought to be determined before we go trudging through the Committee stage of this Bill and before we determine the question of retrospectivity. I hope that the Minister's foreshadowed motion that the debate be adjourned will be carried. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.39) —I have held a very constant view with respect to retrospective taxation measures. I have voted against retrospectivity on every occasion I have been able. It occurs to me that the Commissioner of Taxation was probably negligent in some respects. In my view the laws in existence have not been properly explored and exploited in regard to this question. I noted that in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, Senator Withers, on page 11 of his dissenting report, said this: Also I am not satisfied that the Commissioner of Taxation has attempted to use the remedies which may be available to him under section 260 of part IVA. In addition if as alleged by some Ministers that fraud is present then such persons ought to be prosecuted either under the taxation laws, the Crimes Act or State laws. I have mentioned before that tax avoiders or tax evaders ought to have been prosecuted in the past under the existing sections of the Taxation Act or the Companies Act, as there are provisions for that, or under the Crimes Act, as Senator Withers has quite properly pointed out. Nobody on this side of the House would say that he agrees with people avoiding taxation, as those concerned with bottom of the harbour deals were doing, because that means that everyone else in Australia, including us, has to pay more tax. So we do not support tax evasion at all. I believe that there has been negligence over many years, probably since 1970 when the Whitlam Administration first identified the bottom of the harbour tax evasion type of scheme. Senator Coates —What year? Senator JESSOP —Since 1970 or 1971. You are the expert on these financial matters; I am not. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will address the Chair. Senator JESSOP —But I do not like people from the Government side intruding when I am starting to hurt them. The Whitlam Government was culpable and negligent under Attorney-General Murphy, the Attorney-General of the day, in not exploring these measures that were available to it. The Fraser Government did not properly exploit the Acts that were available to it. I suggest that we ought to have a good look at the whole matter. I would like to defer further consideration of this matter until we have all had an opportunity to read the evidence and debate the matter at greater length. I object to going down a path of retrospective laws that deal with this matter. That would open Pandora's box. I am afraid that the Government would then introduce retrospective personal taxation measures. I would not be surprised if it did so, because it is getting into financial chaos which will force it to act desperately. It is now hitting the pensioners. It will deprive pensioners of their lifetime earnings and their capacity to provide for the future, and yet the people who sit opposite just laugh. These measures are going to hurt the small man in Australia. Senator Walsh —Mr President, I raise a point of order. If the honourable senator has finished, it does not matter, but I was just going to question the relevance of what Senator Jessop was saying to the report of the Committee. The PRESIDENT —I ask the honourable senator to come back to the matter before the Chair, which is that the Senate take note of the report. Senator JESSOP —The question of retrospective taxation measures is one of critical importance. I believe that it ought to be enshrined in the Constitution that it is illegal for any government to introduce retrospective taxation measures. I hope that Senator Townley will come forward at some time with a private member's Bill giving some credibility to that suggestion. If he does, I will give him my full support. Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I present the report of Estimates Committee A on the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the year 1983-84, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings of 2, 4 and 9 May 1984. The Hansard record of last night's proceedings will be tabled as soon as possible. Ordered that the report be printed. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1983-84 APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1983-84 SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1984-85 SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1984-85 SUPPLY (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL 1984-85 AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.45) —I do not intend to speak for long in replying to the debate. Leaving aside the truly fatuous contributions to the debate, from for example Senator Walters, the general theme being pushed by members of the Opposition was that insufficient money is being spent on all areas. Senator Baume was quite explicit about one area in which he has given an undertaking that a future Liberal Government will spend more money than the present Government. That sort of approach opens two possibilities; one, the knowledge by the Opposition parties that they will never have to deliver on their undertakings on expenditure in a wide variety of areas in which they think it would be popular to increase expenditure, because they know they will be crushed at the next elections, no matter when they are held. The second possibility, which I am afraid is the more likely, is that if the Liberal Party of Australian should ever be returned to government we will see a rerun of the 1982-83 period; that is, we will see another bout of reckless fiscal irresponsibility, such as the Fraser Government displayed in its later years when it knew that the Government's looming financial position was very serious, and in its 1982 Budget when it dangled before the electorate a lot of handouts targeted at politically sensitive groups in the community, handouts in the form of tax expenditures or tax concessions, the cost of which was deferred to future financial years. Because of that reckless bout of fiscal irresponsibility by the Fraser Government, this Government had to deal with an impending $10 billion deficit in the last year and had to deal with the highest interest rates and highest unemployment and, for the first time in almost 20 years, three consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. That is the sort of economic, fiscal and more general economic irresponsibility that the country can expect if a Liberal Government is returned to office. The attitude the Opposition parties have adopted to the appropriations under the Bill confirms that that is the sort of policy they would adopt-if they were ever returned. I do not intend otherwise to take up the time of the Senate, in order to leave the maximum time for examination of the Estimates in Committee. I hope the contributions made by members of the Opposition in that forum are more relevant than those made in the second reading debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: (1) That clauses 1 to 7 be postponed till after the consideration of the Schedule. (2) That unless otherwise ordered, the Votes in the Schedule be considered in the same groupings and order as the departmental estimates referred to Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F respectively, as follows: Division Nos DepartmentAmount $ Group A 400-404 Industry and Commerce 9,185,000 500-516 Prime Minister and Cabinet 2,872,000 287-290 Employment and Industrial Relations 99,786,000 220-224 Communications 16,043,000 Group B 560-561 Social Security 7,031,000 360-365 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 2,384,000 352-355 Housing and Construction 12,496,000 245 Buildings and Works Defence 2,900,000 325-329 Health 30,955,000 Group C 520-525 Resources and Energy 4,651,000 640-644 Trade 6,121,000 670-678 Treasury 16,588,000 490-497 Primary Industry 3,109,000 304-306 Finance 2,337,000 Group D 270-284 Education and Youth Affairs 32,939,000 590-592 Sport, Recreation and Tourism 2,457,000 540-554 Science and Technology 16,585,000 330-346 Home Affairs and Environment 2,298,000 120-125 Aboriginal Affairs 3,669,000 Group E 165-190 Attorney-General's 7,191,000 575-581 Special Minister of State 12,905,000 315-319 Foreign Affairs 9,235,000 230-242 Defence 112,495,000 255-257 Defence Support 17,358,000 Group F 690-693 Veterans' Affairs 30,097,000 664-668 Transport 13,032,000 193-194 Aviation 12,153,000 130-132 Administrative Services 13,374,000 250 Rent (Defence) 61,000 260 Rent (Defence Support) 75,000 620-626 Territories and Local Government 6,085,000 (3) That leave be given to Senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the Reports of the Estimates Committees; that such motions be moved when the appropriate vote is under consideration; that where more than one motion is proposed in relation to a particular vote, the motions may be debated together, but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the Question is put on the vote before the Chair, and that any resolutions be reported when the Chairman makes his report to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) GROUP A Department of Industry and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $9,185,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $2,872,000. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(10.49) —I think it appropriate at this time that I draw the attention of the Committee to a situation that arose in the Estimates Committee. It has disturbed me that over the years I have been a member of the Senate I have found it sometimes extremely difficult to obtain simple pieces of information during the Estimates committee hearings. I want to give an example of something that occurred during the hearing of Estimates Committee A dealing with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, on 9 May. I directed questions to officers of the Office of National Assessment and advised them that it was my intention to seek information in relation to the furnishing of the office of the Director-General of the ONA. I was advised by the officer at the table, Mr Denning: The cost of refurbishing does not come under the departmental head. It is under another head of expenditure for works funded by whichever ministry is responsible. On page 350 of the Estimates record Mr Denning is reported to have said: It will be the National Capital Development Commission which is under the Department of Territories and Local Government. I raised the point at that time as I felt, with the Office of National Assessment coming under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, that that would have been the logical place to find all of those matters that were of concern to me. Given that Estimates Committee F had concluded its hearings, I wrote to the Chairman, Senator Georges, on 9 May following that meeting and expressed my concern that I was unable to get information in relation to the refurbishing and furnishing of the Director-General's office. I advised him of sections for which his Estimates Committee was responsible that I felt it may be included under but that I had some doubt as there was insufficient information under the NCDC appropriation to provide me with the necessary information. In short, I asked Senator Georges three questions under the National Capital Development Commission, Division 959, sub-division 4. The first was, how much of that appropriation is for the Office of National Assessment? Second, how much of that appropriation is for the office of the Director-General of the Office of National Assessment? Third, in itemised form, what is the cost of the furnishings and fittings of the Director-General's office? On 22 May I received a copy of a letter from the NCDC addressed to Mr Nimmo, who is the Secretary of Estimates Committee F, providing me with certain information but informing me that work undertaken by the NCDC on behalf of the Department of Administrative Services would have been only refurbishing work of the office. He went on to advise that the estimated cost of those units was of the order of $5,000, that there were no loose items of furniture or fittings which were provided by the Commission and that it was understood that the Office of National Assessment was responsible for the provision of those items. I remind you, Mr Chairman, that I had requested from the officer of the ONA information in relation to those items of furniture. He advised me that they came under another department. On 29 May from Mr Denning, the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of National Assessment, I received a letter which itemised the furnishings in the office of the Director-General of the ONA, the information that I had sought on 9 May from that same officer at the Estimates Committee hearings. That raises another matter of concern as to how much information is actually derived from Estimates committee hearings and whether in fact there is an attempt to hide some figures that might cause some concern, perhaps a little heartburn or a hiccup here and there, because in the itemised list provided in answer to part three of my question, which related to the furniture in the Director-General's office, I find that the response comes from Mr Denning: The following is the itemised cost of furniture and fittings purchased by ONA for the Director-General's office, which incorporates a small conference area for internal meetings and high level visitors: Desk, $3,005.80. My mind boggles at the thought of a $3,005.80 desk. I doubt very much whether the desk in the Prime Minister's suite, which I understood is the one Mr Fraser had, would have cost $3,005.80. This morning I asked an officer of the Department of the Senate to ring one of the furniture suppliers in Canberra to find out the cost of an executive desk. Let me tell honourable senators that a top of the range desk, made of European oak and leather inserts, purchased from one of the leading distributors in Canberra would cost $1,776. I do not want to concentrate too much on the desk itself, but I have to express a concern when furniture purchased for heads of departments and officers, who after all is said and done, are only working people, costs the taxpayer a substantial amount of money. That is point one. Point two, which is my major concern, is that frequently these items are being hidden because of the generalisation of matters dealt with by Estimates committees and the way in which the votes are presented to us. On numerous occasions in the 10 years I have been a member of this Parliament, we have proposed to departments that they provide the Senate with very comprehensive and detailed explanations of their estimates. No matter what happens, it never appears that we can have before us at the time of Estimates committee hearings people who are either capable of or prepared to provide information. It could be presumed that there was a reluctance on the part of the officer who appeared before Estimates Committee F, but I will not make that presumption. I hope that that would not be so. It could also be presumed that because the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee F had already concluded there would be no follow-up. Once again, I would not like to make that presumption. However, those are all questions that are in the minds of individual senators at the Estimates committee hearings. I do not have a proposal to put before this Committee as to how this information can be made available. At this stage I do not have a motion which could be dealt with in this place. I would suggest, with due respect, that there is a lack of information, or perhaps a lack of expertise, in the way in which Estimates committees are presented with material prior to the hearings. As a result, the Estimates committees are not able to avail themselves of information which may be of concern. I am sure that a number of members not only of Estimates Committee A but also of other Estimates committees have expressed that concern in the past and, I should think, will express it again in the future. If we are to make the Estimates committee system work for the benefit of the Senate itself, there has to be an understanding on the part of departments that they are answerable to this chamber and, therefore, to the people of Australia. There has to be an acceptance that when departmental officers appear before an Estimates committee they should provide any information which can be obtained. They should not decline to provide this information on the basis that what is being asked appears under the estimates of another department. I would like to reiterate that the officer who answered my question about furniture during the deliberations of Senate Estimates Committee A was the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of National Assessments. This was the same person who eventually provided me with the itemised information I had required. There can be no excuse for him not being at least aware that his Department has purchased those items, any more than there can be an excuse for him not offering , at the time I raised the questions, to provide me with that information at a later stage. As I have said, I do not have a motion to put before this Committee . I am putting this matter on record so that the Office of National Assessments, as well as every other department which appears before Estimates committees, will recognise that they have a responsibility to the Senate through Estimates committees to provide us with information we request at the time or as soon as practicable after the time of an Estimates committee hearing. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.00) —Senator Coleman raised a number of points, including the questions of the availability of officers and access to information which is sought by the Estimates committee . I am sure that is a matter which will be raised in subsequent parts of the Committee debate. I note, for example, that there is reference in the report of Estimates Committee C-we will specifically have that report before us a little later today-to the Committee's disappointment at the time it has taken departments and authorities to provide written answers to questions, which in that case had arisen out of hearings on 30 April. I do not think that this problem was confined to Estimates Committee C. In the case of Estimates Committee A, it is interesting to see in the material circulated by the Secretary to the Committee, Anne Lynch, a letter signed by the Acting Assistant Secretary, Management Services Branch of the Department of Communications. The last paragraph of that letter, in part, states: We are aware of the requirement to reply to these queries as early as possible and we hope to be in a position to respond prior to the Senate Debate of the Additional Appropriations for 1983/84. Quite frankly, I think that paragraph sums up the attitude which has been adopted by departments to requests for information by Senate Estimates committees. I regard it as totally inadequate that we should be treated in this way. It is a quite serious dereliction of duty on the part of the Government that it has not ensured that all of these matters have been dealt with. We are moving into a debate on the Appropriation Bills at a time when one Senate Estimates committee has not yet completed its deliberations. Reports have come to hand as recently as this morning. Quite frankly, I think it is turning the procedures of this Committee into a farce when we are required to deal with material which we have not had a chance properly to examine and consider. This is not a matter which I raise in a partisan sense. I think there are general management problems. I remind Senator Robert Ray, whose interjection I am not able to pick up, that Senator Primmer when presenting his report made some quite strong statements about his concerns. I think that this is a matter of concern to senators generally. I wish to record the Opposition's concern at the programming and timetabling of the debate, which is taking place when information is either not fully to hand or, in some cases, is only recently to hand. This is not a matter which takes the Government by surprise. During the recess I wrote to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who represents the Minister for Finance ( Mr Dawkins), and asked him to ensure that answers were given. I commend his office for the way in which that request was dealt with. I received a response from him on the same day in terms of instructions having been issued for answers to be given by the end of that week. So I think that there has been some quite unsatisfactory dealing with these matters. I think that the debate is going to be less satisfactory than it should be as a result. In some cases we might have to seek some standing over of some parts of the Bills, and I think that is probably why Senator Martin is in animated conversation with the Clerk at the moment. But I think the Estimates committee dealing with the Education Department estimates has yet to complete its report. I rise really to express concern about the fact that the Government's timetabling is such that we simply are not in a position to deal with many of the Bills before us in the way I think they need to be dealt with. I am sure that this will lead to less coherent and satisfactory debate than we should have . I do not have any points to raise now with respect to the Department of the Prime and Minister and Cabinet. However, I draw to the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) the fact that there has been what I think a very sloppy approach on the part of some departments to these matters. I think reference will be made later in the debate to the attitude of one or two Ministers which leaves something to be desired. However, in the event , the committee consideration of these Bills is proceeding under circumstances which I think are certainly less than optimal. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $99,786,00. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.06) - I wish to raise a matter about which information has been provided to Estimates Committee A, pages 59 and 60, under the heading 'Furniture, Fittings, etc'. The response shows that there was an expenditure of $2,543,595 on furniture and fittings over the last financial year. I drew that matter to the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) by a letter dated 30 May. I indicated that I would like some detailed breakdown of this item which certainly appears quite disproportionate when compared with the expenditure by similar departments. It appears that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has spent something like $340 per employee on furniture and fittings. Perhaps it has bought some of the desks described by Senator Coleman in which case a relatively small number of employees have been affected. The Department of Social Security has similar functional needs, except I think its employees have to work a lot harder. It is a department with similar accommodation needs and has lots of regional offices and so on. It spent about $140 per employee on furniture and fittings, which is a figure very close to the figure spent by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations but it has a staff of some 16,500. I would appreciate a breakdown of the spending and an indication of where it was spent, either in the central office or in regional offices, how it compares with the 1982-83 figure and whether there were major items involved such as any major refurnishing of individual offices. In any event I would like to now why there is this relatively high sum for this Department. I made some comment about the relative work loads. I might say, in fairness to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, that I visited many of the co-located offices of the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations when I was Minister for Social Security. I was always envious of the accommodation, furniture and fittings and the relatively low traffic volume in those offices. I believe that the burdens on the offices in the two departments are in no way proportionate. I have always formed a personal impression from those visits that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has been rather lavishly equipped. I am now referring to the period of the previous government. The figures which appear in the Appropriation Bills give some apparent hard-edge support to what, up to now, has merely been an impression.(Quorum formed) Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.11) —I am able to provide Senator Chaney with some information which I hope will be of assistance to him. On page 35 of the explanation of the Estimates there is reference to a 68.8 per cent increase to which I think Senator Chaney referred in respect of furniture and fittings. The appropriation is $1,817,500 compared with $1,816,956 in the previous year. Senator Chaney asked for that comparison. I regret that an answer was not provided. However, it was prepared in anticipation of a question which was not asked at the Estimates Committee. I can provide that information in writing or have it incorporated in Hansard. I should offer some further explanation of the general question of the expansion of the Department's activities. I am advised that, as at 30 June 1984, the Department will have opened eight new offices, relocated three career reference centres, relocated 33 existing offices and upgraded eight existing offices by leasing additional space. The provision made for offices to open early in the 1984-85 financial year is as follows: Twenty-two leases negotiated for new offices, one career reference centre to be relocated, 37 existing offices to be relocated and eight to be increased in size. To date, 146 work information centres have been opened prior to and including 1983-84. Job bank moneys were committed, in the main, prior to 30 June 1983 and included furniture for 450 visual display units at $230,000 each. I hope that information is of some assistance. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.13) —I thank the Minister. He started by referring to a figure of somewhere around one and a half million dollars which was referred to in the explanatory notes. I referred to a response given by the Department which referred to an amount of $2.543m. He has sought leave to incorporate in Hansard a list which I have not added up but which I think comes closer to $3m. I must say that I find the combination of all these bits of information rather difficult to bring together. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify this list. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.14) —I refer Senator Chaney to page 35 of the estimates of expenditure. The estimate for this year is $3,067,000. Expenditure in the last year was $1.816m. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.15) —That is on page 35. That is the figure which is detailed in the material to be incorporated in Hansard. I thank the Minister for that. Although I do not ask him to do it now, I ask him to ask the Department to relate that to the information subsequently provided to the Committee, which appears on page 60, and which refers to the figure of $2,543,595. There is a notation that that is up to 8 May . It may be that the remaining half a million dollars or so will be spent in the balance of the financial year. Senator Button —For the record, I confirm that that is correct. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Minister. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Lewis) —Before we continue, there is a question of leave being granted for the incorporation of a document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Department's appropriation for Furniture and Fittings items for 1983/84 was to provide for: continued implementation of the Job Bank computer system $1,373,000 furniture in the CES network - replacement furniture 150,000 - new offices 797,000 - civil acquisitions programme 30,000 relocation of Regional offices in NSW, Qld and SA 205,000 expansion of the ACT Sub Region 34,000 recently created Branches (Community Employment Programme) and replacement programme 478,000 Senator CHANEY —The point that I wish to make is about what appears to me to be the quite disparate standards applied to the two departments, that is, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I would appreciate it if the Minister could tell me whether any external authority examines the sort of expenditure which has been detailed by the Minister in the list incorporated in Hansard, which ought to produce some uniformity across Commonwealth departments. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.17) —In answer to Senator Chaney's question, I am quite happy to concede, on behalf of I do not know whom, that the mechanisms may not be as good as they should be. But, of course, the answer is that that overall function is performed by two other departments, the Department of Finance and the Department of Administrative Services. Certainly, if the way in which it performs is a matter of criticism, I am prepared to raise it with the respective Ministers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.17) —I ask the Minister whether we have any complete and up to date figures on the allocation of moneys to the community employment program, the extent to which those moneys have been paid to people who have had approval for CEP projects and the extent to which funds are being underspent by organisations which have received approval. Further, are funds being distributed by the Government under that program at a slower rate than the Government had anticipated? There are two elements to that. First, with respect to the Government's expenditure of moneys under the CEP, are those moneys being expended as quickly as originally intended at the time the program was instituted? Secondly, with respect to organisations which have received in some cases quite large sums for substantial programs, does the Government have any up to date information on the extent to which the programs which have been funded are in fact being put into operation with people actually being employed? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.19) —Insofar as I am able to obtain advice at this stage, I am told that of the order of $270m- this is a rough figure-is expected to be spent on the program out of the $300m appropriated. With respect to the further details in Senator Chaney's question, the best I can say at this stage is that the figures can be provided and some details of take-up and rejection of particular programs can also be provided. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.21) —I thank the Minister. I would like that further information. There are some disturbing reports about failures in implementing the program. If the policy decision is taken by Government to ease the unemployment situation by this means, and all of us wish to see the position of the unemployed eased, it is a matter of concern if there are gaps between the intention and the actual performance. However, there is one other point on which I would like clarification relating to the $ 270m which the Government expects to see spent this year. Does any part of that amount represent funds which will be paid either to States or to organisations which will in effect be held by them at the end of the year under the program rather than expended? In other words, it is possible under some programs for money to find its way into other hands and to appear as Commonwealth expenditure without having got through to the people who were meant to benefit. I would appreciate some clarification of what that $270m actually means in terms of people who are on the ground and unemployed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.22) —I reiterate to Senator Chaney that the figure of $270m which I mentioned was an approximate figure. I do not wish to be held to it in precise detail. With respect to the point of this question, the answer is yes because some of the moneys are paid to organisations and so on. It is difficult at this stage to say precisely how that money is translated in terms of employment in each particular project. But, once again, the Department has undertaken to give Senator Chaney a note on this matter and I will see that that is provided. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $16,043,000. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.22) —I move: That the Committee, having considered the report of Estimates Committee A, recommends that the Senate again re-affirm the principle, first adopted by the Senate following consideration of the report by Estimates Committee B in 1971, and re-affirmed in 1974: That whilst it may be argued that statutory authorities are not accountable through the responsible Minister of State to Parliament for day-to-day operations, they may be called to account by Parliament itself at any time and that there are no areas of expenditure of public funds where these corporations have a discretion to withhold details or explanations from Parliament or its Committees unless the Parliament has expressly provided otherwise. The background of this particular motion is explained in the report. Estimates Committee A met on 4 May to consider the estimates of the Department of Communications. The particular reference here is to the appropriations for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It was felt by members of the Committee, following the examination of the ABC and realising a day later that earlier that day the ABC was announcing a massive restructuring, that that information should at least have been indicated to the Estimates Committee or at least the Committee should have been told that an announcement was being made. That was not done and hence Estimates Committee A had to reconvene last night and examine officers of the ABC about why a full explanation had not been given to the previous Estimates Committee meeting. To some extent those problems were solved last night. Explanations were given. To an extent, apologies were given to the Estimates Committee. But we have decided to reiterate to all those statutory authorities that they are accountable to Parliament, and certainly to the Estimates Committee, for any money expended. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.25) —I have a number of questions regarding the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Firstly, can I be provided with the details of the entertainment and travelling expenses of the Chairman and members of the Board of the Corporation? Are these expenses considerably larger than in the past and, if so, what is the basis for the increase? (Quorum formed) Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(11.26) —Mr Chairman, I undertake to get the details of that matter for Senator Sir John Carrick. I would just like to put it in context. Last year the Senate passed legislation for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and one of the elements of that legislation in respect of the Board concerned the establishment of an independent secretariat for the Board-a quite independent facility from the normal staff of the former Commission. I believe that some of the expansion of costs accommodates the operation and functioning of that secretariat. As I indicated earlier, we are quite happy to provide the details. Senator Sir John Carrick —Before the Estimates are finished? Senator BUTTON —We will certainly endeavour to do that. I also indicate to the honourable senator that this question was pursued at some length in the meeting of Estimates Committee A which took place last night, and answers were provided. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.28) —Mr Chairman, as I do not have the Hansard of last night's meeting of Estimates Committee A, there may be some duplication of questions. I refer to what has now emerged as a major restructuring of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the lack of knowledge about which has caused some concern to Estimates Committee A. I wish to ask some specific questions on the restructuring. Is it a fact that in recent days notices of the abolition of employment-that is, the so-called white envelopes- have been given to certain officers or all officers of the legal section of the ABC? If that is a fact, what is the reason for it? Is it intended to abolish the legal section of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and, if that is the intention, what structure is to be put in its place? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(11.29) —I am not able to answer at the moment the specific question about intentions relating to the legal section of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Again, we can certainly get some information on that question. Senator Sir John Carrick will no doubt be aware that a substantial process of restructuring is taking place within the ABC. I think he would share the view that that is desirable. In relation to the question about the white envelopes, as the honourable senator put it in his question, in general the answer is yes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.30) —Will the Minister undertake before consideration of the Estimates is finished to provide an explanation as to why the notices have been given to the legal section and what the intention is? Is the section to be abolished and, if it is, what structure will be put in its place? Senator Button —Yes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Is it a fact that the existing legislation incorporating the new Australian Broadcasting Corporation did not provide specifically for a staff member to be on the Board of the Corporation? Is there a staff member on the Board? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(11.31) —I understand that there is not a staff member on the Board of the Corporation, but I will obtain fuller instructions about that matter. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.32) —Following upon that question, will the Minister in his reply make clear whether a staff representative sits in with the Board and whether the staff member is a member of the Corporation? In other words, is there a device whereby the staff member sits in at meetings? Equally, will the Minister provide the Senate with information as to whether other devices, such as advisory committees, have been set up whereby other staff members sit in and participate in Corporation functions? Senator Button —Yes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Chairman, I asked a question but did not hear an answer. I do not want to be rude and Senator Button is usually co-operative in these matters, but did he in fact answer that question? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(11.33) —Yes, I did. Senator Sir John Carrick —I did not see the Minister rise to answer. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry. I thought the answer was for the purpose of the Hansard record as much as anything else. I said: 'Yes'. If I was going to say anything other than that I would certainly have indicated it. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.34) —A matter of concern which I raised in previous Estimates committee hearings related to the provision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation of inland transmitters. At the time I raised this matter it appeared as though this project had been put aside. Senator Button was good enough to go into that matter and give some response in that debate. After that, as I recall, there appeared to some degree to be some action on this project. Senator Button advised that inland transmitters would be provided for Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. As I understood it, the transmitters were being purchased from overseas. The purpose of this project was to provide an umbrella system of transmitters to provide reception for all people in the outback. At present various Australian Broadcasting Corporation transmitters service areas such as Katherine and Tennant Creek but the range is only a few miles. People in the bush, whether on Aboriginal settlements, cattle stations, homesteads, mining fields or in vehicles, thus have no system of communication. One can well imagine how desirable it is these days that the ABC should give proper coverage. The original idea was for Radio Australia to have these inland transmitters. It was then agreed that it would be more efficient on the technical side to have these transmitters placed in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. When I previously asked about the project I received the impression that it had come alive. Now it appears that it is no longer alive. There is a suggestion going around that the project once again has been put back because of lack of money. Can the Minister give some information in regard to this matter? I can only reiterate what I have said: This is a most necessary project for the people in the bush, and I know the Minister agrees with me. I ask whether he has any further information. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(11.37) —I very much appreciate the point Senator Kilgariff made. I am advised that provision of the equipment for the inland transmitters is scheduled for early next year. It will depend very much on how the Department's estimates are treated in the Budget context, but that is the Department's intention. It is certainly an intention that would have support in terms of the scheduling of this operation. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I seek leave of the Committee to return to consideration of the estimates of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in order to ask just one question. Senator Button —I understand that Senator Walters wishes to ask a question. As the vote for this Department has been passed the officers have left. If the question can be handled on the basis that I will undertake to get an answer, if that is appropriate, certainly leave is granted. Senator WALTERS —I thank the Minister. I have had answers to all the questions I asked regarding the Office of the Status of Women, with one exception. The answer has been promised to me on several occasions. On 13 December I said I wanted to be told the number of signatures on petitions received in the House of Representatives opposing the Sex Discrimination Bill, asking for amendments to it and opposing the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. On 13 December I was assured by the Minister, Senator Ryan, that she would get me those figures. I was again assured in Estimates Committee A hearings by the Chairman and by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) that I could have those figures. They have not been given to me and I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) to ensure that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet gives me those figures. I have received the figures for petitions received in the Senate and I would like them for the House of Representatives. Consideration interrupted. Progress reported. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(11.41) —by leave-I move: That leave be granted to Estimates Committee D to meet during the sitting of the Senate this day. Honourable senators will recall that yesterday the Senate resolved that Estimates Committee D should sit again to re-examine the estimates of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. The Committee sat this morning from 8 .30 to 9.55 a.m., but did not complete the examination that was required. As honourable senators would understand, at this stage it is quite difficult to obtain the time for senators from that Committee and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) to be able to continue the examination. We expect that the further examination will take about half an hour, but it is probably worth while to allow a little more time than that. If we are able to sit this afternoon between 12.45 and 1.55 we are confident that we will be able to finish the examination. Between 12.45 and 1.55 p.m. if there is any business in the Senate it will be first reading debates which are supposed to be non- controversial. It should be understood that the intention, if the Senate grants leave, is to sit between 12.45 and 1.55 p.m. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. GROUP B Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $7,031,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.43) —Not all my questions have been answered by the Department of Social Security. Is there any explanation as to why they have not? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.44) —I ask the honourable senator to let us know which questions have not been answered. We were under the impression that they had all been answered. I apologise if they have not. We have no intention of not answering questions and I was not aware that any questions had not been answered. I specifically checked on that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.45) —I have been very carefully going through the answers I have received. The questions may have been answered and may not have got to me. If the Minister looks at page 5 of the Estimates Committee Hansard he will see that I asked: How much money is budgeted to be spent on consultants this financial year? The information that I have received suggests that that question has not been answered. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.46) —Page 4 of the Estimates Committee Hansard of 30 April 1984 indicates that Senator Bjelke- Petersen asked: I do not know that the Minister's officers would know whether the Department or the Minister's office employs any consultants on a full time basis. The response was that most consultants engaged to work for the Department or the Minister's office are engaged on a full time basis for a specific period. None of those consultants could be classed as lobbyists. Details of all consultants and contractors for services engaged since 1 April 1983 were provided, and a large sheet was attached. The document referred to Mr D. Ritchie, Bato Reid, Computer Power, SRI International, W. D. Scott and Co., and Ms M. Hunter. Details of their locations and their costs were provided. That is in the material that has been provided. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.47) —I apologise to the Minister. The information was possibly included in answer to Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question, but she did not ask a question relating to costs. She asked for details of the proposed contracts. I asked for the costs. I was looking for the answers to the questions I asked. Senator Grimes —The costs are in that. Senator WALTERS —I thank the Minister. The information was provided in answer to Senator Bjelke-Petersen's questions. At page 14 of Hansard, I asked Mr Mahoney for a guesstimate of the total cost of first class travel. Mr Mahoney said: We might be able to make very much of an estimate on first class travel. We have just on 17 000 staff in the Department and only a handful of those are second division officers, so we might be able to make some guesstimate of the total cost. Senator Gietzelt then asked whether that would satisfy me and I said yes. We have not received that guesstimate which Mr Mahoney offered to get. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.48) —A question was asked at page 14 of Hansard of 30 April. The reply that was given to members of the Committee was that information about costs was not available by class of travel, but accounts show that 144 first class and 2,239 economy trips were undertaken in the period from 1 January 1984 to 31 March 1984. We know the number of trips but apparently it is not possible to break down the costs by class of travel. Senator Walters —That is why I asked for a guesstimate and a guesstimate was offered to me. Senator GRIMES —I am informed that no guesstimate was made because, although it is possible, it would be extremely time-consuming to break down the actual cost between first and economy class trips. If the honourable senator insists I will see what we can do, but that is the information given to me. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.49) —Page 17 of Hansard shows that I asked about seminars that had been conducted by the Department. The officer told me, off the top of his head-that is fair enough; I am not being critical-about the ones he could remember at that time. I said: And information of any other seminars that have not sprung to mind. Mr Mahoney asked whether I was referring to departmental meetings and I said that my question was much broader than that. I have not had an answer from the Department as to whether more seminars had turned up on investigation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.50) —The answer given to the Committee pointed out that there was a national conference of Social Security Appeals Tribunal members held in Brisbane, and the purpose of that was outlined. It was pointed out that, in addition, a wide range of matters were discussed at the conference, and a copy of the proceedings and all the matters discussed was included. I gather that is not what Senator Walters was seeking. Is that the problem? Senator Walters —I just want information on the additional seminars which have come up through investigation. Senator GRIMES —The question on page 17-I think that this is where the difficulty lies-referred to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the seminars it held. We were dealing specifically with that item. Senator Walters asked for information of any other seminars that have not sprung to mind. Later she said: Could you give me a list of the officers who attended these seminars? That is the information that has been given. The matter referred to was the seminars of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Mr Skehill had made reference to Mr Justice Davies, the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, appearing at those seminars. If one reads the Hansard, one sees that we were talking about the Social Security Appeals Tribunal seminars. If the honourable senator wants a list of all seminars that were held outside that area I dare say that could be obtained, but at that time we were dealing with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal seminars, and that is why the answer was given in that way. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.52) —The Minister will see that at page 16 I asked : Have any seminars been held this financial year for any of the officers of relevant departments or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the administration of the invalid pensions? I was dealing specifically with the matter in a much broader context. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.53) —The answer is that the honourable senator is right. We were talking about invalid pensions and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Later on Mr Skehill brought up the matter of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The seminar was held to deal with invalid pension appeals and invalid pensions. That is why the answer was given in that way. I find it hard, even reading the Hansard, now to expect the officers to think the question meant all seminars held in the Department, because that is the matter with which we were dealing at the time. The questions were answered by Mr Mahoney and Mr Skehill. It seems to me it was about that matter. I have no reason not to let Senator Walters know what seminars were held and where they were held. We can find that out. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.54) —I ask the Minister to provide me with details of the number of seminars that have been held in the Department, because that was included in the first part of my question. I said: Have any seminars been held this financial year for any of the officers of the relevant departments . . . Then I went on to all seminars. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $2,384,000. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.55) —I wish to ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) whether changes in the operation of the community refugee resettlement scheme have recently been authorised by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). If so, how were those changes notified ? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.56) —Not that the officers present are aware. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.56) —I have some other questions that will probably have to be taken on notice. I regret that I was unable to attend the meeting of the Estimates Committee, because I was actually involved in two other committees at the same time. Senator Grimes —Schizophrenic. Senator MARTIN —The pressures of scheduling present some problems in practical terms. It is possible that there might be an officer present who can give the answers; it is also possible that I might have to await the answers. Do the guidelines for the scheme work against the resettlement of Lao and Khmer people, who now form the vast majority of the refugees-in excess of 100,000-in Thai refugee camps, many of whom have been there for more than two years? The essence of what I am saying to the Minister is that because these people have no relatives or friends in Australia and because Indo-Chinese refugees coming to Australia have been overwhelmingly Vietnamese rather than Lao and Khmer, a large number of people in the camps have been there for quite some time, and it would appear that they have little hope of being accepted under our refugee program because of these guidelines. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.57) —I am sorry we do not have the guidelines here, but this is certainly an important question and I will certainly get the answer as soon as possible. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.57) —My next question deals with numbers. The answer may well have to be provided later. How many family units or broken families-that is, partial units-or individual refugees are now available in the pool of cases for which open sponsorships could be lodged in the sponsorship program? Would it be possible to provide me with a breakdown on how many of these people are Lao, how many are Khmer and how many are Vietnamese? In regard to the last category of what we call Vietnamese refugees, I wonder whether it is possible to get a breakdown between Chinese and ethnic Vietnamese. Mr Temporary Chairman, I have a lot of questions. I see the Minister and the departmental officials are writing things down. I am not sure whether the Minister wants to interpose at any stage or whether I should just go on with the questions. I will await a signal from him if there is something on which he wants to interpose. What progress can be reported on the settlement of up to 100 Khmer orphans in Australia, which was announced in March 1983? Are orphans aged 15 to 18 excluded under the present program? These are the sorts of questions which the Minister might be able to answer now. Does the program have priority? I ask that because it would appear to me that there is an obvious advantage if we are to settle orphans here to get them here as quickly as possible because we will be getting them as young as possible, and in regard to whatever adjustments they have to make culturally and in terms of language, this would obviously be more satisfactory. I consider that to be a very important question. Does the Minister or the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs consider the settlement of Khmer orphans to date to be successful? Have the recommendations of the departmental report on unaccompanied minors, made public more than a year ago, been approved by the Minister and implemented? I expect it would be possible to have an answer now to that question. Have the settlement problems of unaccompanied refugee youth in our major cities been the subject of any study or objective assessment? Could the Minister say whether the appropriate essential services such as language training and so on have been improved since the release of the departmental report. This report and any other reports that have been received have made clear that a regrettable inadequacy exists in settlement support services for young non-English speakers. Have the Minister and his Department taken any action to ensure that what is now a four-year gap in income support schemes for refugee youth wanting to attend school full time has been eliminated so that refugee youth would be able to participate equally in the education system? If not, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether this is under consideration in the context of the 1984-85 Budget. Senator Grimes —I am not clear on what the four-year gap is. Senator MARTIN —For four years there has been a gap in income support, which is a disincentive to undertaking education, as I understand it. It has been pointed out and considered before. Is the Minister aware of some problems of co- ordination of policies and responsibilities which affect the welfare and opportunities of young refugees between the departments of Social Security, Employment and Industrial Relations, Education and Youth Affairs and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? Has the Minister introduced any mechanisms to improve co- ordination of government policy in relation to young refugees between these and any other relevant departments? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.03) —I am sorry that I cannot give Senator Martin detailed answers to the questions she raised. I gather that because the matters were not raised at the Estimates Committee hearing-obviously because she was not there-the officers here do not have any details, but I will get them. I can answer on my own behalf on some of the aspects that the honourable senator brought up. I share the honourable senator's view. The inadequacy, if you like, or the lack of appropriate services in both income support and other services to deal with assisting particularly unaccompanied young people who wish to take advantage of the education system has been brought to my attention. I have been approached by organisations, including an organisation here in Canberra, to see whether we can provide more adequate and better assistance for these groups. I am aware, for instance, that for the last five or six years one religious organisation in Sydney has made a project of caring for those young unaccompanied refugees. It has supported them through the education system, housed them, fed them and assisted them with developing living skills in this country. Yet during that whole period I think it has received something like $4, 000 in support from the Government. This is largely because of the inadequacy of the system. Because of that, I have had discussions with my colleagues the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West-but not with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis-about what we can really do to assist these people who are highly motivated, as the honourable senator is aware, I am sure, to take advantage of the education system and therefore to enable them to be much better settlers in this country and to make a greater contribution not only for themselves but also for the country as a whole. At the moment I have no specific programs for this purpose but, from memory, two or more organisations have made submissions to my Department for this sort of assistance. I think the basic problem is that our income support system for youth, which has about 35 separate payments in it-as can be demonstrated by the report put out by the Department for Education and Youth Affairs and the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat-not only does not cope very well with refugees but also does not cope very well with young Australians in this area. I can assure the honourable senator that the matter is being looked at, although I know that is a frequent reply. It is not an easy area, as a perusal of that report will demonstrate. I am afraid I have to seek information from the Minister on the other questions, and I will get it as soon as possible. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.06) -There is one other specific matter I want to raise, the place of women in our refugee scheme. I raise it separately because it is an issue on which I wish to say a few words. I have raised it in the past, not only in the Senate but also when I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which investigated the community refugee settlement scheme. This matter is particularly pointed in the case of the Khmers. A large number of the Khmer population was wiped out under the Pol Pot regime. Necessarily in that sort of situation-where there is a war in the country, with, in that case, occupying Vietnamese troops; where a lot of people flee; and where a guerrilla situation develops as a number of the population fight the occupying army-one always has an overwhelming preponderance of women and children amongst the refugees. The case of the Khmers is particularly pointed because under the Pol Pot regime families were split up and a lot of people died. After the Vietnamese invaded Kampuchea and expelled the Khmer Rouge to all intents and purposes, there was a very long period when families tried to find one another, when husbands and wives searched for one another and when parents searched for children. This raised difficulties at the time in relation to the unaccompanied minors that I have been referring to. It was very difficult to know whether children were actually orphans or whether somewhere there was a parent or both parents with whom they might be reunited. The exercise of reunification or identification of whether there were members of the family with whom refugees might be reunited has, to all intents and purposes, been completed. People now tend to know where members of their families are and whether they are still alive. The women and children are still in overwhelming numbers in these refugee camps . Excluding those women and children whose husbands and fathers might be guerrillas somewhere in Kampuchea, we have an enormous residue of women who, I feel, are being excluded from consideration in our refugee program. I think figures would show that our refugee program from Indo-China is overwhelmingly Vietnamese in nature and that that group is probably overwhelmingly of Chinese origin- but that is another matter. We do not take many Khmer or Lao refugees. Because of that, Thailand in particular is being left with a very real residual problem about which I think we could be doing a lot more. It is more expensive to bring into the country a family which has no skilled head of the household- skilled in the sense that we accept skills-other than growing rice or doing all the many things that require a high degree of skill to keep house in Kampuchea. These women, particularly if they have dependents, I think have been looked on as a liability. The operation of the scheme has been very much against them. As I said, I did raise that question when I was on the Senate Committee and we were talking to organisations that were involved in the Community refugee settlement scheme. We were given some indication by some of the groups that they certainly did see these refugees-that is, women and children, as the family-as a priority group. They recognised it was difficult to meet the needs of this group but one about which something should be done. However, not very many have come in. They are considered to be special cases. I hesitate to say it but I fear it has become tokenism. In terms of solving the very real problems that these women have, it is not a real effort. The women and children are at enormous risk in these camps. They do not have men to protect them. Soldiers and all the unsavoury aspects of refugee camps surround them. As far as the people around them know, the refugees do not have anyone who cares whether they live or die, much less what happens to them while they are alive or how they die. They are a very vulnerable group and a group which should be placed on a high priority for assistance. Some of my questions that are on notice will raise that. I rise at this stage to say that I am concerned that Australia is contributing to the creation of a residual pool of refugees, who no one is going to want, one of the reasons being the length of time they have been in a refugee camp. I would like the Government to examine the procedures for selecting refugees from that part of the world for Australia, to look at the implications of deliberately taking more of these women and children and at the sorts of programs that it should support. We should not just handle the occasional case as we have so far when certain voluntary groups have undertaken this challenge. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.12) —I certainly will ensure that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has brought to his attention Senator Martin's views, which, incidentally, by and large I share. A visit to any refugee camp in the world, particularly one in Thailand, I dare say, although I have not been there, points up the terribly vulnerable condition of women refugees, but particularly women with children. As Senator Martin says, women with children, particularly those from some of the societies that make up the refugees, are in an even more vulnerable position because of the absence of men to protect them and the absence of capacities and skills to get out of the refugee camp, or even to advance very far within the camp. I do not have any breakdown of the figures of Khmer men and women brought to Australia, but I certainly will find that out. I think it will be interesting to look at the figures for all our refugees to see how many women and children from broken families have arrived here and to make sure, as much as we can, that the program does not involve just tokenism. While Senator Martin was talking I did get some information from a brief that I got about the Khmer minor program and about unattached minors which I think is of interest to the honourable senator and the Department. There have been claims, as Senator Martin said, that the Department was implementing a policy that is discriminatory as regards both the age and sex of minors accepted for resettlement under the Khmer minor program. The Minister has given me information as of 25 May that it was decided early last year that priority should be given to minors under 15 years of age who are believed to be in the greatest need. It was felt that our primary concern should be the younger children. This was as a result of a report that, as Senator Martin said, was commissioned by the Department the previous year. It recommended that children under 15 years of age were perceived as being in the greatest need, and discussions were held with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about this preference. This did not mean, however, that older children were not considered at all. Thirty-seven Khmer minors had already arrived in Australia at that time. Further cases referred by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees were under consideration. Priority was also given to special groups in the older age brackets, such as elder siblings and females. Since it has become clear that there are very few minors who fall into these high priority categories, we have indicated that we will also consider male minors aged 15 and over for resettlement in Australia. The Department reached agreement generally with the State welfare authorities on the resettlement of up to 100 minors in Australia. That ceiling of 100 still stood on 25 May. The program remains open to allow acceptance of suitable candidates. The criteria for acceptance were that the minors have no traceable relatives and that resettlement in Australia is determined as being in the minors' best interests. United Nations High Commission for Refugees figures show that very few such minors are identified as needing resettlement offers from third countries. I recall that in October last year I allocated two grants, one to New South Wales and one to South Australia, to provide welfare workers for Khmer minors. Three grants-in-aid were also allocated to provide for workers for these and other Indo-Chinese minors. They were to Care Force and Burnside Homes for children in New South Wales and the Indo-China Refugee Association in South Australia. As I said, 37 unattached Khmer minors had been settled in Australia up till 25 May, and a further 10 were accepted in late May. They were eligible for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs maintenance allowance on the same basis as other unattached minors and a once only grant of $170 was available if sponsorship was arranged under the community refugee settlement scheme. The intake of Khmer unattached minors is subject to referral by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees of minors without traceable relatives, with the previous proviso that their best interests would be served in Australia. Since then we have granted further grants-in-aid to Indo-Chinese organisations, and these grants-in-aid will be available to those who work with refugee youths. However, I will get further and more up to date details for the honourable senator. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.18) —To assist the immigration debate, I suggest that the Department look at the statistical information it provides and its breakdown. I should like the Minister to ensure sensible debate by letting us know the composition of the program for both migrants and refugees. Information such as age, sex, ethnicity, languages spoken, education, skills, country of birth and last country of residence would be useful. I am sure the Department has all that information and that it is a matter of whether it could be reasonably assembled and provided. I think the Minister would agree that that information would help. I should like to make the comment also that in considering categories of migrants the term Asia also covers Turkey, Lebanon and other countries in the Middle East as well as countries in South East Asia. I suggest to the Minister that the Government look at some refinement of that category, because obviously to use the term Asia in Australia to cover Turkey and Israel is highly misleading to the Australian public. Those of us who are interested in the subject might know that the term covers those countries; but others would assume otherwise because the normal usage of the term Asia in Australia is that it means South East Asia. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.20) —I agree with Senator Martin that the better and more accurate information we have, the more rational will be the debate. It has been said that ignorance is not bliss, it is sin. Therefore, it is important to clarify the matter. The definition of Asia is a matter that has not been ignored by us. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs does not consider people from Turkey and Israel as being people from part of Asia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does. Unfortunately, it is statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that are often quoted. I understand that discussions about that matter are going on at the moment. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Housing and Construction Proposed expenditure, $12,496,000. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.21) —I seek information from the Minister about the construction of the new Brisbane Airport runway. As I understand it, the runway will be constructed in 1987 but the terminal will not be completed until three or four years later. What provisions will be made for Customs, quarantine, immigration and those sorts of services? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.22) —I had the information yesterday in anticipation of Senator Boswell asking me a question then, when I was representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt. I will do my best from memory while that information is on its way to me. As I understand it, the international terminal at Brisbane Airport was constructed in 1975 and was upgraded in 1981 because of the Commonwealth Games. It is capable of handling, I think, four Boeing 747 flight arrivals with ease and six without much problem. At the time the Public Works Committee of this Parliament had the usual inquiry into that upgrading, the Queensland Government gave evidence agreeing with the changes to be made. That Government did not make then, and has not since made, any application for the building of a new international terminal at Brisbane Airport. Senator Martin —Do you want to do things in Queensland only when they ask you? Senator GRIMES —Just a minute. It was accepted then, and it is the view of the present Government, that the terminal is certainly adequate and capable of handling any increase in international traffic until 1990. I am aware of the problem of the outward appearance of the airport and the lack of air bridges necessary to remove passengers from planes. We do not believe that the expenditure of $45m on a new terminal is justified at the moment; that will be considered nearing 1990. Much of the agitation has to do with Expo 88. The expectation is that Expo 88 will extend over six months. Most of those who will arrive at that time will be catered for by existing airline flights. Many people coming to Australia will go to Brisbane on domestic flights, having arrived at other ports of call. The only other thing I recall is that one of the chief agitators and critics concerning the building of a new terminal is in fact Mr Jull, who I am told attended the Public Works Committee hearings, agreed with the upgrading of the new airport and acknowledged that it would be adequate to 1990. He made no suggestion at that time that a new terminal was necessary. However, that is all from memory. I hope I have not made any mistakes. If I have, I will soon be told about it. I will get the full answer for Senator Boswell in the near future. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.26) —As somebody who has had a long-standing interest in the new runway at Brisbane Airport I should point out that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has made some comments which I think are a little bit too easy altogether. The holding of Expo 88 in Brisbane is, of course, an additional factor which was not even thought of when the Fraser Government decided in 1977 that the new runway would be built. In 1977 a decision had not been made to hold the Expo in Brisbane. At that stage Queensland had looked at the possibilities, but it was being considered by New South Wales and Victoria. Quite some time after that both Sydney and Melbourne decided that they could not handle an expo and the Queensland Government took it up again for Brisbane. We always knew that there was a plan of development and subsequent development for Brisbane Airport. However, nobody has ever been satisfied with the international facilities at Brisbane Airport. I respect what the Minister has said and the sources of his information. However, if he says that the facilities at Brisbane Airport are adequate he can never have met anyone at the Brisbane international terminal or indeed arrived in Brisbane on an international flight himself. Those facilities are not adequate now. The people of Brisbane grin and bear it because that is all they have and it is that or nothing, I suppose. However, assurances that Expo will not result in traffic that that terminal cannot handle are just too glib by half . That answer might be given today and it may be well based factually in that there is an assumption in it that most of the people who will come from overseas to Expo 88 will come through Sydney Airport. I will not speak at any great length about what I think of the adequacy or inadequacy of Sydney Airport, which is not really much better than Brisbane for incoming passengers. But, that apart , the issue is Brisbane's terminal. There are some other factors. I understand that some other airlines now are applying or are preparing applications for permission to take flights into Brisbane. These are flights that are not scheduled for Brisbane at the moment. However, airlines, taking into consideration all the factors-and Expo 88 would be one-have now reconsidered their position in relation to flights to Australia and are indicating a firm intention to seek approval to have flights into Brisbane. So the answer cannot be given on the basis of the number of flights that use Brisbane Airport now and the number of people who pass through the international terminal now. In case this issue comes before the Minister again, I offer him a word of caution. Our statistics on destinations of overseas arrivals are very poor, as are our statistics on the original point of departure of people travelling overseas. A very large number of people who travel from Brisbane overseas go through Sydney because they have to do so. The information that we get about the point of origin of overseas travellers would include a very large number of Queensland people in the Sydney statistics. The airlines statistics compound this. We should take into account also the method of booking adopted by certain corporations. For instance, if the Commonwealth Banking Corporation wanted someone from its Brisbane office to fly to San Francisco the arrangements may well be made in Sydney because that organisation may make all bookings through its Sydney office. This would show in airlines statistics as Sydney-originating travel. This practice is not unusual in corporations and large organisations. So the statistics are not good. I mention this to the Minister because I believe he should not be too convinced about what the information that is handed to him on occasions actually proves. The simple fact is that there are new factors. Airlines are indicating that they want to initiate flights from overseas into Brisbane. It is anticipated that a very large number of people will pass through the international terminal at Brisbane Airport. At present we have a shed. I am not being fatuous when I suggest that, at the very least, the Minister might seriously consider how many umbrellas the Department of Aviation intends to supply to the international terminal. I say, blushing with shame, that I have greeted visitors who have flown into Brisbane from overseas when, as often happens in the summer in Queensland, it has been raining. Senator Robert Ray —It is always raining. Senator MARTIN —Not always, but it sometimes happens-usually very early in the morning. I am talking about the 6 a.m. flights. One can just imagine the situation when a Jumbo jet with 200 or 300 passengers lands in Brisbane on a rainy day. Apparently there just are not that many umbrellas at Brisbane Airport . I have seen people's introduction to Australia-and what concerns me more, Queensland-being one of slip-slopping across the tarmac and getting drenched. I raise that as an aside to point out just how hopeless that terminal is. There is no covered access from aircraft to terminal for people arriving or departing. Indeed, these facilities are not available at the domestic terminals either. The issue will not rest there. Senator Boswell, I, and I am sure other Queensland senators, will be pressing the issue with quite some vigour in the immediate months ahead. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Before calling the Minister, I just point out that, although I allowed Senator Boswell to ask a question in respect of the Department of Housing and Construction estimates, I believe that the questions asked by Senator Martin would be more appropriately dealt with in group F under the estimates for the Department of Aviation. I realise that Senator Boswell's question had some relationship to the Department of Housing and Construction, which is the constructing authority in this instance. However, I believe that questions relating to aviation should be deferred until we deal with the Group F estimates. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.33) —Mr Temporary Chairman, unfortunately this matter has been raised and I now have more information which I was given yesterday. Therefore, if I may, I will give a brief reply. I am well aware that Senator Martin and Senator Boswell will not let the matter rest. They come from Brisbane and they want a proper looking and proper operating terminal, and I can understand that. I am also aware that senators from Adelaide would not let it rest if they thought that their terminal was inadequate. People from Cairns and Rockhampton and certainly people from Hobart would not let it rest. Senator Martin —Cairns has a beautiful terminal. It leaves Brisbane's for dead. Senator GRIMES —They are always beautiful when they are opened. Senator Martin quite justifiably raised the points which in fact I brought up, that the major criticisms concerning Brisbane Airport are, first of all, its appearance-it is a shed-and, secondly, its operational capacity. I am told that the modifications carried out in 1981 to 1982 make the terminal adequate for two arrivals and two departures in any 60 minutes. It is said that with increasing congestion it can cope with up to three arrivals and three departures in an hour. Senator Martin's criticism about the lack of an air bridge is, of course, right. There may be an inadequate number of umbrellas and arriving passengers have to splosh through the rain if it is raining. But what governments have to decide-what the honourable senator's Government and what we have to decide-is whether the lack of umbrellas would be better made up by providing more umbrellas or spending $ 45m. Forty five million dollars is a lot of money. In the controversy over this matter in Queensland, particularly by Mr Jull, who is the chief agitator in this area, the thing that is cited all the time as the reason for building the air terminal now is Expo 88. The Minister and the Department quite reasonably point out that Expo will in fact extend over six months. However, the airlines claim that any additional passenger traffic- honourable senators know that planes do not go in and out of Brisbane full-is expected to be carried on scheduled services. Not all people will necessarily use Brisbane as their entry and exist airport. So we have to weigh up, in any economic times but particularly in difficult economic times, whether the expenditure of $45m now is justified to make up for the obvious inadequacies that Senator Martin mentioned. It will always be a matter of judgment. People who live in Brisbane and who have to meet people at Brisbane Airport will think that $45m is cheap. People living in the rest of Australia might not necessarily agree. I am reminded of the fact that I could do an awful lot with $45m for pensioners living in private rental accommodation. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.36) —I wish to raise matters relating to defence housing because they were dealt with only to a minor degree. The defence vote for buildings relates to things other than homes. I did not have the opportunity to raise this matter when the expenditure for the Department of Housing and Construction was being considered. The demand for defence housing is immense. It is not my wish to discuss this situation broadly now because I am aware that the various departments, including the Department of Defence, the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Housing and Construction, are formally giving evidence to the Public Works Committee in relation to this problem. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! I point out that the Department of Housing and Construction is only the construction authority. Department of Defence houses should more appropriately be considered under the consideration of the Department of Defence votes. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Housing and Construction Building and Works (Defence) Proposed expenditure, $2,900,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $30,955,000. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.40) —I address to Senator Grimes the question I prematurely addressed to him a little while ago. Of the employees recruited by the Health Insurance Commission after August 1983 who were not former private health fund employees, how many were recruited on a temporary contract basis and how many were recruited on a permanent basis? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.41) —I am sorry, I do not have that information in that detail, nor have the officers. I will certainly seek information and get an answer. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(12.42) —I am going to display a little bad temper about this matter. Some months ago, in March, I asked a question in the Senate which included this matter. Unfortunately, the Hansard record had a misprint. Senator Grimes subsequently provided information to the Senate on a question which should have read: 'How many of the non-private health fund employees were recruited on a temporary contract basis and how many on a permanent basis?' It actually read: 'How many of the now private health fund employees . . .'. At the time I pointed out that that was a bit of a nonsense. When Senator Grimes gave me the answer, the question had been reworded so that it stated: 'How many of the former private health fund employees were recruited on a temporary contract basis?'. That was a reasonable rewording, given the typographical error that had been made. The answer to that question was actually identical to the answer to another question which was one of a set of questions asked at the same time. On 30 March I pointed this out and said I understood that Senator Grimes would get me an answer to that question. It is now 31 May and I do not have it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.43) —I remember the incident well. I remember that, after Senator Martin saw me, I contacted the office of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) because I agreed with the honourable senator at the time that the question was a nonsense as it ended up. I have been blissfully wandering along thinking that the honourable senator had been given an answer. I apologise that she has not. We will get the answer very quickly. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.43) —I have a couple of questions which I do not believe the Department of Health has answered. I refer Senator Grimes to page 34 of the Hansard, where I asked: Has the Department engaged in any market research during the year? I was given the answer to that. I also asked: If so, what was the purpose of the research? That was answered. I asked: Are the results being made public? That was not answered, as far as I am aware. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.44) —The answer I have been given by the officer of the Department is that the results are not being made public. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.44) —Is the Minister saying that none of it is being made public, some of it, or what? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.45) —Senator Walters's question referred generally to market surveys and projects which had been done in the financial year. I am sorry, I thought Senator Walters was referring to a specific series of surveys. I think the honourable senator got the answer that a survey was done on the health problems of unemployed youth undertaken for the Health Promotion Unit. There was a survey on health problems and the public attitude to aged Australians and a survey on community reaction to the dispute between the Government and some doctors' organisations, which was an investigation program for the purpose of assisting and clarifying the approach by the Government to the advertising of Medicare. My information is that this information has not been made public but I do not have here any reason why it has not been made public. I think the best I can do is to talk to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and see why that information has not been made public or whether it is intended to make that information public. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a first time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.46) —I take this opportunity on the first reading of a money Bill to raise a matter which has been receiving some substantial publicity of recent times. It was the subject of a speech by Senator Martin in the Senate yesterday afternoon. It has to do with a so-called exciting venture for the 1988 celebrations involving a re-enactment of the First Fleet voyage to Australia. I take it that most honourable senators are aware that I am a director of the Australian Bicentennial Authority which is organising the celebrations. I am the Opposition's representative on that Authority. The Government representative is in the House of Representatives. The question of a re-enactment of the First Fleet's voyage was raised before the Authority as long ago as 1980. In fact, it has been in the pipeline for a number of years as a result of the establishment of a commitee called the First Fleet Re-enactment Committee. The person behind that project was a Mr Jonathan King who is a descendant of First Fleeter Phillip Gidley King who subsequently became a governor of this country. Mr Jonathan King has put an enormous amount of work into a study of the First Fleet's voyage to Australia. He has written a book which I am holding at present. It is in our library and is a very interesting book to read. Mr King is a most enthusiastic First Fleet supporter and has been pushing this project-perhaps rightly so, from his point of view-for some considerable time. There was a problem right from the word go about the departure of the First Fleet. It took months of initial preparations. Eleven vessels had been acquired for the voyage and there were dockyard delays in refitting these vessels. Senator Grimes —Strikes? Senator LEWIS —The Minister asks if there were strikes. I am not aware of any strikes but in those days strikes would not have been given the allowance they are given these days. Vessels were acquired for the voyage but one wonders about their ability to make the trip. In fact, the departure was delayed from 19 August 1786 until 13 May 1787. Finally the fleet sailed comprising HMS Supply a brig of 170 tons, the Alexander a barque of 452 tons, the Scarborough a fully rigged ship of 430 tons, the Friendship a brig of 274 tons, HMS Sirius a fully rigged ship-I am not sure of its tonnage but it was 110 feet long-the Prince of Wales a fully rigged ship of 350 tons, the Charlotte a barque of 335 tons, the Lady Penryhn of 333 tons, the Fishburn of 378 tons, the Golden Grove of 375 tons and the Barrowdale of 375 tons. The First Fleet Re-enactment Committee talked about having a re-enactment of the whole voyage. Of course, one has only to think of the number of ships that were purchased in those days and the cost of reconstructing them and obviously the whole thing immediately leaps out of the range of probability. The First Fleet Re-enactment Committee was not foolish and did not suggest that there be a total re-enactment but it had varied plans ranging from one, two or three ships. The plans varied in accordance with the amount of money which may have been available to expend on this project. One must realise Mr Deputy President, and you of all people in this Parliament would realise, that given the size and condition of the vessels in the First Fleet, it reflected great skills on the crew that none of these vessels foundered. Since that date, of course, numerous vessels have foundered in the Roaring Forties or disappeared without trace and the sailing directions, in fact , warn of severe gales south of latitude 40 degrees south for 30 per cent of the winter months and 15 per cent in the best months. The danger to small vessels can perhaps be best illustrated by the fact that the 10,000 ton Australian cruiser HMAS Australia, on a mercy mission to Heard Island in the late 1940s, experienced such high seas that she was unable to turn around. Of course there are icebergs and all sorts of problems even for vessels designed to go down there. But these vessels, in fact, did not have any such design capabilities and to reconstruct them in their exact form for this purpose would be a nonsense. You yourself, Mr Deputy President, told me the other day that the Royal Navy, in 1905 abandoned sailing ships for training purposes on the grounds that they were unsafe. This Committee had proposed that we reconstruct at least two or three sailing ships of the type and take them on a re-enactment of the voyage. When that proposal came before the Bicentennial Authority, I can assure the Senate that I spoke very strongly against it. It seemed to me that it would be a great voyage to be on and I would certainly love to go for the sail and perhaps even take the risk that one of the ships might founder with all hands but I wonder what would be the reaction of the Australian community if it were discovered that one of these ships had foundered with all hands south of latitude 40 degrees south and what would be the result? Would these ships have had to have been escorted by the Royal Australian Navy in case of that possibility? The more one thought about it the more it became a nonsense because how could we possibly, in any event, re-enact the entire voyage? What would we do about the delays which happened en route? What would we do about the weather that these ships might be confronted with? Of course, the whole thing, having cost a lot of money, might have ended up as a total fizzer if the ships were unable to come into Australia on 26 January 1988. I cannot see how the Committee could possibly have given that promise even if the ships were designed with hidden motors down below in the holds that would enable them to be driven regardless of wind conditions. So the whole project seemed to me to be airy-fairy stuff. If some business concern could have seen some means of making some money with a film or something of that nature, it may have been able to come up with something worthwhile. But it did not seem to me to be the sort of venture that the Australian Government should be asked to spend millions of dollars on. I will come to the question of money. In February 1981 the First Fleet Re-enactment Committee made a general statement which was considered by the Bicentennial Authority. As a result of discussions which took place, finally, in February 1982, the First Fleet Re- enactment Committee Chairman, Sir Donald Trescowthick, Chairman of the Trustees, advised the Australian Bicentennial Authority, with regret, that the proposal was not economically viable and that its economic intelligence report had indicated the cost to be between $18m and $31m. I hear Senator Grimes laughing. He and I are ad idem on this matter. I wonder what value the people of Australia would have received out of the expenditure of $18m to $31m on this project. The cost would have depended on the method of acquisition of ships for re-enactment. The maximum revenue that could be anticipated would have been about $6m. Sir Donald also indicated that he was resigning as Chairman, having completed the feasibility study for which purpose the First Fleet Re-enactment Committee was formed. The Australian Bicentennial Authority had a view that there ought to be a re-enactment of the arrival in Sydney. That is a different proposition. In the Australian of 30 May there is an article by a Mr Tim Allerton, which relates to an interview with Dr David Armstrong, the General Manager of the Authority. I do not know whether Dr Armstrong has been misquoted or quoted out of context but I am concerned about the report that, allegedly, Dr Armstrong said that the re-enactment voyage could provide a flashpoint to Aboriginal protest. I do not know what that all means and, I suspect, in due course there will be a proper explanation from Dr Armstrong. I do not propose to deal with that. The report by Mr Allerton stated: It appears that one of the most exciting ventures for the 1988 celebrations could run aground because of the authority's decision. That is an absolute nonsense because there is no proposal before the Bicentennial Authority. The First Fleet Re-enactment Committe has withdrawn the proposal. I understand that Mr Edgley has more or less said to the Bicentennial Authority: 'If we come up with a proposal'-which he just does not have- 'would you agree in principle to accept it'. Of course, that was rejected. If Mr Edgley has a proposal let him put it before the Bicentennial Authority. I believe I have a much better proposal. Some people-perhaps the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or Australian Associated Press could be involved-ought to sit down with Jonathan King and his book, the logs of the vessels and the diaries of the people who travelled on them and prepare a series of news items. There ought to be a bicentennial news report for say, two, three or five minutes every day. We could start in 1776 with news reports about what happened then in regard to the proposal that there be a fleet to take people to Australia. We could progress with a phantom news broadcast which built up from 1776 and ended up with a guarantee that, in fact, a fleet would come through on 26 January 1788. Until then it would have been reporting events as they happened on board the ships, with births and deaths, two hundred years beforehand. I think that properly organised it could be a most interesting exercise. There could then be a reasonable re-enactment of the First Fleet arrival in Australia on 26 January 1788. Senator Grimes —It would not cost $31m. Senator LEWIS —It would not cost $31m. Sitting suspended from 1.02 to 2 p.m. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney to the release on parole of Murray Stewart Riley, a former policeman who was given a long gaol sentence for his part in what was one of the biggest drug importation cases in Australian history and whose non-parole period under his Commonwealth sentence was not due to expire until December of this year. The release is about seven months before the expiration of his non-parole period. I ask the Attorney: In view of the continuing grave problem in relation to the drug trade-highlighted again this morning by a story in the Age newspaper of another major cocaine smuggling ring-what were the grounds on which he agreed to this early release of Riley? Does he believe that it was wise from a deterrent point of view, particularly in view of the publicity it has attracted, including today's photograph of Riley relaxing with a beer on the banks of the Georges River? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can understand some concern about this matter and I can assure honourable senators that the decision was not made lightly or without very careful attention to the matters in issue. What was in issue was the application to this prisoner of a rule of general application which has been applied to all Commonwealth prisoners and it was really a matter of producing reasons why this particular prisoner ought not be entitled to the benefit of the application of a rule which is generally applicable. It was not a matter of exercising a favourable discretion based on the circumstances of this case. The situation is that following recent changes to parole legislation in New South Wales, offenders sentenced in that State after the legislation came into force have their non-parole periods reduced by remission. New South Wales offenders sentenced before the legislation came into force are required to be considered for possible release on parole with the new remissions notionally applied to their non-parole periods. In the interests of securing uniformity in the administration of justice as between Federal prisoners housed in New South Wales prisons and New South Wales prisoners, it has been determined as a policy matter to apply the New South Wales rules to the very small number of Federal prisoners in New South Wales gaols. That is the case as a matter of law for prisoners sentenced after 27 February and it has been the case as a matter of practice in relation to Federal prisoners sentenced before 27 February this year. Of course Mr Riley was sentenced in New South Wales prior to the proclamation of the New South Wales Act on 27 February. I have approved, as I said, as a general rule, that Federal offenders sentenced before that should be considered for release on licence at the expiration of their minimum terms as reduced by the new remissions. Mr Riley 's non-parole period, calculated by reference to this particular consideration, would have expired with the new remissions on about 8 July 1982. Because of these recent changes to New South Wales law Mr Riley was reviewed by the New South Wales Parole Board for possible release and following the approval by that Board of his entitlement to the application of the new rules he in turn applied to me, as is normal and as Senator Durack will recall is the practice. Senator Chipp —What if he had been in a Victorian gaol? Senator GARETH EVANS —The difficulty is that there is a monumental tangle of different rules applicable in every jurisdiction in Australia so far as parole and non-parole periods are concerned and in regard to remissions both notional and actual that are in fact applied. The threshold question is whether or not we try to seek uniformity nationally in the treatment of Federal prisoners or whether, rather, we try to treat the prisoners in each jurisdiction in the same way as the State prisoners in that particular jurisdiction. The practice has increasingly been to try to treat the Federal prisoners in a particular State in the same way as the other prisoners in that State, for the reason of the acute difficulties that arise in prison administration, morale, and tension and so on in the gaol environment if that is not done. Without going into the detail of what the situation in Victoria is, I can say to Senator Chipp that the inclination would have been to treat him in exactly the same way as a comparable prisoner in Victoria would have been treated. I repeat: Mr Riley's case was not considered by me on any basis other than that of the application of these rules to him as a Federal offender in New South Wales. I might add, for what it is worth, that there were outstanding prison and parole officer reports in relation to him, and given all the circumstances it would have been an exercise of discretion of a rather tough kind and very peculiarly made in relation to this prisoner for me to have done otherwise than follow what happened in New South Wales and make the release accordingly. I have given a long answer because it needs to be appreciated that these sorts of decisions are not made in any cavalier or off-hand way; they are made so far as possible by the application of general principles, and it would be most unfortunate for public confidence in the administration of justice if decisions were made on any other basis than that. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Am I correct in understanding from that answer that in relation to the parole of Federal offenders the Attorney has now adopted as a matter of course the new statutory provisions in New South Wales? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I have in relation to Federal offenders who are punished and imprisoned in New South Wales gaols. Might I add that this whole question of sentencing is one that continues to give me considerable concern, including in particular the reluctance of the States-Senator Durack would be familiar with this-to co-operate with the Commonwealth in implementing a national sentencing council to try to get some better, more coherent, rational and understandable rules applicable on a national basis. I am anxious to get the Australian Law Reform Commission moving, in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Criminology, to further develop and look at this particular area with a view to getting perhaps a more universally satisfactory system of rules operating. Senator BOLKUS —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to recent reports in the Canberra Times concerning documentation of the atomic tests at Maralinga and Emu Fields which suggest that some information about the tests has been deliberately withheld and records have been falsified. In light of this, can the Minister given an assurance that all information relating to the atomic tests at Maralinga, Monte Bello and Emu Fields is now available so that any other incidents of falsification of records or conflict of information can be revealed? Can he also say whether there is in existence documents detailing inaccuracies in Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council report No. 9? Further, will the Minister now support the request by the South Australian Premier for the British Government to provide to the South Australian Government all records on the atomic tests at Maralinga? Senator WALSH —There are three questions. The first asks whether I can give an assurance that all information relating to the tests is now available. I cannot give that assurance because I just cannot be certain that all the information is available. I received last week an index of files which was about four inches thick and there would certainly be thousands of files in that index. One cannot be certain that even the index is a comprehensive list of all the files that are relevant to Maralinga. I can give an assurance that any information that can be retrieved will be retrieved but it will take a considerable time. As to the second question, is there a document which details inaccuracies in AIRAC report No. 9, I am not aware of any document in existence at this stage which details inaccuracies but I understand that Professor Kerr's committee, the Expert Committee on Fallout Arising from British Atomic Tests in Australia, which is currently compiling its report-a report which I expect to table next Monday-will question the methodology used by AIRAC in its report No. 9 and I think in previous assessments. As to the final question about whether I will support the request by the South Australian Government, I answer that that has already been done. We have backed up the request of the South Australian Government and asked the British to make available all the information. I thought I had with me a letter answering some questions which had already been put to the British Government. I was going to seek to table it. As I do not seem to have it with me now, perhaps I can attend to that at the end of Question Time. We will certainly obtain all the information we possibly can from British and Australian sources. My present expectation is that both the Symonds chronological assessment of the United Kingdom files which Dr Symonds and Mr Garran examined earlier this year and the report of Professor Kerr's committee will be tabled on Monday. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Attorney-General to his answer to Senator MacGibbon yesterday concerning statements made in the Federal Court of Bankruptcy in Sydney last month by Mr James McCarteney Anderson about people alleged to be in partnership with Mr Saffron in the Venus Room Bar and Grill at Kings Cross. I remind the Attorney that he said the allegations were being fully and thoroughly investigated by the appropriate authorities. Who is actually investigating the allegations? Is any investigation being conducted on his behalf? When is the investigation likely to conclude? Senator GARETH EVANS —After the material came to my notice it was referred to Mr Temby insofar as it was indirectly linked with some aspects of the allegations that had been made in the Age tapes, not because it appeared to be squarely within his terms of reference but because it may conceivably have been. I do not know to what extent Mr Temby has been able to follow up the kinds of allegations that have been made by Mr Anderson. Other matters have been notoriously inaccurate, notoriously scandalous and of such a character that, in the view of law enforcement authorities generally, they have not been such as to be required to be taken seriously. It may be that Mr Temby has taken or will take that attitude to the material. It may be that he will regard it as something which does require some further consideration, but I have not yet heard from him. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Attorney for that answer and note his reasons for referring to the allegations as scandalous, but I ask him whether he could check the position and in due course let us know the position with respect to the investigations. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will give the honourable senator such information as I am able to in due course. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to reports today that amounts of plutonium were discovered recently at the Taranaki site at Maralinga in South Australia. Why has it taken so long to find these pieces of plutonium? Have staff resources and the technology for monitoring been upgraded recently, thus enabling this new plutonium to be discovered? Who will be responsible for removing the plutonium? Will it be repatriated to the United Kingdom, as in the case of plutonium identified in the 1970s? Can the community be reassured that there is little or no likelihood of there being further plutonium at Maralinga? Senator Jessop —An absolutely stupid question. Senator WALSH —I certainly do not think it is a stupid question. In fact, I think that is a pretty stupid comment to make about an important question. I am sure that the people of South Australia will be pleased to know that Senator Jessop thinks that is a stupid question and they can make their views known to him as to whether they think it is a stupid question. There are a number of possible reasons for the long time it has taken to discover the substantial pellets of plutonium that have been discovered at Maralinga in recent days; it is not necessarily an exhaustive list. I understand that there has been some technical improvement in the equipment used to search for contaminated materials. In the past the main emphasis, I am informed, in the radiological surveys has been directed towards sites where the bomb tests were held in the 1950s rather than the sites where the minor trials were held in the 1950s and the 1960s. The plutonium residues are almost certainly the result of the minor trials rather than the bomb tests. Moreover, in the past surveys were concentrated on area levels of radiation rather than very specific pinpointed levels. As those who went to Maralinga last week would know, prior to the trip by Mr Bannon, myself and others, the people conducting the survey had searched and found a couple of pinpointed areas where the readings were quite high. Journalists and others in the party were shown those specific points. No decision has yet been made as to what should be done with whatever plutonium is recovered or for the final treatment of the site. It would be premature at this stage to make such a decision, at least until the radiological survey has been completed and the results analysed. I believe that will most likely take some three to four months. However, it should be noted that the previous Government in 1979, when a small quantity of plutonium embedded in salt was returned to the United Kingdom, signed an agreement or exchanged letters with the United Kingdom absolving the United Kingdom of any further responsibility for the repatriation from Australia of plutonium which had been deposited here during the weapons tests and other trials. Senator Cook —You mean the Libs sold us out? Senator WALSH —Yes. The original permission for these trials to be conducted in Australia was given by irresponsible State and Federal Liberal Party governments and the most recent Liberal Party government absolved the British from any further responsibility for the plutonium residues from those trials. Senator Maguire's last question was about whether the Government can reassure the community that no more specks or granules of plutonium of that size will be discovered. The answer has to be no, we cannot be certain that further granules of that size will not be discovered. Indeed, the fact that some have already been discovered in an area of at least 50 acres, being the possible area where such granules could be found, makes it likely that there would be granules, if not of that size, which in total would equal that much plutonium. I am not certain at this stage whether the two-gram speck that was found was inside or outside the fenced area at Taranaki. The people I contacted last night could not assure me of that, but I will let Senator Maguire know as soon as the information becomes available. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Attorney-General another question about Murray Riley. I acknowledge the real difficulty the Attorney is in with respect to this vexed question. I restate the fact that this man, a former senior serving policeman, was sentenced to 17 years gaol for conspiracy to import into the country one of the largest packages of cannabis, said to be of the value of several million dollars. He was convicted of conspiracy to cheat and defraud, forging a passport and possessing an unlicensed pistol. His 17-year gaol sentence was reduced to 5 1/2 years and he was released this week. Am I given to understand by the Attorney's reply to Senator Durack that in future any practice or law of a State government will automatically apply or will have quasi-automatic application to Federal prisoners? Riley was indeed a Federal prisoner serving a gaol sentence for a Federal offence. I ask a purely hypothetical question: Should a Minister in charge of corrective services in any State be corrupted to the extent of releasing prisoners early, by virtue of the Attorney's answer to Senator Durack would that embarrass the Federal Attorney of the day, Liberal or Labor, in following suit and giving early release? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will know from his long experience that under standing order 99 hypothetical questions are not in order. Senator CHIPP —I am trying to be a respecter of persons and a respecter of a Minister of the Crown at the moment by making the question hypothetical. The PRESIDENT —I thought I ought to draw the matter to the honourable senator's attention. Senator CHIPP —I hope that it is appreciated. I want to express to the Attorney the deep concern that is felt by asking him: If this is to be the practice, can he explain why a large number of parliamentarians, lawyers and public servants are currently spending countless hours in an attempt to establish a viable national crimes authority to combat organised crime when criminals such as Riley , who are caught and convicted, are let off in this manner? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is not a great deal that I can add to my previous answer in explanation of the considerations that were regarded by me as relevant in dealing with this prisoner. I can only say that, however distasteful or horrific one might regard a particular crime, nonetheless the criminal in question does get out of gaol sooner or later. It is the case with prisoners who are well behaved in terms of their gaol career that it is not at all uncommon-in fact, it is almost usual, taking into account non-parole periods and the kinds of remissions that are granted-for them to be out of gaol when only around one- third of the head sentence has been served, as was the case here. Senator Walters —In New South Wales it is sooner. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not at all unusual, however much Senator Walters or anyone else might feel threatened by that state of affairs. It has been ever thus. Senator Chipp —It is unusual in Victoria. Senator GARETH EVANS —The difficulty is that it is not as simple as that because the sentences that are given originally are given by the judges with an eye to the practice of the parole board and the remissions that operate within a particular jurisdiction. One cannot simply compare a sentence of a term of years in one jurisdiction with a sentence of a term of years in another jurisdiction because the term of years may well be designed by the judges in question. Even applying exactly the same sorts of standards and with exactly the same objectives the term of years might be different bearing in mind the likely date of the actual release in question. It is a very complex question. As to the second part of the question-whether it is the case that the Commonwealth will now automatically follow the law in practice as it operates in particular States in the sentencing area-the answer is no, it is not the case that the Commonwealth will automatically follow that practice. It is the case that the Commonwealth will have regard to what the law in practice is in a jurisdiction and decide whether, taking into account the desirability of uniform treatment, the Commonwealth should so follow suit. It is not the case that the Commonwealth did follow in any way the practice in New South Wales-the early release scheme, as it has been described-prior to the introduction of the present legislation in New South Wales, which was designed expressly to rationalise the law as it operated in the area of remissions. The difficulty the Commonwealth had as far as the pre-existing early release scheme was concerned, which overlapped with my administration of this portfolio for a considerable number of months, was that it was difficult to work out what the basic rules were that were operating in that jurisdiction because a great deal of discretion was being exercised in the circumstances of each case with no overriding principles applicable on a uniform or universal basis to every prisoner. It is the case now that in New South Wales there is such a uniform set of practices that operates with respect to remissions which does not involve the exercise of any discretion other than the normal parole board type discretion which has regard to the conduct and prospects of a particular prisoner. As such, it is possible for us to apply those standards to Commonwealth prisoners in New South Wales gaols. It is against that background that I made the policy decision , for which I have to account in this Parliament-I am happy to so do-that balancing all these respective considerations the interests of uniformity of treatment should be regarded as paramount. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It is not asked to score party political points. Stemming from the Attorney's answer, I ask simply: Does not the Attorney's attitude and answer make it mandatory for criminals who now contemplate committing Federal offences to move to Sydney? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a clever question, but it does not have regard to the first part of my answer, which is that it does not automatically follow that prisoners in New South Wales are, in terms of the actual number of years gaol they are tending to serve for particular kinds of crimes, being treated any more lightly or leniently than prisoners in other States. In fact, my recollection is that Victoria, in terms of the tariffs that are applicable or the average duration of terms in gaol, is lighter in its sentencing practices than is New South Wales. I stand corrected on that, but I have some impression that that is so. One simply cannot make judgments based on the actual rules as they look like they operate on paper so far as remission and non-parole periods are concerned. It is a matter of taking into account the way in which those rules are applied in practice and have traditionally been applied by the judges in the different jurisdictions. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen the report in the Age newspaper today referring to the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures response to the occupational health and safety legislation in that State? Is the Minister aware that the Chamber has offered support for the occupational health and safety legislation, particularly in the light of workers compensation claim statistics, which are absolutely appalling and indicate the necessity of achieving dramatic improvement? Has the Federal Government had the same response or co-operation from employers to its proposed occupational health and safety commission? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the action taken by Mr Brian Powell, the Director of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, in connection with the Victorian legislation. As Senator Crowley said, the Victorian Chamber conducted among its members a survey of the various costs imposed on industry by industrial accidents and occupational health problems and reached the conclusion that it was in the interests of the industry community which it represents to see that the Victorian Government's legislation was passed. Mr Powell certainly is lending his best endeavours, as I understand it, to see that that happens. The current state of the Commonwealth Government's initiative in this regard is that following the report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission a strategy was developed of establishing a commission, office and so on, for which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations would have prime responsibility. The report of the Interim Commission was tabled in the Parliament in May this year. The Minister then indicated that he hoped to bring forward proposals within the Budget context for the development of that initiative. It may be slightly premature to ask at this stage whether there has been the same level of co-operation from peak industry bodies in the Commonwealth field. It may be advisable for me to inquire from the Minister as to whether he felt there was resistance to the proposals or support for the proposals in principle at the national level. I will do that and convey the answer to Senator Crowley. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Attorney- General to his answer yesterday to Senator Chaney about making public information on attitudes to deferred referendum proposals. Has he found out why his Department told Estimates Committee E that publicly funded market research would not be released, when he had said he would not object to tabling the results of the survey? When will the material be made available? Senator GARETH EVANS —It will be made available right now, Mr President, and I hereby table it. There was no intention to mislead or fudge the issue, so far as my departmental officers were concerned, in replying as they did to the Estimates Committee. It was simply a matter of their not having appreciated that I had given the undertaking in the Parliament the day before to table the information. It was simply a question, as often happens in departmental administration, of the left hand not being totally across what the right hand was doing. There was certainly no intention on my part not to produce the material. When the answer was given in the terms that it was, it was not challenged by Senator Durack, who was sitting at the table at the time. As a result the affair passed unnoticed until, as I said yesterday, Senator Chaney tried to turn it into some kind of Busby Berkeley production number. I am sorry to disappoint the honourable senator. There is nothing he need feel excessively excited about. I am happy to provide the information, as I always said I would be. I table it for anyone who wants to come and get it. Senator REYNOLDS —I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs whether he recognises that veterans who served this country in some situations, such as international peacekeeping forces and nuclear testing, were exposed to as many, if not more, dangers as those who served this country in times of war? If the Minister does recognise this, will he extend repatriation benefits to those veterans? Senator GIETZELT —I think we recognise that the situations mentioned by Senator Reynolds can be described in some circumstances as being more hazardous than the conditions of veterans who served in times of war and who did not actually see front line active service. For example, a veteran who served in World War II may not have experienced actual hostilities, but nevertheless is still eligible for repatriation benefits under the Repatriation Act. It was because of those who served in peacekeeping forces that I previously told the Senate I took the step of recognising the anomaly and announced the gazettal of nine further international peacekeeping forces that had not been eligible previously for repatriation benefits. The responsibility rested with my Department to do just that. So all known peacekeeping force members and their dependants are now covered by the repatriation legislation, and that includes those who served in such places as the Balkans, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Congo, Yemen and the Middle East. The other part of the question raised by Senator Reynolds regarding people who served in areas where there may have been exposure to nuclear tests is a very complex one. It probably can be conceded that the people involved would have experienced more hazards as a result of such exposure than would many ex- servicemen who are currently covered by the Repatriation Act. That, of course, applies not only to the veterans but also to Australian civilians, as we have found out in more recent weeks. That is why the Government has been prompted to take the step of establishing the Kerr Expert Committee on Fallout Arising from British Atomic Tests in Australia, following the new and disturbing information that has come to light in more recent weeks, and some questions on that have been directed to my colleague Senator Walsh. When this evidence has been examined and the Kerr Committee has had an opportunity to look at all the factors associated with that nuclear weapons testing, the Government will perhaps set up a special compensation scheme, with a view to paying adequate compensation to those involved, whether they be veterans or civilians. We are dealing with a problem that is specifically related to those involved in the testing at Maralinga, Monte Bello and other places about which until recently we knew neither the circumstances involved nor the people affected. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the statement in Hungary by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Hungarian communist Government informed him that Hungary and other Iron Curtain nations felt threatened by the current deploying of intermediate missiles by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Western Europe. I ask: Why did Mr Hayden see fit to make this statement without also stating that the countries of Western Europe, prior to the current deployment, have been gravely threatened by the massive unilateral deployment of Soviet intermediate weapons, including the SS20-which he will know was a breach of the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty-against which the NATO countries had no defence? Why did Mr Hayden, on behalf of the Hawke Government, present the communist view without presenting the view of the non-communist NATO countries? Does the Hawke Government support the NATO deployment? Senator Button —What a silly question from a man of your ability. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —We will be very interested to hear from Senator Button on this subject. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ignore the interjection and ask his question. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —May I suggest, Mr President, that it is the interjector and not me who is causing the trouble, and the admonition should be where the mote is in the eye. I ask: If this is so, why is the Government silent on this matter, except where the communist view is to be presented? Senator GARETH EVANS —I fully endorse the comment of my Leader. That was indeed a stupid question, one without foundation and without justification, and one that does no credit to the person who asked it. I will not dignify the question with a further answer at this stage but will refer it to Mr Hayden for such personal response as he may wish to make, as I am sure he will on his return. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Attorney- General deny that what I have said is the literal substance of the statement of Mr Hayden in the Press? Does he deny that Mr Hayden simply reported the communist statement and not the NATO statement? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have never been prepared to accept at face value anything Senator Sir John Carrick has said in this place, and I do not propose to start now. Senator COLEMAN —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether he is aware of recent newspaper reports in the West Australian of the sudden appearance of two groups of three unmarked black helicopters in the skies over Perth? Is he also aware of the concern expressed some days earlier at the sudden appearance of a Galaxy aircraft, unmarked and in camouflage colours, which appeared to lose power while flying low over the city? Is it true that both the helicopters and the Galaxy belong to the United States Air Force, which was participating in a joint Australian-American exercise? Were the helicopters brought into Australia in the Galaxy and was the Department aware that they would enter the country in this way? Is it normal practice for the Department to authorise the use of unmarked aircraft on such exercises? Was there at any time any danger to the people of Perth? Would the Minister not agree that a simple Press statement to the effect that such an exercise was to take place would have allayed the fears of a number of residents of the Perth and metropolitan area? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a question without notice and I have no defence briefing on the UFO sightings to which the honourable senator referred. I will obtain an answer from the Minister at the earliest opportunity and seek to allay her concerns. Senator MARTIN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment aware of reports that the withdrawal from funds from the Australian Dance Theatre by the Victorian Labor Government has led to extreme financial difficulty for that excellent dance group? Is the Minister aware that a similar withdrawal by the Victorian Government of its share of subsidy for the Australian Opera will have a serious effect on the finances of the Opera in 1984 ? Will the Government tell the Victorian Government to stop bludging on taxpayers from other States and to make its proper contribution to the promotion of performances by these two leading Australian companies? Senator RYAN —I have no information from the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment on the matter of the two companies that Senator Martin refers to, so I cannot confirm her claims that funds have been withdrawn. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for comment. All I can say is that with many of the major performing arts companies now, the responsibility for public funding is shared between State and Federal agencies. I think that is a situation which we all accept as being proper, so it is up to the two partners to work out between themselves what the appropriate source of public subsidy from each partner is to be. I will see whether the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment can give us any further information about these two companies. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In January 1984 the Acting Treasurer, the Hon. J. S. Dawkins, announced a household expenditure survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, commencing on 9 January. I understand that about 7,500 urban and rural households throughout Australia are taking part in the survey. An objective in this in- depth survey is to provide up to date data for reviewing the weighting of the consumer price index, which is a fundamental element of wage determinations and pension adjustments and which is very important to the policy decisions of both Federal and State governments. I have had expressions of concern from a number of constituents- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask her question? There is too much information in the question. Senator HEARN —In view of the nature of this important survey, and the concern of constituents, I ask the Minister: Will he make a further statement of reassurance to members of the public as to the purpose of this survey? Senator WALSH —I did see a minute on this a month or six weeks ago, and if I remember correctly, at that stage the final questions to be put in the survey had not been determined. I will ask the Treasurer whether that has been decided and ask him to supply Senator Hearn with a copy of it. Whilst I believe those surveys are used to reweight the CPI, they are used for a variety of other purposes as well. I will see what the latest information is from the Treasurer on that subject. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: Is the Minister aware that because of the extreme difficulties the sugar cane industry in Queensland is experiencing, with losses of up to $7,000 on an average crop of 3,500 tonnes, many of the 30 crushing mills in Queensland are in jeopardy of closing down, the majority being smaller producers, unable to survive the drastic losses? Will the Minister indicate whether the Government would give consideration to providing further financial assistance to this industry so as to avert what is looming as a national disaster? Senator Grimes —Put the rail charges up. Senator WALSH —I think the actions of the Queensland Government are bankrupting some coal producers, but as far as I know they are not bankrupting sugar producers. I will certainly pass the request on to Mr Kerin. It is a fact that last year very substantial loan funds-I think the maximum was up to $30m, although I do not guarantee that figure; it is only my recollection of it-were provided in loans to sugar mills because of the economic problems that then prevailed. Although I do not follow the situation very closely these days I think that those economic problems still persist. I am not sure of the source of the actual figure that Senator Bjelke-Petersen quoted, that there was a loss of $7,000 for a cane farm producing 3,500 tonnes of cane. I do not know how those figures have been derived and I can pass no comment upon their veracity. As far as I am aware no formal request has been received for additional assistance this year, but I will have that checked out with the Minister and an answer supplied. Senator COLSTON —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy whether there has been a recent decrease in the price of liquefied petroleum gas due to a different pricing policy adopted by the Commonwealth Government? If so, what is the nature of the decrease? Should the price of LPG at all service stations have decreased? If so, what can be done about those outlets which have retained the old price? Senator WALSH —Senator Colston is primarily concerned with the prices of automotive LPG, and there are different prices for LPG for other purposes. So far as automotive LPG is concerned, the price was reduced by almost $60 a tonne on 1 April this year. That is equivalent to 3c a litre, in round figures. Retail prices of automotive LPG ought to have fallen by that amount, after, I suppose, the stocks which were already being held had been disposed of, which should be a matter of weeks only. So by now any retailer of automotive LPG should certainly have reduced the price by the order of 3c a litre. Senator Colston asked what can be done about the outlets which have retained the old price. I believe-I will have this checked-that the Prices Surveillance Authority would have a watching brief over that question. I will have that checked out with the Treasurer. I think it ought to be noted that, as a result of the policy decisions announced just before the end of March, LPG prices will not in future be subject to the very substantial fluctuations to which they have been subject in the past. The price will be adjusted on a six-monthly basis-in October and April-which, for a number of reasons, is a more satisfactory time to adjust it than July and January. It will be adjusted in accordance with either the movement in the fuel and light component of the consumer price index or the average monthly export parity price commencing from April 1984. So even if there are wild fluctuations in world prices, those fluctuations will be evened out in the Australian price. Finally, the decision announced by the Government at the end of March has been extremely well received in general and in particular by local government authorities. The member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Snow, passed on to me quite recently a letter from a local government authority in his area, which is appreciative of what the Government has done and in particular the timing of future price changes, if any, and the relative stability which the new policy has brought to the price of LPG. Senator CHANEY —I address my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy, and it follows the question just asked by the honourable senator from Queensland who is concerned about retailers not passing on a price reduction. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that he delayed a reduction in the price of liquefied petroleum gas from January to March and that the price of LPG should have been significantly lower between those months, but was held up by Government action, and that he reduced the price of LPG in March at the same time as about three- quarters of the subsidy on some elements of LPG was removed by the Government? Senator WALSH —What the price of LPG should be, particularly when it is an administered price-as LPG prices have been for a number of years-is to a substantial extent a subjective opinion. I do not know whether my opinion on what it should be is any better or worse than Senator Chaney's opinion. It is a matter of public record, stated many times and incorporated in, I believe, hundreds of letters which I have written, that the Government decided not to adjust the price on 1 January as it would have been adjusted if the policy of the previous Government had been continued. In view of the fact that the subsidy legislation expired on, I think, 27 March, the Government had made a decision to review all the factors relevant to the price of LPG and to announce a new package at the end of March, and that was done. There is no secret about that. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can he advise the Senate of progress into parliamentary and media allegations that the outgoing head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Henderson, evaded Customs duty and quarantine restrictions by misusing the diplomatic bag to import jewellery, expensive perfume, a riding saddle and other items for personal use? Is it a fact that charges of evasion of Customs duty against a Foreign Affairs officer in 1975 were hastily withdrawn when the defendant named other malefactors, including Mr Henderson, who was the First Assistant Secretary, Management and Foreign Service Division, at the time? Senator GARETH EVANS —That question was referred by me to Mr Hayden, who will no doubt answer it in his own way and in his own time. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It relates to medifraud. Has the Attorney-General been asked by the Department of Health for a legal opinion- The PRESIDENT —Order! I cannot hear Senator Walters. Senator Gareth Evans —I can, Mr President, and I will gladly swap you. Senator WALTERS —The Attorney-General acts in his usual flippant manner. He should listen to the question although he might not desire to look after his portfolio. Has the Attorney-General been asked by the Department of Health for a legal opinion on ways in which generalised evidence can be presented in courts hearing charges against doctors of fraudulent practice under Medicare? If so, what is his answer? Senator Bolkus —Why doesn't your husband get his own lawyer? Senator GARETH EVANS —Having recovered from Senator Bolkus's interjection- The PRESIDENT —The interjection was out of order because Senator Bolkus was not in his seat. Senator GARETH EVANS —Get back to your seat, Senator Bolkus. I do have a recollection of that issue being raised last year with my Department as part of a review that the Department of Health, in conjunction with my Department I think, was conducting. Senator Durack —What does 'generalised evidence' mean? Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that it might be some distance from your experience in these matters, Senator Durack, unlike Senator Walters's. I will do my best to explain what I think her question was about and give an answer. One of the matters that was considered was, when it comes to the making of a penalty , the determining of a penalty, whether or not the court should be allowed to be given at that stage evidence reflecting the kind of performance profile of the doctor in question, not in regard to the particular series of instances that may have been the subject of direct evidence and the actual conviction. If the pattern of practice of the doctor in question-and now that computer technology is available, the pattern of practice of the professional can be compared with other medicos in a similar field-showed a substantially higher claim rate than was the norm for that kind of practice, there would be some prima facie suspicion that the particular individual instances, the subject of conviction for fraud, were in fact part of a larger pattern of activity. Senator Messner —Another brilliant Evans idea. Senator GARETH EVANS —Just listen. The suggestion was that it might be appropriate, at the stage of determining penalties, for the court to be able to take into account evidence of that kind. The view was taken, with due respect to Senator Messner-'Missner' is not a bad description really; 'missnering' on all four cylinders. Senator Messner —As long as it's not missionary. Senator GARETH EVANS —I see you adopting that position pretty often in this chamber. The PRESIDENT —The Attorney-General will ignore the interjections. Senator GARETH EVANS —What I am trying to say is-- Senator Walters —Not very successfully. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is true, Senator Walters. I do go to pieces whenever you ask me a question; I acknowledge that. What I was trying to say was that we did consider, as one possible option, a rather innovative approach to sentencing in this way. But it was felt it would have a number of difficulties in principle and as such was not proceeded with. I do not know what the status of that proposal is, or indeed others so far as possible further legal responses to medifraud are concerned. I shall endeavour to find out from my Department where it is all at and advise the senator further. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question of the Attorney-General. Is he aware of the dangers of what has been asked of him because mere suspicion of practice might be-- Senator Grimes —Are you worried about anyone in particular? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters is trying to ask a supplementary question. Senator WALTERS —I should like to know whether that interjection came from Senator Grimes. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the Senator ask her supplementary question and not worry about interjections. Senator WALTERS —I am worried about Senator Grimes's action in this matter. What I am suggesting is that there is considerable risk attached to the Department's presuming that certain patterns of practice could lead to even suspicion of over -servicing and medifraud. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will answer the question to the extent I can understand it. I do take the point to be that there are problems in principle with the admission of that kind of evidence. If that is the view of Senator Walters, for once I share her view. Senator GILES —I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Social Security. Is the family income supplement reaching all the households qualified for that assistance? Is it a fact that the take-up rate is dropping? If that is the case, can the Minister suggest why this should be? What is expected to be the outlay on this assistance in the coming financial year? Senator GRIMES —Ever since the family income supplement was introduced on 1 May last year there has been concern in the Department and in the Government as to whether it is adequately reaching all those who would qualify. The maximum rate, as Senator Giles would know, is $12 a week, and it is available to low income earners other than those on pensions and benefits. Peak payments were actually reached in September last year when about 29,600 payments were being made. It is now about 27,600 but it has been lower than that. Back in April it got down to around 26,800. The reasons for the fall are unclear. What is also unclear is the number of people in the community who would be eligible. Statistics on this are not available. It has been suggested that advice be sent to all family allowance recipients who receive their family allowance by cheque as response to this advice in terms of take-out would enable the Department to determine whether it should go to the expense then of contacting family allowance recipients who receive payment through direct credit. Such an exercise would cost about $400,000 in postage alone, let alone the cost of clerical follow-up. If the initial survey indicated that there was a high percentage of eligible family allowance recipients not receiving the family income supplement then other information strategies could be considered. Payments like this-income tested payments and payments with tight eligibility like this-frequently in this country and other countries have, as part of their features, an unsatisfactory take-up. Various advertising methods have been used. The media was used extensively initially. We would intend to advertise availability of the benefits through work places and unions. But one of the problems in the first place is a lack of statistical data on how many people in the country are likely to be eligible for the benefit. I think the original estimate made when Senator Chaney introduced it was about 35,000; but that is, at best, probably a guesstimate. We will probably conduct the survey or look at other means of surveying the population to see, first of all, how many people are not taking it up, and why, in an effort to improve the take-up. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce a question about his motor vehicle policy and in particular his reference to labour adjustments resulting from the implementation of his plan. Does the term 'labour adjustments ' mean what the Minister when in opposition used to call unemployment? Can the Minister inform the Senate as to what analysis his Department has done on likely job losses in specific areas in Australia? In particular, can he advise the Senate as to how many jobs will be lost in the component parts industries in the provincial towns of Victoria, especially the Minister's home town of Ballarat, where some 900 people are employed in the component parts industry? Can the Minister tell the Senate how many of those 900 people he anticipates will lose their jobs as a result of this policy? Finally, can the Minister advise the Senate as to what opportunities this Government will provide for the people in these towns who find themselves unemployed and what opportunities there might be for alternative employment? Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis began by asking whether I equated the expression ' labour adjustment' with sackings or retrenchments. Senator Lewis —Unemployment. Senator BUTTON —Or unemployment. The expression 'labour adjustment' in the statement relating to the car industry was used in the context of saying that this Government would provide labour adjustment training assistance to displaced workers. Honourable senators opposite would not understand that expression because in their period in government hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and no labour adjustment training arrangements were made for them. This is a new concept in their vocabulary. I think they ought to learn to understand it because, in terms of the restructuring of industry issues, we will be looking to a labour adjustment training scheme to try to alleviate some of the problems associated with unemployment, which their government never did. Let me get to the specific point of the question. It would be ludicrous of me to attempt to answer Senator Lewis's question about how many people might lose their jobs in the component parts industry in a town such as Ballarat. It is and always has been a dynamic industry-not as dynamic as it ought to have been but it has been dynamic in the sense that components for motor vehicles change over time. If Senator Lewis had been watching the motor vehicle industry in the last year or two he would have noticed that motor car components which were made of steel only two or three years ago are now almost exclusively made of plastic and that those sorts of changes are affecting the component parts industry. All sorts of reasons-new materials, new technology and so on-affect both manufacture and employment in particular aspects of the motor vehicle component parts industry. So far as the general question of unemployment in the motor vehicle industry is concerned, let me say that from the beginning I have said that the Government accepted and the community had to accept that there would be a reduction in the overall work force in the motor vehicle industry over the next 10 years. Let me say, with respect, that I believe that has to be accepted; otherwise we will have in 1992 an industry which is really a social welfare system. Let us be frank about that. In those circumstances, let me say that the Government did obtain estimates of the likely effects on employment in this industry over a period. John Durie, the industrial correspondent of the Australian Financial Review, made some speculative predictions about this matter in the Australian Financial Review today. If I can be so bold, I would like to cast some qualifications on the headline of Mr Durie's article. The reporting of the projections that the Government obtained ignores two facts. The starting point for the assessment of decline in employment was the 1982 employment figure in the industry. Between 3, 000 and 4,000 people lost their jobs in the motor vehicle industry last year as a result of the structural difficulties of General Motors-Holden's Ltd. The estimates which were made by the Bureau of Industry Economics, which include the 15,000 figure projected in the John Durie article, take account of GMH's expressed intention, which I announced on Tuesday, of reducing its labour force by another 3,500 to 4,000. So when those deductions are made from the figure projected in the original BIE estimates put to the Car Industry Council last year, those two factors have to be taken into account. Also, there has to be taken into account the increased competitiveness which the Government hopes and believes will develop in this industry as a result of the measures which have been initiated. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has talked about General Motors-Holden's Ltd, which is established in a capital city. I was talking about provincial cities. The Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd is in Geelong. However, the component parts industries are in provincial towns. I wonder whether the Minister could give us some information about the component parts industries. Also, rather than asking the public and, with respect, honourable senators and members to read and try to apply their minds to Mr Durie 's articles, will the Minister consider tabling the Government's projections so that we can see what the facts will be, or are, or are alleged to be? Senator BUTTON —I have already indicated that it is very difficult to make the projections that Senator Lewis asks for. The figures I referred to were published in the report of the Car Industry Council which was, I believe, tabled in the Senate in December of last year. They are certainly publicly available. If Senator Lewis had a diligent interest in this matter he probably would have referred to them at the time. Insofar as the component parts manufacturing sector is concerned, it is, as I said earlier, very difficult to make projections because of the numerous forces which are at work in relation to the restructuring of an industry of this kind, particularly in terms of the materials used and so on. For example, a factory went out of work in Ballarat the other day and 100 people lost their jobs. It was very sad that that should happen. But let me say that what happened there was that the factory was manufacturing things which nobody wanted to buy any more. The factory was producing earthenware pipes. As a result of changes in technology nobody wants earthenware pipes anymore. The motor vehicle component parts manufacturing industry is affected a lot by the same sort of thing. That is why, in the context of being unable to make very specific projections, we have made the labour adjustment training scheme available to this industry. The PRESIDENT —On Tuesday, 29 May, Senator Jessop directed a number of questions to me concerning the security of senators' telephones and whether electronic eavesdropping checks are made on senators' offices and various committee rooms. The Security Controller, in discussions with the senior Telecom technician at Parliament House, has been advised by the technician that a higher incidence of problems seemed to occur to Ministers' telephone systems after technical examinations had been carried out by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation technicians investigating possible interference with the telephones . The examination of the phones had been requested by Ministers. I have raised this matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who has advised me he has sought a report from ASIO on it. With regard to the other matters raised in the honourable senator's question, in part I answered these in my immediate response on 29 May. Random sweeps are not carried out. However, any honourable senator who has concerns can approach me and I will have a check carried out. I provided other details on this matter in my answer of 25 August 1983 to a question by the honourable senator on this same matter. In that answer I pointed out that in a building such as Parliament House, unless the room that has been checked is kept under constant surveillance following the inspection, continued freedom from possible eavesdropping cannot be assumed. With regard to committee rooms the offer is open to all committees to have rooms checked prior to hearings. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence availed itself of this opportunity on two occasions recently. Senator GARETH EVANS —Following the question today from Senator Chaney about the allegations that were made in bankruptcy proceedings by a Mr Anderson, I received a message during Question Time from my permanent head, Mr Brazil, that when he discussed this matter with Mr Temby this morning he was orally advised that, in Mr Temby's view, there is nothing in the material warranting investigation and that standing alone it was, in the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Special Prosecutor, worthless. It may be that I will get a more formal response from Mr Temby in due course, but it would not appear to me, in the light of what I know of the background of this matter and, more particularly, of Mr Temby's reaction, that any further investigation would be likely to be productive. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Missen asked a question about the National Crime Authority and certain representations which he believed may have been made. In answering him I undertook to ask of my ministerial colleagues whether they were aware of any direct or indirect representations made by Mr Kerry Packer in relation to the National Crime Authority legislation. I have asked that question of all of my ministerial colleagues, except Mr Hayden who of course is overseas and has been for most of the period in question. In each case the answer to me has been no. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I table papers to which I referred in replying to a question by Senator Bolkus. The papers are replies from the British High Commission to questions put by me orally to the British High Commissioner and copies of correspondence between Mr McGregor of the Department of Resources and Energy and the High Commissioner which put further questions. I would like it to be noted that some of the letters, particularly the replies from the British High Commission, refer to various source documents. I am having those documents examined to see whether they can be released also. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I table the guidelines for the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 and explanatory statements. I previously advised that the liquid fuel emergency guidelines and an explanatory statement would be brought down in the Senate today. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so because there have been some technical difficulties in printing. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Pursuant to section 41 (2) (b) of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984, I present instruments in the form of guidelines made by me under sub-sections 10 (1), 11 ( 1), 12 (1), 13 (1), 21 (1), 22 (1), 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Act together with an explanatory statement to each instrument. The guidelines under eight sections of the Act have been made in accordance with the requirements of s. 41. They set out the scope of directions which the Minister for Resources and Energy may issue to fuel industry participants in preparation for, or management of, a national emergency. Preparations to date have been undertaken in close co-operation with the governments of the States and Northern Territory. The guidelines were circulated to draft to State and Northern Territory energy ministers and to the oil industry prior to the legislation being enacted. Comments received are reflected in the guidelines and earlier amendments to the legislation. It was not possible, however, to resolve one particular matter in the time available. This relates to the description of certain petroleum products which are commonly referred to by more than one name. My department is consulting with industry on the matter. It is noted, however, that the consultations on this relatively minor question will not interfere with the operation of the legislation. The guidelines and the legislation as they now stand suffice to ensure that appropriate action can be taken, if needed, to manage an emergency situation with respect to any or all liquid fuels. I regret that it has not proved possible to simplify the language of the guidelines as I and others who have reviewed them would have wished. However, I have directed my department to prepare a plain language guide to the Act and the guidelines in order that they may be more readily understood in the community. The importance of these measures is emphasised by recent developments in the war between Iran and Iraq. The attacks on shipping have inhibited the movement of oil tankers in the northern part of the gulf. Although a stoppage of oil supplies does not appear imminent, there have been clear threats to the free passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. In current circumstances the implications of a closure of the gulf shipping lanes for world oil supplies are less serious than at almost any time in recent years. The high levels of stocks of crude oil in the OECD countries and the availability of excess production capacity elsewhere in the world point to a capacity to cope with a disruption to the shipping of oil from the gulf. Australia's domestic oil supply situation is generally strong and, given our high level of self sufficiency in crude oil, we are well placed to meet the direct effects of any loss of imported oil supplies. The Liquid Fuel Emergency Act and the guidelines are the central, legislative part of the comprehensive arrangements being developed to cope with a national liquid fuel supply disruption. Institutional arrangements for management of a national emergency are in place. Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory officials already meet through the on-going arrangements of the National Fuel Emergency Consultative Committee (NFECC). The oil industry has been involved previously in emergency preparations through the National Petroleum Advisory Committee (NPAC) which developed the recommendations on which the current legislation and arrangements are based. NPAC would provide the liaison links with major end user groups in assessing and ameliorating the impact of a fuel shortfall on end users. The National Oil Supplies Advisory Committee (NOSAC) is chaired by the Commonwealth and comprises representatives from States and the NT and each of the major oil companies. If a national fuel emergency is declared, NOSAC will act as the principal liaison link with the oil industry. At the international level, Australia participates in the International Energy Agency's emergency oil sharing scheme. The 21 member agency continuously assesses international oil production and demand, monitors stocks and is able to co-ordinate action by member governments and the principal oil companies to ensure equitable distribution of available supplies. An important benefit of the scheme for Australia is the assistance it provides us in obtaining heavy imported feedstocks to balance with our light indigenous crudes to yield the proportions of end products required by Australian fuel users. The present situation in the Gulf is a timely reminder, if that were needed, of the importance of ensuring that Australia's preparations to meet an oil supply emergency are fully effective. The liquid fuel emergency guidelines are an important element of those preparations. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That the guidelines and statement be considered pursuant to sessional order 9 relating to government papers. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —We now turn to consideration of Government papers. The first paper deals with the immigration program for 1984-85. Senator Martin-Mr Deputy President, I seek a little bit of assistance. I have just requested a copy of the list of papers. I have been given something headed 'Proposed presentation of papers' which lists only the immigration program. I received a different list in my office earlier today. How many papers have been tabled and what are they? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Only one paper was tabled this morning, which is the one I have just called. Another paper is now on the list, which is the one just tabled by Senator Walsh. I do not know what other paper the honourable senator would have received. Only one paper was tabled this morning and that was the paper relating to the immigration program for 1984-85. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. One area of public performance over the last few years of which Australia can be justly proud has been our response to the international humanitarian problem of Indo-Chinese refugees. There must be little that is more frightening than when someone suddenly becomes stateless and has absolutely nowhere to go. I remind the Senate of the definition of 'refugee' as it appears in the United Nations Convention and Protocol, which appears in the statement that we are debating: . . . owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. The political upheaval in Indo-China has resulted in many hundreds of thousands of people falling within that definition. Thousands of refugees have fled the region in small boats and overland to escape persecution. Many have died in the attempt, but many others have reached countries of refuge. The community of nations has recognised the major challenge that this has placed upon the total world community. It has placed a responsibility upon not only countries of asylum-that is, the countries of first refuge-but also countries capable of offering resettlement. Australia has a record second to none in meeting its share of this international responsibility. Although to a small extent we have been a country of first refuge, to a greater extent we have been a country able to offer resettlement. I believe we have met that responsibility. That responsibility does not end with a visa to enter Australia. With resettlement comes the responsibility to the refugee to give him the opportunity to live a worthwhile and fulfilling life in this country. That covers the need to provide a whole range of assistance. That is partly a government responsibility but not wholly; it is a community responsibility, a responsibility to which, by and large, the community in Australia has responded. I look with considerable pride at the contribution of communities in my State through the churches, the monastery resettlement scheme under Father Foale, the service groups, the Indo-Chinese Refugees Association and the Indo-Chinese Women's Association under Sister Nye. However, there remains a lot to be done. Those who work in the field know that perhaps the greatest trauma for refugees is the separation from their loved ones who are left behind-spouses, children and parents. That is why the family reunion and orderly departure program from Vietnam remains so important. Under that program so far some 2,000 relatives have been able to be reunited with their close families already in Australia. I understand some 15,000 applications under first and second categories have been made. These are presently being processed. I hope that in the shortest possible time these people will be permitted to leave Vietnam and join those of their families who earlier fled Indo-China and came to this country. I trust that we will never place a quota on family reunion with those we have accepted as refugees. I commend the attitude of the former Fraser Government and, so far, this Government in meeting that commitment. I also commend the role being played by the bureaucrats. I particularly mention the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs which, on my research, to date have been doing a marvellous job. In saying that resettlement is so important I do not say in any way that we should avoid our other responsibilities in the area, such as our responsibility to support voluntary repatriation, humanitarian aid, diplomatic resolution of conflict and the United Nations sponsored piracy program. I note that there is also to be an increase of immigrants under the skills and business categories, but I regard that as an economic debate. I regard it as a separate subject, and I hope that in no way will that debate be confused with the humanitarian responsibility Australia has had in the past and which it is continuing to accept. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.21) —I wish to say a few words which follow the comments made by Senator Robert Hill. I welcome the comments he has made. I draw to the attention of the Government a matter which has come to my notice through my handling of constituent representations in this area. It appears to me that in the administration of this policy, which is an area where there has never been any suggestion of other than a bipartisan approach, there are some very real administrative difficulties and delays which occur at different points of the process. Some of those difficulties and delays occur here in the national capital and some occur at posts overseas, where the very difficult task of processing applications has to be undertaken. It appears to me from the very limited sample of cases which have come to my personal attention that this is an area where the Government might look to allocating some additional resources. It appears that the Government has some additional resources available in that it has people employed to administer an assets test which seems to be disappearing into oblivion minute by minute. I seriously ask the Government and the Minister at the table, the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans), to take note of the fact that people are being put to very considerable personal difficulty by the fact that there is a limited ability on the part of the Government to administer the programs, which have the support both of the Government and the Opposition. In making this point, I have no criticism to offer of the individuals who are involved in that administration. I just think that there is probably a need for the diversion of some additional resources of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and perhaps some addition to the resources of the Department, to ensure that some of the humanitarian matters which were raised by Senator Robert Hill are dealt with quickly and effectively. It is my experience that some of the delays are extremely lengthy. The most recent case I had to deal with involved correspondence which went back to 1981. It involves a father who has been separated from his children for a period, and I think most of us would regard the situation as extremely painful and personally very difficult for all involved. In speaking to this paper I ask the Government to look at the resources available in Canberra and elsewhere for the administration of these very positive programs and, where necessary, to improve those resources so that the work can be done in a more expeditious manner. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.23) —I express concern that this paper indicates that the Government will have a reduced intake of migrants this year. The figures stated in this paper indicate that the previous Government estimated that 115,000 to 120,000 migrants would be visaed in 1982-83. The actual figure achieved was 86,000 visas issued. The paper goes on to state: For 1983-84, this Government originally assessed a range of between 80,000 and 90,000. We will issue no more than 64,000 visas. Of course, that is a drop of 22,000 people in the immigration intake. I express grave concern about that aspect. I believe it is a blinkered policy if Australia wishes to move towards a population which will enable it to have a self- generating economy. We will go backwards out the back door if we stick to a situation whereby, because of the net reproduction rate, our natural population is below replacement level and that is not balanced by a migration policy which will ensure that the population of this country expands steadily to the point that it has a self-generating economy. I believe that honourable senators and the public generally should look at the very serious studies that have been undertaken on the advantageous and beneficial effects on the economy that the migration policy has had at each stage of its development since the last world war. There have been a number of studies. I will not refer to them here. No doubt honourable senators will have seen them. However, it is evident from those studies that, rather than being a disadvantage in relation to employment, and increased migration policy, a policy which is realistic and involves large numbers of persons coming into this country is a very important factor in providing employment opportunities for Australia. We are allowed only five minutes to speak on this very important paper, and I note that Senator Martin will adjourn debate on it. I turn to the question of family reunion, which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney . I notice that the family reunion intake is expected to reach 42,000 in 1984-85 , compared with a mid-range of 37,000 in 1983-84. The paper states: The Orderly Departure Program from Vietnam, which is family reunion, is expected to expand from 2,000 in 1983-84 to 5,000 in 1984-85. A further 2,000 places are allowed for expected expansion from sources other than Vietnam. I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Most of us no doubt have encountered very pitiful examples here of mothers with children whose fathers are in Vietnam. Since my time is running out, I endorse the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. I have one glaring example of that problem , stretching over a period of some years. I hope that the Government can take administrative action to speed up the process for these long awaited family reunions. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.28) —Speaking briefly to the 1984-85 immigration program, as the previous speaker has said, it appears that in 1984- 85 there will be a fall back in numbers. Whereas in the previous year it appears that 86,000 visas were issued, this year the number will be something less-in the vicinity of some 62,000 to 64,000. I have always thought that when considering the intake figures we should also consider the figures of people who have left Australia. There is always quite a number of people who leave, which at times is surprising to me. In order to establish the actual figure of increased migration, we should also have the figures of those who have left. In regard to the overall situation, it appears to me that we will see a boost, as has been reported, in the European skilled migrant intake. Those migrants will be from the technical area and will include those who want to be involved in, for example, business and investment. They are certainly to be encouraged. I am also pleased, like other speakers, to see that people will continue to come to Australia from Vietnam and South East Asia under the family reunion program because I believe that we have a responsibility not only in the area of refugees but also in regard to those people who want to come here from South East Asia for family reunions. As I see it, Australia is part of South East Asia and has a responsibility to the people of that area. Our future lies very much with the people to our north and in the ensuing years it will pay Australia well to become more associated with and be more understanding of our neighbours and, when necessary and possible, to have those people come and live with us. We have come a long way over the last few years in our immigration policies. People have come to join us in this country from, I think, as many as 72 or 74 nations. They have brought much to Australia. So, like other speakers, I hope that our immigration numbers do not dwindle and that we look to further the immigration of people from all those areas, such as England, Europe and South East Asia, who can give much to Australia. A lot has been said about immigration policies and some of the debate over the last few weeks has been rather emotional. I will say no more about that at the moment. All I wish to say now is that we should confine ourselves to the very sound principles of immigration set down by Mr Michael MacKellar, when he was Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in the House of Representatives on 7 June 1978. He laid down nine principles, saying: These nine principles have a common basis: The interests of Australia and its people, together with compassion and international responsibility. I seek leave to have these principles incorporated in Hansard. The document has been shown to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, and to the Government Whip. Leave granted. The document read as follows- MINISTERIAL STATEMENT BY MR MacKELLAR (WARRINGAH-MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS) Immigration Policies and Australia's Population Immigration Principles 1. It is fundamental to national sovereignty that the Australian Government alone should determine who will be admitted to Australia. No person other than an Australian citizen, or a constituent member of the Australian community, has a basic right to enter Australia. 2. Apart from people admitted as refugees and for family reunion, migrant entry criteria should be developed on the basis of benefit to the Australian community , and the social, economic and related requirements within Australia. As a general rule, Australia will not admit for settlement people who would represent an economic burden to Australia through inordinate claims on welfare, health or other resources, who would endanger the community by criminal or other anti- social activities, or whose entry would be to their own detriment. 3. The size and composition of migrant intakes should not jeopardise social cohesiveness and harmony within the Australian community. 4. Immigration policy should be applied on a basis which is non-discriminatory. There are external restraints on the extent to which Australia can apply a non- discriminatory policy. Some countries will not allow their nationals to emigrate ; other countries allow only those with exit permits to leave; some countries will not permit the emigration of skilled and professional workers. Some countries will not allow advertising for migration purposes, others will not allow immigration offices to be established within their territories, or allow immigration officers to operate within their territories. In addition, there are varying degrees of interest in migration to Australia in particular areas. The principle of non-discrimination means that policy will be applied consistently to all applicants regardless of their race, colour, nationality, descent, national or ethnic origin or sex. 5. Applicants should be considered for migration as individuals or individual family units, not as community groups. An exception will be refugees in designated refugee situations, although even in such circumstances the criteria for selection will be related to the characteristics of individual applicants. 6. Eligibility and suitability standards for migrants should reflect Australian social mores and Australian law. Polygamous unions will not be accepted, or the entry of child fiances. The concept of immediate family, for eligibility purposes, will be derived from the Australian norm, that is, the unit consisting of husband, wife and minor unmarried children. 7. Migration to Australia should be for permanent settlement although there should be no barrier preventing the departure of persons wishing to leave. The guest-worker migration flow until recently popular in the industrialised countries of Western Europe will not be adopted for Australia. 8. While migrants will have the same rights as other Australian residents to choose their place of residence individually or collectively, enclave settlement will not be encouraged. Immigration policy will not consider communities for mass movement to Australia in situations where enclave settlement would occur. 9. Policies governing entry and settlement should be based on the premise that immigrants should integrate into Australian society. Migrants will be given every opportunity, consistent with this premise, to preserve and disseminate their ethnic heritage. Senator KILGARIFF —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. This statement accompanies the tabling of instruments which establish guidelines under legislation which was recently passed by this Parliament, the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. Honourable senators will remember that the legislation provided a framework for the administration of a system of allocation of fuel in the event that there was a liquid fuel emergency caused by difficulties either in Australia or overseas. The Opposition agrees with the statement made by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, that recent events in the Middle East are a reminder of the sorts of circumstances which have the potential to give rise to difficulties here in Australia. The legislation passed by the Senate is not simple. It provides for a quite complex set of arrangements which give the Commonwealth Government very considerable powers in the event of an emergency. The full detail, however, is not contained in the legislation. The guidelines tabled today provide the detailed mechanism which would apply if a liquid fuel emergency actually arose. The legislation provides that those guidelines are subject to disallowance by this Parliament and we have the normal period for consideration of those guidelines-I think some 15 sitting days. It is worth remembering that the original legislation was substantially amended in the Senate following very detailed discussions on the legislation between the Government and industry and between the Government and the Opposition. I acknowledged at that time the fact that the Minister was prepared to look at the very real difficulties which arose under the legislation as it was originally introduced and the amendments which were made did provide the Government with a much more workable framework for a possible emergency. I wish to reserve my position and the position of the Opposition on the details contained in the instruments tabled today. I note with regret the Minister's statement that it has not proved possible to simplify the language in the guidelines as the Minister and others would have wished. I did at the time the legislation was being debated ask the Minister whether some attempt could be made to simplify what was proposed because it is complex to the point where those who have to use the regulations or the instruments in a practical sense will have some difficulty. I note with, I suppose what I would call second rate satisfaction, the fact that the Minister has acknowledged the difficulty and has directed his Department to prepare a plain language guide to the Act and to the guidelines in order that they may be more readily understood in the community. It is a sad thing that we have reached the stage that the laws passed by this Parliament and the subordinate legislation which is made under those laws is so complex that it is incapable of being understood by those who have to rely on it and who have to use it and we have to turn to plain man's guides. I say that not in any adversary or divisive sense; it is a real problem. A great deal of Commonwealth legislation is almost beyond the wit of the expert to understand, let alone the inexpert whom it also governs. I simply say to the Senate that we should all be conscious of this problem and those honourable senators such as Senator Tate opposite who have some role in perusing legislation in a formal sense through the Senate's committee arrangements, and indeed all of us, should be concerned to try to produce the simplest legislative guides possible to the community. So I give the Government notice that we will carefully examine the guidelines which have been laid down by Senator Walsh this afternoon. Of course we will, as not doubt he has, consult carefully with industry to try to ensure that there is a practical working system on which the people of Australia can rely should we have the misfortune to have a liquid fuel emergency, and we will do our best to ensure that the Opposition makes a positive contribution to ensuring that we are not damaged unnecessarily should such an emergency arise. As it appears that no one else wishes to speak, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. (Quorum formed) Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by Senator Chipp: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.43) —Senator Jessop will be the main speaker for the Opposition in the debate on the Customs (Prohibition of Importation of Nuclear Hardware) Bill 1984. I just want to make a couple of preliminary remarks. I understand that a speaker from the Government side will speak very shortly. This Bill represents a part of a Bill which was previously brought before the Senate by Senator Chipp. I believe that he performs something of a service in bringing the Bill before the Senate, even though I have a fundamental disagreement with him with respect to what he proposes. In very broad terms, the Bill would impose a general prohibition on the importation of nuclear hardware with some exceptions being permitted for medical and industrial purposes. I will leave the detailing of those exceptions to Senator Jessop and, I hope, in due course to a Government Minister if one appears. The concern of the Opposition in this matter is that we are totally at odds with Senator Chipp on the principle. Indeed, the Senate will have some further opportunity to debate this principle when the statement on the Slatyer committee of inquiry is tabled in the Senate later this afternoon. There really is a fundamental difference between us. That difference lies in the Opposition's belief that it is in the interests of Australia and the world that we should advance the peaceful use of nuclear energy at the same time as we should play a very active part in ensuring that the negative side of nuclear possibilities, the possibility of nuclear war, is fought against as substantially as possible. Senator Georges —Your problem is that you cannot separate them. Senator CHANEY —In a sense the difference which lies between some of us is encapsulated in the interjection of Senator Georges who says that the two things cannot be separated. That is a view which I am sure he holds very dearly, although I am not sure it is a view he will necessarily vote to support. The Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. Bob Hawke, expressed the precisely contrary view in an address to the University of Western Australia just before Easter. I do not have that address with me at the moment but I will quote from it in the course of debate later this afternoon. The Opposition's view is clear and is gaining more and more support as more people in the community are prepared to take the time to examine the detailed arguments. The Bill provides a service insofar as it focuses attention on a genuine difference of opinion which exists in the Australian community but it represents a minority view and a view which in fact is very wrong. It is not for me to make out the full case. That will be done on behalf of the Opposition by Senator Jessop. I will resume my seat shortly and let him get at it. In any event, whilst Senator Chipp has refined his proposition and has opened up some exceptions to the original total prohibition he proposed and those exceptions relate to some aspects of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, it is the clear view of the Opposition that the exceptions he has permitted are not wide enough. They do not cover many of the acceptable and proper uses of nuclear energy at present in this community. For that reason alone the Bill is impractical. In any event, it is wrong to take the totally negative approach which is being adopted by Senator Chipp in this Bill. Whilst it is possible to admire the strength with which he holds and propounds the view, the Opposition takes the stance that he is wrong and it is becoming increasingly confident that the Government, which has had a rather divided view on these matters, is moving to a view which has much more in common with that of the Opposition. We have yet to see the Prime Minister's statement which, I think, is being put down in the House of Representatives about now, but when we debate that later in the afternoon I think there will be cause for some pleasure in the fact that there is some coming together of views on these matters, with the Government moving steadily in the direction which has been advocated by the Opposition in recent years. I speak to indicate the Opposition's attitude to this Bill, but I leave the more detailed arguments to my colleague, Senator Jessop. (Quorum formed) Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.50) —I intend simply to make some remarks for a few minutes before the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, enters the debate, as did the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. The Australian Democrats, in the person of Senator Chipp, brought into the Senate this Bill for an Act to prohibit the importation of nuclear hardware and for purposes connected there with. I think it has to be recognised that this Bill represents a very considerable advance in the attitude of the Australian Democrats to the uses to which a community may put this remarkable element, uranium. The fact is that in October of last year a private member's Bill was introduced into this chamber by the Democrats. As I recall, that Bill dealt with an absolute prohibition on the export of uranium and yellowcake and on the importation of nuclear hardware. It was pointed out in the course of debate that this would have a very detrimental and drastic effect on the operations of the nuclear reactor research establishment at Lucas Heights which plays a very important role, among other things, in the provision of medical isotopes. I think it was conceded by the Democrats that there would have to be some modification of their absolute prohibition of the importation of nuclear hardware if the Australian Atomic Energy Commission were to continue to provide that service to those suffering from various diseases in Australia, principally cancer, who are dependent upon the production of those medical isotopes. I see that in the Bill the Democrats envisage that permission be granted by the Minister for Resources and Energy to import nuclear hardware if he is satisfied that the hardware is essential for the purpose of enabling the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to maintain its capacity to produce isotopes for medical or industrial use. I think that it is important both philosophically and ideologically and also represents a real breakthrough that there has been an admission by the Australian Democrats that this element can have uses which are beneficial for mankind, if the community is prepared to put the most stringent safeguards on the use of this resource and direct use of that resource to matters which are truly beneficial to mankind. Whilst they are not yet prepared to go so far as to say that the production of electrical energy for peaceful purposes and perhaps commercial profit is such a beneficial use of this material , nevertheless their concession that medical isotopes are such is, I think, a very important breakthrough. I believe we ought to congratulate the Democrats on their openness to that possibility. The Democrats talk not only about medical isotopes but also industrial isotopes. That is another important use of isotopes . It strikes me that the definition is still a little narrow in that we know that isotopes are also used for agricultural reasons, for hydrology and in various environmental studies. These uses are extremely important. Its use in hydrology is particularly important as it traces the movement of underground water systems in Australia. This is extremely crucial to our understanding of that water resource which is so essential to the development of our agriculture and the production of wealth and employment in this country. What is disappointing about this definition is that it would not allow, if it were implemented, the Atomic Energy Commission to carry out research into the properties of substances such as synroc. It does not seem to envisage-I do not know whether Senator Chipp intended this-the Australian Atomic Energy Commission playing any part in the important role of trying to find out how we can entrap nuclear wastes and ensure that they are held in form over future generations which provides no risk, or as little risk as is scientifically and humanly possible to achieve, in the irradiation of persons or substances coming into contact with leached or escaping nuclear materials. It seems to me that the least one could expect of the Commission would be that it engage in the world-wide search for a surer means of dealing with radioactive wastes. It seems to me that that ought to be part of any scheme which allowed the Commission, under very stringent safeguards , to remain in operation at Lucas Heights in order to carry out certain experiments. I note that the Democrats' Bill provides for a very elaborate system of laying before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of a declaration by the Minister of a granting of permission to import certain hardware. I believe that would be a useful technique for the community, not merely Ministers or parliamentarians who are members of special committees, to keep an eye on things . The public exposure of permissions granted can be well appreciated in a situation in which the public needs its confidence built up as to the adequacy, stringency and purposes for which the Atomic Energy Commission is able to carry out certain experiments and the production of certain isotopes. Briefly, I believe this Bill is a very considerable advance in the Democrats' thinking. I believe it is to be welcomed for that reason. I think that the Bill is still somewhat narrow. As I say, it does not allow the Atomic Energy Commission, as I read it, to deal with research into the disposal of nuclear wastes. For that reason, I am unable to support the Bill at the moment. Senator Chaney —I rise to a point of order. The Opposition, in an attempt to be co-operative, has- Senator Gareth Evans —That is not a point of order. Senator Chaney —The failure of the Government to have a Minister in this place to deal with the Bill is inexcusable. The discourtesy of the Attorney-General, who is at the table now, is typical. I merely wish to say that the Opposition has tried to co-operate to prevent the Government making a fool of itself. The Government has an obligation to respond to the Bill. We have had the courtesy from Senator Tate of trying to provide some filler while the Minister for Resources and Energy collects his thoughts. It is the normal procedure in this place for the Government to put its views on a private member's Bill and the Opposition awaits that privilege. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.58) —I do not plead guilty to all the charges laid by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, but I did have one or two pressing matters to attend to this afternoon and I apologise for not being in the Senate at the ideal time. If Senator Chaney wants to know the Government's response to the Customs ( Prohibition of Importation of Nuclear Hardware) Bill, it is, as Senator Tate has indicated, that we cannot accept it. There has been a Government decision not to support the Bill. It is an updated and improved version of the Bill which the Australian Democrats introduced last year and which sought to prohibit the importation of the materials necessary to continue the research and other work which is conducted at Lucas Hieghts; whereas this Bill provides exceptions which allow ministerial approval for materials necessary to maintain the Lucas Heights establishment, provided those materials are used solely for the production of medical or industrial isotopes. It appears to me that the Democrats are not aware of the impossibility of operating either HIFAR or MOATA reactors exclusively for that purpose. If the reactor is active at all it will produce products other than those which are of an industrial or medical nature only. For example, I am advised that the HIFAR reactor is involved in the production of isotopes for sedimentation studies-that is, studies on the movement of sand in estuaries and near shore areas. The reactor is involved also in environmental studies-for example, the movement of heavy metals in the Northern Territory uranium mining areas-and flow studies of gases and liquids in pipes, ponds and termite tracing. Neutron beam facilities provide an important research tool for the study of the structure of materials, including semi-conductors, biological membranes, metal alloys and a wide range of chemicals. I am advised that at present all of HIFAR' s horizontal neutron beam facilities are in use by universities. That work is being co-ordinated through the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering. In addition, a wide range of materials are irradiated in the HIFAR reactor for a number of different purposes. Such materials include samples of synroc, which as Senator Tate indicated are irradiated in support of the development of the material as a medium for the long term disposal of radioactive waste. I would be surprised if that was a line of inquiry or research work which the Democrats would want to stop. The Atomic Energy Commission has initiated a commercial activity based on the irradiation of silicon for application in electrical and electronic industries. The operation of the reactor also has some importance in the safeguards and research and development area. Several projects within Australia's proposed support program to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards are based on the use of HIFAR-for example, to safeguard approaches for irradiated spent fuel storage ponds and the burning and cooling time measurements of fuel elements. In practice, HIFAR is used to produce radio isotopes for medical and industrial purposes on a continuous basis while it is at power. It is not technical feasible to isolate from the other aspects the medical and industrial aspects or components of HIFAR's output. Therefore, the advice that I have received is that the practical effect-I know it is not the intended effect-of the Democrats' Bill would be to close down the HIFAR reactor. Similar considerations apply to the smaller MOATA reactor, which is currently used to analyse minerals and ores, using neutron activation analysis, neutron radiography of industrial components and plants, as well as facilitating research on neutron beams for cancer therapy and limited radio isotope production when HIFAR is shut down. It seems to me-and I think it has probably occurred to Senator Chipp too-that some of those activities could be classified as industrial or medical. They are related to industrial or medical but the terms in which the Bill is written are so restrictive, we believe, that the practical effect of the Bill, if it were to become an Act, would be to suspend the operation of both the HIFAR and the MOATA reactors. Again, I know this is not the intention of the Bill, but I think it is worth making the point that the operation of a nuclear facility in Australia for medical, industrial, agricultural or pure research purposes is significant in that it enables Australia to supply nuclear technology to countries which do not have any indigenous nuclear facilities. It is a well established view inside and outside the International Atomic Energy Agency that that sort of technical assistance for countries which do not have any nuclear facilities could be used as a lever, if you like, or an incentive for those countries to abide by more strictly or to continue to abide by the effective international control of nuclear energy and of all nuclear activity. In other words, it is an incentive which we can offer other countries which would make more effective the international agreements and rules governing nuclear technology. Senator Chipp —Has the United States of America been able to use that leverage to stop Pakistan or India making a bomb? Senator WALSH —The advice I have is that Pakistan is not in that position. It is believed, indeed I think it is well established, that the Indians have made a nuclear explosive device-I am not sure how efficient it is as a bomb-and that steps have been taken to see that that could not be repeated. I thought that most of the materials supplied to India came from Canada and not the United States. Anyway, I do not think that is a valid analogy to what I am saying. I am not suggesting that Australia would be supplying reactors to other countries; I am suggesting that we would be supplying to other countries the completely benign products which come out of nuclear establishments. I do not really think there is much more that I can say. I acknowledge that the underlying intentions of this Bill are benign, but its effects would be far more wide-ranging than I believe the Australian Democrats realise. If it were passed it effectively would close down the Lucas Heights establishment. This would not only deprive Australia of access to benign nuclear research on the products of nuclear facilities which have application in industry and in medicine; it would also prevent Australia from being in a position to be a supplier of those benign products to, generally, smaller countries in our region, although they would not necessarily have to be smaller countries. Finally, the Atomic Energy Commission is a significant employer. The total number of staff at Lucas Heights is of the order of 1,200. I am sure that Senator Mason, at least, would not like to see an employer of that significance having to close down and dismiss all those employees. I guess that Senator Mason has an appreciation of and indeed a direct interest in the maintenance of employment in his electorate of New South Wales. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.08) —Senator Chaney has indicated that the Opposition will not support the Customs (Prohibition of Importation of Nuclear Hardware) Bill, and this is for very good reasons. I agree with Senator Walsh that, although the Bill provides for importation of materials that will assist in the manufacture of medical isotopes, it has some tremendous deficiencies. Essentially, the Bill is aimed at prohibiting the importation of, firstly, enrichment equipment; secondly, reactor components, including fuel rods and, thirdly, spent fuel rods, unless these are to be used solely by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in the production of medical or industrial isotopes. Unfortunately, as Senator Walsh has pointed out, the operations of the Atomic Energy Commission with respect to the HIFAR reactor go a lot further than merely producing medical isotopes. It produces isotopes for other purposes, for example , for agriculture and hydrology, and for scientific research by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and universities. Senator Walsh mentioned Synroc research, which is a very significant part of the activity of the AAEC, developing the technology that has been initiated by Professor Ringwood of the Australian National University. This will contribute quite a lot to safety in relation to highly radioactive storage technology. I know that the many countries that have nuclear power stations operating at present are concerned that maximum safety standards are explored in the storage of highly radioactive waste, and they are giving very careful consideration to including the Synroc process in this context. This could mean a lot to Australia so far as export income is concerned. Senator Townley —Technology transfers. Senator JESSOP —Exactly so. Unfortunately in the past Australia has failed to recognise that it is a world leader in many research initiatives, and the synroc process is a classic example of that. The efforts that are being employed by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, in developing this process to an industrial stage, will mean a lot to Australia in the future in selling this technology, transferring it to other countries. There are other aspects of the HIFAR reactor's operations that would be inhibited if this Bill were passed. The Commission is engaged in non-destructive testing, in semiconductor and radiation physics, forensic studies, nuclear safeguards research and development, and fusion studies, which is a most significant aspect of its activities. I think the Australian Democrats fail to recognise that HIFAR is designed for continuous operation and it would not be practicable to operate it in the way apparently envisaged in this Bill. It could not be shut down when not irradiating targets for medical or industrial isotopes and restarted when again required for that purpose. Thus the Bill would again have the effect of leading to the closure of the HIFAR operation. To all intents and purposes this is Australia's only indigenous source of radio isotopes. The Bill would also lead to the closure of the other reactor, the MOATA, which is not used for isotopic production and hence, under the Bill, could not be refuelled. The uses of this reactor include the analysis of ores, wastes, radiography of plants and industrial samples, and archaeological dating. A lot of very interesting work has been done by the Atomic Energy Commission with respect to the historical origin of much of our ground waters. In fact, some time ago I visited Lucas Heights and was impressed by the carbon dating procedures they were carrying out, which indicated, for example, that the ground waters in the Simpson Desert area dated back something like 500,000 years. That does not sound very important, but I regard water resources as being fundamental to Australia's future. The proposed restrictions on imports of equipment suitable for uranium enrichment could affect the project on the safeguarding of research and development scale centrifuge enrichment plants being undertaken by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Australian Safeguards Office on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The restriction could also affect the extension of enrichment technology to other areas which are now under examination, including the separation of isotopes for waste treatment purposes. The definition of nuclear hardware used in the Bill could apply to analytical instruments such as mass spectrometers and to apparatus such as fusion vessels and particle accelerators. Restrictions of this nature would have a much wider impact than just on the Atomic Energy Commission as such instruments and apparatus are used by a number of other institutions in Australia. I respect the motivation of the Democrats. Senator Chipp is obviously sincere in believing he is going to do some good by stopping the nuclear industry in Australia. He believes, I think quite genuinely, that preventing our materials going overseas and preventing nuclear hardware materials from coming to Australia will have a miraculous effect. Senator Chipp —No. Senator JESSOP —Well, it seems to me that the honourable senator does. Whenever we mention the question of nuclear weapons, we all support disarmament. There is no question about that. Then we find that the Flat Earth people on the opposite side-when I refer to the Flat Earth people I mean the socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party-suddenly start confusing two issues, nuclear weapons and the generation of electricity through nuclear power stations. They are two separate issues as far as I am concerned and as far as the people who have bothered to study the whole problem are concerned. At the moment there are very serious diplomatic consultations going on in the world with respect to nuclear disarmament. There is only one way this will be achieved and that is through very intense and careful diplomatic discussion. I was talking to a European ambassador only the other day, and he agreed with a statement that was offered to me by an expert from our Department of Foreign Affairs who has dealt with the non-proliferation matter over a number of years. They agree that the only way to stop nuclear armament is for the two super- powers to de-escalate their armaments. At that time, if both the super-powers de -escalate their armaments and start reducing their capacity in that area, we will be able to get on side the British, the Red Chinese-the mainland Chinese who are also involved in this area-and the French. At that stage we might be able to see a real result in the matters that concern us all. The nuclear power industry is an entirely different proposition. As we all know, if we have read the agreements with countries to which we provide uranium for their own use, we will find very stringent provisions laid down. For example, last year Senator Mason told us what we are told by members of the Caldicott family, who occasionally come out here to give us the benefit of their enlightened knowledge . They inform us through the media that our Australian uranium, which is used to generate power in Finland, finds its way to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and is reprocessed for the extraction of plutonium. Senator Chipp —Does that make you feel proud? Senator JESSOP —That demonstrates the total ignorance of Senator Chipp and his colleagues. I have been trying to be kind to Senator Chipp but he makes it very difficult when he starts talking a lot of nonsense. I do not know whether Senator Chipp has read the agreement between Australia and Finland; I dare to suggest that he has not for, if he had, he would know that article 7 of the agreement provides: Nuclear material subject to this agreement shall be (a) transfer beyond the jurisdiction of the recipient Party, (b) enriched to more than 20 percent in the isotope. U235, or (c) reprocessed, only with the prior written consent of the supplier Party, Senator Chipp —You believe that rubbish, do you? Senator JESSOP —I might be naive but I have yet to learn from anyone in authority or with knowledge, as Senator Chipp purports to have, that any transfer of material has taken place between Finland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I should like the honourable senator to produce some evidence to enlighten me if the situation is otherwise. Senator Chipp —How many nuclear bombs were not made from uranium? There are 50, 000 of them in the world now. Senator JESSOP —If I were Senator Chipp, I would be more worried about other things at the moment. Senator Chipp —The fate of the world is not important! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator Jessop, you will address your remarks to the Chair. Senator JESSOP —Certainly, Mr Acting Deputy President, I become distracted occasionally. I have already stated there would not be one person in this Parliament, and probably in Australia, who would not support that view on nuclear disarmament. There are other things that I would be worried about. What about laser weapons that are currently being explored, developed and exploited? They present an incredible threat to the community of the world. Senator Georges —Especially when it is added to the other threat. Senator JESSOP —Without being distracted further, I suggest that people ought to examine the subject in a scientific and engineering way, if that is possible. Senator Chipp —Also a moral way. Senator JESSOP —I hold the view that Australia has an obligation to provide its abundant natural resources to the rest of the world, for many countries have no resources of their own. I am one who believes that is a very important moral responsibility of Australia. It concerns me that Australia should be divided on this matter. I like to think that the Labor Party is gradually coming round to the idea that the nuclear fuel cycle will present tremendous benefits to Australia. It is the most satisfactory environmental energy source as far as I am concerned-far more suitable than coal-fired power stations. For example, problems are being experienced in Germany. I have read that 80 per cent of its forests are dying simply because of acid rain produced by coal-fired power stations. We need to have another look at the question of producing power in the conventional way. Recently I noticed a reference by Senator Chipp to several other alternative energy sources, in a letter to the editor of the Australian Financial Review. But he stated little in that letter about what the alternatives were. I tried to appreciate what he was getting at and replied in this way; that it has been estimated that all the alternative energy sources available in Britain-which include hydro power, tidal power, wave power, wind power, solar power, geothermal power and refuse conversion-would contribute an upper limit of only 15 per cent of that country's total electricity requirements by the turn of the century. Senator Chipp —What is your source for that? Senator JESSOP —My source happens to be the Uranium Information Centre. Senator Chipp —Ha, ha! Senator JESSOP —That has been checked by researchers from outside that organisation, from universities. I do not believe any one source. I checked in several ways to make sure that that is correct. That would be substantiated also by authorities in the United Kingdom, if Senator Chipp cares to take the trouble to check it. I repeat that all those alternative forms of energy would provide a maximum of 15 per cent of Britain's total electricity requirements by the turn of the century. Those alternatives would still not be able to be substituted for base load power generation required 24 hours a day. It cannot seriously be suggested that the current listed alternative energy sources would be able to replace nuclear and coal-fired power stations. Senator Chipp talked about alternative technology having many environmental effects. But Austria is currently planning to build 50 hydro-electricity projects by 1997, to cope with an anticipated 3.2 to 3.6 per cent annual increase in electricity demand. Of course environmentalists will be protesting about that because that will require the construction of more than 23 new dams. I guess the next thing we know we will be dealing with that problem. Australia must develop its nuclear industry in a peaceful way. We also should not exclude construction of a nuclear power station in Australia. Senator Chipp —What about a bomb? Do you think we should make a bomb? Senator JESSOP —No, I do not think we want any bombs. I am not suggesting we make bombs. That is the immediate and emotive reaction we have come to expect from Senator Chipp. Senator Chipp —If Indonesia got a bomb, would you advocate our making one? Senator JESSOP —I am a peaceful person. I would not advocate that. I believe non -proliferation is the way to go, and that is what I support. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some letters to editors of various newspapers. They will reinforce what I have had to say. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- Australian Financial Review 10 April 1984 Economically anti-uranium Sir, Your editorial on uranium (AFR, 29/3/84), like many you have written on this topic, conveys the impression that all opponents of uranium mining propagate inchoate fears, horror stories and twilight fantasies. This is not the case. Many people who oppose uranium mining have exceptionally valid economic arguments, that the proponents of the nuclear fuel cycle choose to ignore or distort. Consider the following: When all facets of a nuclear reactor are included in the cost estimates, nuclear generated electricity is costing $9,000 per kilowatt delivered. That means it is costing a power utility $90,000 to provide the electricity required to heat a house; more than the cost of the entire house itself. January, 1984 brought three announcements of nuclear reactors being cancelled in the US. With costs as above, that is not surprising. When the US Energy Information Administration surveyed 47 reactors in January it found 36 cost at least twice as much as originally projected, and 13 of these cost four times as much. According to the Energy Information administration, renewable energy resources- mainly solar and wind-provide twice as much delivered energy as nuclear power. Renewable energy resources are the fastest growing sector despite the government disincentives they have overcome, and despite the government incentives offered to the least efficient energy technologies such as nuclear power. Despite government's distortion of the market, consumer choice is clearly opting for the cheaper, more efficient renewable energy technologies. These technologies are not a pipedream of the future. They are available and being chosen by consumers now. Pro-nuclear advocates who also claim to be advocates of market forces should recognise that the market is clearly advocating renewable technologies above all else. These are crucial issues, in addition to the non-proliferation question, for Australia. We cannot export a commodity that supports a totally inefficient, uneconomical and dangerous industry. DON CHIPP Leader of the Australian Democrats Australian Financial Review 17 April 1984 Economics of nuclear power Sir, It is interesting to note that senator Chipp, in another attack on domestic nuclear power (AFR, 10/4/84), has refrained from resorting to the much used emotive argument that civil nuclear power programs lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Perhaps he has discovered the existence of abundant evidence against this argument. The Democrats are now declaring that electricity generated by nuclear power stations is uneconomic when all facets are included in the cost estimates. This is incorrect and to persist with this view is deceptive. All power stations, whether they be nuclear or conventional, include in the estimated cost of electricity generation such factors as the grid loss and the operational ''down-time'' of the plant. Extra cost facets of nuclear power facilities cover their financial and technical responsibility for the waste they generate and the de-commissioning of the plant. These companies do not foolishly absorb these costs only to pay them out later when the power station ceases to operate. Rather, they are all included in the total cost of power production and are passed on to the community. Yet, with all these costs included, 31 countries have decided to turn to nuclear power because it is economical and cost-competitive. Scotland is one example. There nuclear power accounted for 38.8 per cent of all electricity generated in 1982-83, and the cost of nuclear electricity was 2.21p/ kWh as compared with 2.92p/kWh for coal and oil-fired stations. It is unfortunate that the Democrats base their anti-uranium mining campaign on highly selective information peculiar to a limited number of reactors overseas, some of which have not yet been completed, when the vast majority of the 306 nuclear power stations currently operating have been producing, and will continue to produce, cheap, essential electricity for millions of the world's people. D. S. JESSOP, Senator for South Australia, Parliament House, Canberra. Australian Financial Review 16 May 1984 Nuclear power economics Sir: Congratulations to Senator Jessop (AFR, April 17) for scolding Senator Chipp (AFR, April 10) about his distortions concerning nuclear power economics. I admit to skyhigh construction costs for selected US reactors not yet completed , and to cancellations which really were rooted in the recession and resultant drop in demand for electricity, but we must not let Senator Chipp's other distortions blind us to the tremendous benefits accruing to electricity users in large areas of the US. Those fortunate enough to live in an area served by pioneering nuclear utilities have fared very well. For example, in 1981 and 1982, the Commonwealth Edison Co of Chicago, Illinois, generated about 26 trillion kWh of electricity from nuclear reactors. Uranium was the source of 45 per cent of all the power Commonwealth Edison Co produced in those years. The most cost savings due to nuclear generation over that which would have occurred if the same energy had been generated from low sulphur coal amounted to an average of about $600 million in both years, and over $2 billion compared with oil. To put a ''bottom line'' aspect to these numbers, the 10-year savings on the Commonwealth Edison system due to nuclear generation as compared to the use of low-sulphur coal (with which Commonwealth has extensive experience) are over $3 billion, which is equivalent to almost three times the current investment Edison has in the plants installed in the early 1970s. Solar and wind power have their place. Solar, especially, will grow in Australia where the latitude and climate favour its use, but a technological breakthrough is needed for solar electricity generation and for its storage for use at any time. As for wind, I suggest you let any engineer make the numbers and one sees quickly it is all right for the outback but not for large scale power generation . It all boils down to the fact that for future electric power needs, the world must depend on nuclear and coal power generation. RALPH W. DEUSTER, Senior Vice-president, Getty Oil Development Company Ltd, Minerals Division, North Sydney. Australian Financial Review 17 May 1984 Nuclear power and efficiency Sir: Mr Sorentino's letter (AFR, May 3) displays the expected one-track thinking favoured by a number of pro-nuclear advocates. We are proud to have been assisted in our work by Mr Amory Lovins. Mr Lovins is a distinguished academic who has advised US Presidents and many government leaders worldwide on energy policy. He is at the forefront of a revolutionary approach to energy policy, the ''soft -path'' strategy. Mr Lovins's advice is so well regarded that many US power utilities are hiring him to get them out of nuclear power. The ''soft-path'' strategy has made clear that any new centralised electricity generating plant is uneconomic in the face of energy efficiency improvements and renewable resources. Nuclear power is just the most uneconomic source out of many uneconomic sources. Indeed, many coal plants have been cancelled and since 1981, in the US, no new ones have been ordered. I acknowledge and welcome that. The reason is simple: the market is favouring the alternative technologies I describe over the centralised sources of coal or nuclear power. The growth in nuclear power that is cited in favour of the industry in misleading. Reactors are under construction at the moment, not because of recent policy decisions, but because of delays and overruns caused by the inefficiencies of the technology. They are the results of decisions taken in the mid-1970s when the alternative technologies were in a formative stage. The best energy saving devices have come on to the market in the last two years , and thus have not been able to have an impact on reactors under construction. The economic arguments-which have so many environmental and non-proliferation benefits as well-do not produce the coal versus nuclear conflict that Mr Sorentino concentrates on but rather the centralised sources versus efficiency improvements and renewable resources I have described. DON CHIPP, Leader, Australian Democrats, Parliament House, Canberra. Australian Financial Review 25 May 1984 No nuclear conspiracy Sir, Senator Jessop (AFR, April 17) is correct and Dr Mark Diesendorf (AFR, May 1) and Senator Don Chipp (AFR, May 17) are wrong regarding the cost competitiveness of base load nuclear power plant. I consider Diesendorf's letter a devious exercise in irrelevance and another demonstration of the extravagant rhetoric of the seasoned anti-nuclear campaigner. It is beginning to wear thin on thinking Australians. Ignoring the red herrings of ''US Government subsidies, wind power, the Reagan Administration, weapons to be used against striking coalminers, plutonium, etc'' this letter is a montage of out-of-context snippets by one who, apparently, has never done his homework on nuclear energy costing. Irrefutable facts, based on the cold, hard free market economics of industrialised countries with nuclear power programs-even those rich in other fuels-show that nuclear energy costs based on capital construction of plant and fuel cycle costs (including research and development and plant decommissioning) are substantially less than that for coal and petroleum. Does Diesendorf seriously challenge the audited, governmentally approved annual statistical reports of the relevant statutory authorities of France, Japan, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Belgium, West Germany, the Soviet Union, Spain and many others? With regard to the US, Diesendorf conveniently neglects the reality that each State and each utility has to be considered separately. The fortunate States which had developed their power systems before the advent of ''uranium neurosis' ' have an enormous advantage in terms of the cost of nuclear electricity. They are the envy of those members of the American community caught up in the costly concomitants of successful plant construction delays inspired by the anti- nuclear lobby. Any form of cost accounting can be challenged but, in Britain, the historical cost accounting of the Central Electricity Generating Board has been uniformly applied to coal, oil and nuclear plant and has shown a significant advantage for the last option. The innuendo of the word ''misleading'' hides the reality that all forms of accounting demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of Britain's magnox stations. In regard to British advanced gas-cooled reactors or possible pressurised water reactors, the cost calculations will not have much meaning until a large number of these new-generation nuclear plants are in operation. If Diesendorf and Martin concentrate on cost calculations for ''commercially available, medium-sized, wind-driven generators'' for Lord Howe or Rottnest Islands or similar isolated locations they will render the Australian community some service. I think we can leave the costing of base load 1,000 megawatt power plants in highly industrialised countries in the hands of indigenous experts. The fact that nuclear power is by far the most rapidly growing form of energy on a global basis is not because of an international conspiracy by vested interests, but due to informed, clear-thinking realism. Those readers of The Australian Financial Review who wish to have access to facts on this topic might do well to consult the recently published book, The Economics of Nuclear Energy, edited by Brookes and Motamen and published by Chapman and Hall. LESLIE KEMENY, Senior Lecturer in Nuclear Engineering University of NSW, Sydney. Australian Financial Review 29 May 1984 Chipp should do homework Sir, if the Australian Democrats' opposition to uranium mining is based on arguments such as the ones presented in Senator Chipp's letter (AFR, May 17) then I must sadly conclude that some politicians prefer rhetoric to rational discourse. The senator, as many other modern Luddites, is now saying that not only nuclear power is bad, but all forms of centralised energy generation are also to be condemned. To him the answer is in ''soft energy strategies'' as proposed by Amory Lovins, a so-called ''distinguished academic''. According to a group of 41 energy experts, from 18 countries and international agencies, working under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, the relative capital costs per kW average output for different types of generating stations are-in relative monetary units-coal 100, nuclear 174, wind 426, waves 648, and solar 1,495 (one unit being approximately equal to $5.45 at 1981 values). When the costs of capital investment, operation, maintenance and fuel are taken into account, the average costs of electricity per kW/h for the 11 countries included in the study show nuclear power to be 41.7 per cent cheaper than coal- fuelled stations. If Senator Chipp would for once consider the alternative view, he could obtain the study I mentioned above. It retails for only $8. Senator Chipp prefers to mislead us by restating once again that cancellation of electrical facilities in the US is the consequence of market forces. It must be understood that in that country electrical power generating capacity is largely in excess of demand. The US, with the largest per capita consumption of energy in the world, is one of the few countries where small increases in energy efficiency will result in considerable savings of their often inefficient use of power. This is not the case for most of the rest of mankind, and certainly offers no hopes to the have-nots of our unfortunate world. To say that nuclear power is expanding not because of recent policy decisions but because of overruns and inefficiences is to ignore that in the last six months of 1983, the construction of seven new reactors has been announced ( reports in Time, February 13, 1984, and AFR, April 10, 1984). It is also to ignore that in its most recent annual report the World Bank recommends the investment of $53.2 billion in nuclear energy for developing countries in the period from 1984 to 1995. I would respectfully suggest the senator must do his homework better. In typical fashion, Senator Chipp calls his opponents one-track minded. It seems then that his qualification must also apply to the OECD, the World Bank, the Commission of the European Countries, the International Energy Agency, and dozens more of the professional organisations that happen to disagree with the vague and emotional arguments of the Leader of the Democrats. Consider the following: 72.5 per cent of the global consumption of 134.9 billion barrels of oil equivalent in 1980 was supplied from oil and gas, 45.5 per cent from oil (World Bank, World Development Report 1983). According to the best available estimates, oil and gas production supply will fall behind demand some time in the next 15 years, and therefore is to be expected that recent oil price fluctuations will be short-lived and to be followed by supply-inelastic prices. (A.R. Flower, Sc. Am. March 1978). Moreover , replacement of oil and gas by coal may demand the annual production of 15 billion tonnes of coal equivalent in the year 2000, seven and a half times the current production, clearly an unattainable goal even in the most optimistic scenario. The poorer three-fourths of the world population, with a per capita GDP one fourth of the world average, currently consume only, one-fifth of all the fuel produced in the world, demonstrably well below optimum energy sufficiency. (Word Bank, ibid.) To bring them to energy sufficiency with fossil fuels will result in the exhaustion of this finite source of energy in the first half of the next century. How is the senator proposing to solve this most pressing crisis? Perhaps the answer is in ''soft technologies'' such as wood burning in the caves! Simply stated, senator, real energy options are but a few; Lovins ''soft energy'' is nothing but pie in the sky. On the safety issue, an exhaustive risk assessment for each of the major energy sources-oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear-as well as for a host of renewable resources, including wind, ocean thermal, solar space heating photovoltaics and methanol, arrived at the conclusion that renewable sources of energy posed risks as great, and often greater than, conventional energy sources. Perhaps more importantly is the observation that nuclear energy is less risky overall (by about a factor of 10) than almost any other energy source, conventional or otherwise (H. Inhaber, ''Energy Risk Assessment'', Gordon and Breach, NY, 1982). Finally, Senator Chipp calls Amory Lovins a distinguished academic and claims that ''many US utilities are hiring him to get them out of nuclear power''. Being a latter-day Thomas, I seriously doubt these assertions and call on Senator Chipp to substantiate them. C. SORENTINO, East Ryde, NSW Senator JESSOP —The Opposition is totally opposed to this Bill for reasons which I think are obvious. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.29) —in reply-Mr Acting Deputy President, thank you for the call. I do point out that I close the debate and I would not wish to preclude any other senator from speaking. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —Yes, I recognise that Senator Chipp , but no one else has risen to speak. (Quorum formed) Senator CHIPP —Although every honourable senator thinks that the private member' s Bill he introduces is the most important Bill ever to be debated by the Senate , I would have thought that a Bill brought in by me which is designed totally to preclude any opportunity Australia has of ever becoming a nuclear power, of ever building its own nuclear bomb, would have attracted more than 45 minutes debate in this place and would have brought more than five senators to their feet. I believe it is an absolute scandal, an absolute disgrace and an absolute condemnation of the major political parties in this country that a matter upon which the fate and safety of every Australian might well depend attracts only five speakers. Senator Townley —I take a point of order. Many people who wanted to speak on this matter were asked not to do so by the Whips because they want to get to a vote. I believe that Senator Chipp knows that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator CHIPP —Can I speak to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, there is no point of order. The honourable senator has the call and he can speak to the motion. Senator CHIPP —Thank you. I would have liked the opportunity of replying to the point of order raised by Senator Townley. Two and a half hours, beginning at a quarter to four, have been allotted for debate on General Business matters. It is now 4.30 p.m. There are still almost two hours left to debate this legislation if members of the Senate want to. The only other matter listed for debate is an important matter that has been raised by Senator MacGibbon. However , there would have been plenty of time to deal with that. I regard it as a tragedy that there seems to be so little interest in the subject before the Senate at the moment. What does the Customs (Prohibition of Importation of Nuclear Hardware) Bill 1984 seek to do? Passage of this Bill would have prevented the establishment of a nuclear industry in Australia. It would have put paid for all time to any question of Australia building a nuclear bomb. Senator Sir John Carrick —Or nuclear research. Senator CHIPP —'Or nuclear research' says Senator Sir John Carrick. Senator Walsh and Senator Jessop have made something of this point. Indeed, it would seem that the information that Senator Jessop provided was almost identical with that provided in the speech made by Senator Walsh. No doubt the information he got came from either Senator Walsh's office or the Department of Resources and Energy and, of course, there is nothing wrong with that. I want to answer the interjection of Senator Sir John Carrick and the statements of Senator Walsh and Senator Jessop about the exclusions that I have put in my Bill. Nuclear hardware could still be imported for the manufacture of industrial isotopes and medical isotopes. They said that the Bill would totally end any possibilities for research for industrial or other purposes. In answer I refer them to clause 6(2) (b), which they must have read. Sub-clause (2) states: A permission to import nuclear hardware- . . . . (b) shall not be granted to the Australian Atomic Energy Agency unless the Minister is satisfied that the nuclear hardware is essential for the purpose of enabling the Australian Atomic Energy Agency to maintain its capacity to produce isotopes for medical or industrial use; . . . . I would submit that clause 6(2)(b) would have been ample to enable a Minister to use his discretion in that regard. So I do not regard as serious the allegations that this Bill would finish any form of nuclear research for the purposes mentioned by Senator Walsh, Senator Jessop and Senator Sir John Carrick. This Bill would have allowed Australians to rest easy. Australia could not have built a nuclear bomb and it could not have added further to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in this region. I find it incredible that the Government now in power talks about a nuclear free zone and denounces French nuclear tests in the Pacific yet still allows Australia to have the capacity to build a nuclear bomb when by agreeing to this Bill it could have denied future governments or, for that matter, anybody, the opportunity of doing just that. I, along with a great number of other Australians, was terrified when I read some months ago the leaked strategic basis paper from the Defence Department as disclosed by the National Times. Nobody who read those leaked papers could conclude anything else but that the generals and the boffins over at Russell Hill want Australia to adopt a nuclear option. Is there anybody in this chamber who does not believe that the Defence Department-the generals, the admirals and the air vice-marshals-want Australia to build a nuclear bomb? There is no doubt about it. Those papers clearly indicate that. I will have something more to say about this matter when the Slatyer report is debated. But did we have a total denial from the Government on that question? We do have a statement from the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) in response to this issue. Honourable senators will remember that Senator Gareth Evans, representing the Minister for Defence in this chamber, said that the Government had accepted that statement in principle. The Minister said: The Government's commitment to support of the non-proliferation regime is absolute. This means that, as part of doing what it can to promote universal acceptance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban and a South Pacific Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, and working for international agreement on a wide range of other measures in the arms control and disarmament arena, the Government has renounced any interest of its own in developing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons. It regards that renunciation as binding and permanent. They sound like reasonable sorts of words for a government that has determined against building a nuclear bomb in Australia. After having said those words, what is this Government going to do? What is every member of the Australian Labor Party in this chamber going to do when this legislation goes to a vote within five minutes time? They are going to vote against the Bill that would nail that conclusion to its policy. They are going to vote against a Bill that would allow them to go out of this place and say: 'I put my democratic vote to a Bill that will prevent any government building a nuclear bomb in Australia'. Yet they are not going to do that. I heard some interjections from honourable senators on my right when I made a reference to those people at Russell Hill still wanting the nuclear option. Senator Jessop was gracious enough to answer an interjection I made during his speech. But during that speech Senator MacGibbon clearly said: 'I would advocate building a nuclear bomb in Australia if our neighbours acquired one'. I am not saying that Senator Jessop has this mentality because he made his position clear . But this is clearly the position adopted by some people in this place. That is why I introduced this Bill. I introduced it for those sabre-rattlers, those people who believe that nuclear proliferation is the only answer to detente or the only way in which-- Senator Elstob —You do not really believe that Australians are sabre-rattlers, do you, Senator? Senator CHIPP —I said there are some people in this place who are sabre-rattlers . There are people who would advocate the building of a nuclear bomb or advocate our having the wherewithal to build a nuclear bomb if our neighbours acquire one . There are people in this place who believe that. All I am saying is that the passage of the Bill would prevent the possibility of Australia building a nuclear bomb if our neighbours acquire one. The situation in the world now is desperate. Arthur Koestler, one of the greatest minds of our time, said in one of his last books that, because of man's incapacity to gear his emotional responses to technological explosions, man's self-induced extinction from this planet is now approaching a statistical certainty. Is that scare-monger tactics or is it the truth? Let us examine that. As I stand here today, there are 50,000 nuclear bombs in existence. Something like 36,000 of those bombs are pointing at human beings. There are some nuclear bombs pointing at Australians. That admission was made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Let us look at the arsenal of 50,000 nuclear bombs now in existence. The average bomb has 42 times the destructive power of the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My finite mind finds difficulty in comprehending that kind of destruction. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki killed about 200,000 human beings in a most devastating way. Many of them were not killed instantly but died over six-day, six-month and six-year periods. Those 50,000 bombs would kill on average 42 times 200,000. Many of them would die in a way that would make them envy the dead. I am talking about the average bomb, not the biggest bomb. The 50 megatonne bomb is certainly beyond my power to comprehend. Its destructive power is greater than the sum total of all the explosives let off in the six years of the Second World War. It would virtually fit under the desk which stands in front of you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. This is the kind of destructive power humankind has now created in this world. We now have the capacity to destroy all life on this planet within a reasonably short time, yet we continue to mine, mill and sell our uranium for profit. We persist with the myth that we are exporting our uranium to get a few dollars. That is incidental. We are not doing it because of the dollars we get for it; we are doing it because it allows us to use more leverage in international affairs to make nuclear bombs safe. Has that policy succeeded to this point? Has the production of nuclear bombs diminished since we began exporting our uranium? That argument has never been substantiated. It is like saying that if we want to prevent murders being committed in this country we have to join Murder Incorporated. I have never heard such an absurd, illogical argument. Let those who put that argument be honest and say that we are exporting our uranium for money. That is the only reason why we are exporting our uranium. If it is not for the money we are getting from exports, it is for the money that people earn from jobs. I am not saying that it is not important for people to have jobs. Of course it is. I am not saying that the people who will be disadvantaged by the cancellation of our contracts for uranium should suffer. Any person who lost his job through the banning of the exporting of uranium should not suffer at all. Those persons should be compensated from the taxes paid by the rest of the Australians who have not been so disadvantaged. If somebody said to me that that would result in a slightly lower standard of living for most Australians I would say 'So be it'; I would rather accept half the standard of living that I have now and at least have off my conscience the fact that, by my actions in exporting uranium, I am endangering the world and putting all people, particularly children, under a threat which they do not deserve. Let those who talk about nuclear bombs tell me about one nuclear bomb that has not been manufactured from uranium. Yet we continue to export it at the most scandalous and hideous rate. If the Labor Party objects to my Bill because, as Senator Tate and Senator Walsh indicated, it would be unduly restrictive of the use of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, let it make a simple amendment to it. It has been available for consideration for several weeks. If the Government feels that technically it would have been too limiting, it has the resources of its departments, and of the parliamentary counsel to make some simple amendments to my Bill to make it such that it would not be unduly restrictive. It has not done that. Clearly, this Labor Government is embracing the nuclear industry with a vigour and with a passion that would rival Malcolm Fraser's Government and other Liberal governments. It is a shame to be a part of a parliament in which one can observe that happening. The Australian Labor Party should remember that hundreds of thousands of Australians voted for it at the last election because they genuinely believed that the Labor Party wanted to defuse the nuclear situation. They believed the words and the unequivocal commitment of the Labor Party to phase out uranium mining. They believed what was said about a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. Those sorts of statements attracted hundreds of thousands of people who had never voted for Labor in their lives. They felt their children were imperilled and voted for Labor because of that. I say after consideration and not in a moment of political passion that the Labor Party has betrayed those people who cast their votes because they thought that, by voting for the Labor Party, they would find some safety. If the Government cannot amend my Bill because of some technical difficulty, why does it not produce its own Bill? Why does it not close off the nuclear option? Clearly, this Government is keeping its nuclear options open. There can be no other interpretation of the Government's action today in unanimously opposing this Bill. The only purpose of the Bill is to prevent Australia, under any circumstances, building a nuclear bomb without disadvantaging the way in which medical and industrial isotopes can be manufactured. I sometimes despair of the justifications for the nuclear industry. Senator Jessop, whom I admire in many respects, spoke about alternative uses. Surely alternative uses are the only safe and long term solution to the energy problems of England, Europe, Australia and the rest of the world. In quoting my letter to the Australian, Senator Jessop spoke about the United Kingdom experience. He said that research showed that alternative energy from wood, coal , wind, solar and tidal energy and all other alternatives would supply only 15 per cent of the needs of industry in the United Kingdom by the turn of the century. I interjected by saying: 'What is your source?' He was kind enough and gracious enough to answer my interjection by saying: 'The Uranium Information Centre'. That would be like my asking the Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd for its view on whether tobacco smoking causes lung cancer. It is ludicrous. I have two private member's Bills before the Senate. One, the Customs ( Prohibition of Exportation of Nuclear Materials) Bill 1984, is designed to ban totally the export of uranium. The Bill before us is designed to ban the importation of nuclear hardware, except for medical and industrial use. I have given up hope, because of the direction that the Australian Labor Party has taken, of its voting for the first mentioned Bill. That is why I did not bring it forward today at this opportunity to deal with private business. Clearly, the Government has taken a turn to mine the biggest uranium mine in the world at Roxby Downs. I brought forward this Bill hoping, perhaps naively, that the Government might honour its election promise by voting for it. I am about to give Government members the opportunity to stand up and be counted by calling for a division to decide whether this Bill shall pass the second reading stage. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Chipp indicated during his speech that he was distressed that there were no senators in the chamber. Senator Chipp —No, speaking on the motion. Senator HARRADINE —Well, I want to assure him that I was in the chamber for a significant portion of the debate. For a short period during Senator Chipp's speech I was not here but I could hear him over the intercom. Even if I had had the intercom turned off I probably could have heard him. I understood that a number of honourable senators wished to speak but I also understood that the mover of the motion for the second reading of this Bill wanted it to reach a conclusion today. I assure Senator Chipp that on any other occasion I would be happy to involve myself in a debate on this issue. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator MacGIBBON —I just want to answer the charge the Senator Chipp made that I had said that I was in favour of nuclear weapons. I did not say that. I asked the question, by way of interjection: What would the position be if some or all of our neighbours had nuclear weapons? Later I said that we might find that a large number of Australians would demand that their parliamentary representatives do something about it. That is quite different from saying that I personally favour nuclear weapons. I do not believe in the acquisition of nuclear weapons for Australia. I never have. I am consistent in my position. I support the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and I abhor the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. I will support any practical moves to limit them. Normally, I would have let a minor misrepresentation like this pass without talking about it but quite obviously Senator Chipp, as he is entitled to do, will distribute this speech widely around Australia. It is unacceptable to me that on such a major issue my position will be misrepresented in the Hansard. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President-Senator A. W. R. Lewis) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasBoswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Carrick, Sir John Maguire, G. R. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Childs, B. K. Messner, A. J. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Scott, D. B. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.03) —I move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke socialist Government for its negligence in opening up the north of Australia to drug runners, illegal migrants, clam poachers and other illegal fishermen, foot and mouth and other exotic animal diseases, and persons and agents with interests contrary to the national well being, by the significant downgrading of capabilities inherent in their new surveillance programs. I have moved that motion because of the significant downgrading inherent in the proposed new arrangements for coastal surveillance. Across the whole of the north of Australia-in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and particularly the northern half of Queensland-this is a matter of acute political interest. People there realise that we have neither the defence capability that we need from the Services nor the surveillance the country must have to provide the protection from a civilian point of view. They are also aware that the new Beazley report of the Labor Government makes a poor position significantly worse . If this is the way the Government is going to interpret the needs of the north of Australia and as a result the need for protection of the whole of Australia, we face a very bleak future. It is time someone spoke up about the shortcomings and the wilful neglect that is apparent in the present scheme. The history of all this turns on a document called 'A Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements', commissioned by the Minister for Aviation, Mr Kim Beazley. That report was presented some months ago , and I want to quote one of the significant points it makes right at the outset of the recommendations. The point that concerns me, probably above all else, is drug entry and the way that the new recommendations effectively do nothing at all to control drug entry through the north of Australia. Towards the end of paragraph 3 of the recommendations, the Minister says: Although it is not possible to be conclusive, I judge that operations to counter drug smuggling will in the future need to concentrate more effort in northern Australia. Paragraph 4 states: I recommend that the national surveillance effort in future give more attention to assisting in activities relating to the prevention of the illegal entry of narcotics. There is no doubt in the Minister's mind, because of the prominence and pre- eminence of the drug entry business, that that is his principal concern-not his only concern, but the major one-expressed in the report. When the report was tabled in the Parliament by the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, he said, in the leading part of his tabling statement: In particular, the review also found that greater efforts probably need to be made in northern Australian to counter drug smuggling. So there was no doubt in the mind of the Special Minister of State that the drug problem was a major one. A couple of weeks ago Mr Young was in Cairns and I happened to be there at the same time. I was driving around town and I repeatedly heard radio interviews with Mr Young. He was telling the story that the Australian Federal Police were getting better and better at the major points of entry of drugs in the south of Australia, such as the airports of Sydney and Melbourne. He said that in recent weeks they had had a lot of success and that people had been arrested carrying a total of 40 kilograms of heroin. That is very praiseworthy and commendable. He went on to say that as the Federal Police got better and better at the main points of entry in the south, the importance of the alternative entry for drug runners through northern Queensland and northern Australia would increase. I accept the logic of that; I think everyone does. But if the Government believed in that, how can it come up with a report such as this which does nothing to control the entry of drugs-narcotics-through the northern part of Australia. Traditionally it has been easier for drugs to come in with a passenger on an aircraft, and to the best of our knowledge most of the drug traffic coming into Australia does come in principally through Sydney and also Melbourne, Adelaide and our other international airports. Some drugs come in by sea, but we are led to believe that the majority comes in through the south because of its large volume of passenger and freight traffic, which provides an effective camouflage. However, entry through the north is easy and at present is unpoliced. Obviously drugs coming in through the north will come in mainly by air. It is possible to bring drugs in by sea but the sea trade lacks flexibility and is far more restricted than air traffic. Passenger ships or freighters follow set routes, which means that they do not have the frequency and variability that are available to air traffic. Private ships and launches do not have the speed, range or flexibility that an aircraft has. So in considering the entry of drugs through the north of Australia we are mainly looking at aircraft as the vector to bring them in. The only way we will find aircraft coming in to northern Australia, or coming in anywhere where there are vast distances and we cannot have people visually observing them, is through the use of radar. This report does nothing at all to address this fundamental defect in respect of the drug trade. Ground radar is no good because it has a radius of only about 20 nautical miles at sea level for a low flying aircraft. As we have about 2,000 miles of coastline, it is financially beyond us to dot every part of the coast with ground-borne radar. So the only way we can look at what is going on in that area is through the use of airborne early warning aircraft. This is a matter involving not only protection from drugs but also the protection of the nation from a defence point of view. Let us consider briefly the history of surveillance in the north. In 1975 there was the first specific tasking on surveillance of the Australian defence forces through one of their arms. That was in relation to the flights out of Broome to survey the Indonesian fishermen fishing the trochus. The first regular flights were introduced through the 1970s by the previous Government. Several points ought to be made about the schemes introduced by the former Government. The first is that they were experimental and introductory. We never believed that they were the final word. We believed that they had to be refined and developed in the light of the experience we gained from operating those schemes. The second point to be made is that because they were introductory schemes they were plagued by delays with respect to equipment and getting some of the contractors who were awarded tender contracts actually into the air. But the point is that it is no argument for the Labor Party to say that the previous schemes were ineffective, as some members of it do, although to give credit to the Minister, he recognises in his report that the surveillance schemes we put in place were of value and needed to be improved. The tragedy is that his report degrades them, and does so significantly. From an intelligence gathering point of view, surveillance tasks have three broad components. There is the survey of the water, the survey of the beach and the survey of the air space. Since we have an extended economic zone which goes out for 200 nautical miles from the beach, we have the consequence that fishing fleets operate legally under licence in it. Because we are charging them licence fees we have an obligation to know who is there and to know that there are no illegal fishermen there. Of course, the popular illegal fishermen from a publicity point of view have been the Taiwanese clam fishers taking resources from the reef. The way we monitor the 200-mile nautical zone has been through the Royal Australian Air Force with the long range maritime patrol squadrons 10 and 11 operating with P3 Orions. The operational experience we have had from those over what now must be close to eight years, is excellent. They have performed a great task. The problem is that the maritime reconnaissance squadrons have to fulfil other tasks. They are responsible for maritime surveillance in association with our ANZUS partners for quite a large part of this part of the world. Last year, they flew nearly 1,500 hours on fishery patrols. In the report that has come before us the Department has requested a tasking of 2,000 hours from the Air Force. The Air Force has said that it cannot provide more than 1,200 hours. The reason it cannot provide more than 1,200 hours is interesting. It cannot do so because the Royal Australian Navy has lost its fixed wing component so the Air Force has to take over their roles from a training point of view and from an exercise point of view. With the Budget cuts that this Government has introduced, even though it has increased the amount of money allocated to defence, it is a cynical exercise for it to say that that has led to a net increase for the Services because we are locked into increasing capital expenditure for some years to come. The actual money that can be put to operations and training is restricted. This is no more glaringly demonstrated than with the Orions. We have two squadrons each of 12 aircraft, yet we have six crews in each squadron. This is a very anomalous situation. We should have something like 14 or 16 crews in each squadron in a peacetime situation. Due to the lack of funds there is not much hope of increasing the numbers of those crews. May be we will get them up to 7 crews per squadron in the next 12 to 18 months, but that is inadequate. The Air Force or the Defence Department needs more money to fulfil that maritime surveillance role. In association with the Air Force on the maritime surveillance part of the fishing zone the RAN provide a very valuable service with patrol boats. The patrol boats are doing two things: Surveillance and the actual apprehension of illegal fishermen and poachers in the area. But there again they are caught by a shortage of defence funds in a variety of ways. The charting system for the north of Australia is hopelessly inadequate. At the present rate of progress it will be something like 50 years before the charts are brought up to an adequate standard. They are caught because there are not enough funds for boats. We need at least twice the number of patrol boats we have stationed at Cairns and Darwin to patrol that sector which is about 2,000 miles. Above all, we need something to increase the manpower of the Navy. I was in Darwin with the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in the earlier part of this year. I forget the exact figure we were given there, but the crews of those patrol boats, some of whom are married men, spend something in excess of 40 weekends a year at sea. The task that they are performing for the country is enormous if we consider the effect of that on their personal lives. That could be ameliorated if we had slip crews and some more money to put people in the Navy. The solution to the maritime patrol of the 200-mile zone is not, as the Minister says, to cut down the Air Force flights and keep the Navy as it is; it is to give the Air Force and the Navy more money so that they can carry out that essential task. The second component of surveillance is the actual beach itself-I refer to the littoral patrols. The beach is important to us because it is over the beach that people come, fishermen and other illegal migrants, bringing exotic diseases that will have a major impact. Such diseases include foot and mouth disease which would affect our cattle industry, screw-worm fly from New Guinea, the whole range of pig diseases and swine diseases that we do not have but that would be disastrous for primary industry in this country if they were introduced and, of course, rabies. Rabies is endemic in Indonesia. If it came into Australia we would have an enormous problem. It would spread through the feral population and then the domestic population. Secondary, of course, to these exotic animal diseases is the problem of illegal migration. In my view, the system that operated previously of civil contractors flying the littoral patrols was a poor system, but it was better than none at all. It essentially turned on light twin aircraft flying up and down the beach with an observer looking out the window. The aircraft flew on predicted tracks at predicted times and sometimes the observers were not too well trained and were not too observant. One of the shortcomings of it was that there was no night surveillance and, of course, there was no all weather surveillance. If I was coming into this country as an illegal migrant I would make it my business to come in at night, not in broad daylight. One of the odd things of Australian parliamentary ministerial arrangements is that the Department of Health has responsibility for quarantine. Therefore, control measures against exotic diseases reside with the Department of Health. As part of the Beazley report the Department of Health was asked to report on the effectiveness of the littoral flights. Strange to say, although the report is a very voluminous report, about an inch thick, and many of the contributors to the inquiry are listed in the appendices, the report of the Department of Health does not appear. We do not know what was said in that Department of Health report. We know that its conclusions were that the littoral flights should be reduced, but the reasons why they should be reduced are not attributed . I think it is a pretty fair assumption that the Department of Health, which also looks after hospitals and medical care in general, being in a very embarrassed position over funds, was told by the Minister to chop all extraneous expenses. On that basis the littoral flights were cancelled. There is no definition in the report as to what level of patrol activity will be done on littoral flying. We are led to the belief that it will be a very irregular exercise. Without being humorous about it the point has been made that we will not be able to predict when they will operate up the beach because they will probably never be there. The solution to that is to upgrade the equipment beyond the standard of that which was used before so that it would have an all weather capability and could operate in bad weather and at night. The upgrading would require an adequate range of sensors in the aircraft and a higher level of professionalism in the crews. Finally, we come to the third component which is surveillance against airborne entry. This country must buy as a matter of urgency some airborne early warning aircraft. We have about 2,000 miles of coastline to survey and we have no way of knowing who is flying into or out of the country. I have been flying for over 20 years now. Over that period I have heard stories of the illegal entry of aircraft and unidentified aircraft. Other pilots have seen them. Those stories are legion and I am still hearing them. I believe some of them are exaggerated, but there is no doubt at all in my mind that both civilian and military traffic overfly the Australian coastline and the authorities know nothing about it. I think that is a very dangerous situation. It goes far beyond the control of drug entry. It relates to the effectiveness of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. We can have the best Services in the world, but if we do not know what is going on we cannot concentrate our forces against the threat. Any airborne early warning capability is extremely expensive. The ideal aircraft for this is the Boeing E3A, but to buy four, which would be the minimal number required, and to set the whole thing up would probably cost in the order of $1.2m. The only other aircraft that is available at present is the Grumman E2C which is an old United States Navy aircraft. The problem from our point of view is that it is a short range aircraft. It has an endurance of about three or four hours. There are proposals in hand that Lockheed will put the Grumman electronics into a P3C, which is a very attractive option for Australia if it ever comes on the market. We already have those aircraft in our inventory and the maintenance of them would be no new burden to us. The capital cost would be very much less than the bigger Boeings. We must have this airborne early warning capability because without it we simply do not know who is coming and going in the Australian air space. Those are the three primary tasks with respect to surveillance. Before I go on to consider how we control and regulate the system, I want to deal with a peripheral matter which came up-I will be talking on it later-before the Estimates committees, that is, the peculiar business of the sole remaining contractor in coastal surveillance-the operation of Shrike Commanders by Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd with sidelooking radar. This has been a matter of considerable interest and some obscurity to me. Eventually I managed to get the paper on which the Department formed some of its views. It turns out that an Ericsson SLAR radar will go into these aircraft. This is a very odd procedure. In Australia we developed the Litton radar Search master in the Nomad. That was an excellent radar surveillance system for the type of low level surveillance carried out on coastal waters of the Great Barrier Reef and around the Gulf. It is probably the best system in the world. It is an expensive system. Three aircraft in Australia have been fitted, developed and qualified with this system . Because Skywest operates Shrike Commanders we have the proposition that the Ericsson sideways looking radar is the fit that will go into them. Maritime radar is different from land radar. The basic difference is that maritime radar deals with a moving background. The returns of the radar signal vary according to the state of the sea. The trick of getting the thing to work properly is having a computer on board with a well developed software program so that one can filter out the returns from the sea state. Since the sea state is variable, depending on the weather, a very sophisticated software program is necessary to filter it out so that the target on the water can be found. That is really what it is all about. In relation to the operation on the Barrier Reef we operate at relatively low levels, 1,500 to 2,000 feet. We do not need a powerful radar set. It is no good having something that will put out a signal and get a return from 200 nautical miles. We are looking at a radar horizon of probably about 50 to 60 nautical miles. The set can be quite simple from a signal point of view. It is the signal processing that is the key to it. The Litton 360 radar scanned the whole horizon so one knew what was going on all around. The sideways looking radar means that one will be able only to survey either side of the track of the aircraft. One will not know what is ahead and what is underneath. How narrow is the path underneath depends on the antenna design but obviously there will be a neutral zone underneath when no one will know what is going on. Why are we doing this? Why cannot Skywest acquire the aircraft that are fitted up which we know will do the job? I must say, having read the Ericsson technical paper on it, that it is very deficient on performance details. One has no idea how effective this set is. There is no real description of centres of discrimination-in other words, what size object can be picked up with reference to sea states that might exist. The presumption one makes is that it is not a very good radar at all. I do not think that it would be anywhere near comparable with the Litton set that we had. I will deal with another problem concerning the radar set later on tonight when the Senate considers the Estimates. The major point, apart from that of intelligence gathering, is the matter of command and control. The Government is to be commended on its report in that at last it has put one centralised command structure in place. We had a variety of people in on the act before and that was very unsatisfactory. The general command and control situation proposed here is excellent with respect to centralised command and regional coastal protection units. I wish to challenge the report on its finding that there was no place for Services control of coastal surveillance. We are dependent on intelligence inputs and they come from many sources. We have to have an assessment of that intelligence and we require apprehension of transgressors. There is a function in that clearly for both the civil and Services sectors. I would put the case that the Services sector should predominate. The problems from a Services point of view rest on two factors: Firstly, the money to enable the Services to fulfil this function and, secondly, the problem of the powers of arrest. I want to develop those two things in some detail. Unless the Services get into a dominant role in coastal surveillance there will be horrendously expensive duplication. The Services must know what is going on on the water and in the airspace of the coast. Therefore, money will be required in any case. The Services have not been too keen to take on this coastal surveillance function. Their recommendations have reflected this. The true reason is that they see themselves as being assigned to this task without getting money for the extra functions involved. If we provide that money-we will have to provide it in any case-I think we will get over that problem. The Services require the right sort of equipment for both marine and air tasks. They need something less sophisticated than the P3C Orion, but they do need something that is useful in all weathers. They need something to fulfil this task in a wartime role, because if we are at war the Services will still have to fulfil this surveillance function. The level of equipment they need will be above what is presently used by the civilian contractors, but that can be a dimension less than a P3C and still be more operationally effective than what we are using at present. The advantages the Services offer are: A higher level of professional skill and training and a higher level of security than we can get from civil contractors. I have never heard a whisper let alone known of a case about the civilian crews being got at in any way at all, but obviously the opportunity is greater for civilian crews than it is for service crews. The advantages for the service personnel are: Firstly, they gain knowledge of an area in which they may have to work in a time of threat and war-they would know the northern approaches to Australia-and, secondly, it is good on-the-job training not only in sea time and flying time but also in command experience for junior leaders. I believe that the predominant role in coastal surveillance should be vested in the Services, with the civilian assets, both from the surveillance point of view and in some cases with powers of arrest, added in a minor way. I find the argument in the report against the Services case is totally unconvincing. The final point I want to talk about here is the matter of arrest, which seems to get out of all proportion when we discuss it. I know the legislation is a little obscure with respect to aid to a civil power, but let us just look at the practical circumstances. With respect to the Air Force, the final arrest can never be made by the Air Force crew flying an aircraft; it must always be made by the civil police when the aircraft has landed. With respect to ships in a maritime environment, there may well be a case where the RAN may be involved, but there is also a case there where the civilian elements through fisheries patrol vessels could be the arresting authorities. Land parties-people coming over the beaches-would almost be a matter for the civilian police. So I do not see that the question of the power of arrest is a relevant let alone a dominant factor against the Services being involved in the primary role of intelligence gathering, communication, the assessment of that intelligence and, in the relevant cases, the apprehension. The proposed system of the Labor Government is a marked regression on the capabilities we had before. I believe the dangers Australia is exposed to as a result of this half-baked scheme are enormous. Without being unkind, this is a cynical exercise that was set up purely to save the Government money. The Government is not concerned about knowing what is going on off the north coast of Australia. The Government is not concerned about the illegal entry of migrants. The Government is not concerned about drug runners. I find the statements of the Ministers involved, principally the Minister for Aviation and the Special Minister of State, are a gross misrepresentation of the true position, and this is why I raised this matter today as a matter of great importance. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —I table a report on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. I seek leave to make a statement on the report. A similar statement was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) earlier this afternoon. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —I seek leave to have the text of the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Following the Government's examination of policy in relation to the export of Australian uranium last year, I wrote to the Chairman of ASTEC, Professor Ralph Slatyer, on 9 November 1983, requesting that ASTEC undertake an inquiry, under his personal direction, into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. The inquiry was asked to examine in particular: Australia's nuclear safeguards arrangements, giving particular attention to the effectiveness of the bilateral and multilateral agreements, and to the scope for strengthening these agreements; the opportunities for Australia through the conditions of its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle to further advance the cause of nuclear non-proliferation , having regard to the policies and practices of recipient countries; and the adequacy of existing technology for the handling and disposal of waste products by consuming countries, and the ways in which Australia can further contribute to the development of safe disposal methods. The Council was subsequently requested to include some consideration of the issues raised by the possible extraction of thorium for nuclear use from Australian mineral sands containing the mineral monazite. The Slatyer Inquiry was an integral part of the Government's uranium policy decisions announced last November. At that time the Government decided that: (a) the Roxby Downs Joint Venturers be advised that if a commercial decision to proceed with the development of Roxby Downs were to be made by them, the Government would permit the export of uranium produced from that mine; and the export of the uranium would be subject to whatever safeguards arrangement applied generally to uranium exports at the time of export; (b) with the exception of Roxby Downs if commercially feasible, the Government not permit the development of any new uranium mines; (c) all future exports of Australia's uranium-under both existing and any future contracts-be made subject to the most stringent supply conditions, such conditions to be determined by the Government following an inquiry into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. In setting up the inquiry, the Government considered it to be important that there should be an independent and objective audit of policies and practices in regard to Australia's uranium exports to ensure that they contributed to and strengthened Australia's pursuit of its disarmament and non-proliferation objectives. The Government also sought a scientific assessment of the adequacy of ways in which countries managed and disposed of radioactive waste. ASTEC, as the pre-eminent Council providing independent advice to the Government on science and technology questions, was judged best-qualified to perform this role under the personal direction of Professor Slatyer. The terms of reference for the inquiry focused primarily on the issues of non- proliferation, safeguards and waste management, both because of their intrinsic importance, and because they are of particular concern in the community in relation to Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. The final report reflects a broad interpretation of the terms of reference, and provides a comprehensive identification of the elements of the fuel cycle and the issues which they raise for the export of Australian uranium. The report indicates that while the percentage of world electricity requirements which will be generated by nuclear means cannot be forecast precisely, no new energy source is likely to have a significant impact for the next quarter century. Accordingly the report notes that the world can be expected to rely largely on coal and nuclear energy, supplemented by oil, to provide the major part of its electricity requirements for this period. This would be the case even if Australia were not to export its uranium. The report notes that there is no shortage of uranium in the world to supply fuel to the nuclear power industry, and points out that the future development of the nuclear power industry will not be dependent on Australian uranium, and will proceed irrespective of whether or not Australia is a supplier. The report suggests that if international tensions are to be reduced and the prospects of a peaceful global environment enhanced, the importance of national and international energy security cannot be overemphasised. It notes that disruptions in the supply of resources of any sort have been a cause of international tension and, through human history, have led to war. The report points out that countries which do not have indigenous energy resources are most concerned to ensure reliability of supplies, and to this end place great emphasis on diversity of supplies and the political stability of supplier countries. For this reason many countries have turned to nuclear energy for electricity generation out of concern about reliability of oil supplies both in the short and long-term. The inquiry has concluded that Australia, through being a reliable, long-term supplier of uranium, is in a position to contribute significantly to international energy security. Further, the report brings out that assurance of reliable long term supplies of uranium at reasonable prices will also reduce the motivation for individual countries to seek greater energy security by carrying out more steps of the fuel cycle, particularly reprocessing, within national boundaries. Against this background the report concludes that Australia will best be able to make a significant contribution to non-proliferation and world peace if it is actively involved in the nuclear fuel cycle. By involvement of this kind, the report argues, Australia will be able to make a direct contribution to the development of the civil nuclear fuel cycle in ways that will increase global energy security, strengthen the elements of the non- proliferation regime and reduce the risks of misuse of civil facilities and the diversion of nuclear materials from civil to military uses. Without such involvement, global energy security would be less assured, and Australia's ability to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and to influence future developments in the fuel cycle would be reduced. The report expresses the concern that we must all share that the prevention of nuclear war is of the greatest importance to all humanity. A major component of global efforts to prevent such a war is prevention of further proliferation of nuclear weapons, either by an increase in the size of the arsenals of those countries which already have such weapons, referred to as vertical proliferation, or by an increase in the number of countries with such weapons or which have exploded nuclear devices, referred to as horizontal proliferation. The report recognises that since nuclear fission not only provides power for electricity generation but also constitutes the explosive source of weapons, it is understandable that there should be widespread public concern about the degree to which civil nuclear activities could contribute to the development of nuclear weapons. In this regard the inquiry makes a number of points. The great majority of the countries of the world have found compelling reasons for not building nuclear weapons and have given a commitment not to do so by becoming members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have also accepted safeguards on all their nuclear facilities so that their commitment to non- proliferation can be verified. The report points out that if a decision is taken by a country to develop nuclear weapons this can be achieved, provided that the country has sufficient determination and a reasonable scientific and technological infrastructure. The absence of a civil nuclear industry would not prevent such a development, although the procedure would be more difficult and slower. But the report suggests that, should a country decide to embark on a weapons program, it is unlikely to use a civil power reactor to do so, as this would be inefficient both in terms of producing weapons usable material and in terms of electricity generation. The report concludes that the task for all countries is to create an international political climate in which actions leading to the growth of the arsenals of nuclear weapons states, and the extension of a nuclear capability to so-called 'threshold' countries, are not taken. In this regard the report focuses on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as the most important multilateral non-proliferation and arms control agreement in existence -a view which this Government strongly supports and will continue to in multilateral fora, and in our discussions with other nations on non- proliferation and arms control matters. The report makes a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening adherence to the treaty. In particular it notes that continued support by many countries will depend upon the fulfilment of the three-way bargain contained in the treaty. These involve a pledge by non-nuclear weapon states neither to manufacture nor acquire nuclear weapons and to accept verification of this, a commitment by all parties to pursue nuclear disarmament, and an undertaking to provide access by members to nuclear items for peaceful purposes. In this latter regard, the report refers to the importance of Article IV of the treaty, which affirms the right of all countries to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It also requires those countries in a position to do so to contribute to the further development of nuclear energy in member countries. At a more fundamental level the report highlights the necessity not just of maintaining the non-proliferation regime, but of demonstrating that the obligations contained in the Treaty are being met. In this regard, the significance of the forthcoming 1985 NPT Review Conference is emphasised as is the need to register some positive achievements in the field of disarmament before the future of the treaty is decided in 1995. The Government has stresssed on a number of occasions and reaffirms the fundamental importance it attaches to the role of the Review Conference to the future of the NPT. Among the Government's more important initiatives in support of an effective non-proliferation regime has been our backing for a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. The report sees this as contributing to the international non- proliferation regime in a substantial region, as well as responding to the fears of small island states in the region about the future conservation and use of their major resource, the ocean. There can be no doubt that the issues of disarmament and non-proliferation are among the most important of our time. It is the international community's ability to deal with them effectively which will determine our future. It is particularly important that we be clear-sighted in our thinking on the issues involved. The report notes that two key arguments have been put forward opposing Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. It has, for example, been suggested that the solution to the problems of nuclear proliferation is for the world to forgo the use of nuclear energy, and for countries such as Australia to take a lead by withholding supply of uranium. The report rejects this suggestion, observing that the use of nuclear energy is an established fact of life, and that Australia's withdrawal would not affect the decisions that countries have made and will make to use nuclear energy. A second line of argument is that, by supplying uranium to nuclear weapon states, Australia might be freeing up uranium for use in weapons. The report also rejects this argument, drawing attention to the fact that those states already have adequate supplies of uranium and are not assisted in any way by the supply of Australian uranium. Put more bluntly, the report concludes that denial of supply to nuclear weapon states would not affect in any way their weapons programs. On the basis of these and other related considerations, the report concludes that there are more practical measures that Australia can take to assist the cause of non-proliferation than by withholding the supply of uranium. Principally these go to the strengthening of the existing non-proliferation regime; proposals made by the report in this regard will be addressed by the Government in the near future. The report also thoroughly considers the issues involved in waste management and disposal. It judges it to be absolutely necessary for countries to adopt high standards and to ensure that the best practicable waste disposal technology is employed. The report advocates an approach which involves containing and isolating the source of radioactivity as far as possible. The most effective way to put such an approach into practice is seen to be the confinement of the radioactive wastes in a stable waste form, and to isolate the waste form from the environment by additional barriers. Proven methods are identified for handling waste with low and intermediate levels of radioactivity. The report, however, expresses reservations about the dumping of radioactive waste in the oceans, noting that, while this may be a safe procedure, much further work remains to be done before any final judgment can be made. In the meantime, the report urges Australian support for a continuation of the present moratorium on ocean dumping. For high level waste, the report notes that investigations in progress, the level of technical knowledge attained, and the progress of programs of site investigation provide confidence that safe disposal of high level waste can be undertaken. The results of theoretical assessments of geological repositories provide additional confidence that safe disposal of appropriately packaged waste is possible using existing technology, provided that the best practicable technology is used at each stage and that an optimum geological repository is used. Under these circumstances, the report considers that any return of radioactivity to the biosphere can be held to safe and acceptable levels over long periods (up to one million years) so that maximum doses to the most exposed individuals would be a small fraction of natural background levels. It considers, moreover, that the technology required to achieve these objectives is available. The report notes the contribution which Australia can make to research and development in the area of waste disposal and recommends continued involvement in this important work. Attention is drawn particularly to the potential significance of the Australian-developed waste form synroc and it is recommended that work on synroc be continued. If the promise which synroc appears to hold is demonstrated by further research, the report concludes that its adoption by other countries should be pursued. At this stage I should like to thank Professor Slatyer, the members of the Inquiry and ASTEC staff for the production of a comprehensive, thoroughly professional report. It should become the standard technical reference for those seeking an understanding of the issues involved in this complex and critically important subject, on which a range of views are held within the Australian community and indeed within the Labor Party. My judgment and indeed my hope would be that it will further enhance the more rational and reasoned discussion of nuclear issues which has emerged in recent months. The Government will give careful consideration to the ASTEC Recommendations, and as decisions are made, Ministers will advise the Parliament. I commend the report to the House. Senator RYAN —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.35) —The Opposition welcomes the tabling of the report entitled 'Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle'. The commissioning of the report by the Government was welcomed by the Opposition at the time the Government announced some of the changes to its approach to uranium mining in Australia. Just as the Opposition welcomed the commissioning of the report, it welcomes the results of the work of the Australian Science and Technology Council. That is not to say that the Opposition necessarily agrees with every recommendation which is contained in the report, but it does agree with most of the fundamental recommendations contained in it. We thank the Australian Science and Technology Council for the obvious care which has gone into the preparation of the document. The significance of the report is that it is the clearest possible indication of the need for change in Government and Australian Labor Party policy. It is also the clearest possible verification of the views which have been advanced over and over again by the Opposition on the subject of the mining and export of Australian uranium, on Australia's participation in the nuclear industry and on Australia's attitude to nuclear non-proliferation. I have made that point because over the years our opponents have been very ready to criticise us for the views that we have put down. From the time of the announcement of the Fraser Government's policy on uranium, which followed the release of the Fox report relating to the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and which followed a most careful examination of the very significant issues which arise in this area, we have been subjected to a considerable volume of criticism from members of the Labor Party. I believe, given the sorts of attitudes which have been expressed of late by both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh), that we have the prospect of the Government moving to a position which is very close to, perhaps indistinguishable from, the position which has been traditionally adopted in this area by the now Opposition. That is of great importance to Australia, because if we could get a bipartisan policy in this area-I see that Senator Robertson, the Government Whip, is here and he is as close to these issues as is anyone else, because of the very significant interests of the Northern Territory in this matter-it would provide a framework which would enable investment and which would give a great sense of security to those who wish to develop the uranium industry in Australia. As in any area of economic activity, the idea of stop-go policies which change each time there is a change of government is most unattractive. So for a whole range of reasons the Opposition is pleased to see the developing prospects of getting more bipartisanship into this area. Senator Chipp —On the uranium industry? Senator CHANEY —Senator Chipp has interjected from my left. I know that he will persist in the views which he has expressed forcibly in this chamber and elsewhere with respect to Australia having anything to do with the uranium industry. As I have said in the past, I respect the very firm view that he has adopted, even though I differ from him in that respect. I make the point that in an area which is so important to Australia strategically, economically and in every other way it is desirable if possible that we avoid the deep divisions of policy and move to a situation in which there is agreement. On this occasion, since I think the Opposition has been correct in its stance I believe that that agreement has come from the Government's moving in our direction. I believe this report presents a series of cogent recommendations which should contribute to that effect. I shall mention views expressed by the Prime Minister which appear to be at variance with the current policy adopted by the Government, and certainly a very confused policy which has been adopted to date on this issue by the Labor Party. I wish to quote from some comments which were made very recently on this matter by the Prime Minister and which I think encapsulate some of the recommendations which are contained in the Slatyer report on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. Just before Easter the Prime Minister spoke at the University of Western Australia and in a widely publicised address used these words: The questions of nuclear disarmament and development of nuclear power were seen -and, I believe, rightly seen-as separate questions altogether. He went on to say: Nothing could more seriously reduce the effectiveness of Australia's efforts- the deep determination of my Government-to play a significant and indeed a leading role in the cause of disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war than that these two separate and distinct issues should become confused. Indeed, article 4 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-the very basis of our efforts-specifically imposes on resource-rich countries like Australia a moral obligation to share our energy resources including uranium with the developing countries. He went on to say: Thus Australia and its elected Government has a double obligation-the obligation to bend all our efforts towards disarmament and the obligation to share our resources. We are determined to fulfil those obligations equally. That is as much of the Prime Minister's words as I wish to quote. But I think the words are valuable, because although they are sparse and they endeavour to encapsulate what takes very many pages in the Slatyer report the point made by the Prime Minister on that occasion is fundamentally correct. It does represent a view that the Opposition has asserted frequently and I believe it is a view that ought to become the official view of the Government. I do not intend to quote specifically from anything which has been said by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, but I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that in a number of speeches he has, I think, adopted a very positive approach to the need for policy change in this area on the part of the Government. He has adopted a quite positive approach to the issues which are raised-the issue of non-proliferation, the issue of the safe disposal of waste and the general issue of the role which uranium is likely to play in the peaceful generation of energy in the world in the future. I acknowledge that constructive approach and again see it as an indication of the Government moving to a more workable and more bipartisan policy in this very important area. It may very well be, of course, that there is a bit of a division between what Senator Walsh is saying and what the Prime Minister is saying, because Senator Walsh does appear to be adopting a view with respect to the supply of nuclear fuel to France which does not fit precisely within the form of words which the Prime Minister has used. I do think there is a very significant issue for Australia in any threat to stop the supply to France of fuel for electricity generation. I believe that flies in the face of the division which was promoted by the Prime Minister in his speech at the University of Western Australia. Having said that, it does appear from the draft policy document which Senator Walsh has circulated and which is, I understand, meant to contribute to a reworking of the mish-mash of inconsistencies that the present policy represents , that there is broad compatibility with the sorts of recommendations which are contained in the report that was tabled this afternoon. I believe that in the comments of both Senator Walsh and the Prime Minister, in their seeking some greater sense to the policy position of the Labor Party, there has been proper attention to the issues which people very properly raise with respect to the development of uranium. I have found nothing cavalier in Senator Walsh's preparedness to discuss any of the issues which I mentioned a little while ago. I contrast that with perhaps the rather more cavalier approach that has been adopted by the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, who was quoted in the Adelaide Advertiser on 3 April this year as saying: He did not mind 'terribly much' if the Party's policy was changed one way or another 'as long as it leaves Roxby Downs untouched.' I really think that sort of pragmatism represents something of a low point in the uranium debate. That sort of pragmatism has led us to the point where we have the absurd Labor policy which says that it is all right to develop a very large uranium mine at Roxby Downs but it is not all right to develop mines in the Northern Territory, Western Australia or Queensland; indeed, it is not even all right to develop two smaller mines in South Australia. Mr Bannon was reported as also saying at the same time: 'Victoria has always had the luxury of not having to confront the realities of it,' . . . 'It' being the need to develop uranium resources. I think there have been elements of Labour Party change and policy making in this area which are of a deeply non-principled type. They have related solely to the electoral concerns of the South Australian Government and to the electoral concerns of the ALP in South Australia. As I say, I think they represent something of a low point in the debate on this important issue. I turn to some of the recommendations which have been made by the Australian Science and Technology Council and preface my remarks by drawing the Senate's attention to the fact that ASTEC, which is the Government's senior advisory body on science, is not a body which is narrowly based or which can be subject to the sort of criticism that Senator Chipp made when Senator Jessop, in a debate earlier this afternoon, quoted from statistics or information provided by the Uranium Information Centre. There is always a difficulty in these matters in getting evidence which is objective. I think it would be fair to say that the most principled arguers in these matters would tend to rush to find the facts which suit the sense which they have of the argument. Whilst I cast no aspersions on the UIC which I think is performing a very valuable function in counteracting some of the anti-nuclear propaganda which is rife in the community, I just want to say that I do not believe that ASTEC can be branded as a body which is narrowly based and which has some vested interest. If we look at the composition of ASTEC we find that it is headed by Professor Slatyer, who is a professor of biology at the Australian National University; the Deputy Chairman is a director of the Research School of Physical Sciences; and the members under him include a general manager of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Mr Adam, a grazier, a company director, a professor of geology, a managing director from some form of proprietary company-I am sorry that I do not know much about that company-a professor of medicine, a director of the Baker Medical Research Institute, the Federal Secretary of the Australian Insurance Employees Union, a professor of economics, a reader in political science, a director of the Centre for Policy Studies at Monash University, a professor of electrical engineering, a professor of mechanical engineering, a company chairman, the Director of the Western Australian Institute of Technology , whom I happen to know personally and who I think is a very able and intelligent man, and the director of Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd. It can scarcely be argued that the recommendations have come from some group which is either narrowly based or which has, from its composition, some vested interest to protect in examining the very important issues that were referred to it by the Government. In the brief time that is available to me I refer only to the summary and recommendations of the report. I must confess to not having had an opportunity in the two hours or so that this has been available to read the whole of it. The Council has isolated the key facts which I think form the framework for policy. One of the first facts to which I draw attention is the fact that reliable supplies of energy are vital for economic development. The existing situation is that an important proportion of energy is now being provided by nuclear power. The report states, referring to nuclear power stations: When those now under construction are completed the total installed capacity will be more than double the present figure and, in several countries, the fraction of total electricity produced by nuclear power stations will exceed 50 per cent. The report points out that when we look at uranium we are dealing with a commodity, which is not in short supply, that there are substantial deposits in many countries, and that the nuclear power industry is not dependent upon Australian uranium and will proceed irrespective of whether Australia is a supplier. The report goes on to point out that there is an oversupply of uranium at present and so there is no question of Australia being in a position to dictate whether or not uranium is available. It points out that assurance of reliable long terms of supply at reasonable prices will reduce the motivation for individual countries to seek greater energy security by carrying out more steps of the fuel cycle, particularly reprocessing and so on. One finds in the summary most of the points which have been put over and over again in this place by people such as Senator Jessop, Senator Townley and, I think, Senator Crichton -Browne, and the very many other Opposition senators who have taken a very active interest in this. We find the first recommendation is: That exports of Australian uranium should not be limited as a matter of principle but should be permitted subject to stringent conditions of supply designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. So we have a quite clear recommendation from ASTEC. We are told that we should not limit our exports but should permit them, subject to stringent conditions of supply designed to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. The Opposition agrees with that proposition, as it has in the past, and asks the Government to examine its own decision making and also to agree with it. The report goes on to deal with the vital issue of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Again, it puts a view which has often been aired in this place and which, I think, is the majority view in this place; that is, that Australia should continue actively to be involved in the non-proliferation regime as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that that is Australia's opportunity to ensure that this very considerable risk to the world is reduced rather than increased. The second recommendation is quite simply that Australia should continue to accord high priority to constructive participation in disarmament and arms control negotiations and that the principal objective of those negotiations should be the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. It is important to note that Australia's present obligations under the non- proliferation treaty include an obligation to work for disarmament but also to contribute to the further development of nuclear energy. It really is important that the Government should in its policy making be aware of the duality of Australia's obligations under that treaty-obligations not only to work for non- proliferation but also to contribute to the further development of nuclear energy. The recommendations are far too numerous for me to deal with in a speech this evening, but I wish to mention a couple of recommendations that I think open up new questions for us to consider and will give rise to considerable debate in this place. I refer to recommendations 8 and 9 of the report. Essentially, those recommendations are that it would be in the interests of non-proliferation if Australia encouraged countries with nuclear power programs to join together in the ownership and supervision of enrichment and reprocessing facilities and that these facilities should be located in as few countries as possible. The report goes on to suggest that in the Asia-Pacific region Australia could make a positive contribution by participating in other areas of the nuclear fuel cycle. The most suitable basis would be to participate in joint ownership and supervision of enrichment and/or reprocessing facilities with other countries, provided those countries share our strong commitment to non-proliferation. It suggests that some of these facilities might appropriately be located in Australia. The Opposition has not, in a formal sense, considered these recommendations. In fact, we would need to do so at our leisure and with great care. We certainly commend the fact that this important issue is raised in the report and we hope that the debate on it is conducted at a more rational level than parts of the uranium debate have been in the past. I do not wish to trespass heavily on Senator Chipp's feelings, because I know he has strong feelings on this matter, but it is a little ironic that on the very day we debate the second edition of his Bill, which would specifically prohibit the importation of nuclear hardware with such exceptions as are delineated in his Bill, we have received in the Parliament a report that really trends very heavily in the opposite direction. It suggests that, in the very interests Senator Chipp seeks to promote, namely, the interests of peace and non-proliferation, wider Australian participation in the industry may be constructive. It suggests also that by ensuring that the nuclear cycle is divided more among countries and that there is a participation by Australia, with its very strong commitments to careful control and so on, we may well produce a situation where the risks of proliferation are significantly diminished. Without having had sufficient time to examine the recommendations of ASTEC in this matter, I certainly welcome the fact that the additional proposals that have been put forward and are being argued will provide a basis for both the Government and the Opposition to develop further their policies in this area. Certainly, if one has an interest in Australia becoming part of the modern world -I note the Government's supposed interest in that and the strong statements made, for example, by the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, who is anxious to see the development of high technology in Australia-I would suggest that this is one of the areas where there may be great potential for growth and great possibilities for Australia to contribute to its own progress and to the progress of the world. Basically we have a report that recommends that Australia should be involved in the nuclear fuel cycle, possibly to the extent of enrichment and reprocessing facilities being located here. I am aware, of course, that the Government has moved in the opposite direction since it came to office. Under Senator Sir John Carrick there was government co-operation with the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia, a study group that was looking at the possibility of uranium enrichment. I know that was regarded by the previous Government, and by the responsible Minister in particular, as an exciting possibility for Australia and for Australians. The withdrawal of government co-operation in that study has effectively ended it. That has meant that Australia can no longer contribute in that area. If Senator Chipp's Bill had been carried by the Senate, the considerable contribution that Australia may be able to make through the Synroc process may well have been subverted by an inability to handle certain technology in Australia. We are dealing here in possibilities that are very important both from an economic point of view and from the point of view of other values that are asserted in debates on the uranium issue. The Opposition would suggest that the first response of the Government to the report should be immediately to allow the uranium projects that have been denied approval by the Government to go ahead. They include all the potential mines in the Northern Territory uranium province, as well as the Honeymoon and Beverly projects in South Australia and the Yeelirrie project in Western Australia. I move quickly now to economic considerations. I have left those until last because I think those concerned with this debate would probably say one should not be willing to accept the economic benefits if there are unacceptable problems in other areas, whether proliferation, waste disposal or whatever. Having looked at the recommendations in the area, and accepting that satisfactory arrangements can be put in place for waste disposal, and that we can contribute to non-proliferation by having active participation in the industry, I want to look quickly at some of the benefits that can accrue to Australia, and indeed have already accrued to Australia, from the nuclear industry. I remind the Senate that we are not just talking about filthy lucre; we are not talking about investment as some sort of capitalistic obsession. We are talking about economic activities, which means jobs. We are talking about an economy that needs growth. We have been told by Mr Kelty, as we were told in our period in Government, and indeed have been told by Senator Walsh since the new Government has taken office, that the key thing required by the Australian economy is growth, especially if we are to do anything about providing greater employment in Australia. We have unemployment predicted to go on for years at about the 20 per cent level. We have a situation where youth unemployment may well run on at something like 20 per cent over the years. Growth and investment and the making of additional profits in Australia are as important an element of social policy as anything we debate in this place. With that preface I remind the Senate that the two mines operating in Australia now earn more than $350m a year in export income as well as providing investment , jobs, profits and tax revenue in Australia. I remind the Senate also that if the Government allowed other potential mines to be developed, subject of course to adequate environmental and other safeguards and the constraints of the market , which is a decision for companies and not for the Government, there would be a considerable potential for economic benefit to Australia. That benefit would flow from construction activities, capital investment, export earnings, the new wealth creation, employment creation, additional government revenue, the community infrastructure that would be created, as well as benefits for the special advantages to Aboriginal groups, benefits that those groups are actively seeking at the moment. It is interesting that the Northern Land Council is actively trying to convince the Government and the Labor Party of the folly of their present policy. In general terms, the industry believes that Australia is in a position to secure further long term contracts from mines such as Jabiluka, Koongarra, Honeymoon and Yeelirrie. The views of the industry are borne out by the Slatyer report on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle, which confirms that even though the market situation is difficult there will be a considerable increase in demand for uranium. There is a great desire on the part of uranium consumers to diversify their sources of supply. For that reason alone, Australia has the possibility of finding a place in the market which will be available between now and the end of this century. I believe that, given the findings of this report, the people who have been trying to develop mines in Australia should be allowed to test that belief by being given the opportunity to develop their deposits as the Slatyer report recommends. I believe that the economic benefits from the development of those mines would be very considerable. I believe that development would make an important social contribution to various communities around Australia. It would also make a valuable contribution to export earnings, and that is a matter which , given the difficulties that many of our export industries are in, should receive very careful attention from the Government. It is impossible to do the subject that we are debating justice in half an hour . The report by ASTEC numbers something over 300 pages. I would just express the wish that all of us who are involved in the debate in Australia might take the time to read the report with care. It appears to me that we have the singular advantage here of a broad-based group, a group which had the respect of the previous Government and which I think continues to have the respect of the Opposition, a group which obviously has the confidence of the Government or it would not have been given this important job, having made a great effort to analyse the serious concerns which I know are concerns not just of Senator Chipp , although I have mentioned him several times, but of Senator Georges, Senator Coleman and others who I know have conscientious beliefs in this matter. Senator Georges —It is more than conscientious; it is a reasoned belief. Senator CHANEY —Well, deeply held beliefs. Some of us also have conscientious beliefs. I can only say that I believe that all people who have reasoned beliefs in this matter ought to study the Slatyer report. It is clearly going to be regarded as an important document by the Government itself and it should, therefore, be considered widely and debated widely. The Opposition certainly expresses reservations about those sections of the report which suggest that a nuclear free zone in the Pacific is going to be a valuable contribution to the non-proliferation problem. I mention that just in the interests of keeping the record clear. That is a matter which certainly the Opposition will want to debate and consider and will not simply accept those recommendations of the report. I hope that the Government will ensure that this report is widely available. I hope, too, that it will ensure that it is available at a price which will not put it beyond the means of the many people who will want to consider it. I close by saying to ASTEC that the Opposition is grateful for the work which it has done. We are no less grateful for those areas in which we disagree with the recommendations. We believe that we will be required to consider those recommendations with great care as we are required to consider the recommendations that are in line with our own previous thinking on the subject. But I think we are seeing an important step in this important debate in Australia and I believe that the people of Australia are going to benefit from the fact that this report has been tabled and is now available for public consideration. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.05) —The Australian Democrats believe that the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle is myopic in its scope, flawed in its approach and useless as a thorough consideration of the most urgent issue of nuclear non-proliferation. In fact, we think it is a disaster. As a document it is a scientific disgrace. The document is an affront to intellectual integrity. The ultimate hypocrisy in the document is that while making all recommendations which will lead to the proliferation of the nuclear industry world-wide it then tries to throw in as some cheap sop that there should be a nuclear free zone in the Pacific. I have never known such an ultimate exercise in hypocrisy as that. One would have thought that the persons on the Slayter committee with the scientific knowledge would have known that with the proliferation of the nuclear industry in the Northern Hemisphere, the possibility of a nuclear free zone in the Pacific area in the event of a nuclear holocaust is a matter of mere academia. I am disappointed and disgusted with this report which is one of the great affronts to scientific integrity ever laid before this Parliament. It can be summarised as a perfect document if one wants a justification for further engaging Australia in nuclear proliferation. It has all but ignored alternative viewpoints that would have got in the way of total support for the Labor Government and its nuclear policies. I now turn to energy supply and security. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has placed much emphasis on the report's views in this area. The report says that no new energy source is likely to have a significant impact for another 25 years. Thus, it concludes, nuclear power is essential. That is untrue. It is a pity, and a devastating and near criminal omission that ASTEC did not report what role these new energy resources such as solar and wind are playing now in industrialised countries. Did members of the committee not know or were they not told or did they not try to find out that in the United States of America, to take an example, renewable energy resources-that is solar and wind-now supply twice as much energy to consumers as nuclear power? ASTEC continually sees nuclear power in terms of displacing oil and thus increasing energy security. The comparison is misguided, flawed and deliberately misleading. Nuclear power cannot, physically or economically, displace oil. Only 10 per cent of the world' s oil is used for generating electricity. The other 90 per cent runs vehicles, provides heat for industry and is used as petrochemical feedstock. Electricity cannot replace 90 per cent of the world's oil consumption. Nuclear power certainly cannot. Energy security is vital. Nuclear power will do little, if anything, for security. There are cheaper, environmentally safe and proliferation proof resources that are in use now and that must be encouraged. In respect of non-proliferation and safeguards, ASTEC and the Prime Minister have finally realised that the path to nuclear weapons is slower and more difficult without a civil nuclear industry. In this respect, I refer to page 4 of Mr Hawke's statement. The report then goes on to assert that despite that countries will not use civil nuclear programs. The statement flies in the face of the use of civil nuclear programs by India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran, Argentina and South Korea, amongst others, to put them on the nuclear weapons path. To justify this view, ASTEC has relied on the International Atomic Energy Agency-for goodness sake!-as an authority to safeguard against diversion. Let us look at this great protective organisation. Safeguards do not prevent a diversion of nuclear material to weapons; they merely detect it. So when we are talking about safeguards we are not talking about protection agencies; we are talking about detection agencies which come in after the horse has bolted, once it is too late. The IAEA has 132 inspectors to cover 854 facilities. Is there a senator here who genuinely believes that these people can do even more than a semblance of a job? Their visits are irregular and subject to the wishes of the host country. Safeguards themselves allow a one per cent to 1.5 per cent loss of nuclear material without question. That is enough for a nuclear arsenal. ASTEC itself notes that the IAEA's primary role is to spread nuclear technology, not constrain it. ASTEC also notes that it is not a function of safeguards to protect nuclear material from theft or sabotage either within a country or during transit. It is a dangerous agency because it gives a false sense of security. I refer now to the myth of leverage through supply. ASTEC asserts, as an opinion without any concrete evidence, that we have to be involved in the nuclear industry to avert the consequences of that industry. As I said before, we wait now with trepidation, given this ASTEC line of logic, for the day the Government advocates a heroin and cocaine industry in order to combat drug addiction or that one has to join Murder Incorporated to have any effect on violence in the community. What ASTEC asserts is a myth and is ridiculous. I would have thought that such an assertion would be beyond the level of people of integrity and intelligence who served on this committee. It is impossible to share ASTEC's confidence that the problem of radioactive waste disposal has been solved. I invite honourable senators to challenge my statement that no permanent method of waste disposal has yet been devised on this planet. Yet, the high level radioactive wastes remain dangerous and remain cancer giving and perchance causing gene mutations in unborn children for hundreds of thousands of years. I challenge anybody in this chamber to deny that . The Council said the enrichment and processing of uranium is dangerous. For Australia to embark on uranium enrichment and/or reprocessing on the grounds of aiding non-proliferation is absurd in the extreme. I would have been happier had the Committee looked for alternatives in a sincere and genuine way. Senator Harradine —But they are men of integrity. Senator CHIPP —There is an alternative approach to non-proliferation. It is an approach free of contradiction and unhindered by political flaws. It is summed up by a Stockholm International Peace Research Institute book on uranium enrichment. The book states: By choosing not to develop or employ a type of technology a nation cannot only help to retard the spread of that technology, but can also serve as an example of the virtues and benefits of getting along without it. That is the course we advocate in the strongest possible terms. I heard Senator Harradine interject, I say to him that I hope to God I am wrong on this matter. I also hope and pray to God that the day will never come when the holocaust begins in the Northern Hemisphere and that people like Senator Harradine and others who advocate nuclear proliferation at this time will not regret their stand today with the wisdom of hindsight. Senator Harradine —I ask for that to be withdrawn. I do not advocate nuclear proliferation. Senator CHIPP —I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of withdrawing that remark because, as I have made clear in logical explanations many times in this Senate, anybody who advocates the extension or uranium mining, enrichment and re -processing is unintentionally adding to nuclear proliferation. The report of Mr Justice Fox also used those very words. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.12) —I take strong exception to Senator Chipp's remark. He does not have a patent on the desire for peace. I have a very great desire for peace for me, my wife and my family, as do you and other honourable senators. To cast reflection on the integrity of members of this Senate as he has done-- Senator Georges —He was not doing that. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Georges should read his speech. Senator Georges —Just on your wisdom. Senator HARRADINE —No. How he could cast a reflection on the integrity-he used the word 'integrity'-of the members of the Australian Science and Technology Council which carried out the investigation is beyond me. I believe that that undermines the argument that Senator Chipp was putting. It particularly reflects upon the integrity of Professor Ralph Slatyer. I did not hear Senator Chipp casting reflections on the integrity of Professor Slatyer when he was one of the world heritage anti-dammers. It should not be forgotten by the Senate that one of the major reasons why the Franklin Dam did not go ahead was because of the actions of the very same Ralph Slatyer who is now regarded by Senator Chipp as not being a man of integrity. Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Second Readings Senator WALSH(Western Australia) —(Minister for Resources and Energy) (6.15)-I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The main purpose of this Bill is to adjust grants to government and non- government schools in the States and Northern Territory for cost increases, in line with the Government's very important decision to re-introduce retrospective cost supplementation arrangements for Schools Commission programs. These arrangements represent a considerable step forward for school systems and authorities and mean that they are now able to plan ahead in the confidence that grants will be maintained in real terms. This will involve a further appropriation of $9.7m. This Bill also includes a number of minor amendments including clarifying some aspects of building and equipment grants for schools serving predominantly Aboriginal communities. In the second reading debate on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1983, I undertook to establish an independent appeals tribunal to consider appeals by non-government schools against their classification for recurrent funding purposes. I have had the matter under consideration and I have asked the Schools Commission to consult with non-government school authorities and organisations on the form of a suitable appeals mechanism before the necessary legislation is introduced in the Budget Session. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The primary purposes of this Bill is to adjust grants to universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions for cost increases, in line with the Government's decision to re-introduce retrospective cost supplementation arrangements for Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Programs. Under these arrangements, all wage and salary increases during the program year will be met, while increases in non-salary and capital costs will continue to be met up to the beginning of each program year. These arrangements make an important contribution to rational and stable planning by tertiary institutions. The total amount of supplementation to be provided under this Bill is $62.2m. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE-PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The primary purpose of this Bill is to supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the new Participation and Equity Program which the Government introduced this year. This adjustment is in accord with the government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills which are also before the Senate today. This supplementation will involve a further appropriation of $1.074m for each of the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian National University Act 1946 in order to remove provisions inserted in the Act in 1979 and 1981 which restrict the activities of student organisations in the University. In addition to this primary purpose, the Bill provides for a number of minor amendments to the Act most of which have been requested by the University. The amendments made to the Australian National University Act in 1979 and 1981 by the Fraser Government were directed at restricting the ways in which fees levied on students for the provision of amenities and services could be used. An objective was to prevent these fees being used for so called 'socio-political' purposes, including affiliation by a student association with a national association of students. These restrictions involve an unwarranted intrusion into the internal affairs of the University. Students should be free to make decisions about how they run their organisations subject to their accountability to the governing body of the University. A wide range of student activities should be a normal feature of campus life. It is for the Council of the Australian National University to decide, not the Government, what are appropriate uses for funds levied to provide amenities and services. To impose restrictions of this nature represents an unacceptable limitation on the proper autonomy of the Council as the governing body of the University. It is the Government's intention to repeal the restrictions brought into the Act in 1979 and 1981 so that the Act in the area of funding amenities and services for students will return to the situation existing prior to the 1979 amendments. The Council of the University has been consulted and has indicated that it welcomes the action the Government is taking. It will again be the responsibility of the Council to supervise the use of these funds as an aspect of its general responsibility for the governance of the University. The Bill also provides for a number of minor amendments to the ANU Act. The Bill removes from the Act the provision for an annual appropriation of $650,000 for the University. This provision goes back to the establishment of the University in 1946 but has been overtaken by time. As the annual appropriation for the University for running expenses is now of the order of $121m, it is sensible to remove this anachronism from the Act and to add this amount to the funds appropriated each year for the University. A number of amendments requested by the University are included in the Bill. These include the removal of sex-discriminatory language from the Act, the addition of student representation to the Board of the Institute of Advanced Studies, the establishment of the position of Treasurer as an office of the University, and the up-dating of penalties for traffic offences on University land. The Bill gives the University power to make Statutes authorising the disposal of vehicles abandoned on University land after reasonable efforts have been made to trace their owners. The opportunity is also being taken to make some formal amendments to the ANU Act and to bring this Act into line with current legislative practice in several matters. These are the provision for disclosure of interests by members of the University Council and for disqualification of a member of Council. The Bill has no implications for Commonwealth funding of the ANU. Fees for amenities and services are levied from students by the University Council at rates approved by the Council and do not involve Commonwealth expenditure. This Bill gives effect to a principle of considerable importance in defining the respective roles of government and university governing bodies in the management of institutions. It embraces a broad concept of the nature and value of a university education. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.20) —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 Bill is a companion measure to the Bill to amend the Australian National University Act. It is similarly directed at removing the provisions inserted in the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act in 1979 which restrict the activities of student organisations in the college. In addition to this primary purpose, the Bill also provides for a number of minor amendments to the Act. The Bill gives effect to the same principles in removing the restrictions imposed on the activities of student organisations in the college as does the Australian National University Amendment Bill. It is similarly based on the view that the 1979 amendments involved an unwarranted intrusion into the internal affairs of the college. The removal of these restrictions will mean that it will again be the responsibility of the College Council to supervise the use of funds levied for the provision of amenities and services as an aspect of its general responsibility for the governance of the college. The College Council has been consulted and has indicated that it welcomes the Government's initiative in this matter. While the Government's general intention is to return to the pre-1979 statutory situation, the Bill also brings the college into line with the Australian National University in terms of categories of fees that may be covered by a determination of the College Council. This has been done in order to clarify the powers of the College Council in respect of the funding of the activities of student organisations in the college. The Bill also provides for a number of minor amendments to the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act. These include the removal of sex-discriminatory language from the Act, enlarging the Council of the College by adding representatives of non-teaching staff and college alumni, and empowering the college to confer honourary degrees at levels approved by the Minister. In the case of the conferring of honourary degrees, the Government's intention is that the college should be able to confer honourary degrees at levels equivalent to the normal awards of the college. The Bill provides an opportunity to make some formal amendments to the Act and to bring this Act into line with current practice. The Bill does this in respect of disclosure of interests by members of the College Council. This Bill has no implications for Commonwealth funding of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. Fees for amenities and services are levied from students by the College Council at rates approved by the Council and do not involve Commonwealth expenditure. Like the companion Bill, this Bill gives effect to a principle pertinent to the definition of the respective roles of government and college governing bodies. It similarly derives from a broad concept of the nature and value of a college education. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) 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 Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.22) —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 primary purpose of this Bill is to put into operation the Government's commitment to reactivate the former Curriculum Development Centre within the administrative structure of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. By this means the Commonwealth will have the capacity to provide schools and school systems with curriculum and educational materials, information and expertise. The legislation will also strengthen the integral relationship between curriculum issues, research priorities and the funding and program responsibilities of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. To achieve its primary purpose the Bill repeals the Curriculum Centre Act 1975 and in doing so abolishes the existing Curriculum Development Centre as a statutory authority. The assets and liabilities of the existing Centre are to be vested in the Commonwealth and will be administered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The legislation will establish a new Curriculum Development Council, reporting to the Minister, which will work in close consultation with the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The Chairman of the Commission will have permanent head powers in relation to staff appointed under the Public Service Act 1922 to assist both the Commission and the new Curriculum Development Council. In addition to the primary purpose of the Bill, the legislation also updates general provisions in the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973 to take account of current legislative practices. The legislation also provides authority for the Commission to inquire into, and to furnish information and advice to the Minister with respect to, matters affecting the education of handicapped children who have not attained school age. In accordance with the Government's pre-election education policy this Bill will reverse the decision taken by the Fraser Government to abolish Australia's national curriculum body. The earlier decision, arising from a recommendation of the Committee for the Review of Commonwealth Functions-the Lynch Committee-was made despite considerable public debate and a flood of objections from all quarters of the educational community, including the national parent and teacher organisations. It was a pointless decision given the significant achievements of the Curriculum Development Centre in its all too short history. It was a decision that could not have been made on the basis of any rational educational argument and a decision made all the more remarkable given that the then Minister for Education had only six weeks previously officially opened the Centre's premises with a speech praising at considerable length the Centre's achievements. That decision reflected the Fraser Government's lack of real concern for the education of our children. In contrast, the Hawke Government is committed to an educational program that will ensure that the greater majority of children in our schools are given a worthwhile and rewarding education. Central to such a goal will be the re-establishment of the Commonwealth's national curriculum role as proposed in this Bill. One of the main outcomes to be expected from the proposed new arrangements will be a commitment to forge a closer relationship between national curriculum development and the program activities of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. This link will be instrumental in enabling the Commission to implement fully the Government's national educational priorities, in particular, to promote curriculum initiatives in such areas as Aboriginal education, the education of girls, computer education, secondary education, curriculum renewal and those programs concerned with Australia's multicultural character. The close links to be forged between the Curriculum Development Council and the Commonwealth Schools Commission will strengthen the capacity of the Commission to bring about long term changes in Australian education. In the immediate future this increased capacity will be evident in the curriculum inputs that will be made to the announced participation and equity, and computer education programs. The cost of reactivating the Curriculum Development Centre is expected to be between $2.5m and $3m a year, less expected revenue from sales of curriculum publications of $500,000 a year. The transfer of curriculum activities presently conducted by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs to the Curriculum Development Council will involve savings in the order of $1.5m a year which will be an offset against the costs of reactivating the Curriculum Development Centre . The Government's participation and equity program is a cornerstone of our strategies for educational improvement and through this program it will be possible to break down the persisting patterns of disadvantage, those patterns which have made educational outcomes dependent to an unacceptable extent on the socio-economic background of the student or the student's sex, ethnic background and geographical location. The immediate emphasis of the program will be to increase the participation of young people in post-compulsory schooling, particularly Aboriginal people, working class youth, some migrant communities, rural youth and the handicapped. However, in the longer term the Government will be seeking to make education a more challenging and rewarding experience for all children. The Government's computer education program recognises the need for all students to have an understanding of the uses of new technology and of the impact these new technologies will have on the student's social, environmental, industrial and working life. From the teachers' point of view, there will need to be planning for, and guidance in, the ways in which the computer and related technologies are to be introduced into the curriculum and into the professional development programs of both the practising teacher and the teacher trainee. The promotion of these needs, including the professional development needs of parents and community members, will be a major responsibility of the new Curriculum Development Council. Achieving these objectives will require the full co-operation of all groups with an interest in education. It will not be an easy task and it is not one that can be left to individual schools or systems. Co-operation, co-ordination and facilitation will be necessary if the initiatives are to have a broad system impact. Central to the process will be the need to give close attention to the school curriculum, in particular, to the curriculum content, structure and organisation. In this demanding task there is a clear need for a national initiative and this is being provided for in the provisions of this Bill. Among the initiatives that will need pursuing on the wider national front will be such issues as credentialling and assessment procedures, the analysis of curricula, the consideration of alternative organisational and structural patterns, the retraining of teachers, changes in teacher attitudes, the design and development of new courses, and, very importantly, the improvement of school -community relations and community attitudes towards both education and the outcomes of education. The Australian Labor Party and Labor governments have traditionally been concerned with justice and equity. We have a commitment to creating a more equal society where each person can achieve his or her full potential. In education this means we are committed to assist schools to give a positive and effective education to all children, and to make substantial progress towards the more equal distribution of other outcomes of education such as access to paid employment and higher education. We believe there is an urgent need to encourage all children to obtain a full twelve years of education and thereby to increase participation in tertiary education and in the country's capacity to adapt to, and make significant contributions to, technological change. At the present time too many of our children are leaving school without completing an adequate level of education and without developing those skills that will enhance their opportunities for satisfying employment. It is also true that of those children who are leaving early a disproportionate number are coming from working class and disadvantaged groups. In response to this situation the Hawke Labor Government has a long term goal to ensure that most young people complete a full secondary education, either in a school or in a technical and further education institution, or in some combination of work and education. Achieving this goal will require far reaching initiatives paramount among which will be the curriculum reforms I have already mentioned. My own interest in the education of girls and of Aboriginals is well known and the reactivation of the former Curriculum Development Centre will be a vital element in the Government's policies in these areas. It is only recently that there had been a widespread recognition that schooling was not preparing girls for the economic and social realities of adult life. We do not yet have a comprehensive history of schooling for girls in Australia and that is significant in itself. We do know that over the greater part of our history there have been major differentiations between the schooling offered to girls and boys, except for that minority of girls who followed an academic path traditionally designed for privileged males. In Aboriginal education the situation is no better. It is only recently that Aboriginal history and culture has been considered a legitimate study in our schools. Virtually all of us here were treated to the history of the world and of Austrlaia from a British perspective. This Bill will enable the Government to take positive steps to set about redressing these imbalances. In the same way that Aboriginals and girls have been limited in the benefits that they may derive from education and in the contributions they may make to the development of our country so too have several other groups including other ethnic groups and the handicapped. The multicultural nature of Australian society and the rights of all persons are still not adequately understood nor reflected in current educational practices. The Labor Government acknowledges the diversity of the contributing cultures in Australia and it will be expected the new Curriculum Development Council to contribute to the development and dissemination of curricula that acknowledges this diversity and provides a perspective of Australia as a nation in the Asian- Pacific region. The challenge ahead of us is to turn schools, and the formal education system, into places and experiences which young people will really enjoy and find value in. We need to re-affirm the traditional and positive concern of schooling with the development of the individual, and to place less stress on the function of school as a social sorting system. It is a debasement of the purposes of education to use schools as a weeding out device. They should not be places where for many students their main experience is one of frustration and inadequacy. This is not to downplay academic achievement and high educational standards and indeed the Government fully recognises the need to improve the education and preparation of those who are moving into higher levels of education. However, this must not be done at the expense of the many students for whom schooling is the route to gainful employment and a satisfying adult life. The objective must be to provide a satisfying and demanding education for all students. The Hawke Government believes that this objective can be achieved if the Commonwealth supports school curriculum and practice in a positive and direct way. Such support should build upon the intellectual and social resources of students and their school communities and give to students the confidence and understanding necessary to shape individually and collectively the circumstances of their own lives. In the curriculum context the emphasis will be on the Commonwealth, through the Curriculum Development Council, taking a positive stance in co-ordinating, facilitating and in broad terms supporting the development of curriculum strategies in association with existing curriculum groups throughout the country . The aim will be to achieve increased co-operation and understanding between the Commonwealth and the States, to extend the involvement of teachers and parents in the curriculum process, and to expand co-operation between all sectors of the educational fabric. Through such endeavours the Government is confident that all Australian children whatever their economic, social, ethnic or geographical background will be able to enjoy as near as practicable an equal and worthwhile educational opportunity. In proposing that the Commonwealth play a positive role in this process the Government fully recognises that State governments have the prime responsibility for education. However, the Government believes it is possible, and indeed highly desirable, for the Commonwealth to participate and for the Curriculum Development Council to work in partnership with the States in building on the work now being done in the States and to seek ways of co- operatively developing new approaches to traditional subject matter as well as new subjects, new organisational and structural patterns, and forms of teaching and learning that will make school a more interesting and constructive experience for all students. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.23 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising adjourn until Friday, 1 June 1984 at 9 a.m. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.02) —I did not speak on the last motion on the hour of meeting because I thought we would in our usual way sit whenever the Government required a sitting of the Senate. However, I do appeal to the Government to make up its bloody mind, if I may be so rude. It really is a bit awkward having changes made so frequently. I now see that the hero of the motor vehicle industry has arrived to relieve his deputy. Quite seriously, I do ask the Government to let us know whether we can rely on this decision. Senator Walters —We ask why. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.03) —in reply-I will tell the honourable senator why. Senator Chaney's request is perfectly reasonable, as is that of Senator Walters. The starting time tomorrow was put off until 10 o'clock because, as is well known, we had a party meeting scheduled for 9 o'clock. However, we do have to consider the Appropriation legislation, which it is fairly important we get through, and other legislation which it is important for us to get through. The Caucus meeting is now to be held at 8 o' clock. We felt that taking an hour our of a short day tomorrow was putting unreasonable restraints not only on the Government but also on Opposition speakers who would like to speak. We thought we were doing the right thing by the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(8.04) —I refer to a matter raised during the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Communications when Senator Sir John Carrick asked a number of questions relating to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Answers to those questions have been delivered to the honourable senator's office and I seek leave to have those answers incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Question: What are the entertainment and travelling expenses of the Chairman and Board of the ABC in 1983-84? Are these expenses substantially larger than the previous Chairman and Board of ABC? Answer: The following table shows entertainment and travelling expenses for the Chairman and Board of the ABC to date for 1983-84 with comparable figures for the Commissioners in 1982-83 1 July 1982- 1 July 1983- Board/Commission 30 June 1983 31 May 1984 $ $ Entertainment expenses 9,431 8,459 Travelling expenses 74,904 74,062 Question: Have notices of abolition of positions gone out to senior officers recently? Answer: Yes. Question: Did these apply to the Legal Section? Answer: Yes. Four professional legal positions were abolished and the affected staff were notified. Question: Is there any intention to restructure the Legal Section and if so how ? Answer: Yes. The Board of the ABC has created senior Legal positions in both Radio and Television Divisions and a further Legal position in the Directorate of Engineering and Property. The structure below the senior legal positions in each media will be determined by an Establishment and Systems review which is expected to make recommendations to the Board at its August meeting. Question: Could you confirm that existing legislation does not provide for a staff member on the Board and that in fact no staff representative is on the Board. Would you provide advice on whether a staff representative sits on the ABC Board meetings? is there any advisory committee mechanism whereby staff views are conveyed to the Board. The existing legislation does not provide for a staff member on the ABC Board. However the Government made a commitment to the Senate during passage of the ABC Bill in the 1983 Autumn sittings to consider legislative provisions for a staff elected Director. The Department of Communications is currently preparing proposals for amendments of the ABC Act to provide for a staff elected Director. These proposals are expected to be considered by the Government shortly. In late 1983 the Government arranged for an election to be conducted amongst ABC staff by the Australian Electoral Office for a person to be recommended for appointment as a Director. Mr Tom Molomby was elected and was subsequently appointed by the Governor-General as a Director of the Board of the Corporation for a period of two years from 15 December 1983. To the extent that Mr Molomby, a staff member, was elected by the staff and subsequently appointed to the Board, he is the staff representative on the Board . Mr Molomby, being a non-executive Director appointed pursuant to Section 12 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 attends the Board meetings as a Director. No other staff representative sits in on Board meetings. There is no single advisory committee mechanism whereby staff views are conveyed to the Board. However, three members of the Board of management are elected by the staff. Further, major decisions affecting staff are made after consultation with the relevant industrial organisations in the ABC. Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $30,955,000. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.05) —In our previous consideration of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1983-84 Senator Walters asked about three market surveys but I was unable to answer her in detail. One survey was conducted on section 17 disputes with the doctors. That survey is presently a working document of the Government and is being actively used in formulating Government policies and priorities. The other two surveys are not yet completed and have not been presented to the Minister. They will be used to formulate Government policy and priorities in these areas. The Government will release the results of the surveys when they are no longer being used in the preparation of policy. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.06) —I thank the Minister. The other question which as far as I know has not been answered by the Department of Health appears at page 35 of the Hansard record of the hearings of Estimates Committee B, when I asked the same question as I asked during consideration of the estimates for the Department of Social Security. The question is: Can the Minister tell me how much money is budgeted to be spent on consultants this year? I do not believe that was answered by the Department. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.06) —The answer is $305 ,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.06) —I thank the Minister. He may have to get this for me or he may have it now, but I would like the names of the consultants. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.07) —I can describe the consultancies but I cannot at this moment give Senator Walters the exact names. I think Senator Walters has the descriptions of the consultancies. Senator Walters —I did get the descriptions but I did not get the names. I did not actually ask for them; I thought it was implicit in the question. Senator GRIMES —I have the descriptions but not the names. I will certainly obtain the names for the honourable senator. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.07) —I thank the Minister. There are several questions which I have been told only the Minister can answer. First of all, has there been a reassessment of the original estimate of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of nine out of 10 people in Australia being better off under Medicare? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.08) —I do not have the exact figure here. All I can say is that we are all better off for having a universal health insurance scheme. For instance, if even Senator Walters or I were to suffer a catastrophic accident or illness which could only be treated in a public hospital we would be better off. I assume she means financially better off. I will ask the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to make an attempt to get those figures. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.08) —I hope the Minister is taking this seriously because it is a serious question. I would like to know what percentage of Australians are better off financially under the new scheme, bearing in mind the 15 per cent that is paid out to cover the schedule fee. As the Minister would know, that would be based on an average of the number of calls for which a patient would have to pay. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.09) —I assure the honourable senator I take that question very seriously. But in some ways being better off is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, I would consider myself better off under Medicare if I suddenly, catastrophically, had an accident which put me in hospital for a year, or required some sort of procedure which was beyond my ordinary financial capacities to pay and which left me in a state where I was unable even to continue the onerous task of being a senator in this place. I would be reassured that as a result of the introduction of a universal health insurance scheme my capacity to be treated in public hospitals with good facilities would not be restricted by my capacity to pay. I take that very seriously and I think it is a very serious argument for the introduction of a universal insurance scheme. I understand that Senator Walters is taking a much narrower approach than that. She wants to know by how much a week various individuals are better or worse off under Medicare. I will certainly seek to get that information for her. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.10) —I thank the Minister. As he would be well aware, we could enter into a debate on whether the previous system also arranged for the catastrophic situation to which he referred, but I do not believe that this is the correct time or place to do that. Senator Colston —Hear, hear! Senator WALTERS —If the interjections are to be so ridiculous, perhaps we ought to enter into that debate. I have a quarter of an hour in which to speak, so it depends how the Government is prepared to take the statements I am making. If it would prefer me to enter into that debate, by all means I will. I ask the Minister whether legal opinion has been sought by the Department on the legality or otherwise of Medicare keeping the patient's receipt. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.11) —Senator Walters asked during the Estimates Committee hearing whether a legal opinion had been obtained on the validity of holding doctors' receipts against the patient's wishes. I thought she would have received an answer, but as it appears she has not I will provide the answer now: The policy of not returning doctors' receipts as a matter of course was adopted by the Health Insurance Commission in the light of the health insurance industry's experience with fraudulent practices prior to the introduction of Medicare. These documents provide the only reliable evidence to support the payment of benefits and their automatic return would limit the Commission's ability to complete effective audit of these payments. This policy is consistent with the views of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts on medical fraud and overservicing. It also seeks to avoid criticisms such as those made by the Auditor-General in his report of May 1983 on the unacceptability of fund records as support for the payment of Commonwealth medical benefits. The Commission is prepared to issue a statement of benefit for cash claims, but only on request. Also, a person will be able to obtain an annual statement on request, of benefits paid. These facilities will assist claimants in the preparation of their taxation returns. This is the most common reason advanced by persons seeking return of the accounts and receipts. However, the Commission recognises that some people will need their documents for other reasons. In these cases provision has been made for the accounts to be returned after the claim has been processed for payment by cheque. Legal advice available to the Commission indicates that, subject to this provision, there is no legal impediment to the Commission's retaining account documents. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.13) —I seek clarification of that answer. If I take my receipt in to claim a benefit and ask to have it back, will it definitely be returned to me? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.14) —According to the answer I have, it will be returned after it has been used to process the account . If I can make a correction to a previous answer-we have some mathematical problems here-the appropriation for consultants is $859,000, not $305,000, as I previously indicated. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.14) —I raise a matter of mechanics which has been raised with me several times, and this may be an appropriate opportunity to get an answer. Juveniles living away from home are generally requested by the places at which they stay or board to produce Medicare cards of their own. However, as they are juveniles they do not pay their own bills and the bills are sent to their parents, who pay them. However, the parents are unable to claim the refunds because the cards are not in their names. This is a ridiculous situation . Can the mechanics be tidied up? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.15) —Quite frankly, my advisers do not understand the question. The card for a juvenile is the same family card. It has the same number, I believe. It can certainly be claimed upon . I will seek further information, but I am a little surprised at that question because I understand that people who are away at boarding school or are at university, for instance, even though dependants, have their own cards which are part of the family card. Senator Archer —That is not the case. I will put it to the Minister in writing later on. Senator GRIMES —We will look at it then. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.16) —I wish to ask the Minister some questions regarding medifraud. In the Estimates Committee hearings, as the Minister will remember, I asked for the Department's opinion regarding Professor McNeil's criticisms of the Department's methodology. I have received an answer, and perhaps if I read it it will explain my concern. It states: The Committee sought the Department's view on certain criticisms made by Professor D. McNeil of Macquarie University. The criticisms were directed at the Department's methodology used to estimate the level of fraud and overservicing. Professor McNeil's criticisms were published in the Medical Journal of Australia on 17 March 1984. So far as we are aware, he had not previously contacted the Department on the basis of the estimates. This next part is particularly important: The Department has consistently made clear that the methodology adopted to construct the estimate does not provide any evaluation of the precision of the estimate but, rather, provides quantitative estimates of the general magnitude of medical benefits fraud and overservicing. That very clearly says to me that it is a rather loose estimate. It is a general estimate. Is my interpretation of that correct? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.17) —Yes. It is perfectly clear to me. The Department does not pretend to any precision in the estimate. It is not suggesting that it is an exact estimate. It gives an estimate of the general magnitude of medical fraud and overservicing. I agree that the answer contains a bit of jargon and convoluted language, but that is what it means, and that is what it means to me. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.18) —I just wanted that verified because of the Minister's letter to the Medical Journal of Australia of 21 January 1984. Referring to the statement he had made to the House on 15 November, he said: In the statement I outlined the methodology for calculation of the estimate for the 1981-82 financial year, and pointed out that this is similar to, but more rigorous than, that used to deduce the estimate of $100 million for 1980-81. The estimated fraud and overservicing for 1981-82 is $120 million . . . the procedures followed would give a figure of the correct magnitude. I find it very difficult to marry those two statements. With respect to the procedures followed the Minister said that the Australian Medical Association had agreed that there was an estimate of $100m, after the Department had taken the AMA and its accountants through the procedures. He said the AMA had agreed that that figure could not be proved or refuted until further investigations into individual cases had been conducted, but that the procedures followed would give a figure of the correct magnitude. The Department is telling us that the figure is a very general estimate. The Minister is telling us that it is far more rigorous than that undertaken in the previous year, which established, as far as he was concerned, a $100m estimate of fraud. He said that the following year, when it was established that it was $120m, it was far more rigorous and that he was satisfied that it was pretty accurate. Can the Minister tell me who is correct-the Minister or the Department? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.20) —I have trouble coping with Senator Walters's question. We are talking about an estimate, a best estimate, which gives a general magnitude of the degree of medical fraud. I understood the honourable senator to say that there was some considerable difference between $100m and $120m. Senator Walters —I will put it again. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters had better put it again because I would have thought that those figures were consistent with both statements-'there is a general magnitude' and 'there is a correct magnitude', whichever expression one uses. Quite frankly, I believe that if the amount is $30m, $50m or $100m it is too much and we should do something about it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.21) —The Minister has missed the point. What I am saying is that the Department said that it is a pretty rough old guess, as I understood it; whereas the Minister said that it is pretty accurate. If the Minister can explain to me how the two statements marry I will be very grateful. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.21) —I do not believe for one minute that the Department is saying that it is a pretty rough old guess . What it is saying is that it is an estimate which provides a quantative estimate of the general magnitude of medical frauds and overservicing. I understand that the letter from the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, said that the later methods give the correct magnitude. But we are talking about magnitude . No one in the Department or anywhere else is saying that it is $100m, $102m or $105m. We are talking about an amount in the order of $100m. Senator Walters may well disagree with that, but no one in the department is claiming that that figure has the degree of exactitude that I think she would like it to have. I make the point that if it is $100m, plus or minus $50m, to me it is too much and we have a public responsibility to do something about it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.22) —I agree with the Minister on that, as he would well know. The Department says that there is no precision about the figure, that it is a very general estimate, but the Minister seems to be saying that the figure indicates a correct magnitude. What the Minister is hanging his hat on is that the word 'magnitude' is used. I suppose I have to leave it at that. During the Estimates Committee hearing an officer told me that Professor McNeil had been invited to join the Department. I gathered at that time that he thought Professor McNeil had joined the Department and he was going to bring me up to date on the matter. I gather the professor has not yet answered. Can the Minister tell me whether there is any more up to date information on whether Professor McNeil will be joining the Department to examine the methodology used by the Department following his criticisms. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.23) —The answer from the Department states: Professor McNeil visited the Department on 14 May and had discussions with officers in relation to his suggestion that sampling techniques could be employed. He has since given evidence to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts on 21 May 1984. In both discussions with the departmental officers and his evidence to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, Professor McNeil indicated that he accepts that there may well be practical difficulties that are too great to justify proceeding with such sample surveys, although he continues to advocate their use. Professor McNeil has also indicated that he recognised that as a detection system FODS may be reasonably effective at least as a starting point. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.24) —Can the Minister explain what that last sentence means? I do not understand it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.25) —It means that Professor McNeil has indicated to the Department and the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts that he recognises that as a detection system, FODS -the fraud and overservicing detection system-may be reasonably effective at least as a starting point. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.26) —I have before me a figure of $725,000. I believe that figure represents the amount that has been recovered from doctors who have been charged and convicted of fraud and overservicing in this financial year. We have recovered $725,000 at a cost of $3.5m. Has the Department been able to come up with a more economical method of dealing with this minority of doctors who are ripping off the system? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.26) —I can understand the good senator believing that the recovery of $752,382 from fraud and overservicing from 1 July to 31 March has not been considerably cost effective, but I remind her that this is only the start of a program to see whether we cannot do something about fraud and overservicing. I would have thought that the recovery of that amount of money from four doctors indicated that we are well on the track to doing that. It is a five-year program to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this system. I think that to judge it on this one year's situation is not a very reliable method of judging it. I believe the Department is always trying to get more efficient ways of doing this. If the honourable senator is suggesting that it is not worth while chasing $752,382 from four doctors because it costs a few dollars more than that to collect it, I suggest that she think of the consequences of not seeking to do so-not attempting to deal with fraud and overservicing-and the consequences of doctors having the capacity to do that with the absolute certainty that no one will do anything about it. I think that such a situation would be fairly horrific for the Budget and for the health expenditure of this country. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.28) —The Minister is quite well aware of my views on fraud and overservicing. I will not be intimidated by him saying that I suggested that it is all too expensive and should not be done. I have not suggested that in any way. There is no point in his putting words into my mouth with the intention that I will not ask questions about it, because it certainly will not work with me. He should have woken up to that fact a long time ago. Both of us have been members of this Parliament for some time. Senator Chaney —I think he must be a slow learner. Senator WALTERS —I think he might be a slow learner. So there is not much point in his trying that line. Perhaps he would find a new line interesting or amusing . He will remember that on 9 May during the medical services debate he told this chamber that the Australian Labor Party did not doctor-bash. The Minister looks very pathetic lying there in his chair, but he did say that it was just nonsense for Senator Peter Baume to make accusations that the Government had an ideology of hatred against the medical profession, that it indulged in doctor-bashing all the time and that it was obsessed with the medical profession in some way. I interjected and said: Would you like a few quotes? The Minister said it was all done in the heat of the moment. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! I think the honourable senator should come back to the subject of the Bill. Senator WALTERS —I am just about to ask the question. I was wondering whether Senator Grimes could tell me the cost of the composition of a song that was printed and evidently handed around in a bus. I wish to read from a paper the extract referring to it. The article is entitled 'Victory Song Shocks Ministers' . The article stated: It was the night Federal Health Minister Dr Neil Blewett had been waiting for. The scene could well have been a busload of school kids singing their favourite ditty slamming the teachers. But despite the school bus sign, the passengers were dressed in dinner suits. And the song they were singing wasn't a school song but one of Medicare victory . It was a big night for Dr Blewett. After a day of discussions at a Health Minister's conference in Melbourne he was taking out the State Ministers and Directors-General for a night on the town . And what better place to choose than a theatre restaurant called-The Last Laugh . It was certainly the night Dr Blewett was going to have the last laugh over Medicare. On the bus journey back to the palatial Windsor Hotel, Dr Blewett's press secretary went around handing song sheets to each of the ministers. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Temporary Chairman, I take a point of order. This is a grotesque travesty of the proceedings of this Parliament. There is no question of this article having any relationship to anything in the Estimates, despite the spurious reference to the cost of the ditty with which Senator Walters began her current contribution to this debate. Might I urge, in the interests both of our sanity and the expeditious proceedings in this place, that you bring her to order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, you must bring in the question of cost. Senator WALTERS —I have, Mr Temporary Chairman. I asked whether a payment was made to the composer of the ditty that I am about to read. Indeed, the Attorney- General, Senator Gareth Evans, may try the best he can to stop me. I am asking if payment was given for the composition and printing of this song. I think that is a legitimate question. I will not go on because obviously that general news is known at least to Senator Evans and, I am quite sure at this stage, to the Minister. I will read the ditty that was sung in that bus. Senator Gareth Evans —Whatever turns you on. Senator WALTERS —Yes, it certainly does. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! I think the Minister fully understands the question. If the honourable senator wishes she may ask another one. Senator WALTERS —I am asking about the cost of this one. I have not indicated which one it is yet. The ditty begins: Oh AMA Oh AMA However green your bank notes- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I believe, Senator Walters, that you are overstepping my ruling. I have asked you to keep to the Estimates. You have indicated the song and I think that the Minister can quite adequately answer your question. Senator WALTERS —Unless the Minister was on the bus that night I do not see how he would be aware of this song. Would you give me permission to indicate the song to the Minister? I am asking whether any cost was involved in its being printed and composed. Would it be easier if I had it incorporated in Hansard? Would that please you? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.35) —I understand that Senator Walters is referring to a dinner after a Federal and State Ministers' meeting. I understand that a member of Dr Blewett's staff wrote a ditty which celebrated the establishment of the health insurance scheme. It is my understanding that the cost of that ditty was nil. I understand that the only cost to the person who sang it was a rather bad hangover the next morning. If we are to waste our time on nonsense like this, fair enough. But I really think that if Senator Walters through all her life has never been in some circumstance where she has been associated with a sporting team or a school team which has sung a song after a victory, at no cost to themselves or anyone else, quite frankly, I do not know what she is on about. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.36) —I ask permission to have the song incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The song read as follows- Oh AMA Oh AMA How ever green your bank notes From Vaucluse Heights to Too-a-rak There's nothing like being a filthy rich quack. Oh AMA Oh AMA Neal Blewett says you're bastards with lots of money in tax lurks, to keep up the payments on the mercs. Oh Lindsay T Oh Lindsay T How much longer will you frustrate me We've dug a hole to bury George a national strike he failed to forge. Oh George R Oh George R you tried to take them all too far You went for the final kill the corpse was Lindsay's and not Neal's. Oh Clyde Scaif Oh Clyde Scaif Toorak's answer to the BLF You went to your meeting in Rolls and Jags but now your image surely flags Pathology Pathology You'll only get the schedule fee you talk about the principle but still you want the dough Oh AMA Oh AMA What about the patients. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Progress reported. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report of Estimates Committee D on divisions 270 to 284 of the Additional Estimates for 1983-84 for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Ordered that the report be printed. Consideration resumed. GROUP C Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $4,651,000. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.38) —We are now considering the Estimates in Group C and I will refer to the report of Estimates Committee C. I note that the Chairman of the Committee is not present at the moment. I do not know whether he intends to participate in the debate during the Committee stage, but I wish to support a matter which the Committee reported to the Senate. It is contained in paragraph 3 of the Committee's report. The Committee said: The Committee records its disappointment at the time that it has taken some Departments and authorities to provide written answers to questions arising out of the Committee's hearing on 30 April. With the exception of the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Finance, all questions arrived only after a period of three weeks had elapsed since the hearings. The report gives further detail. Later in the same paragraph it is reported: The Committee considers that the provision of detailed written answers to questions is a normal and necessary part of Estimates Committee operations, and is essential for the proper consideration of the Appropriation Bills by the Senate. The Committee believes that debate on the Second Reading of Appropriation Bills 3 and 4 should not proceed if satisfactory written answers are not provided in advance of the Bills being called on. The Committee is of the opinion that all written answers arising out of the hearing on 30 April should have been available for Committee perusal within three weeks. I wish to express support for the view of the Committee and to indicate that that is a view which I believe the Senate should act upon in future. I do think, as I said earlier in the Committee debate, that there is an element of farce in having arrangements which require debate before requested information has been provided. Indeed, it has been quite difficult during this current period to have even the reports of the Committees completed in time. I note we have just reported progress on and had the opportunity of getting the report of Estimates Committee D, which has been sitting as late as today. I wish to put the Government on notice that the Opposition expects the Government to program its Estimates during the Budget session in a way which avoids the difficulty we face this year. We would accept the all-party view which is expressed in Estimate Committee C that we should not be required to enter into a second reading debate , and certainly not into a committee debate, before all requested details have been provided. I accept that there could be occasions when it was totally impossible-the information simply not being available. In that case an answer indicating why that is so would, I think, be the minimum requirement. I ask the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, who is the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and who is here, simply to recall that, because I propose to act on it during the Budget session. The Government is always seeking to get its Appropriation Bills through before Supply runs out, and I would not wish the programming to be such as to present embarrassment to the Government during the Budget session. The matter I wish to raise on the estimates of the Department of Resources and Energy was touched on in the questioning of the administrative officers at the Estimates Committee meeting. In particular, Senator Sir John Carrick asked a series of questions about a resource rent tax. He asked about the decisions which the Government has taken and was to take, and also established that officers of the Department have been engaged in working on this tax. So my remarks, if you wish them to relate to the Appropriations Bills, Mr Deputy Chairman, I suppose would relate to the salaries of the officers who have been engaged in this work. Senator Walsh —You draw a long bow. Senator CHANEY —The Minister for Resources and Energy says I am drawing a long bow, but I am sure it is a permissibly long bow. In this debate I publicly remind the Minister-I doubt that he needs to be reminded-of the very strong views which have been expressed by the industry about his and the Government's proposals. In particular, very clear views have been expressed by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association on behalf of a wide range of oil explorers, both large and small. I remind the Committee, if not the Minister, of the public statement of APEA issued on 18 May, in which it was stated that the Association believes that the meeting which the Minister held with industry: . . . underlines the Government's basic failure to appreciate the industry's exploration decision-making process and also the impracticality of trying to resolve the tax issue in a hurry. APEA, while welcoming the opportunity for discussion, believes that the meeting gave no reassurance to the industry that its basic concerns about the level and impact of the proposed tax were being accepted. The tax in its present form would seriously erode investor returns and would reduce marketing of a number of exploration and production investments undertaken by the industry, which ultimately would not be in the best interests of the country. Senator Walsh is fond of pointing out that the industry speaks in its own interests in these matters. I wish to take this occasion to remind him of the fact that there is a very real element of risk in the Government proceeding in the way that is proposed. There is a real risk that off-shore exploration will be discouraged. I think the Minister would agree that, on the basis of our present knowledge, it appears that our best prospects for finding larger pools of oil is off-shore and that is, of course, the area in which this new tax is directed. I take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he agrees that if the Government, in the decisions that it has taken, has in fact misjudged what it is that will discourage investment, and does reduce investment, this will take some time to appear. It is apparent that short term decisions are not made on the basis of what has happened today but on the basis of plans which were made over a recent period. It is unlikely that there would be any great downturn in exploration in the short term. We are facing a situation in which the industry is saying very broadly that an additional tax on off-shore oil is going to discourage exploration. We are in a situation in which the truth or falsity of that, if the Government chooses to proceed down this course, will take some time to show. It seems apparent that if exploration does decline it will be difficult to turn the matter round by the Government simply changing its decision yet again. I would have thought that there is very little basis for the industry having any faith in this Government at all, given the fact that it has now established that it is prepared to make changes to the tax system on the basis of ex post facto judgments. If the Minister succeeds in emulating his most recent Labor predecessor, the late Rex Connor, and destroys the oil exploration industry in Australia, particularly off-shore, I put it to him that it would be very difficult for the Hawke Government to restore the confidence which is going to be required then to lift industry interests and to restore activity in what is a high risk and very expensive area. I think the Minister is playing a very difficult and, I suggest, dangerous game for Australia. He seems to be determined to ignore the warnings which have been made to him very explicitly. I think there is a very simple explanation for that . Senator Walsh is not the Minister for Resources and Energy; he is the Minister for taxing the resources and energy industry and his Department has sadly been reduced to the same status. As I have said before, if we want to find a common denominator for what Senator Walsh is doing and what the Department of Resources and Energy and the Hawke Government are doing with respect to the resources and energy industry, we will find that the only common denominator is not the economic rationalism for which the Minister was famous when he was in opposition and able to be pure, but a desperate desire to raise extra money. If we look at the Minister's performance with respect to the removal of the black holes, we find that he managed to use that as an exercise for increasing the burdens on the companies involved. If we look at the Minister's proposal to auction exploration rights, at the resource rent tax which he wants to impose, at the new excise which he has imposed over recent months and at his failure to adjust the liquified petroleum gas price and to use that as a cover to remove the subsidy for LPG, we will not find consistency of principle; we will find consistency of tax collection. Even the decision to allow the export of Australian oil-a decision which I support-is a decision which, as I say, has consistency with the others only because it further increases the Government's revenue take. I think we are in a situation in which the Government is dicing with Australia' s future. It is making judgments which it had better pray be right-if prayer is not its style, it had better just hope it is right because if it is wrong, the damage which is done on this occasion might be even more lasting than the damage which was done by Rex Connor and the Government of Mr Gough Whitlam, which achieved absolute notoriety for its success in destroying oil exploration in Australia. The rather narrow interest which is represented by APEA might lead one to say that that is a special pleading. It is interesting that this afternoon the Business Council of Australia issued a strong statement also opposing a resource rent tax. Part of that statement urged the Government to abandon the current proposals. Senator Walsh —We all know about the neanderthals there. Senator CHANEY —I think that interjection is really out of line with the views and attitudes of the Government he is supposed to be part of. I thought Senator Walsh was in favour of loving them to death. It appears he is prepared to growl at them as well. He seems to be better at loving them to death in his section of the Government than anything else. But let me quote what Senator Walsh calls the neanderthals-the members of the Business Council of Australia, many of whom are extremely public spirited people who have on a number of occasions as individuals made a significant effort to work with this Government whether in the Economic Planning Advisory Council or at the National Economic Summit Conference. I think the Minister's very churlish comment is unworthy of him, but perhaps it is only too typical. Let me quote a little from the Press release. Mr Allen said: Prima facie this is an industry specific question and if this was the reality the Business Council would not comment. However, because of its broader implications we have considered it and now urge the Government to abandon the current proposals. I will leave out a couple of paragraphs. The Press release states a little further on: The Government cannot afford business confidence being dampened at this critical time by the acceptance of the concept, inherent in the RRT proposal, that the Government should determine what constitutes an appropriate return on capital for any particular industry, before levying a secondary tax. This situation is exacerbated by the unrealistically low rate of return at which a project can earn before this RRT applies. Later it makes these most accurate statements: It is generally true that any increases in taxes on a particular industry will result in a reduction in investment in that industry. The combination of a very high rate of taxation, the low threshold at which the tax is applied and the limit on allowable deductions (especially for unsuccessful exploration) would result in a marginal tax rate for a successful exploration programme of over 70 per cent. This makes it clear that a very substantial decrease in offshore oil exploration with a commensurate reduction in Australia's prospect for maintaining a high level of crude oil self sufficiency would result. The proposed RRT violated one of the important principles that should underlie all taxation changes, that of neutrality . . . I am sure that in purer and less responsible times Senator Walsh would have embraced that proposal. The press release continues: The proposed RRT was not neutral between industries nor even between different segments of the minerals industry, but rather impacted only on one specific segment of the minerals sector, offshore oil exploration. This clear lack of neutrality would distort investment flows by diverting investment funds away from offshore exploration into other areas which, in a neutral taxation environment, would be second best. Australia would not be maximising the benefits from its available capital and natural resources. I think the next point is most important. The release states: Further, the total amount of capital available for investment funds in overseas exploration programmes where the returns from petroleum were more commensurate with the risks involved. Investment capital is a scarce resource and the Business Council considers that Australia cannot afford the risk of its misallocation or, indeed, the possibility that capital, which could be invested in Australia is invested elsewhere. This would be the inevitable consequence of the Government adopting a RRT. The recent statements of the Shell Oil Co., a company not notorious for making anti-Government and highly political statements, should be noted. That was the clear import of the statement that came from Shell recently about the ability of Shell Australia to compete for available exploration capital within that multi- national company. What we are talking about is a proposal that the Government should impose a new tax of 45 per cent on returns obtained from off-shore oil which exceeds the long-term bond rate plus 10 percentage points. It is important to note that we are dealing here with a very expensive exploration process, a very high risk process. Those in the industry say that the level of return is below what they need to service capital. They further say that, given that the tax is to be applied prior to company tax, it is a fictitious test in any event. What the Government is doing has the potential to cause great damage to Australia. I ask the Government to reconsider its proposal and to go back to the drawing board. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Senator Chaney has asked that some matter related to next year's expenditure be explained by the Minister. I allowed the honourable senator to put his questions as he is the Leader of the Opposition. But in future I will restrict questions to the estimates before the Committee. Senator Sir John Carrick —I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I invite attention to the Hansard record of the hearings of Estimates Committee C. You and honourable senators will find that Estimates Committee C pursued lengthy discussion on the resource rental tax and accepted, as a committee, that the discussion was relevant. The Minister also accepted that point. I ask that your ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman, be reconsidered because I believe it is essential to the whole framework of considerations on these matters. Senator Chaney —Speaking to the point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, I refer to the Hansard record of the proceedings of Senate Estimates Committee C. Page 62 records the answer given by Senator Walsh in response to a question from Senator Boswell. The Minister said: Serious work commenced in about September or October last year. At least a dozen officers of the Department of Resources and Energy were involved in varying degrees. Several officers spend most of their time on it in the last few months. That is, on the resource rent tax. Senator Walsh continued: Officers from other departments have also been involved. That is just part of the questioning. The facts are that currently officers of the Department are engaged in policy work in this area. We are undoubtedly appropriating funds that will pay the salaries of those officers. I am sure they are not doing the work purely for love of country. I argue that we are entitled to debate matters to which the resources of this Department are devoted and which we are funding through these Bills. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The Committee is discussing votes for this financial year. The remarks of Senator Chaney relate to a future year. I could not see their relevance to the votes now being discussed. As I said, I will allow the Minister to answer the queries raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but I feel that the Committee should keep to the votes for this year. Senator Sir John Carrick —I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I ask you, with respect, to reconsider. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with expenditure for this year and undoubtedly additional expenditure was involved at staff and officer level, and no doubt at consultant levels, in order to formulate matters such as the resource rentals tax, the front end bonus and various matters of that nature. Discussion of those matters was accepted in principle in Estimates Committee C. I put it to you that it would be a paradoxical situation now if this Committee were not able to discuss what the Hansard records took place in the Senate Estimates Committee discussion; in other words, if we were denied the ability to examine what that Committee did. The purpose of this appropriation surely is to bring the report of the Estimates Committee to this chamber and to discuss it. It was fully accepted that the expenditure was part of expenditure for this year and therefore capable of examination. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I will allow the Minister to answer. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.56) —If I were not such an affable fellow at the Estimates Committee meeting, the precedent that Senator Sir John Carrick cited would not have existed; but it was not my intention there to head off discussion on questions. Senator Chaney asked initially whether the tax regime that the Government will finalise in the next couple of weeks would reduce investment and, if so, how long would it take to find out. The answer to both questions is that no one knows. I think the honourable senator is correct in saying that exploration expenditure in the short term is fairly well fixed, because commitments have been entered into, but it will be less fixed as time goes by. Exploration expenditure could go up or down for a number of reasons. No one knows at this stage for certain whether it will increase or decrease. Even if it goes one way or the other, or remains where it is, no one will know for certain what conceivable range of factors affected it. A far more important influence on exploration activities in Australia in the past has been shown to be the price of oil more than any other factor. The question was asked also whether, other things being equal-and of course they will not be equal-the new tax regime proposed by the Government will have a depressing or stimulating effect on exploration as a matter of judgment. That matter includes, most importantly, judgments which any realistic company has always made about whether, following discovery of large and highly profitable oil fields off shore, a degree of taxes additional to the 12.5 per cent ad valorem royalty would be imposed. A number of companies have acknowledged privately-and I should be surprised if they have not done so to Senator Sir John Carrick at some time in the past-that if another Bass Strait type oil field is discovered off the north-west of Australia, for example, a 12.5 per cent royalty would be supplemented by some additional tax in some form. The realistic companies have always known that, and some of them acknowledge it privately. Senator Chaney had a fair bit to say about the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association. I replied in the Australian Financial Review today to some of the statements attributed last week to APEA. The obvious response, which Senator Chaney has already hinted at, is that I cannot remember any industry group that actually welcomed a proposal to impose a tax on itself. I can remember an industry group prior to the 1983-84 Budget-the brewers-which circulated a document to Government members. I do not have the document with me, unfortunately, and I cannot quote the figures. However, it purported to quantify the effects on beer sales of an increase in excise and consequently the effect on employment in breweries. I do not remember the precise figures but I do remember that if one extrapolated backwards the assumptions that had been built into that proposition, all we had to do to restore full employment was to abolish the excise on beer. In other words, industries and individual companies are in the habit of making greatly exaggerated claims about the alleged effects on an industry of changes to taxation. It is not surprising; there is nothing new about it, and indeed a lot of us would be very surprised if anything else was done. We all know what Senator Chaney would do because he was decent enough to put it on the record almost two months ago, when he said that if a Liberal government were seeking additional revenue from anything to do with oil or petroleum it would increase the excise on refined product. In other words, Senator Chaney, and I am grateful that he has made it so perfectly clear, told us that a Liberal government would slug the motorist rather than tax the economic rent associated with Australian resource projects. That is a value judgment the Liberal Party is entitled to make. It is a value judgment that the Labor Government does not share. Senator Chaney —You just slug the LPG users. What is the difference? Senator WALSH —No, actually Esso and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd got most of that. Government revenue did not collect a great deal of it. I do not think I can add very much to that, except to say that there have been some companies-some quite important companies-which have made it very clear to the Government in the last couple of weeks that they wish to dissociate themselves from some of the statements which have been made by APEA. I am meeting the APEA Chairman and executive officer tomorrow morning to discuss the issue and, in particular, the present intentions of the Government. I do not want to poison relationships with that meeting; indeed, I have no intention of doing so. However, the Government does not accept some of the assertions that are made by APEA. Indeed, some of its quite important constituent members do not accept those assertions either. The essential point Senator Chaney raised is really unanswerable. It is a question of judgment. Nobody, either before or after the event, will be able to measure precisely what have been the effects on exploration activity of the change in the tax system which the Government has proposed. It would be quite wrong to take for granted that the effects of that change would inevitably be negative, for the reason I have mentioned already, that is, an adaption of the rational expectations theory that rational companies had always anticipated that if highly profitable fields were discovered some tax other than the ad valorem royalty would be applied, and indeed they would have anticipated, I believe, a very much higher rate of tax than the Government is currently proposing. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.05) —I congratulate the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) on his optimism if he thinks that any damage he does to the industry will not be measurable. The late Rex Connor may well have had the same view, but I can assure the Minister that I know of no one who is prepared to say that that damage was not measurable. I have quite a lot of confidence that Senator Walsh will join the same hall of fame. I am very glad too that the Minister raised the question of my attitude to how to raise money. I think it is fairly important that the Minister should look fully at the attitudes I have expressed to the mining and resource industries and not seek to quote one narrow passage. There is a very great difference between Liberal and Labor governments in this area for the simple reason that there is a very great difference between the attitudes of the two governments to expenditure. The Whitlam Government, the destroyer of oil exploration in the mid -1970s, raised government expenditure in real terms by 10 per cent per annum. That was one of that Government's proud boasts. It is one of the facts of history. Senator Walsh might like to get up and deny it, but if he does I do not think anyone will take him very seriously. The fact is that government expenditure ran away under Mr Whitlam and, as a result, taxation had to run away . Under the Hawke Government we find that expenditure in real terms this year has gone up by about 8 per cent. The average under Malcolm Fraser was somewhere around 2 per cent. Indeed, for most of the life of the Fraser Government it was less than that. So the important difference between the Government of which Senator Walsh is a part and any Liberal government, past or future, is that in one case we will get some degree of expenditure restraint and in the other we will get none. I think that one of the very interesting elements of the Hawke Government so far is its ability to raise government expenditure so much in the first year, its ability to raise indebtedness so much in the first year, its preparedness to carry forward a high level of indebtedness, and its preparedness to add $1 billion plus to the repayment obligations of the Australian taxpayers each year. None of those things would worry Senator Walsh but they make a very important difference. They make the big difference that any government of which Senator Walsh is a part has to be a higher taxing government. He has become a tax collector and that is the record he will leave behind him. The point I made to the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association was that I am opposed to additional taxes on this sector. I put the view that lopping off peaks of profitability is not the way to encourage economic growth in Australia, that it is not the way to encourage investment in this industry or in others. I am a little sick of Senator Walsh, who acknowledged the sensible principles of economics when he was in opposition and who has become such a woolly-headed man in government. The fact of the matter is that I put the proposition that the industry should not be subject to additional taxation. That was a realistic proposition to put if there was a better attitude to expenditure restraint. We would have that attitude. I went on to deal with the position that would arise if we faced what I described as a theoretical situation of a Liberal government requiring the energy sector to produce more revenue. It is no secret that the Liberal Party, the Opposition, has indicated that it still believes there is a need for a shift to a greater emphasis on indirect taxes. That has been something we have advocated. I put the view that there would be a more rational approach which would involve putting some additional excise on fuel products generally. To suggest that I am an advocate for that is absurd. I put that as being a proposition which I would support if -I emphasise 'if'-we were faced with a situation that it was necessary for a decision to be taken to take additional funds out of this industry, and that is a decision which I have indicated I would oppose. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.09) —At the outset let me remind the Committee and the community that there is in this chamber at the moment one Labor senator, namely, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). That is at least one gain because for quite a part of today and previous days Ministers have not even felt that they should be here to take their place in the Senate. That fact ought to be recorded because there is such a contempt for the Parliament that this chamber is not attended by a Minister. The fact is that not one Australian Labor Party senator, other than the Minister, is in the chamber at present. I want to follow up the remarks that have been made by Senator Chaney and the Minister. The Minister has said, to support his argument, that a number of companies have contacted him and told him that they want to be dissociated from remarks made by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association. Now that the Minister has said that, and as he wants that to be public knowledge, I invite him to tell us the names of those companies. He can scarcely say that without producing the names of the companies. I invite him to do that. The response to Senator Chaney was an outrageous one. In fact, what was said was: 'We do not really know what will happen to our policies except that we will get more money; that is certain'. This debate is going on while one of the most critical situations in relation to the world's energy is happening in the Middle East. There is a likelihood, as has been recognised by the stock exchanges in the United Kingdom and the United States of America only today and yesterday that oil supplies could be cut off. This has been a likelihood for some time, whether by the Iran-Iraq war or by some other method. The job of government must be to ensure therefore a crash program to determine oil exploration and to find and to guarantee oil exploration-- Senator Walsh —I thought you fixed it up with Rundle. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I listen with great glee to everything that the Minister says. He has one catch-cry. He has a grin on his face while he is listening to comments being made about a world crisis. Let me answer the Minister on Rundle once and for all. It was I, as the then Minister, who discovered the state of Rundle and got the two companies concerned to expose to the community that what had been represented to the stock exchanges was not true . It was as a result of my actions that the stock exchanges re-evaluated the Rundle shares. Let the Minister continue his grins in future. He has been falsely talking up this economy. I do not want to hear in this place any more calling out of talking up. While he grins let me go on with this debate because he is grinning in his usual buffoon fashion when this great issue is before us. Here is a Minister supposedly responsible for guaranteeing to Australia secure indigenous oil supplies at a time of great crisis. What is happening? He knows that there has been a great fall off and a prediction of a great fall off in seismic activity. He knows that, therefore, along that line there will be less activity. He knows, for example, that the early oil wells drilled at Jabiru have proved greatly disappointing so that what was optimism has now turned to preliminary pessimism. He knows that the industry has advised him that even if the rate of exploration and discovery-that was a very good discovery rate set by the Fraser Government- should continue, it will only just maintain the volume of oil that Australia needs to remain about 67 per cent self-sufficient. Any fall off will force us into a precarious overseas trade situation. He knows that. Yet he has embarked upon a course of tax raiding. Let me take one example. During the Estimates Committee hearings he demonstrated that he intends to put a front-end loading bonus on exploration permits. This is, of course, not only a question of tax grab. But it will not necessarily result in a tax grab because what one takes at the beginning one may lose at the end. One may take a quick trick but lose the game. The danger with such options and systems is that they will go only to the very rich companies that can offer more of the lollipop in the early stage. I put it to the Committee that what is happening is that, in the interest of grabbing money, a series of policies that are, at the very least, precarious, is being embarked upon. The Minister knows that the Whitlam Government had a disastrous oil exploration record. In the last year of the Whitlam Government something like 25 wells were dug against 230-odd in each of the last years of the Fraser Government. Before the Whitlam Government went out of office there had been some 22 oil drilling rigs in Australia. At the time it went out of office I think there was one rig in Australia, and I doubt whether it was working. That is the kind of philosophy that occurs when Labor Governments' policies are in place. Let the Minister mention Rundle now because I can talk up those years and remind the Minister of what happened when the Whitlam Government forced down oil exploration in Australia. This Government is coming along with its bonuses and its resource rent taxes at a time when it should be doing the very reverse and giving incentives. The import parity pricing system gave an assurance to Australia that we had an indigenous industry and that, if we went on with that kind of stimulus, we could keep Australia, in the years immediately ahead, at a level of being about three- quarters self-sufficient. I remind the Minister that, at the very best, his predictions at the moment can only be that we will be only 67 to 70 per cent self-sufficient for the next two or three years. One cannot peek into the 1990s or beyond and say that the level of our oil self-sufficiency will not fall. The drilling, exploration and seismic activity which we do in the coming year will produce the oil for the 1990s and beyond. In the face of that, the Government says: 'We are interested in money. We are going to grab money. We do not know what result this will have'. What an outrageous situation in the face of the Iran-Iraq war and in the face of all the known facts to say: 'We do not know what effect the war will have. Who can say? We can only tell afterwards'. That, of course, is what the Whitlam Government did, and it brought about disaster. Since the Minister has said that a number of companies want to be dissociated, I ask for the names of those companies. Let us have them. From what do they want to be dissociated? Our advice is that the members of APEA are unanimous in their opposition to the resource rent tax. Senator Walsh —No, they are not. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I invite the Minister to stand up and tell us because he gratuitously introduced this argument and gratuitously, to support his own claims, said that a number of companies contacted him and wanted to be dissociated on particular matters. I ask: What companies and what grounds of dissociation? The CHAIRMAN —The question is that the vote for the Department of Resources and Energy be passed without requests. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.13) —Mr Chairman-- Senator Walsh —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Is Senator Sir John Carrick entitled to make a second speech? The CHAIRMAN —If a senator sits down and no one else rises he is entitled to speak a second time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Chairman, I draw my mind towards Hamlet and the famous phrase 'the rest is silence' because the Minister was asked to support what he said and he has failed so to do. If there are not questions by other honourable senators on this matter I will move on to one or two other matters. The information given by the Minister and his Department at the Estimates Committee was that the staffing of the Uranium and Nuclear Division had been reduced from 54 on 30 June last year to 36 on 30 April this year. What is the basis for that fall? I note that the Uranium Advisory Council which had a staff of six last year has been abolished in the light of the Slatyer inquiry into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle. Will that be reconsidered? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.14) — Senator Sir John Carrick has pointed to one of the reasons himself, of course. The abolition of the Uranium Advisory Council which had six people attached to it has now reduced the requirements of the Uranium and Nuclear Division. The central office was reorganised last year. The reorganisation involved the restructuring and transferring of some functions and responsibilities between divisions and branches. This was associated to some extent with the transfer of administrative functions and interchanges from the Department of Trade, the Department of Resources and Energy and other departments. Senator Sir John Carrick's final question was whether the Government would consider re- establishing the Uranium Advisory Council. I suppose the Government can consider anything but there is no proposal to do it at this stage. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.20) —The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has indicated that a quantity of plutonium-two grams I think he said-has been detected in a search of the Maralinga area. I ask him: How was the quantity of two grams determined? Is it two grams of pure plutonium? Is it plutonium involved in two grams of other materials? How was the weight ascertained? Who did that? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.21) —It was found by the Australian Radiation Laboratory and the departmental survey team which is there now. I understand that it is metallic plutonium. I presume it was put on scales to determine the weight. When I first found out about it yesterday I asked whether in the Press statement I should say that it was a particle believed to be plutonium or whether I should say that it was plutonium. The advice I got was to say that it was plutonium; there was no doubt about that . When analysed one of the things which could be revealed is the grade of the plutonium. There is some reason to believe that the plutonium used in those minor trials was reactor grade plutonium and not weapons grade plutonium. When that speck has been analysed it will provide a significant clue-assuming that it came from the minor trials, and that can be fairly safely assumed-as to whether the plutonium associated with those minor trials was reactor grade or weapons grade. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.23) —Will the Minister ascertain how the plutonium was measured, whether it was in fact two grams of metallic plutonium and, in due course, the grade of the plutonium? This is of considerable significance in terms of its capacity for radioactivity. Senator Walsh —Yes. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —During the Estimates Committee hearings I asked a number of questions regarding the health survey which was initiated under my Ministry to cover the whole of the Maralinga, Emu and Monte Bello tests. I want to make some general comments and then ask some questions. I make it perfectly clear that the instructions given in that survey were aimed at finding out every possible detail that could be found out about the tests and human association with them. It aimed to find out if any living person could offer a verbal or written record and whether, by analysis of death certificates, or by access to defence records, material could be provided relating to the areas that a person was involved in, together with the searching of dosimeters to determine the registration of radiation. The important point was that we wanted to find out from every one of those 15,000 people who were there what in fact they believed happened and what the records showed happened. I do not believe there has ever been a survey of such intensity. I do not want to be party political but I remind the Senate that under the previous Labor Government, in the years from 1973 to 1975, there were claims by people that they had been irradiated. All sorts of statements were made about Maralinga and Emu but no real detailed search was made. The important point is that by team work between the then Department of National Development and Energy and the Department of Health an attempt was made to locate the 15,000-odd people and, if they were dead, to get their death certificates and, if they were alive, to locate them, give them a questionnaire, invite them to be medically examined and , if they had any belief at all that they suffered any ill health for whatever reasons to lodge a claim with the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. I make it perfectly clear that in recent years a massive attempt was made by the Fraser Government to find out in every way it could what happened in those tests. Indeed, the Department will recall that I attempted to get the British Government to adopt a similar protocol, a similar basis of approach for its people. There is on record the report on the epidemiological study which was expertly carried out and, from my memory, found a very high percentage of persons still alive who were involved in those tests. The attempted survey was undertaken and the death certificates examined. That document is available and it states that on the evidence that has come forward there is no evidence of any impact of radiation from the trials. I say that in no defensive fashion. I make the point that as the then Minister I wanted to find out whether there were persons who believed that they had suffered radiation or some damage. I wanted to know whether a person had lodged a claim for agoraphobia, a fear of open spaces, because he saw an atom bomb blast. The point was that that person could come forward. What we have before us is a massive opportunity to find out what happened. An attempt has been made to crystallise all the rhetoric and the allegations. The results that have been given here by the Minister and his Department show that in the course of that journey, in the stirring up of virtually everybody who had been at Maralinga, there had been virtually no increase in the number of people coming forward and saying: 'I want a medical check. I want to test compensation' . In fact it is said that 'there would seem to have been no significant increase in the number of applications to OCES as a result of the report'. I think that is pretty important. Senator Walsh —What was that quote from? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It is a quote from the answers to questions given by the Department. The Minister will have them. It relates to atomic weapons tests questions from myself, a series of questions and a table. That information, which I take it has been incorporated in Hansard, shows that on 12 September 1983 130 claims had been received. By 30 April 1984 the total had risen to only 146. There had been an increase of 16. It then shows those whose claims had been dealt with and those outstanding. It is important that the Senate and the public should know that the Fraser Government had one very significant goal. It had heard over the years, and during the Whitlam Government period, all sorts of allegations that individuals were suffering and not receiving compensational redress. Our aim was to find every such person and offer them the opportunity to get such redress. The aim was also to examine death certificates for cause of death. From memory, I think there were some 1,200 death certificates. We wanted an expert study carried out to determine whether there was any undue incidence of neoplasms, of malignancies , and whether those neoplasms could have been caused by the particular kinds of ionising radiation. Indeed, the report which is available indicates quite clearly that there is no such evidence. Again I do not say this in any defensive fashion because I think the Minister is taking the responsible position, which I commend and which we have adopted, that there ought to be no occasions on which individuals are exposed unnecessarily to levels of ionising irradiation, however small they may be. It is true that we do not know whether, in extrapolating downwards the dosage of radiation, we get a mathematical correlation of effect. It may well be that low doses have no effect at all. I did want to put on record that in fact in a massive search of Department of Defence records involving something like two years, every record of every civilian and soldier that could be found was found, every dosimeter that could be found was found and every location and journey of individuals was found and from them contacts were made. It would be silly for me to say that that means that nobody was hurt. It would be quite wrong. In a massive undertaking involving some 15,500 Australians and no doubt thousands of British, there were bound to be some incidents in which something happened. All I can say is that the best endeavours on earth were made to prevent any accidents. I have risen on this matter to ask the Minister whether he would agree to repeat publicly the invitation made to people by public advertisement, and which has been made a number of times, that if they have any information they should come forward. I separate that from the question of the Aborigines. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence regarding the existence of Aborigines in the area. I cannot tell the truth or otherwise of that. I am aware that the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council in a more recent report suggested that one of the reasons for deaths might well have been that during that time there was an epidemic of german measles in the area generally, that tribalised Aborigines were very susceptible to such diseases and that what may have been taken to have been the effects of radiation could have been that disease. However, that may not be the case so let us pursue it, let us look at it and obtain a result. I look forward with eagerness to the reports of both Dr Symonds and the other survey being undertaken. I have risen to put that on record and to ask the Minister whether he would be willing to underline and re-emphasise what has been done by making another appeal to individuals who have information to come forward. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.33) —I am trying to remember whether in some of the statements I have made on this matter I have already effectively done that. I have an idea that I have done so but if I have not done that already I am quite willing to state publicly now that the Government invites information from anyone-service personnel, civilian personnel , government employees, contractors' employees or Aborigines -who was associated with Maralinga and the other test sites to come forward with any information that may be of use. Whether we will launch advertisements about that is something that will have to be considered, particularly in light of the decision which the Government finally makes as to whether it will establish a public inquiry and, if so, what type of public inquiry. I am told that the current Australian Radiation Laboratory survey will not be analysed for some months. It would be nice to have the results of that survey before establishing a public inquiry, if in fact the Government is going to do so. On the other hand, given that the reports from Professor Kerr's Expert Committee on Fallout Arising from British Atomic Tests in Australia and from Dr Symonds have actually been received by the Government and probably will be tabled on Monday, there is a case, if the Government does decide to establish a wider ranging public inquiry, for doing so before the radiological survey has been analysed. I have just had handed to me a Press statement relevant to Senator Sir John Carrick's question. It was issued by me on 13 April. The last sentence says: If anyone has information which they believe to be relevant, I invite them to write to me or my Department. So it has already been done and now I have done it again. If a wider ranging public inquiry is established, a similar invitation will be issued. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.36) —During the Estimates Committee C meeting I asked some questions about endeavours by the South Australian Government to take over areas in the Maralinga-Emu region. I should have asked about the Western Australian Government and the Monte Bello Islands, which I will now do, and also about the South Australian intention to declare certain areas as sacred sites or to grant tribal rights. Let me say before I ask the specific questions that in my time as Minister I believed that it was too early in terms of our knowledge of the whole of these areas for us simply to unleash them for ordinary occupation, whether it be for Aborigines or others. It seemed to me that time alone would let us get a better assessment. Indeed, since the 1950s our understanding of the problem and our ability to measure the problem have increased greatly. If in fact any new information has emerged in recent weeks, it will support what I am now saying. It seems to me that we would do well to suggest that we wait a while in regard to these areas and not hurry to give them back to open them up. For example, I know that in the Monte Bello area there is some considerable interest in terms of oil. Its nearness to Barrow Island and to the Gorgon fields might well suggest that it may be prospective in itself. It does seem sensible to bide our time for the time being because as every era has gone by we have found that we need better measurements and better and more scientific approaches to these things. So I ask the Minister whether the Government has given any immediate consideration to this. Is it moving towards releasing the land? I remind him that in the Estimates Committee discussions Mr Daniels gave some answers to these queries. He said: We are waiting to talk with the South Australian Government about the detail of the Maralinga land rights legislation, but the general area would include most of the Maralinga and all of the Emu test site areas. I asked: Would it include, for example, the landing strip and the cemetery at the landing strip at Maralinga? He answered: I am not sure of the details on that. I then asked him: Or the fenced areas at Emu? Mr Daniels replied: It would certainly include Emu. I am not up to date on this matter; I simply ask the Minister to state where the Government stands on it at the moment and whether he would agree that there is reason for considerable caution. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.39) —I asked the South Australian Premier last week whether the legislation either proposed or currently before the South Australian Parliament included the transfer of the Maralinga prohibited area, which I think totals about 1,200 square kilometres. He said that it did not include the Maralinga prohibited area . On reflection, he could hardly do so because it was formerly Commonwealth territory, so the South Australian legislation could hardly transfer that to the Pitjantjatjara people. However, I believe it is the long term intention of the South Australian Government to transfer ownership of all of the land to the Pitjantjatjara people. The land would first have to be relinquished by the Commonwealth. I see no reason why the Commonwealth should resist relinquishing ownership other than that there may be a health and security reason for not doing so. I think it would be premature at this stage to decide finally what is to be done with the contaminated areas of Maralinga. One fairly obvious possibility which I mentioned to Mr Bannon was that the entire contaminated area could be fenced with, I think, a seven- foot fence with three barbs leaning outwards. This would not necessarily guarantee that the people did not get inside the area, but it would guarantee that nobody would inadvertently wander into the contaminated area. Another possible option which would be a good deal more difficult would be to scrape the surface-the contaminated soil-and bury it at greater depth. I think we did a rough calculation that a 64 metres cube would hold all the contaminated soil. That would require quite a big hole in the ground. I do not think we can make all these decisions yet. I turn now to some of the technical aspects. Only geological time will take care of plutonium contamination. The shorter lived radioactive material which is there is decaying at quite a rapid rate. Cobalt 60 is one, which I believe has a half life of six years. I have seen figures estimating the safe permanent occupancy of the test site areas. I think the most distant estimate for safe occupancy on a permanent basis was about 2,030 years. Whether ownership of the land is formally trans- ferred or not, it seems likely that some barrier will need to be provided. Contaminated material will have to be deeply buried or some physical barrier will have to be erected around contaminated areas to ensure that people do not occupy them on a permanent basis. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.42) —In Estimates committee hearings the question of what was happening at Lucas Heights with regard to uranium enrichment was raised. I then drew attention to the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia. I do so now. UEGA indicated some months ago that it was forced to cease its activities because it needed for its next and final step the co-operation of the Government in ensuring that the Government would unlock confidential information from other governments in the discussions on commerce and technology. To remind the Committee of the situation I point out that UEGA, consisting of four companies, was set up to make investigations as to whether there should be a uranium enrichment plant in Australia. It made a series of reports. The first report said that it had investigated the question of a market for enriched uranium and had decided that there would be a significant market from 1990 onwards. Subsequently that became clear and indeed the Japanese were contemplating building their own enrichment plant for the 1990s. Thus the first question was answered; there would be a market and a significant one. The second question was whether Australia would be capable of undertaking the technology and whether the enrichment industry would be the type of industry which would be suitable for Australia. The answer came back very clearly that Australia was quite capable of the technology, that the industry was labour intensive, particularly in its ancillary aspect, and would be an attractive industry to Australia and not a dangerous industry. Because the uranium enrichment is a chemical process and not a radioactive process the enrichment process is in fact less radioactive than yellowcake itself. The third and real question concerned the preferred technology if Australia decided to develop an enrichment industry. A great study was done around the world and the answer was that there were three forms of technology, being gaseous diffusion, centrifuge, and chemical exchange or chemex. Chemical exchange is only in its laboratory stage. Not enough is known about it at the moment. Gaseous diffusion requires massive amounts of electric power. Those who have seen southern France, the Provence, will know that four reactors there are supplying the power for the gaseous diffusion enrichment plant. The Enrichment Group then concluded that centrifuge would be the logical technique or technology. It went away to decide what centrifuge would be the best. There was the Urenco- Centec technology, that is the British-Dutch-German technology. There was the American technology and the possible Japanese technology. The Urenco-Centec was what one might call moderate sized centrifuge. The American method was bigger, better and brighter. The Enrichment Group came back and said: 'We would prefer Urenco-Centec. We are contemplating some kind of co-partnership with Urenco by which, operating together, we could share world markets. But to do that we would need to bring new markets into the situation and the Japanese market is the logical one. We would like to go ahead. We would like to have discussions'. At that point the investigation by the Uranium Enrichment Group had advanced a considerable way. What was needed was the authority of the government of the day to ask other governments to release confidential information to UEGA and allow it to act in an official capacity. The tragedy is that that was refused. The further tragedy is that it is quite clear that, quite apart from the market for yellowcake for unenriched uranium, there is a separate market for enriched uranium, one that is very important to Australia. The Australian Science and Technology Council committee, chaired by Professor Slatyer, today released its report on Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle . The Slatyer report says that it is very important for non-proliferation in this world to prevent uranium and fissile material getting into the wrong hands, and that it is very important that Australia embark upon more of the process of the nuclear cycle because the more that we do of the world's share the more we can control rigidly and the less danger there is. The fundamental report today was that Australia should do this and that we should therefore play a very significant part in ensuring the monitoring of the non-proliferation situation in this world. That being so, I ask the Minister whether, in light of the Slatyer report, he will urgently reconsider the whole program of research which is being wound down at the Lucas Heights establishment. I refer specifically to the fact that what was to have happened under the Fraser Government-a centrifuge cascade was to be developed-is now being stopped. I ask the Minister whether he will now set in train investigations so that without delay the Government can reconsider the situation and reverse its decision so that Lucas Heights can have a meaningful role in terms of the Slatyer committee. I remind the Senate that the research laboratories and reactor at Lucas Heights would be fundamental to Australia doing the kind of non-proliferation monitoring that the Slatyer committee envisages. In the light of the ASTEC report, will the Minister ask his Government and his Cabinet as a matter of urgency to look again at the UEGA situation and to look to offer UEGA the good offices of this Government to allow it to get on with its job quickly? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.50) —No, I will certainly not set in train processes to establish the cascade at Lucas Heights. The present enrichment work that is being done will take about another 12 months and some time before the end of that period I will expect a review of what is to happen there. Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia and said that the Government had not asked other countries to unlock confidential information relating to enrichment. I do not think it is so much a question of unlocking. What the Government did was decline to facilitate the transfer from other governments of confidential information pertaining to enrichment. Senator Sir John Carrick has a very optimistic view of the commercial potential for uranium enrichment in Australia. Senator Sir John Carrick —Not I-UEGA. Senator WALSH —The honourable senator uncritically repeated it, whether he was the original source of it or not. Senator Sir John Carrick has had super- optimistic views of one or two other projects which ultimately were proven to be unjustified. I do not share his optimism about the very bright market prospects for enriched uranium. As I understand it, there is a substantial overcapacity, both in enrichment and yellowcake, and there will be for some considerable time. He mentioned the Australian Science and Technology Council report. I have not read all of the ASTEC report. The early part of the report touches upon enrichment. There is-I would not stress this too heavily-some inconsistency in that the report makes what I think is a very sensible recommendation that various facilities in the nuclear cycle, the links in that chain, should be located in different countries so that, ideally, no individual country would have the complete capacity to make an atomic weapon should it choose to do so. I think that would be a very desirable state of affairs. The ASTEC committee went on to suggest that uranium enrichment was an activity that could well be conducted in Australia, which was somewhat at variance with the ideal situation canvassed one or two pages earlier in that report, that is, that every link in the chain which comprises the nuclear cycle should be located in a different country. Because Australia mines and mills yellowcake, following to its conclusion the earlier ASTEC suggestion, it would be better if the uranium were enriched in some other country and fabricated into fuel rods in a third country, and so on. I know that the Government will at some time in the near future give consideration to the ASTEC-Slatyer report and might well develop a policy about the possibility of enrichment in Australia at some time in the future, but I cannot put any timetable on when that is likely to happen. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.53) —The Minister has suggested that I am optimistic about the market for enriched uranium. I put it to him that what I said was that the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia said that and that he and his Department have that report. It is for him to decide whether that is so. Is the Minister aware that the Japanese have not satisfied the market demand for enriched uranium for the 1990s? Is he aware that the Japanese were, and no doubt are, contemplating building an enrichment plant? If the answer to those two questions is yes, does that not mean that there is, as UEGA said, a significant market? Is the Minister aware, for example, that UEGA and Urenco-Centec sought to develop a situation of an Australian partnership in which the market for Japan-this is not my optimism; the Japanese told UEGA and they told me-would be part of that market. Secondly, the Minister will be aware that a uranium enrichment plant for nuclear power stations enriches to about 3.7 per cent, perhaps 4 per cent, and that weapons grade enrichment in a weapons enrichment plant enriches to a very high ceiling. It is the easiest thing in the world to detect whether an enrichment plant is for peacetime purposes or for bomb purposes, for weapons purposes. If that is so, does that not support the view of the Slatyer committee that a country such as Australia, guaranteeing that it will monitor fully and will produce an enrichment plant of about 3.7 per cent enrichment only, would be a reassurance to the world? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.56) —I would be surprised if Japan was the only country which had not fully satisfied its anticipated enrichment requirement for the 1990s. I expect that quite a few countries have not done that. Many enrichment plants have not filled their order books for the same period. Therefore, there is a potential on both sides. Senator Sir John Carrick's second point-I do not think it has much relevance to the Estimates, Mr Chairman, but I will mention it-is correct. Uranium being enriched for reactor fuel rods falls very far short indeed of that required for bombs. I think that for really efficient enrichment uranium bombs a level of purity for a U235 of about 90 per cent is required. That is something which is extremely difficult to get even technically. In the context of the Slatyer report, it seems to me that what Senator Sir John Carrick is getting at is that if Australia were the only enriched uranium supplier to the world and we were supplying uranium enriched to 3.7 per cent, or whatever it is, nobody could make a U235 bomb. That is correct. I think the point that the Australian Science and Technology Council report was getting at was something different. That is, if any one country had the complete facilities for the nuclear fuel cycle, including an enrichment plant which normally operated to enrich uranium to reactor requirement levels of U235 concentration, they could conceivably at some time be misused by some countries to produce weapons grade enriched uranium; whereas if the various facilities in the chain were located in different countries it would require a conspiracy involving several countries before a weapon could be produced from it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.58) —I ask a final question relevant to the enrichment research carried out at the atomic energy research station. Is it not a fact that the Slatyer committee recommended that Australia should advance and take more steps in the whole of the nuclear cycle, including enrichment, on the basis that it is better for the proceedings to be in the hands of those countries that are signatories to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which are severely monitored, and countries such as Australia which have the most restrictive provisions for monitoring. Is it not a fact that the essence of the Slatyer committee report is that Australia should pursue the cycle further on the basis that it would give greater security to the world, because the fewer countries we have wandering around outside the NPT the safer the world is? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.59) —I think I have already dealt with that. There is a recommendation in the Slatyer report-I have not read it all-along those lines. When I mentioned this earlier I observed that it was somewhat at variance with the earlier comment in the same report about maximising security on a whole world basis; that is, if every link in the chain were located in a different country there would have to be a conspiracy involving six or seven countries, probably, before weapons could be produced. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Trade Proposed expenditure, $6,121,000. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.00) —During the debate on the estimates for the Department of Trade I asked a series of questions. I repeat what my Leader, Senator Chaney, said in the chamber; how very disappointed we, the members of Estimates Committee C, are that it was not until the last 24 hours that the information came to hand. The information was basically readily available. The fact that it came to hand so late and took virtually a month to do so means that it restricts the ability of the members of the Committee to study it and therefore to make sure they can make full use of the appropriation debate. I record that fact. It is not just my comment. The Senate Estimates Committee has said unanimously, in very strong words indeed, that it deprecates such a delay. The replies to the Estimates Committee by the Department of Trade show that there is considerable pessimism for the foreseeable future regarding wide areas of Australian trade. It is hard to find one commodity in which Australia trades which is listed as likely to have a good chance in the immediate future. Step by step, in answer to questions that were asked, the witnesses indicated that there were grave difficulties. In the hearing on the estimates of the Department of Primary Industry it was shown again that the marketing prospects for a whole range of primary products are now in very serious difficulties. The National Australia Bank issued a statement today, which I read. It said that Australian primary industry in a world marketing sense would face very real difficulties. On items covered specifically by the Department of Trade, one by one the witnesses' answers showed that there was very little optimism. I am saying this because the Minister has found it necessary to say it is wrong to talk up situations. I agree with him. In fact in recent days I would have said 'Physician, cure thyself' when we heard such optimistic talk from him and from his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) regarding the buoyancy of the economy. I agree with him that it is wrong to talk up a situation and again I say: ' Physician, cure thyself'. The fact is that evidence given at the hearings of the estimates of the Department of trade and the Department of Primary Industry completely refute the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister in his world travels. One by one the items that have come under scrutiny have been shown to be in very grave difficulty. Let us take iron ore, for example. In recent years Australia has been suffering from a downgrading of volume and price. In the future, even though there is some slight improvement in demand from Japanese mills, we now face a real threat from a country like Brazil which competes with our ore in volume, quality and price, and there can be no denial of that. In a series of answers to a whole series of questions I asked on various metals and minerals the same kind of situation came through. On the question of coal we had a talking up that the situation in Japan was optimistic and that everything would be right. We had a talking down from the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), who blamed the industry and not himself, when prices were forced to be set at a lower rate. It is true that in a few years time, with any luck at all, the coal industry may rally, but I rise to say that what the Government has been saying about Australia in the immediate future and what is the reality are two quite different things. What are the investment prospects in the mining industry and what the Government is saying about buoyancy are two different things. With indications of recession talk in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America, with the likelihood of rising interest rates, with the certainty of falling investment, the important point is that it does Australia no good at all if we make statements that do not bear out the truth. Without going into detail, if we were to take the answers of the Department of Trade seriatum we would find that the picture is one of some sober caution for the future, and indeed for some pessimism, unless Australia can get its productivity up, get its costs down and make its market ability in the world better than it is now. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.07) —In regard to the delay on behalf of the Department of Trade in answering the Committee's questions, I understand that there was some oversight in the Department. The Department will be writing formally to the Committee and apologising for that delay. I suppose the gracious thing for me to do would be to apologise on behalf of the Government for it as well. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.08) —I rise to make a few comments on Japanese beef imports. I wish to point out to honourable senators that the Australian share of the Japanese beef quota has slipped from 88.9 per cent in 1971 to 67.2 per cent-an all time low-in 1983, while the United States of America's share of the Japanese beef market has gone from 1.2 per cent in 1971 to a forecasted 26.6 per cent in 1985. I am sure the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who represents the Minister for Trade in the Senate, are very much concerned with these disastrous figures. I wish to ask the Minister what action was taken by the Australian Government representatives regarding negotiations for an ongoing agreement with Japan on the beef trade. Did the Minister for Trade visit Japan last year? Did he raise the future of the Australian's beef market share with the Japanese Government during his visit? Did he visit Japan at any other time after taking office in March last year? Mr Temporary Chairman, I have a series of questions to ask and I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to take them on notice to save the time of the Committee at this late hour. I put that question to the Minister now. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.09) —The Minister for Trade, Mr Lionel Bowen, has been to Japan once since this Government was formed. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, has been there two or three times; I am not sure about that. I am advised that the Minister for Trade discussed the beef question when he was in Japan last year. Although we are not formally dealing with primary industry at the moment, if there is anything that Mr Bowen or Mr Kerin care to add in response to the points raised by Senator Boswell, I will ask them to do so. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.10) —I have probably another seven or eight questions that I want to ask the Minister. Senator Walsh —I misunderstood the honourable senator. I thought he was waiting for a reply. Senator BOSWELL —Would the Minister accept those questions as being on notice? Senator Walsh —Yes. Senator BOSWELL —I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The questions read as follows- BEEF TRADE (1) What is the timetable for current beef negotiations with Japan? (2) Will these negotiations re-commence on June 12? (3) Who will represent Australia at these negotiations? (4) Which department or departments will be represented at these negotiations? (5) Will any Ministers be present for part or all of these negotiations? (6) Have the Japanese made a firm offer to Australia for the 1984 fiscal year? (7) What is the current percentage of the Japanese beef quota market held by Australia? (8) Would it be correct to say that if this percentage figure drops in the current negotiations, that Australia's tonnage exports of beef to Japan would drop sharply if there was a general fall in demand for beef by Japan? In other words, if we have failed to maintain our share of the market in the face of the new U.S./Japan deal, then will this lead to proportionally greater losses in Australia's beef trade to Japan if there is a general downturn in demand? (9) Did the Anthony/Okawara agreement expire on March 31 last year? (10) What action was taken by Australian Government representatives to negotiate an ongoing agreement with Japan over beef trade? (11) Did the Minister for trade visit Japan late last year? (12) Did he raise the future of Australia's beef market share with the Japanese Government during that visit? (13) Did he visit Japan at any other time after taking office in March last year? Senator BOSWELL —I also have a series of questions on coal which I would like incorporated in the Hansard. Leave granted. The questions read as follows- COAL (1) What is the level of prices achieved for hard coking coal sales to Japan for the coming 12 months? (2) What was the procedure for companies to negotiate their prices with Japanese buyers for the coming year? (3) Does the Government exercise any controls over these negotiations? (4) What is the procedure for coal contract applications once they have been submitted to the department? (5) How long does it take the department to process these applications? (6) Do these contracts go to the Minister for approval? (7) If so, how long on average does the present minister take to sign these contracts? (8) How does this compare with the time taken to sign contracts and return them to the department under the previous minister? (9) Have there been any delays which have jeopardised contract sales? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.11) —I will not delay the Committee very long, but I think it is important that attention should be drawn to the detailed answers that were given ultimately by the Department of Trade on a number of matters. For example, Senator Boswell has referred to beef. The figures are shown, as he said, and they fell in 1983 to 67.2 per cent. The estimate of the loss to Australia suffered by the loss of our share in the market in the last five years has been assessed by the Department at $80m. Evidence is given as to the great surplus that the European Economic Community has and the danger of the EEC entering the market. The information shows that the EEC beef intervention stocks at the end of 1983 were 372,507 tonnes-a huge amount and a great threat, particularly as there is danger of subsidisation. There is worry about the Korean market, the Singapore market and the Philippines market. It is all in this information and then there is list after list of metals. Everyone will also know of the depression in the sugar industry. There is evidence that the wheat industry in Australia will face considerable difficulties unless there is a severe drought. The quality of our wheat, as it comes to a head, will be of a particular standard, making it less marketable in many ways. For just about every commodity that we export the prospects are not bright. For sugar they are very gloomy indeed. I rose to invite honourable senators to spend some time reading the information that has been given by the Department of Trade so that they can get a realistic picture of the year or years ahead. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.13) —I understand that Senator Sir John Carrick has not asked a question. He has pointed out what we have pointed out, and what is obvious-there is a depressed world market in minerals and commodity products. We recognise that and we recognise that we must make efforts to protect our industries in those circumstances. I just make the comment that it is interesting that Senator Sir John Carrick should get up here and point this out-as he should. This was not hidden in the Estimates committee hearings. It is a very different picture from when he was telling us all those times that we were going to be saved by the Rundle project. At least I hope our statements are factual; that we are presenting to the Senate factual estimates of what is going to happen. We recognise that there has to be an upturn for these industries to improve. We are not gilding the lily as was done in his time . Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.14) —Because of the intervention I want to put the record straight. In fact during my time as Minister not only did I not talk up Rundle, but by my and the Government's specific intervention the stock market and the community of Australia had revealed to it a picture which in fact talked down Rundle. Let us get that perfectly clear; by my action and by the action of the then Treasurer-action which I think was difficult-once we knew the facts we saw it as our duty to expose them, and they were revealed. As a result of our talking the true picture was revealed. What Senator Grimes did not hear is that I pointed out earlier that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), by talking up the markets in beef, coal, steel and iron, is doing the kind of Rundle that Senator Grimes finds in the eyes of others. I simply say again: ' Physician cure thyself'. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.15) —I will let the facts speak for themselves. I just say to Senator Sir John Carrick that he should tell that story to the people who bought Rundle shares in view of the speeches he made in this place. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.16) —I think it is sad that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) does not understand what we on this side of the chamber are saying. We know that there is a downturn in the commodity markets around the world. We are asking that the Ministry give some guidance to the preservation of the Australian markets. Two things are happening here, particularly with respect to beef, which was one of the topics mentioned. We are not only facing a decrease in the price for the product, we are losing markets to other countries; and we are losing them because of the incompetence of the Ministers in the Labor Government. They should get out around the world in the ministries and the trade commissions, where they should be, and maintain Australia's position-a position we on this side developed over many years. This is a terribly important thing. We have a spendthrift government in here which has taken us about $8.5 billion or $10 billion into hock. Next year it is going to do exactly the same. With the collapse of our overseas markets this country in two years will be in the hands of the International Monetary Fund, and all of us on this side care very much about it. So let us not have misrepresentation or ignorance from the Minister on this point. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.17) —We could go on with this nonsense all night. The fact is that our share of the Japanese beef market has been going down and down for years-before the Labor Government got in -and Senator MacGibbon knows it. I believe-and the honourable senator will obviously disagree-that we have done all we can, all anyone can, in the circumstances to preserve that share of the market. It was unrealistic to suggest that we would retain that 88 per cent share. The beef producers know this, and the manufacturing industry knows this. For Senator MacGibbon to get up and suggest that this has all occurred in the time of the Labor Government is nonsense. He knows it, and the figures do not back it up. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.18) —I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate but that is absolutely untrue. The market share collapse has taken place under this Government. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.18) —Total Japanese imports in 1979 were 135,988 tonnes. In 1983 they were 141,810 tonnes. In 1979 the share was 78.4 per cent, and since then it has gone down year after year-78. 4 per cent, 77 per cent, 71.9 per cent, 71.4 per cent and 67.2 per cent. As Senator MacGibbon well knows, that is due to the pressure put on the Japanese market by the American beef exporters. He knows that and the figures show that. To suggest that these markets have just started going down since the Labor Government came in is nonsense. The figures show it is nonsense. The honourable senator talked about Japan and the collapse under Labor Ministers. He knows it is nonsense. The figures show it is nonsense. If he wants to go on with that sort of caper in an Estimates committee, he can do so, but it does not prove a thing and it does not assist in solving our problems at all. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $16,588,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $3,109,000. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.19) —I would like to get some information on the handling of the PT Indomilk question and the assistance that has been given to the dairy industry by the Department of Primary Industry in handling this matter . I know that a certain amount of work has been done at various levels and that a lot of money is involved in the results. If I could start off by asking what assistance the Department of Primary Industry has been able to give to the Australian Dairy Corporation in negotiations that have been going on for some considerable time with business in Indonesia and/or the Indonesian Government. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.21) —I recall that the Government guaranteed-I think that is the right term-a $3m loan some time ago to assist the company on the ground that if the guarantee was called up the industry would have to bear the ultimate cost. Other than that assistance, I am not aware whether anything else has been done. But, as Senator Archer has raised the question, I think it fair to comment, since I was involved at the time, that prior to the 1980 elections when Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd was under investigation by a Senate committee the company had outlived the reason for its existence and ought to have been sold. That proposal was greeted in some self-interested circles with a shock-horror response. It is now perfectly clear that Australian dairy farmers and the Australian Dairy Corporation would have been considerably better off financially if that advice had been followed at that time. I gather, as no notes have been passed to me, that other than the $3m loan guarantee, no financial assistance has been provided by the Department of Primary Industry or the Government to the Corporation and its subsidiary in the present P.T. Indomilk problem. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.23) —On 18 October 1982 the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) made a Press statement part of which states: This is about the only time recently Mr Nixon has acted before a crisis occurred, and this time his actions have created the crisis. Mr Nixon's actions in advising the ADC not to proceed with the sale of the half-share in P.T. Indomilk to P.T.K.B. was ill advised. It was not up to Mr Nixon to intervene in a commercial transaction. Did Mr Nixon actually intervene to prevent that sale, or did the Department of Primary Industry assist, intervene in or prevent the making of that sale in any way? Did the Department of Foreign Affairs intervene and say whether the sale was desirable or not or whether there were more or less desirable potential buyers? Did the Department of Foreign Affairs make any recommendations or give any advice to the Department of Primary Industry in the matter? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.24) —I remember the events at the time Mr Kerin made his Press statement in October 1982. I believe it was acknowledged by Mr Nixon that he had in fact intervened in the sense that he had asked or directed the Australian Dairy Corporation not to proceed with the sale. The reason for doing so was that he believed or feared that the Indonesian Government might at some stage intervene to block the sale. Mr Nixon was criticised at the time by Mr Kerin-quite properly in my view-for having intervened in that way. If the Indonesian Government decided to block the sale, that was the Indonesian Government's affair; but there was no need for the Australian Government to intervene gratuitously at the stage that it did. As to what advice may have been received then or subsequently from the Department of Foreign Affairs, I am unable to answer at the moment. I will see whether there is any response from Mr Kerin on it if that satisfies Senator Archer. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.25) —What I wish to confirm is whether there was in fact some intervention by the Government in the sale to the proposed purchaser at a figure of $10m, I think. Was this done as a result of discussion, directions, requests or otherwise from the Department of Foreign Affairs? Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.26) —I just do not know. I will take that question on notice and see what information I can supply to the honourable senator. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Finance Proposed expenditure, $2,337,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP D Department of Education and Youth Affairs Proposed expenditure, $32,939,000. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.27) —Before moving to any of the individual departments in Group D, may I draw attention to the report of Estimates Committee D and some recommendations made in that report with regard to procedures that may be adopted in future. There are recommendations on the release of information to the Committee. I think there are two precise recommendations. Senator Colston —I was about to move on those. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I did not know that the honourable senator was about to do that. I thought that the matter might be passed over. If that is to be done, I simply say that the Opposition supports those recommendations. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.27) —I should like to quote some parts of the report of Estimates Committee D. First I shall refer to the section concerned with access to Hansard. The report says: Access to the Hansard is necessary so that ready reference may be made to those questions which were asked and the answers which were received at the hearing. As well, Hansard is required by Departments so that they can provide accurate responses to questions placed on notice. Therefore the Committee believes that the practice of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees of circulating the uncorrected proof of evidence should be followed by Estimates Committees. Then a recommendation is made, but I will read that in a moment. One difficulty that many committees had over the past few weeks was that the Hansard record of evidence taken at committee hearings was not available to members of those committees. This created certain problems. In fact, there was a major problem in the Senate itself at one stage as certain honourable senators had copies of the transcript while others did not. This not only created problems but some dissension as well. The Committee believes that there are problems encountered by the Government Printer in providing Hansard readily to honourable senators. One could imagine what would happen on a day when the House of Representatives is sitting, the Senate sits for perhaps a short time and a number of Senate committees sit that afternoon and into the evening. The work load for the Government Printer would be such that Hansard could not be made available readily. This creates problems for senators. Estimates Committee D therefore suggests that uncorrected proofs of evidence should be circulated to senators. Estimates Committee D has made the following recommendation in its report: This Committee, therefore, recommends that, the uncorrected proof of evidence for each Estimates Committee should be made available to the members of that Committee- Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Elstob) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator R. C. Elstob) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J.O.W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. 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. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P.A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Foreman, D. J. Lajovic, M. E. Cook, P. F. S. Rae, Peter Sibraa, K. W. Question so resolved in negative. Consideration resumed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.37) —Before that slight interruption I was outlining the problems that some committees have with Hansard. I had reached the stage of reading a recommendation which had been passed by Estimates Committee D . That recommendation reads: This Committee, therefore, recommends that, the uncorrected proof of evidence for each Estimates Committee should be made available to members of that Committee and any other interested Senator who asks for a copy. The Opposition has indicated to me that it will accept a motion along those lines. I believe that some Opposition senators may wish to speak to such a motion. Therefore, I move: That the uncorrected proof of evidence for each Estimates Committee should be made available to members of that Committee and any other interested Senator who asks for a copy. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.38) —As a member of Estimates Committee D I indicate that this recommendation had the support of all members of the Committee. A minority report is appended to the Committee's report. It applies to certain areas only. However, the rest of the report that was presented to the Senate in the name of Senator Colston is supported by all members of the Committee. I would like to raise a couple of matters relating to the recommendation concerning the Hansard reports. I have been concerned for some time that members of Estimates committees do not get something equivalent to the pinks that they receive of speeches they make in the Senate. As a result, we are sometimes misreported. On occasions I have found on reading the equivalent of the daily Hansard of the Estimates committee, which is available at least a couple of weeks after a hearing, that questions I have asked have been quite incorrectly reported. This is understandable. The proceedings of Estimates committees are recorded by Hansard and I can understand that on occasions considerable difficulty is experienced in determining just what we are saying. We have some page proofs before us of the deliberations of this Estimates Committee today. They are, I believe, excellently presented. I convey my thanks to Hansard for its really outstanding effort in getting those page proofs ready today so that we could proceed with Estimates Committee D. However, even in those proofs, where at one stage I was actually quoting from the minority report of the Committee, the quote is wrong, quite erroneous. It is desirable to pick up those sorts of things at an early stage. I have also been on a committee in the past where, when the Hansard was received, a question was asked about information that appeared in it. An officer said: 'We realised that we had given incorrect information so we fixed up our answer'. It is certainly perfectly right that an officer, having realised he had given incorrect information, should do something about it. However, I would have thought that it would be preferable for the Committee to be aware that a correction had been made that really made a substantial difference to an answer. That has been the case in the past. As a member of the Committee I have proceeded on information I believed had been given but something quite different subsequently appeared. I can see that there might be some problems arising out of uncorrected proofs of evidence, but they would give us a working document. When one goes through many items in an Estimates committee over a period of several hours-this particularly applies to Budget Estimates-it can be difficult to remember what was said earlier in the day. We are often in the position of being asked what we want to go into a report. Really, it is very difficult to respond to that without some sort of statement in front of us. I think this would be a workable system provided it was understood to have its own limits, that is, that they are only page proofs. The reason we added the words 'any other interested senator who asks for a copy' was that honourable senators sometimes attend committees of which they are not members and it is relevant to give them copies of the proofs or of that section where they were asking questions and showing an interest. The other comment I make very briefly, because I think it is more relevant to another Estimates Committee, is that once again the matter of the provision of Estimates Hansards this year was not satisfactory. That might be in part due to the problems that came about as a result of the new sitting pattern of two weeks on and two weeks off. If we had been in a three out of four week sitting pattern the problem may not have arisen. The problem was a very real one for the committees this year. I do commend the recommendation to the Senate. I am unaware whether it has been discussed with Hansard or with the President. It may be possible that at some other time further comments can be made. However, I think it would be very desirable that, if that is the best practice we can follow, it be followed in future. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.44) —I support the recommendation of the Estimates Committee D and draw attention to the recommendation in relation to Hansard. Although we held Estimates Committee meetings on 3 May and 4 May, the Hansard was actually in my hands on the evening of 27 May, which is a very considerable delay. At the time there was some contention about specific sentences and specific words and phrases in those reports. That is always the case, but it was especially so in the light of the reports before us from Estimates Committee D. There was even some debate in a censure matter in the chamber about the actual words that had been used in Estimates Committee D. With those quite extended delays in mind, there would be very real advantage in having even the uncorrected proofs that are produced by Hansard made available at the earliest possible stage. I therefore believe that the recommendation set out in the report of the Committee ought to be supported by everybody. Meetings of Estimates Committee D were held this morning and at lunch time. There has been a magnificent effort by Hansard in that the account of the meetings which were held at breakfast time and lunch time today-at 8.30 this morning and again at 12.45-was in our hands by the middle of the afternoon. Hansard was able to supply us with a superior form of the record than is usual in the pinks. That has been useful because we literally have before us now the words that were used earlier today. That is the kind of advantage that we can look for if this recommendation is adopted by the Senate. I think the point has been very well made by the Chairman and by Senator Martin and, I hope, consolidated by what I have said. I genuinely commend the motion to all honourable senators. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.47) —I will move shortly a further recommendation Estimates Committee D made concerning the status of written answers to questions. As most honourable senators will be aware, after Estimates committees are held often a number of questions remain unanswered and departments provide those answers to honourable senators as they become available. The normal practice seems to be that when the answers are made available, the Committee secretary circulates the answers to those honourable senators who are on the Committee. On this occasion some difficulty arose because a senator who was not a member of the Committee asked for copy of the answers before they were formally tabled in the Senate. There was some discussion then about whether these should be made available or whether certain areas of privilege would be breached if they were made available. After some time had elapsed it was decided to release the written answers to the person who was not on the Committee. This does not seem, to Estimates Committee D, to be a satisfactory situation. More satisfactory would be a situation where the written answers are made available not only to those members of that Committee but also to any other honourable senator who may ask for those answers, even though they have not been tabled in the Parliament. I will therefore quote a section of the Committee's report which covers this matter in detail. It states: During consideration of the additional estimates a series of prepared questions were put to all Departments. In a number of cases answers to some or all of the questions were provided in writing after the committee had completed its hearings. A Senator who was not a member of this Committee sought access to these answers prior to their release by the Committee, which would not usually occur until they had been tabled in the Senate as 'additional information'. In the case of this Committee the matter of access was satisfactorily resolved after a short delay, by the Chairman authorising release of the documents. However, given the pressure of time on the work of Estimates Committees, and the need to facilitate consideration of information received by an Estimates Committee, the Senate might consider whether there is a need to review the status of written answers to questions (as distinct from Committee correspondence) to provide a more expeditious and uniform approach to their release. The Committee believes that this matter does not require examination by the Standing Orders Committee. It therefore recommends that, the resolution referring in Appropriation Bills to Estimates Committees include a paragraph authorising the immediate release of written answers to questions asked at hearings of Estimates Committees. The Committee went on to indicate in its report that it intends to review progress made in this area after it has considered the Estimates in the 1984 Budget session of Parliament. I therefore move: That the resolution referring the Appropriation Bills to Estimates Committees include a paragraph authorising the immediate release of written answers to questions asked at hearings of Estimates Committees. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.51) —I do not want to prolong unduly this debate, as we obviously support the motion, as has been said a couple of times already. I just want to put on the record that the supplementary information which was tabled by the Chairman of Estimates Committee D in the Senate is not yet available to senators. Members of the Committee have copies but nobody else does . I am not sure that anybody else cares but it is a matter that has been raised in the past and it was raised rather more seriously in regard to another committee earlier this evening. It is really very difficult to involve oneself in debate on a department's estimates without the supplementary information. The motion that has been put forward will certainly loosen it up for the people who actually seek the information but it is possible that other senators might be interested who have not actively sought the information. I understand there is some difficulty with reproduction. My comments are not meant to be a criticism of the reproduction section of the Senate. I have always found its service excellent and it tries to do the very best it can. But I suggest that somebody, perhaps the President of the Senate, should look at why this information was not available. If some modification can be made to the procedures or priorities within the reproduction section at the moment which might have obviated the problems experienced by this committee, perhaps the President will consider taking that sort of action in consultation with the reproduction section. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.53) —I feel obliged to make a comment on this matter because as Chairman of Senate Estimates Committee F, faced with the same decision, I took the view that a senator who asked questions on an estimates committee, irrespective of whether he or she was a member of the committee, was entitled to an answer, if the answer was not available at the time the question was asked, when the information subsequently became available. My view was that that senator was entitled to a response because it was not the fault of the senator that the Department did not have with it the information requested. If the information had been available the senator would have received it and been in a position to enter the debate here tonight on the basis of the information received. However, I make the point that a number of senators, who were not members of Estimates Committee F, exercised their right to appear at Committee hearings and ask questions. But any senator who asks questions before an estimates committee has to ask those questions and accept the responsibility for the number and nature of those questions. I have a view that many of the questions asked were unnecessary and were of such detail that they merely imposed a burden on the departments concerned. It may be argued that that ought not to be a consideration but I think it must become a consideration. Senators now have resources, and after 1 July are likely to have further resources, and I do not think it is a reasonable exercise for staff of senators to make a close, and I can say nitpicking, examination of the estimates in order to ask a whole host of questions which then result in a mass of paper subsequently being provided to the Committee. The question needs to be asked whether that exercise warrants the work involved. As Chairman of Estimates Committee F I had the experience of a senator, who is not a member of the Committee, appearing at the Committee hearings and exercising his or her right. That senator sought to ask a substantial number of questions under the first item, salaries, on the basis that that was the item under which any question could be asked. This meant that the senator, who was not a member of the committee, was able to come to the Committee hearings and ask a substantial volume of questions and then leave the rest of the Committee to battle through the rest of the estimates under the following items. I took the view that those questions were out of order under the salaries item and ought to be asked in the proper place. I prevailed but what then happened was that a whole host of questions was placed on notice for the department concerned to answer in depth. When the answers to those questions came forward I was asked whether senators could have those answers in advance. I took the view that they were entitled to them. I want to make the point clear that Estimates committees are not merely places at which to ask a whole series of questions that bear no relationship to the work of an Estimates committee. It overloads the committees, is a waste of the time of committees and I believe a burden that should not be imposed upon departments. It is a bit late to have said that and I know I have bought a fight . I can already sense that someone will respond. Senator Martin —You could be surprised. Senator GEORGES —I could be surprised. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.57) —Senator Georges really has talked about two things. One is the provision of supplementary information to senators, including senators who are not members of an Estimates committee. The other is the conduct of Estimate committees. Senator Georges used the neutral gender during his speech and at one stage referred to he or she. I was a she who attended Senator Georges's Estimates Committe F, but there was also a he so I am not absolutely sure that he was talking about me, although he did take exception to some of the questions I asked. Some issues arose on Estimates Committee F, which was the Committee to which Senator Georges referred, that I had intended to raise in debate on Estimates Committee F. I just say now that I do not think it is desirable that we interpose that debate out of the context of Estimates Committee F but I could not let the comments go entirely unchallenged. I have contrary views to those just put by Senator Georges. Some very serious issues were raised in Estimates Committee F. Perhaps Senator Georges was foreshadowing a debate in the context of his Committee and I shall certainly join that debate when we get to Estimates Committee F. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.59) —We have proceeded in consideration of this group of departments by following the report of Estimates Committee D. As it happens, the first Department, and I presume the Department we are looking at in particular now, is the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. The evidence given to this Committee has given rise to some controversy and has also given rise to two minority reports. It is probably appropriate now that we follow on with the report which also happens to coincide with this Department. When the original report of Estimates Commitee D was tabled in the Senate on Tuesday, as I recall, a minority report was appended to it which bore the signatures of Senator Peter Baume, Senator Teague and me. That report said that it was the opinion of those senators who signed the minority report that Estimates Committee D should meet again for certain reasons, which I shall come to in due course. It was the opinion of the Senate that the Committee should meet again. It met today, took further evidence, and has made a second report which was tabled by Senator Colston earlier this evening. The second report contains certain statements disagreeing with the original minority report and it has appended to it yet another minority report, this time signed by Senator Teague and me. Senator Baume has been absent from the Senate from late this afternoon because of a prior arrangement he had. We knew that that would be so. I discussed the possibility of what might appear in the report with him this afternoon. Whilst he is not here I do have his authority to say that the sentiments expressed in this second minority report, dated 31 May 1984, have his support. He will be in attendance in the Senate tomorrow and it is possible that he might take the opportunity to confirm that himself. Lest there by any misunderstanding because there were three signatures on the first minority report and only two on the second, it is only because one senator was absent. There would have been three signatures otherwise. On 8 May the Senate debated a motion of censure against the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). This arose out of evidence given to the Committee on 3 May and a letter given by the Minister to the Chairman of the Committee on 4 May which was made available to those members of the Committee present on 4 May. There is no hint of criticism in that; I was not present. It just happened that I did not get the letter. That was my lookout. On the basis of the information of 3 May and the letter of 4 May the Opposition moved a censure motion on 8 May. There was some reference in that debate to certain evidence and page proofs of the transcript of the Estimates Committee on 3 May were available to some people. I was not one of the people who had those page proofs, so as it happened I had neither the Minister's letter nor the page proofs. I did not participate in the debate on 8 May but I listened to it and I had certain surprises come my way in the course of that debate, as I heard what was read into the record, on the basis of my recollection of the evidence of 3 May. I hasten to add that I had not discussed any of these items with anyone. I then read very closely the evidence in Hansard when I received it when I returned to Canberra this week. As well as reading the evidence in Hansard I, along with other members of the Committee, had amongst the additional information-the answers to questions that had been provided-a document entitled 'Senate Estimates Committee D: Personal Statement' signed by A. Taloni and dated 22 May 1984. I seek leave to have this document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE D: PERSONAL STATEMENT I wish to make a personal statement to the Committee in order to explain my answers at hearings on 3 May 1984 as recorded in Hansard, pages 131-133, 137-138 . My impression at the time of the hearing was that there were three surveys (and the associated funding) under discussion. Whether valid or not, these perceptions affected the quality and clarity of responses. The three surveys which I thought were under discussion were: 1. An independent survey proposed by this Department but not proceeded with. 2. A well publicised survey on youth attitudes being conducted by the Department of the Special Minister of State (SMOS). 3. An add-on survey to the SMOS survey on behalf of this Department. I was aware that the Minister considered that, as the survey combining 2 and 3 above was being conducted by SMOS, questions relating to it should be addressed in the context of that Department's bids for additional estimates. I was aware that additional estimates had been sought by SMOS for the add-on survey. During the final phases of the questioning recorded on page 131 I mistakenly believed that questions were being directed to me on details of the add-on survey. In that context I was replying to the effect that I had no detailed knowledge. This was correct. I was aware of general aspects such as agreement by the Minister to the add-on survey and to the fact that discussions were taking place between officers of the Departments and ANOP but that was the extent of my knowledge. I did not have details nor was I required to have them. I was not involved in discussions on the areas to be covered by the add-on survey, let alone on the details of questions to be included. To the the best of my recollection I have not had any meetings with departmental or interdepartmental staff or of staff of external organisations to discuss the add-on survey. The survey questions and the reasons for them were of no direct concern to me in my present position. For the record, I had two discussions with ANOP staff. The first lasted a matter of minutes and concerned the preliminary findings of the Youth Attitudes survey in the context of the production of a Participation and Equity Program ( PEP) publicity film. The second was a meeting arranged to again discuss publicity for the Participation and Equity Program. Neither discussion related to the add-on survey. This meeting is referred to on the bottom of page 137 of Hansard. I felt concerned after the conclusion of the Department's hearing about the possibility of there having been some confusion and immediately on my return to the Department, no later than 7.15 p.m., I advised the Permanent Head of this. I advised him that the Committee should be informed of this and that the matter should be clarified. The Minister was advised by the Permanent Head and agreed to write a letter of clarification to the Chairman of the Committee. I add this statement on my own behalf, to explain the circumstances pertaining at the time and the apparent inconsistency in information presented during the hearing. A. TALONI 22.5.84. Senator MARTIN —It is desirable that this statement be in Hansard because other key documents are. On the basis of that statement, other events and the evidence , I supported the minority report dated 29 May. The second report of the Committee that came in tonight would have the Committee repudiate statements made in that report. I refuse to repudiate them on the following grounds. The second report says: On the basis of the evidence in the original hearing, the Committee does not accept certain statements in the minority report about Senator Ryan and Dr Taloni . . . On the basis of the evidence of the original hearing I did, and on the basis of that evidence I would, accept those statements. Evidence given today has modified my view on some things but not all of them. However, I refuse to disown the statements in the minority report; I do not resile from anything that appears in it. I think, bearing in mind the information before us, that was reasonable. In the Estimates Committee hearings today-again other senators will be at a disadvantage because we are going on page proofs as the Hansard report is not available, which is understandable under the circumstances-the questions and answers that gave rise to the controversy were debated at great length. Questions were repeated and officers and the Minister were given the opportunity to reconsider answers given on 3 May and to elaborate or expand on them. It was a very detailed hearing. I had some questions in my mind but did not ask them because I did not think that they were really to the central issue. However, they are interesting questions that arise out of Dr Taloni's statement. In our minority report Senator Teague and I say: We do not agree that the hearings of Estimates Committee D confirm the assessment contained in the majority report to the Senate. That is, the majority report delivered this evening. I have given an indication of why. We continued: We do not consider it appropriate to canvass the reasons for our opinion in this report. We did not, either in this minority report or the previous minority report, canvass opinions. We stated that we had drawn certain conclusions. We thought Estimates Committee D should follow a particular line of action; it had not and we were appealing to the Senate to support us. So only so much of the principles of Estimates committees as we felt were central to the issue were mentioned in that report. The reasons were not detailed. We said in that report, as I have already mentioned: . . . we have concluded that the Minister and Dr Taloni consciously withheld information when answering questions on the involvement of the Department in a survey being undertaken by the government . . . This is the first recorded instance of an Estimates Committee having been given what appears to be calculated, incorrect information. As I have said, I stand by those statements having been correct at the time. However, I would like to examine the statements in the light of the evidence of 3 May and since and to state my views, which I have not stated previously. I indicated, in outline, some of them during the hearings of the Committee today. The essence of this matter is that there were a series of questions from Senator Teague and Senator Baume on the subject of public opinion surveys or other surveys. As I sat in the Committee I had no knowledge of any public opinion surveys or other sorts of surveys. I heard a series of questions about surveys, and answers, and I concluded from the original line of questioning that the officers of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs did not know anything of use to the Committee about these surveys. Subsequently, some time later, Senator Baume came back to the subject and asked another series of questions. These questions were specifically in relation to whether there had been some sort of survey on the subject of the funding of government and non-government schools. Those questions were commented on very briefly by Dr Taloni and at greater length by the Minister. As I sat and listened to the questions, answers and comments I really thought Senator Baume was up a dry gully. I understood him to be asking questions about a survey on government and non-government schools and my belief from the answers given was that there was no such survey that people at that Estimates Committee could tell us about. I will come back to some of the detail because it has been suggested that there might have been some confusion. I think there is an attempt to confuse with these assertions of confusion because my reading of it is really very clear. The Committee today and on 3 May spent some time asking Dr Taloni a number of questions. Dr Taloni is the First Assistant Secretary of the Management Division in the Department of Education and Youth Affairs. Those questions were repeated today to Dr Taloni, with invitations to the Minister and any other officer present to answer. I think that is a fair and general statement of the situation. Originally the questions and answers were as follows : Senator TEAGUE —Has the Department commissioned any public opinion surveys since 5 March 1983? Dr Taloni-No. Senator TEAGUE —Were there any commissioned surveys of any kind that in part included anything that could be described as a public opinion survey? Dr Taloni-On the part of the Department, no. Senator TEAGUE —Has the Department requested public opinion surveys through a statutory authority or one of the commissions? Dr Taloni-There is a survey on youth attitudes being conducted by the Department of the Special Minister of State which might have some relevance to our departmental function. Senator TEAGUE —That is being handled by an interdepartmental committee? Dr Taloni-That is being handled by SMOS, Special Minister of State. Senator TEAGUE —Has the Department engaged in any market research since March 1983? Mr Maher-No. At this stage Senator Ryan interposed for the first time. The exchange continues : Senator RYAN —No, we have not done any. I think some was done under the previous Government, but not by us. CHAIRMAN-Do the officers want to make any further responses? Dr Taloni-No. I am not aware whether any other officers said no. Dr Taloni is the only one recorded as saying that. It is important because the evidence today showed that other officers could have added to that and knew more about this survey than Dr Taloni. The questioning continued: CHAIRMAN-Did you want to interpose, Senator Baume? Senator PETER BAUME —Dr Taloni said there was a survey being conducted by SMOS in relation to youth attitudes. Could you tell us something about that survey? That is a very general question. The Minister interposed again. I point out that the question was directed to Dr Taloni but Senator Ryan interposed: Senator RYAN —Before Dr Taloni gives what information he can to Senator Baume, I should point out that the conduct of that survey is within another department and it is not a survey for which this Department is responsible. So Dr Taloni does not have any detailed information about it, but he might like to make some comments. At that point Dr Taloni had not said anything about detailed information, but the words start to appear fairly regularly. Senator Baume then asked a question. Senator Georges —I thought it was bad enough on Committee F. It must have been dreadful on this one. For the last 10 minutes you have been going on with some rubbish that is hard to understand. Still, I will listen. Senator MARTIN —There has been considerable misrepresentation of things that have happened on this Committee. I suggest to Senator Georges that he avail himself of copies of the Hansard. He will understand better if he does. Senator Ryan —You would need to. Senator MARTIN —I do not intend to be cut short or diverted. Dr Taloni then answered a series of questions in which he referred to details of the SMOS survey. Those questions did not necessarily ask for details but those answers were given and an impression was left. The statement that Dr Taloni subsequently gave points out that he did not have any detailed knowledge of the survey. He was aware of the existence of certain surveys and he said that he had a wrong perception about the questions that were being asked. Subsequent to the hearing he was concerned that there might have been some confusion. I read from his statement: . . . immediately on my return to the Department, no later than 7.15 p.m., I advised the Permanent Head of this. I advised him that the Committee should be informed of this and that the matter should be clarified. The Minister was advised by the Permanent Head and agreed to write a letter of clarification to the Chairman of the Committee. Further questioning of Dr Taloni today showed that he had knowledge of the survey but not detailed- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(11.14) —I rise principally to inform honourable senators that if any one of them wishes to obtain a copy of the transcript of evidence of the Estimates Committee D hearings held this morning and this afternoon limited copies are available from the Committee's Secretary, Mr Derek Abbott. Before I sit down I say after all that-this will be debated further tomorrow-that in the minority report of the first report of Estimates Committee D there was a great deal of scurrilous muck. Consideration interrupted. Progress reported. Motion by (Senator Ryan) agreed to: That consideration of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.16) —I rise to speak tonight on a matter which is connected with matters which arose earlier this month in relation generally to the actions taken by our Government and our Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of the problems in West Irian and relations between our Government and the Governments of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. In particular, on 9 May this year I raised these matters in a speech in the adjournment debate. I was then particularly concerned, among other things, with the death of Arnold Ap, a Melanesian who died allegedly while escaping from custody from an Indonesian goal where he and several others were awaiting without trial, without charge. It was a matter about which I had been questioning the Government and had had no reply for some weeks. Subsequently, it was discovered that he had been killed. On the day that I made that speech I received a very unsatisfactory answer to a question asked some weeks before which among other things said: Firm information on the whereabouts of Mr Ap is not available but we are continuing to pursue our enquiries. Enquiries were made about Mr Ap for example during the recent visit to Irian Jaya by our Ambassador in Jakarta. We are aware of Press reports that Mr Ap has been killed, but these reports have yet to be confirmed. It was known to the rest of the world that he had been killed. I expressed my concern at that time at how little I believed the Foreign Affairs Department had done to check up these matters which were being questioned by me and many parts of the media in this country. With respect to other matters in the same area I shall read to the Senate what Mr Hayden, the Foreign Minister, had to say when he saw Mr Gromyko only a matter of a few days ago. Among other things, he said: . . . I will raise with you during my visit certain matters relating to human rights. My reason for doing so is not to use human rights as an instrument of propaganda against the Soviet Union, nor to interfere in the purely internal affairs of your country. That would be wrong. Rather, I will do so as a reflection of our belief that human rights know no boundaries. I stress the point that human rights know no boundaries and agree with it. It has been the policy of this Government and previous governments to recognise that fact and never to allow the idea to get abroad that somehow domestic matters are the only matters that are the concern of the government in question and that human rights perpetrated against its citizens are not within the province of the whole world. As Chairman of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group, I would never agree with the proposition which is often raised by governments which seek to hide from the world their particular brutal behaviour towards some of their own citizens. Arnold Ap was a man of peace who was promoting Melanesian culture. We regret that the Indonesians who conquered and now have control of West Irian are determined to suppress that culture among other things by the importation into that area of a million or a million and a half settlers. In that way they are taking the lands of the indigenous Melanesians and overriding their culture. The foreign affairs ministry and the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Lionel Bowen) have ignored my speech and the question I asked. They have not replied further. They have never indicated in any way what they did, whether they made any inquiries or whether they brought any pressure to bear on the Indonesian Government in support of Arnold Ap and the other people who were detained without trial. It appears that the Australian foreign affairs ministry thinks that if one says nothing about these matters they will go away. I assure it that they will not go away as far as I am concerned. On 23 May this year I wrote a letter to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have spoken to the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans), who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this place-I regret to say that he is not in the chamber; he knows that I intended to speak on this subject-and he is quite happy for me to have the letter incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to do so, Mr President. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT OFFICES 400 FLINDERS STREET MELBOURNE, VIC. 3000 23rd May 1984 Hon. L. F. Bowen, M.P. Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, Re: Arnold Ap and Melanesian Prisoners in Irian Jaya I draw your attention to a speech I made on Wednesday, 9th May 1984. I enclose a copy in case it has not come to your attention. I am most concerned at the complete lack of information as to what the Australian Government has been doing in respect to the imprisonment and death of this noted Melanesian who has obviously been eliminated in a complete breach of human rights. I want to know what the Australian Government did about the matter and I want to know what it is doing to try to protect the other detainees who are languishing without trial in Indonesian jails. I have always been aware of the strong element of appeasement of Indonesia which exists in the Foreign Affairs Department and I do not want to see this as another cause for shame for Australia in connection with its human rights record regarding subject peoples of Indonesia. It has also been suggested to me that there is great danger that refugees across the border in Papua New Guinea may be returned to Indonesian control against their will and I am concerned with references in the weekend papers that suggest that the Australian Government has both been advising the PNG Government against giving assistance to the OPM and to send refugees back to Irian Jaya. Plainly a statement ought to be made publicly or in the Parliament about this matter. I also draw attention to the fact that the late Arnold Ap's wife and other family members are now in a PNG refugee camp and apparently are seeking asylum abroad. I would suggest that we in Australia might offer sanctuary to them and we certainly should take every effort to ensure that they and others of a suffering Melanesian minority in Irian Jaya are not further endangered. I would appreciate an urgent reply. Yours sincerely, Alan Missen Senator for Victoria Enc. Senator MISSEN —In that letter I stressed the fact that no information had been received. I pointed out: . . . there is great danger that refugees across the border in PNG may be returned to Indonesian control against their will and I am concerned with references in the weekend papers that suggest that the Australian Government has both been advising the PNG Government against giving assistance to the OPM- that is, the Free Papua Movement- and to send refugees back to Irian Jaya. Plainly a statement ought to be made publicly or in the Parliament about this matter. I now propose to speak on further matters which were dealt with in that paragraph of my letter. Very considerable concerns exist and to some extent they have been glossed over because of the controversy in the last week involving the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. That is important in itself but it is only peripheral to the major concerns which I think should worry all Australians. We should not be giving advice, as has been suggested we have done, to Papua New Guinea to take such an action. I would like to know whether we have given that advice. I am aware that in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs there are many people whom I would describe as appeasers in regard to Indonesia. Senator Georges —That is an understatement. Senator MISSEN —It may well be. They have pursued through one government or another, policies which suggest that we should do whatever Indonesia wants, that we should not cross her in any way and that somehow we will then be respected. Our sad experience has been that we are not respected for that type of conduct. There have been plenty of examples of that over the years. Of course, East Timor remains one of the great examples and one of the matters of shame as far as this country is concerned. Senator Georges —The five journalists. Senator MISSEN —And the five journalists. There are many other matters. I refer to the people who have gone across the border due to the troubles, the strafing of villages and the general persecution of Melanesians in the border areas. Approximately 6,000 of those people are now in Papua New Guinea. They are threatened with the possibility that they may be returned across the border and with that may have the prospect of death or certainly very severe attention from the Indonesian authorities. There has been a war in this area. Many of the people who have moved across the border have a high profile. They are known to be critical of and hostile to the Indonesian control of West Irian. I make a specific plea on behalf of the people in the border district, some 705 refugees at Kambratoro, which is a Catholic mission in the north. The Bishop of that district, John Etheridge, gave information to Australians about the situation. Those people arrived at the mission a week or two ago and they are now being supported by the mission at great expense. Apparently it is costing about 4,500 kina, about $5,000 a week. The church, which is fairly poor, is unable to carry on this type of expenditure. It is my belief that the Australian Government ought to be contributing and helping the Papua New Guinea Government to maintain people who are in that situation. Some of the people in those areas will ultimately go back-they will want to go back-when the position clears. Others will not be able to go back to West Irian at all or will do so only at great risk to their lives. I remind the Senate that an urgent situation has arisen in this regard. The Papua New Guinea Government has given the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees two weeks in which to persuade Indonesia to accept United Nations involvement in the handling of Irian Jayan refugees. This was reported in an article in the Australian on 19 May 1984 written by Robin Osborne, who is a very well informed correspondent in respect of these matters. He said: Should the UNHCR fail to do so, the first group of the estimated 6000 refugees now in Papua New Guinea will be sent back to Indonesia regardless of whether they wish to go. About 1300 Melanesians would start returning on May 29. I understand that has not yet started. Of course, the deadline has passed. I believe I should read a further paragraph from this article: Papua New Guinea's behind-the-scenes attempt to internationalise the refugee issue, and thus to delegate some responsibility for solving it, contrasts sharply with its recent public statements. The Foreign Minister, Mr Namaliu, has said that an involvement by an outside body such as the UN could ''open up a can of worms for the Indonesians'' and that the resulting embarrassment may have '' tremendous repercussions for us militarily and politically''. I can imagine that that may be so as far as Papua New Guinea is concerned and I am sorry if that will be the case. On the other hand, it will involve more than embarrassment if those people are sent back. That ultimatum period is over. There is now a strong possibility of forcible repatriation of these people across the border. I think that the United Nations and its High Commissioner for Refugees ought to be brought into this. It is apparent that it has not been possible yet to persuade the Indonesian Government that it should be involved. Consequently, the threat is that Papua New Guinea may send people back. Mr Somare has commented on this and has criticised the United Nation's efforts. He has said that they are somewhat ineffective. I remind the Senate that the record of the United Nations High Commissioner for Regugees over the years has been a magnificent one. Since 1945, of the 25 million people who have been displaced, some 15 million have been resettled by reason of the action of the United Nations. It is my belief that Australia should take a positive step to try to persuade Indonesia to accept the United Nations' action in this regard and also to persuade Papua New Guinea that it should not send these people back. If it is the case, as was suggested in my letter to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, that Australia has acted contrary to this and has advised Papua New Guinea to send the people back, we may be creating another great shame, similar to the shame that has pursued us in relation to the subject people of Indonesia. We may be doing another Timor in regard to this area. Therefore, we would not be surprised if Papua New Guinea did not feel that it could rely upon the support of Australia when it was giving that advice. I want to know from our foreign ministry whether it gave that advice. If not, what advice did it give? I expect answers to those questions. There are a number of things that Australia could do regarding these people. We could provide material assistance to them, even if it is only to hold them in that situation for the time being so that no precipitous action is taken. We must realise that many of these people who have been driven from Irian Jaya may resettle in other Melanesian countries. They may want to do so. Some of them, the high profile ones, might want to go to other countries in other parts of the world. Some may return to their villages in Irian Jaya after things have settled down. They must surely do that only under monitoring and under an assurance that when they go back, they will go back with people from the United Nations, who will see that they will not be killed or ill-treated on their return to the country. I want to point out that I believe the feeling in Australia on this matter is quite considerable. Today we have had a report that Australia's 140 Roman Catholic religious orders will lobby the Papua New Guinea Government to grant asylum to Irian Jayan refugees genuinely seeking it. So in Australia there is a very considerable feeling on this question. I am very concerned, and have been for years, at the appeasing attitude which successive governments in Australia have affected in their relations with Indonesia. We have surely found that Indonesia respects us no more for the weak attitude that we have demonstrated-- Senator McIntosh —Less; it has less respect. Senator MISSEN —Yes, it has less respect. I am afraid the Indonesian attitude has been something of a bullying one, and we know that bullies do not respect those who give way to them. That is not unusual. I draw attention to the fact that it is not as though we are somewhat dependent on Indonesia. Indonesia is very substantially dependent on funds from abroad. Yet it is going through with this resettlement program and is pouring people out of Java into West Irian. An article, written by Kenneth Davidson in the Age today, headed 'Pathetic attitude to Indonesia', criticises our attitude over the years. He says: The present policy accommodation over East Timor and vacillation about making any sort of commitment to the legitimate security needs of PNG is a policy of appeasement. Its latest expression was in the Foreign Affairs request to the ABC management not to run the interview with the Free Papua Movement leader, Mr James Nyaro. More importantly, he says that the cost of this extravagant transmigration program is such that it cannot be economic. The article states: The $12,000 cost of transmigration for each family has to be set against per capita incomes in Indonesia of about $700 a year. The previous paragraph states: There is about $1500 million a year in aid channelled to Indonesia each year through the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia (IGGI) of which the World Bank contributes half. Japan and the US are the major country donors while Australia contributes about $40 million a year. We are therefore contributing to the cost of this extravagant policy designed to increase the strength of Javanese control in these outer islands of Indonesia. I believe we should be taking a much stronger stand than we are. I know I have raised these matters at a time when the media in this country has gone to sleep. I hope that this subject will be picked up by people who are concerned with the standing of this country. I am afraid that we have a record of shame in respect of human rights in a number of our relationships, and with Indonesia in particular. I hope we will not see a tragedy unfold for which Australia will be very substantially to blame. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.34) —I refer to the anticipated action of proclamation of additional areas for inclusion in Kakadu National Park, namely, the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter from Professor J. D. Ovington, Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Paul Everingham, concerning the proclamation of additional areas in Kakadu National Park. I also seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard Mr Everingham's reply to his letter. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 22 March, 1984 Co-ordinator General Department of the Chief Minister Chan Building Mitchell Street Darwin N.T. 5794 I am writing to bring to your attention the attached Notice of Intention to Prepare a Report Recommending Proclamation of Additional Area for Inclusion in Kakadu National Park, namely, to include the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. I would be pleased to receive any comments you may wish to make in regard to the Notice. Professor J. D. Ovington Director CHIEF MINISTER DARWIN 23 May 1984 Professor G. D. Ovington Director Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service G.P.O. Box 636 Canberra, A.C.T. 2601 Dear Professor Ovington Your reference 83/634 of the 22nd March 1984 invited comment concerning the Notice of Intention to prepare a report recommending proclamation of additional area in Kakadu National Park. The Northern Territory is opposed to the proclamation of Gimbat and Goodparla Pastoral Leases as additional area for inclusion in Kakadu National Park. Such wholesale dedication, using existing pastoral lease boundaries, would appear to be for administrative convenience rather than for rational conservation purposes . The Northern Territory queries the justification for adding a further 6726 square kilometres to Kakadu National Park without clearly identifying the park or conservation value of each sq. km. There is very little within either of the two pastoral leases not already represented in Stage 1 and 2 of Kakadu. Declaration of the whole area as national park would seriously inhibit the utilisation of resources available for development within the Territory. While there is no question about the need to arrange for the conservation of further land in the Territory it is essential that this be done in a rational manner and having regard to achieving a balance of developments in each region. The Alligator Rivers region is clearly contributing a maximum proportion of its land to national park use as things stand and it is of great concern to this government that an unreasoned pursuit of opportunity should cause the sterilisation of further regional resources. It must be recognised that both Gimbat and Goodparla have potential for multiple land use pursuits some of which could be commenced immediately, subject to suitable security of tenure, and others which require further investigation and proving for technical and commercial feasibility. This is not to say that there are no pieces of land on the leases that require conservation for park or recreational use but simply that, following the initial and illogical north-south, east-west pastoral decisions is perpetrating errors that the Territory needs corrected. The Gimbat/Goodparla lease areas do have a high potential for tourism and recreation. The government believes that this potential can be best realised without the encumbrance of a national park status over the whole area. The lessee of Gimbat has already introduced controlled access through Gimbat and has proposed the establishment of significant tourist facilities and controlled safari hunting. The development of facilities to promote recreational needs embodying outdoors experience is considered most appropriate and in fact, tourist development within both Gimbat and Goodparla could alleviate certain pressures on Kakadu National Park itself. For instance Gimbat has good resources for development of safari hunting type operations that could not be done in Kakadu. The two pastoral leases form part of the uranium/gold province of the Alligator Rivers region and are considered highly prospective for copper, lead, zinc, gold , silver, uranium, tin and tungsten. A number of small high grade gold-uranium deposits were worked prior to the administrative freeze on mining and new exploration in the early 1970's. These deposits yielded some 972 tonnes of U3O8 and 11,000 ounces of gold. The excision of five mineral leases for Dampier Mines within Stage 1 of Kakadu attests to the highly prospective nature of the area. Less than 1/3 of the Gimbat/Goodparla lease has been explored but an indication of the perceived mineral potential is reflected in the number of mineral and exploration leases held prior to the declaration of the mineral reserves. The mining industry has a key role to play in the Territory's development by providing major capital investment, job opportunities, export earnings and the economic basis for ancillary industries. Accordingly, the Northern Territory believes that mineral exploration should proceed unimpeded to adequately assess the potential for the area. It further considers that there is adequate N.T. legislation in place to safeguard the river catchments should mining be proven and allowed, following environmental assessment. The N.T. government believes that the industry should be allowed to investigate the mineral potential of this area in accord with normal expectations of exploration. In the longer term, given that marketing and changes in technology will be determinant factors, there is potential for both animal and crop production on both Gimbat and Goodparla. The extensive grazing of cattle as permitted under the original granting of the leases is no longer appropriate and stricter control of stock will be necessary. The stricter control over stock will allow differentiation of land for improved pastures and agricultural crops. Further investigation will be required before this potential will be realised but the government believes that resource research is an ongoing activity that must be maintained. The Goodparla lessees have expressed an interest in a buffalo domestication programme. No in depth economic appraisal of the various land use options has been undertaken because of the uncertainties with the Kakadu Stage 2 proposal. The Northern Territory believes that the tenure of Gimbat/Goodparla should revert to the N.T. so that these issues can be adequately considered. It further believes that the roads in the region currently maintained by the Northern Territory should be retained as public roads, e.g. 1. Kakadu Highway 2. Goodparla Access Road 3. Gimbat Access Road 4. Waterfall Creek Access Road, and 5. Old Jim Jim Road. In addition, a track extending south-east from the existing Gimbat access road to the Katherine River should also be excluded as a public road. While not maintained by the N.T., it is used for access to the upper reaches of the Katherine River. As part of the upgrading to sealed standard of the Kakadu Highway, the N.T. is currently investigating realignments of the Kakadu Highway and an additional access to Waterfall Creek from the north west. It is essential that in order to permit the inclusion of the area as an active part of the land resource of the Territory economy all roads and alignments be under Territory control and deemed public roads. A 100 metre road reserve should be set aside for all roads identified in the area under consideration, i.e. 50 metres either side of the centre line of existing road. The Control Of Waters Act is administered by the Northern Territory government. Specific areas of interest in Gimbat/Goodparla relate to monitoring of existing assets and the investigation of further ground and surface areas. These areas of interest must be maintained under Northern Territory legislation and access to conduct these investigations must be unhindered. The Northern Territory advocates the return of the two pastoral leases to Territory control to allow investigation into the best mix of land use for the pastoral properties and their proper placement in the Territory resource bank. As mentioned, this proposition does not exclude the declaration of properly identified conservation values for park purposes. Yours sincerely, PAUL EVERINGHAM Senator KILGARIFF —I thank the Senate. I also seek leave to table a map of stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —Thank you, Mr President. I am concerned that Professor Ovington of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has taken such a strong bureaucratic view. It is certainly a very strong centralist attitude, hardly democratic, and definitely not conforming to the principles of consultation about which we hear so much today. It is a matter of such strong public interest and debate that I am taking this action to encourage discussion. I am raising this matter in the Senate this evening so that people with an interest-the mining companies, lessees, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Aboriginal people and associations, pastoralists, members of the tourist industry, and the man in the street-can consider for themselves whether the action being taken by the ANPWS is really rational and properly considered. I ask that the points made by Mr Everingham be considered and that the people offer their opinions. Let me speak briefly to the points Mr Everingham has made in his letter. The Northern Territory Government opposes the proclamation of Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases as a national park. This appears to be for administrative reasons rather than for rational conservation purposes. There are very few land types within either of these leases that are not already represented in stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu. The declaration of these lease areas would seriously inhibit the utilisation of resources available for development, which is most essential in the north. Gimbat and Goodparla have potential for multiple land use, for example, tourism, pastoral, recreation and mining. Tourist development of the Gimbat and Goodparla leases could alleviate recreational pressures on Kakadu National Park. For example, Gimbat has good resources for development of controlled safari hunting-type operations which could not be done in a national park. Both leases also have good potential for mining for they are part of the uranium province. In this area too there are very strong indications of gold, copper, lead, zinc, silver, tin and tungsten. Yet, if Professor Ovington has his way, these two areas will be tied up forever. The Territory Government and the majority of the people of the Territory believe that the mining industry should be allowed to investigate the mining potential of this area. The mining industry has a key role to play in the development of the Territory, although it is being frustrated to quite a degree at the moment, and it is helping to develop the Territory wherever it can. It could do so to quite a considerable degree in this instance in the proposed Kakadu area by providing major capital investment, job opportunities and export earnings. In the long term Gimbat and Goodparla have good potential for animal and crop production. The Northern Territory Government believes tenure of these leases should revert to the Northern Territory so that these issues can be considered adequately. Mr President, I thank you for giving me your time and for hearing me at this late hour. As this is a matter of such public concern in the Northern Territory I ask that it should be aired, and I encourage people to give their views on the matter. Although it is late, I will refer very briefly to a news release I received today. No doubt all other senators have received it too. It quotes Vice- Admiral Leach and says that there will be a farewell flight to mark the end of the Grumman Tracker operations. Tomorrow there will be a fly past over Parliament House and this will be the end of the Tracker aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm. As a person from the north, I take the opportunity to thank the crews and all those within the Tracker aircraft system who have played such a major part in the surveillance and protection of the north. I refer particularly to that period when so many refugee boats came down from Vietnam in enormous numbers. There were other illegal boats in the Indian Ocean which were landing on our northern shores, and the people in the S2 Grumman Tracker anti-submarine aircraft from the Royal Australian Navy played a very major part in protecting the north. At that time surveillance of the north along the coast was not particularly strong, and I believe we were very fortunate in having these air crews from the Fleet Air Arm to cover that area, so I personally thank them. Unfortunately we have seen the end of the Fleet Air Arm and I hope these crews will find suitable employment in other spheres. I understand some of the air crews are finding employment in air forces of countries friendly to Australia while others have gone into commercial flying. We have seen the breaking up of the Fleet Air Arm. I know that there has been a lot of heartbreak and there have been a lot of personal problems for the air crews. Young men who have given their lives to the Fleet Air Arm have suddenly found that they are without work and they have had to readjust and find other employment. I wish them all the best, and in so doing once again I raise my hat to them, to the work that they have done over some 16 years. As the Chief of Naval Staff, Vice-Admiral Leach said: The Trackers have made a remarkable contribution to the nation during their 16 years of service in the RAN . . . They have flown more than 67,000 hours on a variety of tasks-anti-submarine operations and training, coastal surveillance, oil rig patrols, search and rescue missions and Fleet support. It is a tribute to the aircrews and maintainers that in all that time only one aircraft has been lost in a flying accident. Even more remarkable is that there has not been a single fatality-a record which bears testimony to the skills of all concerned with their operations. So, Mr President, tomorrow we will see the flypast at, I think, 10.45 a.m. This will be the last that we will see of these aircraft. Of course what goes with them is the A4 Skyhawk, the Navy fighter aircraft. These have been tremendous aircraft but they are now no longer to be. I hope that in the disposal of these Skyhawks they go to the Royal New Zealand Air Force. I also hope that they will be provided to the New Zealand Air force at a very reasonable price. New Zealand is an ANZUS partner, and it has Skyhawks already. If we cannot find a place for our Skyhawks I hope we will ensure that they go to New Zealand where they can still participate in this region of the globe. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.43) —It is not my wont to speak on the adjournment debate. I have done so perhaps once in three or four years. The time now is a quarter to midnight, but I feel, after having heard Senator Missen's contribution, that something must be said in order to place matters in a little perspective. I consider that there is some confusion in respect of this matter. The confusion arises because of some person's desire to heighten anti-Indonesian feeling by using the very real refugee problem. They are two separate and distinct matters. I am concerned, as I believe are the Indonesians and the Papua New Guinea Government, with the problems on the Irian Jaya-Papua New Guinea border. I happen to be quite familiar with the problems that are involved therein. I am concerned about the future of the bona fide refugees among those who have crossed the border from Irian Jaya to Papua New Guinea. It should be borne in mind that all governments have a responsibility to respect the integrity of refugees so defined. Or course the definition of a refugee is: Owing to a well- founded fear of being persecuted for reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear is unwilling, to avail himself of the protection of that country or, who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable, or owing to such fear is unwilling, to return to it. All countries, including Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and indeed Australia, have an international responsibility to uphold the integrity of refugees as so defined. The question in the instant case is to define who falls within that category and who does not-who, as Senator Missen says could, when things settle down, be able to cross back into the province of Irian Jaya. I am sure we would get a degree of agreement with that. But I am concerned about the article that was written by Kenneth Davidson in the Age this morning. It is symptomatic of the Alice-in- Wonderland approach that some people take to the very real problems confronting Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the whole of this area. Let us realise that Indonesia does have very substantial problems. Rather than criticising Indonesia we should be assisting it with the resolution of those problems. One of the problems is, of course, the need to develop the province of Irian Jaya-unless people take the attitude that somehow or other we can turn back the clock and take away from Indonesia its province in Irian Jaya. Does anybody suggest that that can take place? Of course not, but it appears that the type of argument that is being advanced, not necessarily in this place but in some areas of Australia, is that somehow we can go back to a situation of a west New Guinea. The fact of life is that Irian Jaya is a province of Indonesia and if Irian Jaya falls, the integrity of Indonesia will be under attack. I imagine that the Government of Indonesia, whichever government it may be, would be concerned about that prospect. There is a very real need to develop Irian Jaya. It has enormous potential-not only mineral potential but, if developed in the agricultural sense a potential to lift substantially the standards of living of the persons in the whole of that area, including some of the other provinces of Indonesia. For a person such as Kenneth Davidson to take the attitude that he does in the article in the Age this morning is totally irresponsible. He says: The relevant fact is that Australia is two or three times richer than Indonesia , and our military is bigger and better than the relevant modern segment of the Indonesian military. He goes on to say and this a non-sequitur: It might take about 40,000 fighting troops and another 200,000 back-up soldiers to police the PNG border, but this is Maginot Line thinking. Before that he had said: The bottom line is force. While this opens up the unspeakable abyss in terms of the debate, it has to be looked at, and policies decided on, even before transmigration is opposed within IGGI. I think its time that in this Senate we had a more mature debate about Indonesia . Over a period I have listened to some absolute nonsense spoken about Indonesia and its relationships with Australia and with Papua New Guinea. I believe that there are wise heads looking at this matter, within our own Government, within the Papua New Guinea Government and within the Indonesian Government. I do not regard it as appeasement at all. But, having said that, I repeat that I believe Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of our international commitment to the principle of assistance to refugees as defined and also to uphold the integrity of the countries concerned, including Indonesia. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.53) —in reply-Senator Missen and Senator Harradine raised matters on the adjournment tonight concerning Indonesia and refugees and Australian foreign policy. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has provided me with some information on the matter and I read it to the Senate: I am aware of reports that Mr Arnold Ap, former Curator of the Anthropological Museum at Cenderawasih University in Jayapura, who was arrested on 30 November 1983 for alleged involvement with the Free West Papua Movement (OPM), has been killed while trying to escape from detention. In December 1983, our Embassy in Jakarta discussed Mr Ap's arrest with the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute and was advised that the Institute was making representations about Mr Ap and other alleged OPM supporters detained with him to the Military Commander of Irian Jaya, Brigadier-General Sembiring. During the recent visit to Irian Jaya by the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia , Mr Rawdon Dalrymple, on 10-25 April, the Ambassador made representations about Mr Ap to General Sembiring and the Governor of Irian Jaya, Isaac Hindom, General Sembiring told the Ambassador on 11 April that Mr Ap was still in detention awaiting trial. Since reports of Mr Ap's death on or around 26 April, the Embassy has sought confirmation from the Indonesian authorities in Jakarta. The precise circumstances of Mr Ap's death still remain unclear and the Embassy is pursuing its inquiries. The Government is naturally concerned and dismayed at the reports of Mr Ap's death and has made its concern known to the Indonesian Authorities. The Government further hopes that other political detainees in Irian Jaya will be brought to trial without delay in accordance with Indonesian law. It should be noted, however, that the Government's representations about Mr Ap and other detainees are motivated by humanitarian concerns and do not in any way imply support for the tactics or objectives of the OPM. In this context, the Government condemns the recent killings by the OPM of those Indonesians unfortunate enough to fall into its hands. That information was provided for the benefit of the Senate and specifically for Senator Missen on the adjournment debate. I will refer Senator Missen's remarks and those of Senator Harradine to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for further comment if he wishes. Also on the adjournment tonight Senator Kilgariff raised matters concerning the declaration of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park. I will refer those matters to Senator Walsh and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen. Senator Kilgariff also made some remarks about a farewell of a Tracker aircraft of the sea-air force and expressed his appreciation of the efforts of that particular force. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I make it very clear that my comments in respect of Senator Missen's contribution did not relate to the subject matter of the death of Mr Ap. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.56 p.m. The following papers were presented: Public Service Act-Appointment-Australian War Memorial-D. H. S. James. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Notice of Variation to the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs (82nd Series), dated 30 May 1984 . The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 646) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Did the Treasurer announce on 19 May 1983 and confirm in his Budget Speech that friendly societies are to be taxed in this financial year. (2) Does the Treasurer appreciate that almost half of the financial year has passed and there has been no statement or Bill presented, detailing the new tax regime. (3) Does the Treasurer understand that because of the lack of details friendly societies are having great difficulties in advising clients and potential clients on their investments. (4) Will the Treasurer consider delaying the start of the proposed tax until the 1984-85 financial year in view of this confusion and the likelihood that there will not be a Bill presented and debated before March, April or later in 1984. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In my economic statement of 19 May 1983, I made the following announcement concerning the taxation of friendly societies: 'The Government has decided that the exemption for friendly societies on life, disability and accident insurance business will be terminated in respect of 1983 -84 and later income years.' 'Measures will be introduced to impose tax at a level comparable to that on the non-superannuation business of life insurance companies.' This statement was confirmed in my Budget Speech. As I indicated in a Press release of 17 April 1984, in settling details of the new arrangements there was extensive discussion and correspondence with representatives of the societies, which necessarily took up a considerable time. That prevented introduction of legislation in the Budget sittings of 1983 and the earlier part of the present sittings. The intention of the announcement of 19 May 1983 was clear-that friendly societies should bear tax comparable to that borne by life insurance companies on non-superannuation business. I am aware that, despite the foregoing, some friendly societies have been alleging that they are having difficulties in advising clients on their investments. However, every effort has been made to communicate with representatives of the friendly societies, both to take their concerns into account and to ensure that they have no misunderstandings about the intent of Government policy in this area. In my Press release of 17 April 1984 I made it clear that the measure would apply to earnings of friendly societies in 1983-84. That is also as stated in the original announcement on 19 May 1983, and the Government considers that this commencement date should stand. (Question No. 743) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) What are anticipated costs of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. (2) What number of jobs will be involved in the construction of this line and what will be their duration. (3) How much is the Federal Government together with State Government and local authorities contributing to employment creation programs in this financial year. (4) How many jobs have been created under such schemes and what is their duration. (5) What would be the cost to revenue of providing work for one person for one week under the proposal to build the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line and what would be the costs of the same under the employment creation projects. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory found that total construction costs for a nine-year construction period beginning in July 1984, based on June 1983 prices, would be around $578m. To bring the line into operation would require further initial expenditure of $ 76m for rolling stock and other equipment. (2) The above-mentioned inquiry estimated that up to 1,000 people would be employed each year during construction on site and in supply industries. (3) I am advised that under the wage pause program the Commonwealth is contributing $200m in respect of projects approved in the 1983 calendar year. The interim report on the wage pause program by the Bureau of Labour Market Research indicates that, in addition to the Commonwealth provision of $200m for the program, project funding has been provided by State governments or sought from project sponsors. At the time of the report, $186m of Commonwealth funds were accounted for with projects approved to the value of nearly $234.6m. The sources of the additional $48.4m were State/Territory governments ($12.8m) and sponsors including local government and community groups ($35.4m). Overall, the Commonwealth's contribution represents 79.3 per cent of total projects budgets. Under the community employment program (CEP), $300m has been allocated in 1983- 84. The CEP guidelines provide for 30 per cent or more of project costs to be contributed by the project sponsor. To 27 April 1984 the Commonwealth has committed $403.9m toward approved projects under CEP. An additional $123m will be contributed by State/Territory governments and local government authorities. (4) Under the wage pause program 21,732 jobs have been created with an average duration of 24.7 weeks. Under the CEP, in respect of all approved projects to 27 April 1984, 37,723 jobs have been approved with an average duration of 26 weeks. (5) The theoretical cost to revenue of providing work for one person for one week on the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line based on the answers to questions (1) and (2), would be $1,235 at June 1983 prices. The cost per person per week to the Commonwealth for these CEP and wage pause jobs is estimated at $385. (Question No. 789) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) What preparations have been made to assist the Papua New Guinea Government in the event of the expected eruption of Mount Vulcan at Rabaul. (2) What is the anticipated response time after the initial eruption before Australian assistance would be on the scene. (3) What requests have been received by the Australian Government from the Papua New Guinea Government in relation to the potential crisis in Rabaul. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (i) Under new arrangements agreed between the Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs, the Natural Disasters Organisation (NDO), as an agent of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, is now co-ordinating the provision of Australian Government physical assistance to Papua New Guinea for the relief of the Rabaul situation. On 7 March all disaster service liaison officers representing their relevant Commonwealth departments were briefed at NDO on current plans and possible disaster relief which could be required from each department. The Australian Defence Force remains on alert under the overseas disaster plan 'sprocket'. (ii) In addition to the Australian technical advice provided to Papua New Guinea under current Department of Foreign Affairs agreements, the following Commonwealth support has been provided in response to Papua New Guinea requests: (a) Dr Hugh Davies, a volcanologist, was attached to the Rabaul Volcanological Observatory as a technical adviser for six weeks and returned on 11 April; (b) Captain Doyne Hunt Royal Australian Navy (retired), who until recently was the Assistant Director Plans and Operations in the Natural Disasters Organisation, has spent two periods totalling nearly six weeks in Papua New Guinea assisting emergency authorities with the updating of the East New Britain provincial disaster plan; (c) Tarpaulins and other emergency accommodation stores have been supplied to the East New Britain authorities for use in designated evacuation areas. These were transported to Rabaul in a Royal Australian Air Force C130 Hercules on a programmed training flight. This flight as well as testing a newly constructed emergency airstrip also transferred some Papua New Guinea Government records to Port Moresby; (d) Dr Gladwin of the University of Queensland installed additional technical instruments (magnetometers and tiltmeters) on 10 April; (e) The National Safety Council of Australia has provided an infra-red survey of the Rabaul area free of charge. (iii) Further disaster relief resources that may be required if an eruption occurs are being held in Australia at an advanced state of readiness. (2) (i) The Rabaul Volcanological Observatory predicts that the eruption should not be any larger than the eruption experienced in 1937. If this is the case it is possible that no further Australian assistance may be required due to the extensive pre-eruption planning being conducted within Papua New Guinea. (ii) If the eruption is of significantly larger scale and an immediate response is required the following units of the Australian Defence Force have been warned for deployment: (a) HMAS Tobruk, (b) HMAS Stalwart, (c) a Navy Iroquois helicopter, (d) Units of the 6th Brigade, (e) RAAF C130 Hercules aircraft, and (f) RAAF Iroquois helicopters, or RAAF Chinook helicopters. (iii) The reaction time to deploy Australian aid to the Gazelle Peninsula will depend upon the post eruption condition of the in-area facilities. During the eruptions in 1878 and 1937 the harbour was blocked with pumice and the air became choked with volcanic ash. These conditions would probably pertain during the predicted eruption with the result that sea and air operations into the Rabaul area may be temporarily inhibited. The units deployed will comply with Papua New Guinea requirements, to ensure minimal disruption of that country's own operations. Australian plans impose varying response times dependent on the level of need as determined by the alert stages issued by the Rabaul Volcanological Observatory. Currently a stage two alert is in force which indicates that an eruption is possible in a period of months to weeks. The Australian response will be commensurate with Papua New Guinea's requirements and the safe operations of our ships and aircraft. (3) The physical resources deployed to Rabaul as outlined in the answer to question one were all supplied in response to formal requests by the Papua New Guinea Government. There are no other requests outstanding. (Question No. 822) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) On what basis are government departments, tertiary institutions and statutory authorities selected as consultants, managing agents and supporting authorities for projects in the Australian bilateral aid program. (2) Is any attempt made to cost departmental or institutional overheads on a commercial basis, if selection is made on the basis of open tender; if so, upon what basis and with what result. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Commonwealth and State government departments, tertiary institutions and statutory authorities are selected as managing agents for projects in the Australian bilateral aid program on the basis of individual invitation, selective invitation or open tender, depending on the nature and availability of the technical expertise required. (2) No. The principle adopted by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau is that all public sector resources are reimbursed on a basis of full cost recovery in accordance with the guidelines established by the Public Service Board. (Question No. 862) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Under whose authority do Australian forces serve outside Australia, providing training, aid or peace-keeping facilities. (2) Are the terms of these arrangements public; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Federal Government. (2) Agreements of treaty status under which Australia sends members of the Defence Force abroad are published in the Australian and United Nations Treaty lists. It has not been the practice to publish the terms of arrangements of less than treaty status but there would ordinarily be no restriction on that information being made available. (Question No. 864) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: Does the Minister for Industry and Commerce agree that Australian industry will continue to need foreign investment to assist it to restructure; if so, will the Minister consult the Treasurer with a view to easing the stringent foreign investment guide-lines which currently are restricting industry's access to foreign capital. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Yes, foreign investment does have a role to play in any restructuring of industry but I do not agree that the present foreign investment guidelines are restricting industry's access to foreign capital. In fact, the Government has already assisted firms to borrow overseas more readily by removing foreign exchange controls. The Government announced in December 1983 that it had decided to continue the broad thrust of foreign investment policy first elaborated by the previous Labor Government in 1975 and, with some amendments in the light of changing circumstances, maintained by the previous Government. Foreign investment policy will continue to be based on twin pillars: Firstly, a recognition of the significant contribution that foreign capital can make to the development of Australia's industries and resources by providing scope for higher rates of growth in economic activity and employment than would otherwise be the case. Secondly, Australians must be given adequate opportunities to participate in the development of our industries and resources in order to balance the economic benefits of foreign investment with the community's concerns that the degree of foreign ownership and control of Australia's economy should be kept within acceptable bounds. Foreign investment has made great contributions to Australia's manufacturing industries in the past by allowing greater economic growth and employment than would have been possible from domestic sources alone. I would expect foreign investment to make a continuing contribution in future during the necessary restructuring of manufacturing which the Government's policies will bring about. I should point out that foreign investment policy relates only to direct foreign investment and does not seek to regulate foreign borrowings by forms. This Government has already made foreign borrowings easier for manufacturers by removing foreign exchange controls and has removed the pressures on domestic liquidity that such borrowings exerted in the past by floating the exchange rate . In relation to foreign investment in the manufacturing sector, the Government's foreign investment policy has no specific minimum Australian equity requirements . Proposals to acquire existing businesses are required to demonstrate sufficient economic benefits to offset any reduction in Australian ownership and control involved. The foreign investment policy is widely understood and accepted by the community at large and the business sector. This is borne out by the smooth functioning of the Government's examination process. Since the Labor Government came to office on 5 March 1983 to 31 March 1984, 190 proposals in the manufacturing sector were decided by the Government. The majority of these were approved: 132 were approved without conditions, 48 were approved subject to conditions and 10 were rejected, two of which were subsequently approved after amendment to remove inconsistencies with policy. This Government will continue to ensure that foreign investment proposals, which are judged to be in the national interest, are approved including investments which promote desirable industry rationalisation. (Question No. 874) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1984: (1) Are the Aboriginal land councils in the Northern Territory seeking direct control of the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account (ABTA), an account to which the Government allocates 30 per cent of royalties it has received from uranium and bauxite mining on Aboriginal land, with the remaining royalties split so that 40 per cent goes to the land councils and 30 per cent to Aboriginals in mining areas. (2) Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs received requests from the land councils that they be given total control of the ABTA funds. (3) Does the Government believe that sufficient funds are meeting the grass roots requirements of Aboriginal living in remote areas in the light of the considerable cost of administering land councils, due to increased staffing and increasing numbers of organisations and more of these organisations seeking funding. (4) Has the ABTA currently $6.9m in reserve; if so, why hasn't this money been allocated to Aboriginal communities in remote areas of the Northern Territory where more funds are required for housing, schools, health centres, water bores and other such facilities. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The ABTA is a trust account into which the Commonwealth pays out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts equal to the amount of any royalties received by the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory in respect of mining on Aboriginal land. In accordance with section 64 of the Aboriginal Land Rights ( Northern Territory) Act 1976, the money in the ABTA is apportioned as follows: 40 per cent for the administration of land councils in the Northern Territory; 30 per cent to the land councils for distribution to Aboriginal councils, incorporated Aboriginal communities or groups in areas affected by mining; and the remaining 30 per cent to be applied for the benefit of Aboriginals living in the Northern Territory, for ABTA administrative expenses and for supplementary payments to land councils. (2) Yes. (3) It will be some years before all the needs of the Aboriginals in the Northern Territory are satisfied. (4) As at 11 May 1984, the ABTA had net funds of $7,787,932.72. However, the total value of applications for funds currently with the ABTA Secretariat exceeds this amount. The allocation of money from the ABTA is on the recommendation of the all- Aboriginal Trust Account Advisory Committee. The Committee has a policy of not supporting funding applications for housing, schools, health centres, water bores and other areas where the functional responsibility falls squarely with a Government agency, unless the applicant has already made an unsuccessful formal approach to those funding agencies. It is worth restating that it has never been the policy of past or present governments to deny normal Government services to Aboriginal communities simply because they had some income entitlement from mining development. (Question No. 876) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 May 1984: (1) Was Dr R. G. Gillis appointed by the Department of Defence as a consultant for 33 days between March and October 1983 and was he paid $5,905. (2) When was Dr Gillis appointed, by whom, and for what reasons. (3) Is Dr Gillis a recognised world-wide expert on chemical warfare. (4) What project was Dr Gillis working on, and when was such a project commenced. (5) Were any of Dr Gillis's functions or projects involved with officers of any other government; if so, which country and who was involved. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Dr Gillis was appointed on 24 December 1982 by the Director of Materials Research Laboratories (MRL) for and on behalf of the Secretary, Department of Defence Support. When the responsibility for the administration of MRL passed to the Department of Defence in May 1983, the consultancy became a responsibility of my department. Dr Gillis was selected for the consultancy because of his lifelong association with chemical protection as a former scientist of MRL and his availability to undertake the task. (3) Dr Gillis was for many years the head of the personnel protection group at MRL and is well recognised and respected internationally as a specialist on protection against chemicals. (4) The project on which Dr Gillis worked was to study and produce an archival record of field trials and tests involving chemicals conducted in Australia during World War II. The study commenced in March 1983. (5) No. Senator Walsh —On 7 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1626) Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice: Could the Minister advise the Senate how many cases are before the courts where the Commissioner of Taxation has applied Part IVA? Further, how many cases does the Commissioner have in the pipeline awaiting a hearing, using this anti- avoidance provision? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commissioner of Taxation has informed me that, to date, no cases involving the operation of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act have reached the appellate stage. He went on to say that a number of cases have reached the objection stage, that is, taxpayers have objected to assessments made in reliance on Part IVA. The objections are currently under consideration. The Commissioner further stated that he would not expect decisions involving the operation of Part IVA to be given by courts or taxation boards of review until next year. Senator Gareth Evans —On 9 May 1984 (Hansard, page 1870) in the adjournment debate Senator Missen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a number of questions concerning the reported death in Jayapura of Mr Arnold Ap, the former curator of the Anthropological Museum at Cenderawasih University. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: As noted in my reply of 9 May to Senator Missen, Mr Ap and about 20 other persons were arrested in Jayapura late in November 1983 for alleged involvement with the Free West Papua Movement. In December 1983 our Embassy in Jakarta discussed the arrests with the Chairman of the Legal Aid Institute, Mulya Lubis, and was informed that the Institute was making representations about the detainees to the Military Commander of Irian Jaya, Brigadier-General Sembiring. In the absence of further detailed information in Jakarta, the recent visit to Irian Jaya of the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Rawdon Dalrymple, was used inter alia to make representations about Mr Ap to General Sembiring and to the Governor of Irian Jaya, Isaac Hindom. In his discussions with General Sembiring on 11 April, Mr Dalrymple was told that Mr Ap was in detention and that he would be brought to trial after the authorities had completed collecting evidence against him. Given these assurances, it was with dismay that the Government learnt of reports that Mr Ap had been shot and killed after escaping from detention. The precise circumstances of Mr Ap's death are unclear and the Government has sought confirmation from the Indonesian authorities. It is unclear for example when Mr Ap was killed: some Press reports indicate late April while others refer to 2 May. Most reports agree, however, that Mr Ap did indeed escape from detention. The Government is nevertheless concerned at the reports of Mr Ap's death and has made its concern known to the Indonesian authorities. The Government further hopes that alleged OPM supporters still in detention in Irian Jaya will be brought to trial without undue delay in accordance with Indonesian law. It should be noted however that the Government's representation about Mr Ap and other detainees are motivated by humanitarian concerns and do not in any way imply support for the tactics or objectives of the OPM. In this context, the Government condemns the recent killings by the OPM of those Indonesians unfortunate enough to fall into its hands. Senator Ryan —On 30 May 1984 (Hansard, page 2143) Senator Townley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, the following question without notice: 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 Council of the Australian National Gallery and will the Minister consider making the membership of that Council more widely representative and dispersed both geographically and by occupation and qualification. When does the Minister anticipate making an announcement on the future membership of that Council and before making any appointment or re-appointment will the Minister table in Parliament the attendance records of the present members of that Council. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. Section 13 (2) of the National Gallery Act 1975 provides that members of Council, other than the Director, 'shall be appointed by the Governor-General having regard to their knowledge and experience with respect to the visual arts or any other area of knowledge relevant to the affairs of the Gallery.' The terms of three members of Council will expire on 30 June 1984. The Government is presently giving consideration to recommending to the Governor-General names of persons to fill the vacancies. As part of its consideration the Government will be seeking to appoint an appropriate balance of persons with the required qualifications. The appointments will be announced after they have been made by the Governor- General. I table the latest information available to me on attendances at meetings by members of the National Gallery Council. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GALLERY Attendances 1.1.1982 to Date of Expiry 8.5.1984 Name Sex Age appointment date (24 meetings) Comment Gordon Darling M 63 1.1.1982 2.6.1982 Member 22 3.6.1982 31.12.1984 Chairman John Davies M 66 3.6.1976 30.6.1986 24 James Fairfax M 51 3.6.1976 30.6.1984 15 Robert Piper M 55 8.1.1982 30.6.1986 22 Marc Besen M 61 8.1.1982 30.6.1984 18 Virginia Spate F 47 8.1.1982 30.6.1984 14 Six months sabbatical leave Tom Critchley M 68 1.7.1982 30.6.1985 19 Maximum possible attendances: 19 Lenore Nicklin F 46 1.7.1982 30.6.1985 16 Maximum possible attendances: 19 Murray Elliott M 63 1.7.1982 30.6.1985 19 Maximum possible attendances: 19 Jacqueline Hick F 64 26.8.1982 30.6.1985 18 Maximum possible attendances: 19 James Mollison M 52 February 1977 February 1989 23