Tuesday, 11 September 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: National Flag To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 313 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth 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 inquiry 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 inquiry 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 Chaney (from three citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That: the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 96 citizens) and Messner (from 309 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support 'The ACT Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 289 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of territorial government or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 104 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 United States-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 Zakharov (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: i. a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm. ii. subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, iii. farmer unrest at seed prices, iv. monopoly control of seed production and sales has passes into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, v. increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 31 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 before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes the ACT 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 power 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 Senator Walters (from 240 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, to make provision in relation to human rights and in relation to equal opportunity in employment, and for related purposes. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to repeal the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, to enact certain transitional provisions and to make certain amendments in consequence of the enactment of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1984. Notice of Motion Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution by restricting the ambit of the external affairs power of the Commonwealth so that it will better accord with the federal nature of the Constitution. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate calls upon the Government to acknowledge the widespread discontent with Medicare and amend the legislation accordingly. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. The Inter-State Commission-Annual Report 1983-84 -Pursuant to section 32 (1) of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975. 2. Localism in Australian Broadcasting-Report. 3. Correspondence between the Government and Commissioner Costigan concerning arrangements for the determination of his Commission and the transition to the National Crime Authority*-together with the text of a statement by the Prime Minister relating to the documents made in the House of Representatives on 10 September 1984. * Honourable senators will note some deletions from several of the letters which have been tabled. These deletions have been made to protect personal privacy and investigative procedures. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I advise the Senate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) is still absent due to illness. I ask that any questions of Senator Gietzelt be directed to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Has he had any contact with the Treasurer about the possible contents of the forthcoming report of Special Prosecutor Gyles? What matters were discussed between Mr Keating and the Attorney-General? Senator GARETH EVANS —To the best of my recollection, the Treasurer and I have had a number of conversations in the last few months about aspects affecting our respective portfolios in relation to issues that have been publicly or privately raised or were likely to be raised by Mr Gyles. I cannot recall having any such conversation in recent times, certainly not in the specific context of the forthcoming annual report. If I had had such a conversation, I do not think I would be obliged or willing to share its contents with Senator Chaney or anybody else. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Has her attention been drawn to an article on page 25 of today's Melbourne Sun headed 'Ex-Lib Wife runs for M.P. ticket'. Does any legislation prohibit such a description, based as it is on a shorthand description by political and marital status? Has Mrs Babette Francis any avenues to redress such an insulting description? Senator RYAN —I have not yet received a complaint from Mrs Francis, but perhaps she has complained to Senator Ray about the derogatory description of her in the Sun today. I did see the article actually. My eye caught that headline and I could not imagine what it could be until I read the story and realised that Mrs Babette Francis has decided to put herself forward as a candidate for the National Party. I deplore the description of women in our society in terms of marital relationships they may or may not have had in the past or have at present. I find the headline quite misleading because I do not know whether the 'ex' refers to the 'Lib', to the 'wife' or whatever. The combinations and possibilities are quite numerous. I would like to think that there would be an effective avenue of complaint by women who have been denigrated in the media in this fashion but at this stage the only form of complaint is, I think, to the Press Council. However, I am sure that many women in our community are heartily sick and tired of these inappropriate references to their marital status. It may well be that the media organisations may respond better to current submissions from women's organisations than they have in the past. I do not know of any effective complaint that Mrs Francis could make about this derogatory description of her, but I think she should seek to clarify her status for the readers of the Sun-whether she is being referred to as a former member of the Liberal Party or the wife of a former member of the Liberal Party who, I think, is currently a member of the National Party in Queensland. If I were in her position I would at least seek to make that newspaper clarify the true nature and status of her current political situation and aspirations. Senator DURACK —Will the Attorney-General now abandon the attempts he made last night in interviews with the media to sell the view that the Director of Public Prosecutions is seriously interested in making a report on criminality on the basis of evidence put to the former Senate Committee on the Conduct of a Judge before the new Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge completes its inquiry? Will he now admit that, in a desperate attempt to save face, he has given Mr Temby's letter an emphasis that is misleading? Will he now accept that Mr Temby cannot sensibly make a decision until all the material is available? Why does he persist in trying to influence the Select Committee to adopt a course of action so clearly rejected by the Senate last week, namely, that it should ask for a report from Mr Temby before beginning its inquiry? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I made clear last night, this morning and on every other occasion that I have been asked about this, I regard the course of action of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge as entirely a matter for the Committee and not a matter for any overriding decision by the Government . I maintain that position here, now, in the Senate in response to that question . I was simply making the point last night, and I make it again, that there is nothing in Mr Temby's letter which rules out the concept of a sequential inquiry in which he first, if requested, would in fact review the existing evidence and subsequently, if the Senate Committee was so minded to act, it would then proceed down its investigative track. I say there is nothing in the letter which rules that out although Mr Temby did, of course, express a preference for alternative approaches to this because of the sentence in his letter, which I read again into the record in the following terms: If the Select Committee decided not to take evidence until I had provided it with a report, I would be prepared to assist in that way. That is an unequivocal statement, unqualified in any way other than by Mr Temby making it clear that he certainly rejected out of hand the possibility of a parallel or an exactly simultaneous inquiry, in which respect he is simply confirming what the Government has always said to be the case and except that Mr Temby did make perfectly clear his preference for dealing with the matter after the Senate Committee had completed whatever investigation it might have been minded to make. That is a preference which is entirely understandable, given Mr Temby's professional role as a criminal prosecutor and his desire to make decisions affecting criminal prosecutions on the basis of the best available evidence. But there are, of course, many considerations which the Senate Committee will have to take into account, of which now the preference of Mr Temby is one. I repeat: It is entirely a matter for the Committee as to which course it now takes. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the increase in the income exemption level for Medicare provided in the Budget. What is the new income exemption level for a couple with two children and how does it compare with the previous level? In particular, will the Minister say how many families will now no longer pay the Medicare levy as a result of the Budget changes? Senator GRIMES —From memory, the number of families which will be excluded is another 120,000. Although Senator Maguire did warn me of the question, I am afraid that I do not have the exact figures on the increase in the Medicare levy , which just demonstrates that I, like other members of this Parliament, can lose things between my office and the chamber. Senator Walsh has just recovered the bit of paper for me, so I can say that the thresholds increased as follows: For single persons from $6,698 to $7,110; for couples and sole parents from $11, 141 to $11,803; and for each dependent child or student an additional $1,330, compared with $1,100. I hope that Dr Blewett has those figures right. The increase in the Medicare thresholds will relieve from the levy 120,000 taxpayers without dependants and some 35,000 taxpayers with dependants. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I say in preface that the Australian Democrats are greatly disturbed by the failure of the Government to react decisively to the question of United States preparedness to undertake a nuclear first strike and that is why we press the matter with the Minister. Does the Minister agree that while the question of first strike preparedness in a nuclear versus nuclear weapons conflict may be justified as a deterrent suggestion, in the case of nuclear versus conventional weapons, which could well be the case in a European based conflict, the concept of nuclear first strike as a deterrent is quite nonsensical and very dangerous to the world? Does the Government feel any responsibility as a middle power and as an ally of the United States of America to attempt to influence that nation's policy formulation on this critical issue? How would the Government assess the dangers to the Australian community of a United States nuclear first strike in a situation where the Warsaw Pact nations were using conventional weapons only? The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Senator GARETH EVANS —The ersatz Minister, I think I was described as this morning, Mr President. Be that as it may, let me respond as best I can on the material available to me from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence. I believe it is clear from my answers yesterday to questions on this subject from Senator Tate and Senator McIntosh, and I think Senator Chipp, that the Government does not accept that the United States nuclear weapons policy envisages a disarming pre-emptive first strike. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's deterrence policy is based on the doctrine, it has been acknowledged, of a flexible response which leaves open the possibility of the first use, if required, of nuclear weapons in response to an overwhelming conventional attack by the Warsaw Pact so as to deter such an attack. The doctrine of flexible response has been the cornerstone of NATO's deterrence policy for almost two decades and has been endorsed not only by successive United States administrations but also by all 16 Western governments which constitute the NATO alliance. I should add that NATO spokesmen have stressed repeatedly that the NATO alliance is a defensive one, that its weapons exist to deter, and that none of its weapons will ever be used except in response to an attack. In that sense the question of a pre-emptive strike does not arise. The recent statement by Mr Chapman Cox, General Counsel of the United States Defence Department, does not constitute a change in existing NATO and related United States policy as we read it. Accordingly, the Government does not propose to take up the matter with any of the NATO parties. As I said earlier, the Government does not accept that United States policy envisages a first strike. In this connection I simply repeat my statement of yesterday, which drew attention to the Prime Minister's speech on disarmament in the House of Representatives on 6 June this year. In that speech the Prime Minister made a statement on the functions of the Australia-United States joint facilities. He made it clear that the highest levels of the United States Administration had been consulted and had acceded to the issuance of that statement, which contains, to quote again what the Prime Minister said, the following passage: We do not believe there can be a winning side in a nuclear war. The notion of a nuclear first strike designed to disarm an adversary would be destabilising if it were to gain credence. As to ANZUS, the situation is clear. This matter was raised in Question Time yesterday, and I think this is an appropriate opportunity to add some further response, particularly to the matters raised by Senator Tate and Senator McIntosh. The first of the relevant articles of the ANZUS Treaty, Article III, states: The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific. Article IV states: Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. So the answer to Senator Tate's question as to whether a flexible response also applies to ANZUS is clearly no. There is no equivalent provision in the ANZUS Treaty of the long held NATO doctrine of flexible response, which is clearly based on circumstances quite different from those of the ANZUS context. Moreover , a reading of the most recent ANZUS Council communique will indicate the special attention given by the ANZUS partners to arms control and disarmament issues, including the great urgency for a substantial reduction of nuclear weaponry, to balanced and more stable levels. Senator MASON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Attorney has said, in essence, that the Government is assuming what the statements over the weekend by Mr Chapman Cox meant. It has reached certain assumptions on that basis. Do we take it from that that the Government intends to take the matter no further and to seek no further clarification? Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that the Government takes Mr Chapman Cox's statements as not constituting any change in what has been the long articulated NATO policy of flexible response, then that is so. It may be that some more arcane meaning can be read into Mr Cox's statement, in which case there might need to be some further evaluation of it. Certainly I am advised that our reading of the statement is that it does not constitute any change of policy and as such does not justify such a further approach. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to criticism of the Government because of alleged disregard in the Budget for persons on low incomes ? Is this criticism justified and, if not, can the Minister inform the Senate of some ways in which the Budget will benefit people on low incomes? Senator WALSH —I did see some reference in the Press to a perception, or I should say a misperception, that pensioners have been badly treated in the Budget or that many people believe pensioners have not been helped much by the Budget, and that may extend to low income groups. One needs to remember that pensioners are not necessarily at this stage people who are needy in any real sense of the word . Although a great number of them are, that is not necessarily the case because of actions taken by the previous Government. The corollary of that, of course, is that those who really are needy have been disadvantaged because of that change which the previous Government made. This Government is in the process of reversing that decision by the former Government. The perception of a low income is itself a variable. If one takes $12,500 for an employed person as a low income, that person's tax rate will be reduced from 30c to 25c in the dollar. That represents a tax reduction of almost 17 per cent for everybody on less than $240 a week. The unemployment benefit will be increased by $2.50 a week for single unemployed people and by $4.20 a week for couples, with a further increase of $2 a week in May next year for single adults without dependants. Those increases are in addition to the usual indexation arrangements which maintain the real value of the unemployment benefit and pensions. The general rate of pension was increased by slightly more than the indexation figure, adjusted for Medicare. In addition, and most importantly I believe, pensioners who pay rent will get a 50 per cent increase in supplementary rental assistance. Pensioners with children will receive substantial increases in assistance for children. I will go through briefly the entire list of social security beneficiaries and the increases in money terms. Admittedly, since this Government came into office , the standard pension and the unemployment benefit have been increased by 19 per cent. The single adult unemployment benefit-that is for an unemployed adult without dependants-has been increased by almost 26 per cent. The junior rate has been increased by 25 per cent. The mothers or guardians allowance-this is a group which has been particularly needy in the past-has been increased by 67 per cent. Supplementary rental assistance has been increased by 50 per cent and the family income supplement by 40 per cent. It is the policy of this Government that increases in social security expenditure will be concentrated on the areas of real need or of greatest need. Those areas of greatest need were identified, I think very effectively, by the Minister for Social Security, accepted by the Government and acted upon accordingly in the Budget. Senator WATSON —Can the Attorney-General tell the Senate what amount of money has been paid by the Government towards the legal costs incurred by Mr Justice Murphy in his dealings with the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge? Does the level of assistance to which he referred in an answer last week- that is, the same as for the main witnesses before the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies-relate to a daily or total figure and, whichever is the case, what is the amount involved? Was the decision to grant assistance to Mr Justice Murphy based on grounds of need or was some other criterion applied? Does the Attorney agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Queensland Parliament, Mr Tom Burns, who has been reported as saying that Mr Justice Murphy 'should be able to afford to pay his own bloody way' and that when it comes to legal aid 'it now seems to be more on who you know than what you are worth'? Finally, will the Government give a guarantee that anyone else involved with the new Senate inquiry will be provided with assistance on exactly the same basis as the judge? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not agree with Mr Burns's assessment of the merits of the situation. The truth of the matter is that when one is dealing with witnesses before royal commissions or special committees of inquiry of one kind or another, it has been, I think, generally acknowledged in recent years that normal considerations of means and needs tests are not appropriately applied. That is the basis on which all key witnesses during the Hope royal commission into the David Combe affair were regarded. That is the kind of criterion that has been applied in relation to other royal commissions, in particular in recent times. The Government decided, for reasons that I explained in my answer last week, to apply that principle in this instance because of the very great issues of principle and moment that were involved in this matter, raising as they did matters of supreme importance not only to the individual concerned, but also obviously to the institution of the judiciary and the whole question of the inter-relationship among Parliament, the Executive and the courts. As to the precise sums of money involved, my recollection is that the ceiling figure was $2,500 a day, and not some of the more extravagant figures that have been bruited about by Mr Burns and others in their contributions-if they may be so designated-to the public debate on this issue. As to the exact amount that was spent, I do not know what that figure is. I will find out and let the honourable senator know. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of some of the remarkable claims made by the Opposition yesterday in the debates on the assets test and the matter of public importance that the Government's Budget has dramatically disadvantaged many Australians? Can the Minister say how many people will benefit from the tax cuts in the Budget, in particular, all those who stand to benefit by up to $7.60 a week? Senator WALSH —As I mentioned in a previous answer, low income taxpayers-by definition those people earning less than $240 a week-will receive a reduction in tax payable of almost 17 per cent. Senator Crowley expressed a particular interest in the number of taxpayers who would receive the maximum tax reduction of $7.60 a week; that is, people earning between $240 and $538 a week. The latest estimates from the Australian Taxation Office are that about 3.6 million taxpayers will fall into the category which will receive the maximum tax cut of $7.60 a week, which represents approximately 55 per cent of the total number of taxpayers. So 55 per cent will receive the maximum tax cut of $7.60 a week; that is, 3.6 million people. Those with incomes below $240 a week will receive a tax cut of 17 per cent on the amount of tax they had previously paid, because the lowest rate has been reduced from 30c in the dollar to 25c in the dollar. The Government, of course, would like to have done more, but for a variety of reasons it could not do so. One of the reasons was that our planned crackdown on tax evasion has been aborted on several occasions in the Senate. My attention has been drawn today to an excellent pamphlet issued by Senators Elstob, Foreman , Bolkus, Maguire and Crowley which sets out the way in which the Senate has torpedoed the sequence of attempts by this Government to recover from tax cheats a total of $570m. If I may, however, be pardoned for making one small criticism of that pamphlet, it mentions that the Opposition in its entirety is responsible for torpedoing the Government's attempts to recover that amount of money from tax cheats. It mentions that three Australian Democrat senators are also equally responsible, with the official Opposition, for torpedoing those attempts. But it does not mention that Senator Harradine is equally culpable, with the Opposition in total and 60 per cent of the Democrats, in torpedoing the Government's attempts to recover that $570m from tax cheats. I think that is a particularly significant omission because the Democrats at least voted in exactly the same way when the previous Government was in office as they did when this Government came to office on what they saw as the principle of retrospectivity. Senator Harradine, when the previous Government was in office and his vote was not crucial, voted for retrospective tax legislation. When his vote was crucial as to whether the Bills would be passed, he voted against it. While some people may genuinely hold the view that retrospective legislation is not justified-although I note that the overwhelming majority of Liberal and National Party senators, like Senator Harradine, have voted in different ways, depending on whether this Government or the previous Government was in power; they are subject to some party discipline-I find it extraordinary that somebody like Senator Harradine, who is not subject to any party discipline, could have switched his vote in that way, depending on whether it was critical-- Senator Button —He lacks self-discipline. Senator WALSH —It has been suggested that he lacks self-discipline. That may well be so. If his vote is critical-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is getting a long way away from the question. Senator WALSH —Yes. I table the pamphlet to which I referred. Senator TEAGUE —I refer the Attorney-General to the letter from Mr Frank Costigan, QC, to the Prime Minister dated 25 March 1983, just after the last election, in which the Royal Commissioner referred to what he considered to be the 'outrageous' suggestion by the Attorney-General that he would be assured of a Federal judicial appointment if he accepted the position of head of a national crime commission. Even if we accept the Attorney's claim in the Senate in June this year that this serious allegation was the result of, as he put it, misunderstandings between Mr Costigan and himself, is it not still a fact that in the same letter Mr Costigan gave, as the main reason why he would not accept the position, his belief that the proposed commission 'cannot do the job it is supposed to do'? Despite the passage of time and the changes which have been forced on the Government by the Senate, is there anything to suggest that Commissioner Costigan has materially changed his mind about the inadequacy of the present National Crime Authority? Is it not a matter of great concern that the man who has pioneered the fight against organised crime in this country should still regard the Government's response as so totally un- satisfactory? Senator GARETH EVANS —I note that the honourable senator in his question raises the matter of Mr Costigan's letter of March last year only in order then immediately to accept the explanation that I gave the Senate more recently about the circumstances of that exchange. Given that, I can regard the reference which prefaced his question only as wholly gratuitous. As to Mr Costigan's well known lack of enthusiasm for the concept of a National Crime Authority, that is something that has been quite overtly and explicitly articulated by Mr Costigan on many occasions, public and private, over the last two years, not least in the seminar in this chamber which occurred early last year. That ought not to come as a surprise to anybody. As I have indicated on numerous occasions, in particular during debate on the National Crime Authority Bill, there are very difficult policy questions that have to be wrestled with in coming to grips with the most appropriate means of attack on organised crime. The Government believes, for reasons which have been spelt out on innumerable occasions and which I do not propose to waste time spelling out today-honourable senators will get a pretty fair summary of them in the report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, where he expresses enthusiasm for the concept of a crime authority in one of the less quoted passages of his contribution in recent days-that this is the most appropriate and balanced way of dealing effectively with the problem of organised crime, while at the same time not capitulating completely to those who would not give sufficient weight to the protection of individual liberty, or sufficient weight to the interests of those other components of our Federation that wax so large in the rhetoric of the Opposition but which wax so little in their actual policy commitments. The reality is that law enforcement in this country has to be a co-operative process . We believe that the arrangements that are being set in place with the National Crime Authority will ultimately advance that cause far more successfully than a succession of ad hoc royal commissions of the kind that have traditionally been credited to this purpose. There is very little more that I can say except to repeat the Government's confidence that the transition process will, despite some ups and downs along the way, work successfully. We have complete confidence in the membership of the new authority and complete confidence in its commitment to get on with the job that obviously still very much needs doing. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . I refer him to an article in the Age on 1 September by Ian Davis, headed: ' Sinking raises question over Australian controls'. Following the sinking in the English Channel of the French ship Mont Louis with a cargo of uranium hexafluoride, are not the safeguards against accident and assurances about the certainty of control over the destination of Australian uranium, through the International Atomic Energy Agency checks, being cast into severe doubt? Senator WALSH —Dealing with the final portion of Senator Childs's question, I cannot see that the sinking of that cargo has any relevance to the degree of control exercised over Australian uranium. I think it is possible under the agreement with France-certainly it is with Finland and maybe one or two other countries-for Australian origin uranium to be taken to the Soviet Union for enrichment. The cargo which was sunk was being taken to the Soviet Union for that purpose. However, that is subject to an accountancy check under which the same amount of original uranium-natural or slightly enriched as in the case of the ship that sunk-that goes into the Soviet Union must be returned in its entirety to its country of origin; that is, as enriched uranium and the depleted tails. I do not think it has any relevance to the effectiveness of checks on Australian uranium or safeguards. Of course, the fact that the ship has been sunk has caused some concern. According to the most recent reports I have received, the weather conditions in the English Channel or the North Sea, whichever it is, have delayed attempts to salvage that cargo. I believe its value is in the vicinity of $10m. The water is relatively shallow and one would expect that it would be salvageable as a purely commercial operation, although the attempts to salvage the cargo have been delayed. Just to put that in perspective, and often these matters are not put into perspective, certainly if those containers were to be left on the bottom of the sea for a long period-I am not sure how long but it would be a number of years- the possibility of the uranium hexafluoride escaping would exist. However, that would not be a severe radiation hazard as some reports have suggested; it would be a quite severe chemical pollution hazard. There are hazards associated with all activities. If one cares to think back a few years, perhaps about 20 years ago, one remembers the Torrey Canyon, which broke up off the south coast of England. The beaches of the United Kingdom and a good deal of Europe were very heavily contaminated by the oil spillage from that. There have been instances since then, which I cannot recall specifically, of very heavy beach pollution consequential on the sinking or breaking up of tankers. Senator HAMER —My question is to the Attorney-General. Does he recall being a member of a Senate committee which found that there were far too many highly classified national security documents in government departments and that over- classification and retention of high security classifications when the security need was past seriously affected both administration and security? Does the Attorney-General remember being party to a recommendation that a new system should be introduced by government, as a matter of priority, to downgrade security classifications for documents on a regular basis unless reconsideration showed that continuation of the original security classification was justified? What progress has the Attorney-General made in this matter in the last 18 months ? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I was a member of that committee. Yes, I was a party to that recommendation. I also add that I was the recipient of the report from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation which I tabled in this place recently in edited form which came to exactly the same conclusion, that there were too many highly classified documents and too many highly classified positions in the Public Service. I have certainly expressed views on that subject within the Government. What progress is being made on that is something that I will need to check and I will advise the honourable senator further. It may be something which demands a more co-ordinated and systematic attack than has hitherto been the case. But I fully share the sentiment that underlies the honourable senator's question and I have not changed my views since coming to government. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to an advertisement for the Australian Pensioner suggesting that he has given an exclusive interview on the subject 'Is society heading towards a new era of sexual restraint?' What relevance has this subject for the social security portfolio? Are the views expressed by the Minister in the interview those of the Australian Government? Senator GRIMES —My attention has been drawn to the advertisement for the Australian Pensioner by way of phone calls and mail and by people bailing me up in the corridor. I think the only explanation I can give for that extraordinary advertisement is that the Australian Pensioner has left a dot point off the advertisement. I can assure Senator Giles that the interview I gave, whether or not it was exclusive, refers to the Budget and the assets test and not to whether society is heading towards a new era of sexual restraint. I do not believe that has anything to do with the social security portfolio. I certainly do not have very much knowledge of that subject, and I can only say that from all the evidence I have seen there is no indication at all that society is heading that way. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Minister for Social Security to an answer he gave yesterday to a question from a Queensland senator regarding the Queensland public hospital system. Is the Minister aware that the Federal Budget figures for this financial year show that the Queensland allocation, including the so- called special grant, is $114.2m, or $46.61 a head, whereas the average payment to the other States is $65 a head? Does this mean that Queensland is being ripped off to subsidise those interstate or does it mean that the other States are paying more than they should to cover the Medicare deficit, which is reported to be $134m? Senator GRIMES —No, it does not mean that. Queensland, as Senator Boswell knows, received a special subsidy to make up for the fact that it has always had a free public health service. Queensland has chosen, apparently, not to use that subsidy to upgrade its inadequate public health service. As the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, has pointed out on many occasions, Queensland receives more than its share of the Medicare levy to compensate for the fact that it had contributed to health care in the past. The amount it receives is calculated to ensure that it is not disadvantaged by Medicare. The campaign waged by people such as Senator Boswell and Mr Bjelke-Petersen to give the impression that Queensland is inadequately compensated is nothing more than a campaign to disguise the fact that Queenslanders are being short-changed by their own Government in regard to the funds they receive from the Commonwealth to compensate for Medicare. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. At what stage is the development of the forms that some pensioners will be required to fill out for the assets test? Senator GRIMES —Some developmental work has been done on the forms which will be sent out and which will have to be filled in by a small percentage of pensioners now that the assets test legislation has been passed. The process has been that a draft form was produced and has been market tested. Organisations such as the Association of Civilian Widows, the National Advisory Council of Social Welfare, the Australian Council on the Aging, the Australian Council for Rehabilitation, plus pensioners in New South Wales, members of the Combined Pensioners Association, have been shown the draft form and asked for their comments. Even I have been asked for my comments. The original draft form will be modified as a result of this market testing. All the responses from those who have seen the form have been very heartening. They have varied from a very straightforward comment from the Secretary of the Australian Pensioners Federation, who said that no form is any good but this form is pretty good as forms go, to others who have said that, considering the complexity and the difficulty in developing such a form, the public servants involved have done a pretty good job. The form is still at the draft stage and can be modified and simplified. What has happened with the production of this draft form is, of course, what inevitably happens. A person who was given the form to comment on went on radio in New South Wales and commented in a very alarmist way, implying that this was the final form. For his own ends and for publicity he said that he had received this form off the back of a bus. I thought that was a bit unfortunate. As is also always inevitable, someone who had been given the form gave it to one of the newspapers. I understand that that newspaper is about to publish it or has published it. I hope that newspaper will point out that that first form is a draft form, that it has been seen by many people and that its development is continuing. I hope that the development of the form will be completed in the next one or two weeks. After that, we hope that the first advices, the first self-assessment guides and forms will be sent out to pensioners at the end of October or early November. Senator PETER RAE —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I ask whether it is a fact that the Steel Industry Authority's recommendation that developing country preferences for Korea, Taiwan and Brazil be removed on certain steel products has not been approved by the Cabinet because of the intransigent opposition of the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as was reported in the Age newspaper of 4 September 1984. What steps is the Minister taking to resolve this important question at an early date? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first part of the question is no, that is not true. The answer to the second part of the question is that I am taking the appropriate steps and that an announcement will be made in due course. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has her attention been drawn to a Press report that the Australian Council of Churches is encouraging Australians to observe this Sunday as National Aboriginals' Sunday and to observe National Aboriginals' Week which began yesterday? In the same report it is stated: . . . the National Aboriginals' Day Observance committee chairman, Mr John Moriarty, said Aboriginals had plenty of reason to be proud of 'this great land' . Will the Minister lend her voice to the support sought by the Australian Council of Churches and support John Moriarty in the statement he made in relation to the observance of Australian National Aboriginal Day? Senator RYAN —My attention had not been drawn to this announcement until Senator Jones's question did so, but I am sure I speak on behalf of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, when I say that I heartily welcome the decision of the Australian Council of Churches to celebrate or acknowledge National Aboriginal Day this Sunday. The fact that this decision has also been welcomed and endorsed by John Moriarty, one of the outstanding leaders of the Aboriginal movement, adds significance to that decision. In my view, one of the more constructive developments in Australian church life in recent years has been the development of a pro-Aboriginal rights policy. I think some of the best things that the churches have done in recent years have included their lending of support to issues of Aboriginal justice, whether it be land rights, resources for Aboriginal health services, Aboriginal legal services or, in a more general way, to a raising of community consciousness about the historic injustices to Aboriginal people and the need for our society to set those injustices right insofar as that is possible. I hope that the recognition by the churches of National Aboriginal Day will be widespread throughout Australia. If it is, I am sure it will promote the cause of justice for Aboriginal people as well as promote the credibility of the churches in the eyes of the Australian public. Senator HAINES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of an editorial in a New South Wales free newspaper called the Guardian that argues that people who support Medicare should break the law to show their support? In case he is not, the relevant paragraphs of that editorial read: If by any circumstances you are required to attend a doctor who does not bulk- bill, then DO NOT PAY for the service. Take the bill to Medibank and get a 'pay doctor' cheque (for 85 per cent of the scheduled fee) and give that to the doctor as payment in full. It is most important that the public rally to the defence of Medicare. We must not stand idly by while these greedy mercantile doctors-- whatever they are-- carve away at our right to a national medical system such as Medicare. Does the Minister agree with the description of doctors who do not bulk bill as 'greedy'? Does he support the course of action recommended in the editorial? Can he say what repercussions could follow the taking of such action by patients? Senator GRIMES —No, I have not seen the article referred to by Senator Haines. I do not read the Guardian-that great free New South Wales newspaper. I do not, under any circumstances, support the breaking of the law by anyone, although I doubt whether not paying a bill to anybody in this country is really breaking the law. Certainly, it is then up to the doctor to take some civil action to get his or her return. I do not support breaking the law under any circumstance, be it by doctors or anyone else, just as I do not support the medical profession introducing a new element into the debate by discussing the private medical histories of children or relatives of members of this Parliament. I think we are in for a great new era in this place and it will do no good for this institution if that is the sort of behaviour we are going to have to put up with. I notice that not all honourable senators agree with me in the light of a notice of motion that was put down in this place yesterday by Senator Walters who, of course, would have no compunction about having private medical records of senators' relatives discussed in this place. I do not know the details of the matter that Senator Haines is talking about but I will make sure that I get the journal in question, have a look at it and consult with the Minister for Health so that I can give Senator Haines the detailed reply she deserves. Senator COOK —My question is directed to Senator Walsh in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to yesterday's announcement by the Treasurer of further reforms to be made in the Australian financial sector. Is the Government satisfied that Australia's economic performance has generally benefited from the contribution of the financial sector, and is it satisfied that the reforms will be a further benefit? Senator WALSH —I think it is probably unarguable that the financial sector has made some contribution to Australia's economic performance, although it is unlikely that at any particular time any financial or other system is perfect. The Government has made some significant changes, announced this week, to the financial system which it believes will lead to improvements. There have been suspicions in the past about anti-social conduct by some banks, but I do not know any valid reasons for holding such suspicions now. However, I will ask the Treasurer whether he is aware of any. I am certainly not aware of any evidence that merchant banks operating in Australia are being used for tax evasion or avoidance. However, it concerns me that there are reports that there are Australian shareholders in a merchant bank set up in Panama, which as we all know is a notorious haven for tax evasion, a bank with which the name of the notorious tax evader, Christo Moll, has been linked. However, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate as to whether these facts bear any relation to Senator Crichton-Browne's sojourn in Panama during his recent overseas trip. Senator REID —Did the Attorney-General see last week's school holiday video review in the Canberra Times under the heading 'Horror Movies-Holiday Favourites '? I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware that one of the movies previewed was Texas Chain Saw Massacre, a film which he himself described in the Senate on 4 April as having no redeeming social virtues and that: There are all sorts of reasons for supposing that no community could tolerate the circulation of that material in any form. In view of its inclusion in a children's video guide, can the Attorney say what classification applies to the film? Does he now concede that those who feared such brutal and dehumanising material might be available to children have been proved right by events? Finally, I again ask the Attorney whether he will place an immediate ban on the sale, hire, distribution and reproduction of all X and some existing R rated videos pending the outcome of the promised but still to be established parliamentary inquiry. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am afraid to disappoint Senator Reid but my reading last week did not extend to the school children's video guide for the holidays and as a result I missed the reference to Texas Chain Saw Massacre. If, indeed, it is the full unexpurgated and uncut version of that particular movie, I remain of the view, without qualification, that I see no redeeming features in it and I would regard it as entirely appropriate that it be refused classification altogether under the gratuitous violence provisions of both the present import regulations and also those provisions of the Australian Capital Territory ordinance which prohibit the sale or the hire of material in that category as being appropriately refused classification. But as to the circumstances of that particular case, I can add nothing further at this stage. I do not consider that there is any case for a review of the position the Government has adopted with both the Customs regulations and the ACT ordinance at this stage pending the outcome of the proposed joint committee inquiry. There continues to be a massive misunderstanding in the community about the actual content of the X rating. There continues to be massive ignorance of the fact that the so-called video nasties involving child pornography, gratuitous sexual violence or gratuitous violence generally are in fact banned outright and there is no controversy at all with the Government about that. Whether in every individual case those guidelines are being applied in accordance with the intent of the legislation is something that needs to be the subject of continued monitoring and close evaluation. I am certainly keen to ensure that in practice the law is applied by the Film Censorship Board, Customs officials and those controlling the point of sale and hire situation to ensure that what is a perfectly rational and defensible legislative intent is honoured in that way. But in the absence of any compelling or substantial evidence that the law as it now stands is not being properly enforced, I simply do not propose, on behalf of the Government, to budge from what has been a position derived in full discussion with the Ministers responsible for censorship in every jurisdiction of Australia which does have a principled and rational foundation, which is workable on the ground and which does, I believe, get the distinctions right that really do matter for all, except those in the community who would adopt an extremely illiberal approach to these things and ban material simply on the ground that they find it distasteful . Senator ELSTOB —My question is addressed to Senator Grimes who is representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I note in the latest Budget that spending in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio is expected to rise by 14.5 per cent and that the great bulk of this increase is in the area of pensions and allied benefits for eligible veterans. Senator Archer —Dear Dorothy. Senator ELSTOB —No, it is not a Dorothy Dix question. Can the Minister explain the large increase in spending on pensions in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio in the Budget? Senator GRIMES —I am afraid that Senator Archer is wrong-it is not a Dorothy this time. Yes, I am aware that Veterans' Affairs expenditure actually increased by 14 per cent, which is higher than the percentage increase in most departments and certainly higher than in my own. One explanation for this is the increased aging of the population of veterans who more and more are qualifying for service pensions. The second reason is the increases in the level of pensions received by service pensioners and others in line with increases in social security pensions. A third reason has been the increasing number of people qualifying for disability pensions as a result of rulings by various courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That was a matter of concern for the previous Government and it is also a matter of concern for this Government. Another reason is the initiative taken by the Government in the Budget to improve veterans hospitals and to improve services generally. The Government, like previous governments in this country, recognises the necessity to provide adequate compensation and care for those who fought in various wars. The simple fact of the matter is that the number reaching the age of retirement, the age when geriatric diseases affect them, is increasing and that inevitably increases the Department of Veterans' Affairs budget by a higher percentage than the budgets of most Government departments. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the controversy surrounding the recent decision by the Tasmanian Government to hand over to local Aboriginal groups all its museum holdings of human skeletal material for cremation? I ask the Minister whether she is aware of the tremendous value that anthropologists have placed on these human remains and, in particular, aware of comments by Professor John Mulvaney, Australia's pioneering pre-historian from the Australian National University, that: Burning of their ancestors by contemporary Aborigines could be likened to the burning of books that took place in Germany in the 1930s. What action does the Federal Government propose to take to ensure that these ancient remains of international scientific significance are preserved and that a vital part of Tasmania's archaeological heritage is not destroyed? Senator RYAN —Although Senator Missen gave me prior notice of his interest in this matter, the brief that I have from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs simply states facts that are obviously already known to him; namely, that the decision was made by the responsible authorities in Tasmania to hand over the remains to members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. Legislation will be introduced into the Tasmanian Parliament early in its Budget session to allow the handing over of the remains to Aboriginal elders. The Tasmanian Minister for National Parks, Mr Beswick, said: The Government has already acknowledged the wish of the Aboriginal community, as revealed in a survey conducted by the Tasmanian National Aboriginal Conference representative, Mr Roy Nichols, to cremate those remains known as the Crowther Collection at Oyster Cove and to dispose of the ashes on the site. In addition, the Government has now decided after further consultations, that the other Aboriginal remains held in the museums should also be handed over. However, I have asked the Aboriginal community to consider retaining, under its control, those few remains which are regarded by anthropologists as having important scientific value. Mr Beswick went on to say that this is a matter to be decided by the Aboriginal community. I am not sure that the Federal Government would seek to interfere, or indeed has any powers to interfere, in a decision which has been made by the Tasmanian Government in response to the Tasmanian community, but I suppose some members of the Government would echo Mr Beswick's wish that those remains of anthropological value be preserved under the control of the Aboriginal community so that their value is not lost. I am not aware of any intention on the part of the Federal Government to take steps in this matter. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. What does the Federal Government propose to do to preserve these ancient remains? In view of the unsatisfactory brief which the Minister has on this question, will the Minister go back to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to ascertain his views of the Government's powers and also the persuasive abilities of the Government to ensure that these important remains are not left in the hands of someone else but are retained within the State Government's control so that they are not destroyed, meaning that future inquiry and research cannot be carried out? Senator RYAN —I will refer Senator Missen's inquiries to the appropriate Government Ministers but my personal view is that the decision has been made by the Tasmanian Government in consultation with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community and it should be left there. That is a personal view and not a Government view, because we have not discussed it. I will get further information for Senator Missen. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to recent statements claiming that the production of electricity using coal as a fuel is cheaper than electricity produced in nuclear power stations? Will the Minister comment on the validity of these claims and, if deemed valid, their relevance for Government policy? Senator WALSH —I did see, yesterday I believe, a newspaper report sourced from the United States of America along the lines Senator Robertson mentioned. Regarding his final reference to the implications of that report for Government energy policy, I do not think there are any. Whether coal thermal electricity or nuclear produced electricity is cheaper is a function largely, indeed almost entirely, of the price of coal. Because Australia has, at least in all of those areas where there is a substantial electricity grid, abundant reserves of cheaply won and, in many cases, high quality coal, it is not likely in the foreseeable future-indeed it may never be the case-that nuclear generated electricity will be cost competitive with coal generated electricity in Australia. I recall that the report referred mostly to the United States. I have not seen the original statement upon which the newspaper report was based. Assuming that the newspaper report gave a balanced and adequate assessment of what was contained in the original report produced by some other body, I believe it reinforces the sorts of things which I and other members of the Government have been saying for the last 18 months; that is, in the United States, and indeed in the world as a whole, as I mentioned, the relative cost efficiency of nuclear or coal thermal power is a function of the price of coal more than anything else. The relative competitiveness of nuclear power has probably deteriorated in the United States and in other places in recent years because of high interest charges. Senator Peter Rae —More so in the United States than in other places. Senator WALSH —Yes, they have had more construction problems there, but in a more general way it is because of high interest charges and the longer lead times between the commencement of construction and the production of electricity . The conclusions of the report were that in some parts of the United States coal thermal electricity is cheaper than the nuclear alternative, but the report I saw added that that does not necessarily apply and probably would not apply in those areas of the United States where there is a large demand for electricity and either no coal or expensive coal-because of the depth from which it must be dug, the type of seams from which it must be mined, or the distance over which it must be transported. Senator GARETH EVANS —At the beginning of Question Time today Senator Chaney asked me whether I had had any contact with the Treasurer about, according to my note, the possible contents of the forthcoming report of Mr Gyles. I took him then and I still take him to have been referring to the situation as it existed before the Government received the Gyles report, and I answered accordingly. Lest there be any possible misunderstanding or any possible suggestion of misrepresentation, I should add that I received the Gyles report for the first time this morning. Shortly after receiving the report I had a short conversation with the Treasurer about its contents-not its possible contents, but its actual contents-in the course of which conversation we simply considered the timetable for its tabling, given that the Treasurer was planning a trip overseas next week . In view of the interest this matter seems to arouse I will say for the record that the result of that discussion was a decision by us to try to table the report this week but, failing that, if it is not possible, certainly immediately upon Parliament's resumption. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 11 September, from Senator Durack: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- 'That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need to demonstrate Australia's commitment to the ANZUS Treaty by maintaining joint defence facilities and guaranteeing port access to allied naval units regardless of means of propulsion or armament.' Yours sincerely, (P. D. Durack, Q.C.) Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the motion supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.10) —I move: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need to demonstrate Australia's commitment to the ANZUS Treaty by maintaining joint defence facilities and guaranteeing port access to allied naval units regardless of means of propulsion or armament. There could be nothing more important for the consideration of this Parliament, Mr President, than the subject that I have put down today as a matter of urgency . It goes to the very heart of the defence of the nation. Although we in this chamber spend a great deal of our time, and properly so, in discussing the good government-and, indeed, the bad government, from time to time, of the present Government-of the nation and the many and varied subjects that that involves, there is certainly always a primary obligation for us to consider, and to continue to consider, the defence and security of the nation. It behoves us to raise that subject for discussion at regular intervals. I believe that in view of a number of events in recent times, not only the actions of this Government but also those of the New Zealand Government, we should, as a matter of urgency today, reflect upon this problem and express, as a Senate, our very firm views on it in the terms which I have submitted, which read: The need to demonstrate Australia's commitment to the ANZUS Treaty by maintaining joint defence facilities and guaranteeing port access to allied naval units regardless of means of propulsion or armament. I believe there are two aspects to the subject I have put down today: Firstly, the need for a firm and practical commitment to ANZUS and, secondly, a need to express in a very specific way how that must be done as an absolute pre- condition of our commitment to ANZUS. It is all very well for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his rhetoric, to express commitment as he has done from time to time since he took office. But there is more to it than just rhetoric. Actions are required as well as words in this vital matter. Let me spend a few minutes setting the scene for a debate on this subject. I do so not because I doubt the understanding of honourable senators of the problem, but simply because it is as well for us to repeat it and to ponder on it. This is vital to the conclusions we draw. I am afraid that many people, particularly supporters of the Government and the Australian Democrats, do not seem to be able to understand the conclusions that are inevitable. Australia's isolated and potentially dangerous geographical situation and our extended sea lines of communication can be very easily threatened by the naval and air power of the Soviet Union and its allies. They can be easily threatened at choke points such as the Malacca Straits or the Lombok Strait. Senator Chipp —Which of its allies threatens us? Senator DURACK —I am just setting the scene, Senator, with regard to the very recent and dangerous alliance between the Soviet Union and Vietnam. For some time the Soviet Union has played a very considerable role in the Indian Ocean and is now exercising greater influence in the Pacific region. In those areas there are two great sea lines of communication which are vital to Australia. They are now viewed with great interest by the Soviet Union, which has generated activity in them. In order to satisfy Senator Chipp, who has expressed his doubts about that, I will give a classic example of what I was saying earlier. Recently a Royal Australian Air Force Orion aircraft photographed one of the most modern Soviet Kilo class submarines in the Indian Ocean; the first time one of these has been sighted there. That photograph was recently put on the front page of one of the national newspapers. Three amphibious assault ships which are nuclear-powered and capable of carrying about 100 barges of 3 to 5 tonnes each have been deployed in the Western Pacific and northern Indian Ocean. Two Kiev class aircraft carriers are also now deployed in that region. This is why the Vietnamese alliance with the Soviet Union is so significant. There are many Soviet vessels using Cam Ranh Bay as a forward base, and at Da Nang there is a fully equipped Soviet air base. The Soviet Union is capable of launching a direct strike on Australia from Vietnam using its squadron of Badger aircraft and long-range Bears, which are also based there. This is evidence of the sort of threat which is coming ever closer to Australia. We are aware of the Soviet naval presence in the Indian Ocean and of its growing presence in the South Pacific Ocean. The benefit of using Vietnam as a base, due to its relations with the Soviet Union, is an ever-increasing threat. It is all very well for us to build up our conventional forces, which we must do-we are required to do that both in our own interests and as part of our alliance in order to support our allies-but it is completely unrealistic for us to believe that we, as a nation, can alone cope with the type of threat which I have just instanced. Therefore the ANZUS alliance, which is now over 30 years old, is even more significant and important to us than it was when it was established. Clearly for over 30 years it has been the very keystone of our defence and, no matter what efforts we may make, it will continue to be so because of the enormous geographical and strategic factors which I have outlined . What I have said has set the scene for the conclusions that we should be drawing in this Parliament. The ANZUS alliance is one which the United States of America sees as being of importance to it just as we see it as being of importance to us. It is of mutual benefit, and thank goodness it is. How could we expect the United States, entirely out of regard for our safety, to maintain the sorts of forces and commitments which we expect from it if there is no mutual interest? Leading officials from the United States have repeatedly emphasised the importance of the alliance to world security, not just for the protection of Australia. Admiral Long, the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific, said in June last year: Australia's contribution in the alliance is not only for its own self-defence but also it contributes significantly to stability in that part of the world. He was talking about the South East Asian region. The United States Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle, said in Australia earlier this year that the significance of ANZUS went way beyond regional defence considerations. I believe we do have a very important mutual interest in ANZUS. As I said, it is terribly important for us that the United States continues to maintain that view of ANZUS . It is one of mutual benefit and importance and of security of the whole region in which we are placed. It is clear that the United States also places great importance on its ability to carry out exercises with particularly Australian warships and aircraft. The whole question of the use of Australian facilities is absolutely fundamental to that. Nuclear powered vessels represent 65 per cent of the Seventh Fleet of the United States of America. Of course, although the United States will not disclose which vessels are nuclear armed, we know that numbers of their vessels are nuclear armed as well as nuclear powered. The attitude we adopt to that is of vital significance. That has been made perfectly clear time and again by the leading figures of the United States. The Senate may remember that two years ago the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), then Leader of the Opposition, expressed doubts about the visits of such vessels to Australia. There was confusion within the leadership of the Australian Labor Party when Mr Cain, the Premier of Victoria, threatened to ban such vessels from entering Port Phillip Bay. The then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lionel Bowen, also expressed doubts similar to those of Mr Hayden. But there was a special visit to Australia by a leading official of the State Department to straighten out Mr Hayden. He straightened him out and Mr Hayden had to eat his words very promptly. We recently had the visit of the United States Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, to Australia and New Zealand in the light of threats at the time from what is now the new New Zealand Government. That Government has now made decisions to ban United States warships from entering New Zealand ports. Secretary Shultz made it perfectly clear that this is a threat to the whole alliance, that it is absolutely vital to the alliance that those facilities should be made available. To come a little closer to the present, one matter of great concern to us should be the confusing statements that have been made in recent months by the Foreign Minister, particularly on the question of American bases in Australia. The situation now is that the Foreign Minister is travelling around the world-I think seeing himself as some new Kissinger-and in so doing seems largely to be playing to a domestic constituency dominated by the left wing of the Labor Party . He has been making some very strange statements about American bases in Australia, if the Government is really to be believed in its commitment to maintain those bases. Mr Hayden said in Geneva early in August: We are reaching a point of critical assessment in Australia about what our role is and our commitment in some of these things. That was referring to the need for a nuclear test ban treaty. In a background briefing at that time he said: The implication will be very clear that the Americans shouldn't take us for granted on these matters. In an interview on AM on 8 August this year, Mr Hayden said: Now if we were to discover that the things we're working towards are not being supported, and a key part of that would be a comprehensive test ban treaty, we would have to reassess generally our policies and attitudes and I wouldn't care to say any more than that. Later he said: It's our belief that our association with the United States, particularly in relation to joint facilities, gives us certain special standing and special privilege, the opportunity to very properly apply leverage so that hopefully we can push the Americans in the direction we want to go towards. In the light of those sorts of remarks from the Foreign Minister of Australia, I can well believe, and I am concerned that the Americans will believe, that major elements of the Australian Government-apart altogether from the left wing of the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Democrats-have some reservations about ANZUS. There should of course be no reservation whatever in the light of the importance of this treaty, the history of our relationship with the United States, our strategic defence needs and the Prime Minister's rhetoric. It is not just Mr Hayden's statements which are a matter of worry; we have the notorious attitude of the left wing of the Labor Party to the bases and their future in Australia. The recent ALP conference made a decision on visits by United States warships to Australia. The conference resolution called on the Government: . . . to ensure in consultation with its allies that the frequency and pattern of naval visits to Australian ports is not such as to constitute in practice the home porting of such vessels . . . Mr Hayden is now meeting with local officials in Western Australia and hopes to set up a working party to implement this decision. It seems quite clear that as a result there will be a substantial reduction in the number of those naval visits to Western Australian ports by the American task force in the Indian Ocean. So that shows the attitude of the Foreign Minister and of the Labor Party . Another example was the attitude of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) to the docking last year of the HMS Invincible. I do not want to repeat what happened. All these things have added up to cause great concern on the part of our American ally in regard to our support for and commitment to the ANZUS alliance. We now have the situation with the Labour Government in New Zealand and the attitude expressed last weekend by the New Zealand Labour Party, and I think it is impossible for the Americans really to maintain the ANZUS alliance as far as New Zealand is concerned in the light of that country's attitudes and policies. Such policies must have greatly endangered the very foundations of the ANZUS alliance. So in this atmosphere, if we really believe in the alliance, which we in the Opposition certainly do, and the rhetoric of the Prime Minister would indicate that the Government does, we must take very firm steps to assure our American allies of our commitment. We have to affirm that commitment to our responsibilities as part of that alliance in the specific way that I have outlined in the matter of urgency that I have submitted for discussion today. Fortunately, the United States sees the ANZUS alliance as a two-way process, one of mutual benefit. Nevertheless, we cannot go on in the way so many leading elements in Australia have been, particularly in light of the very specific and fundamental changes in the alliance which have been announced by our New Zealand partners. As I said, we are fortunate that our American leaders have repeatedly stressed the importance of the alliance from their point of view. They have been reassuring Australia that their country's commitment is not limited to dealing with any threat, rather it extends to dealing with any potential aggressor. That is vital to Australia's defence in the future. If we are not to become just another non-aligned country we have to give some real affirmation of our stand. The rhetoric of the Prime Minister is not enough. There must be a commitment not only from the Government; we believe there also ought to be a reaffirmation and commitment on the part of this Parliament. I believe that the Senate should make this commitment in the very clear and certain terms of the matter of urgency that I submitted today. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.30) —My colleague the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Gordon Scholes, I think accurately summed up this debate yesterday when faced with a similar pitiful effort from the Opposition brains trust. He said that there had not been many more desperate efforts to scratch around for issues in this Parliament than this particular feeble urgency motion. The political Micawbers opposite constantly waiting around for something to turn up will have to wait a good deal longer. The only urgency about this urgency motion is the urgent need for the Opposition to find something credible to say on the real issues that the people want to hear about: The improvement in the economy under the Hawke Labor Government and the extraordinary difference in the atmosphere which prevails in this community when we compare it with the dark and desperate days over which the former Fraser Government and its acolytes in this place presided. Where are the Opposition's policies on these questions? To cover up that deafening silence, a silence which is repeated day after day in Question Time, the Opposition thrashes around rehashing lost causes, ancient causes, irrelevant causes, on defence issues and foreign affairs. It seems that the Opposition has come to believe that ancient rhetoric of the 1950s. The voters of the 1980s are no longer fooled by 'red hordes' language. They are no longer fooled by the sort of gravity theory advanced by Sir Robert Menzies so successfully during the 1950s that the yellow hordes up there must eventually come down. The gravity theory has long since been abandoned as part of the appreciation by Australians of the operation of political and military affairs in the region. It is a pity that history does not seem to have caught up with the other side as well. It is a pity equally that the Opposition feels constantly obliged to reiterate its alleged concern about the future of the ANZUS alliance, trying to generate in the Australian community a reaction of fear, a reaction of uncertainty, that somehow this country would be put at risk by the course of its foreign policy. The reality is that this Government's commitment to ANZUS remains clear and unambiguous. We have stated it over and over again, and I state it again on behalf of the Government today. We undertook a comprehensive review of the ANZUS treaty in 1983. On the completion of that review the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) made a comprehensive statement in the Parliament which was fully debated. Members of the Opposition could read it all themselves to save us the trouble of this charade today. To throw some light on the pointless character of this enterprise and the pointless character of this attempt to throw doubt on our commitment to ANZUS, I draw the Senate's attention to some of the relevant passages in the speech of the Foreign Minister in the House of Representatives on 15 September 1983. He stated: The Government has completed its review of the ANZUS Treaty, first as a national act and then in association with Australia's alliance partners. The review has led us to a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of the alliance as fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign and defence policies. In saying this, I do not say that the Treaty guarantees Australia's national safety and welfare, nor do I place us in that position of happy dependence that has satisfied the foreign policy ambitions of many Australians in the past both within and without this Parliament. However, although the Treaty was drawn up a generation ago, and in very different circumstances, we have reached the conclusion that the commitments and obligations that were accepted then remain as valid and appropriate today. The Treaty has the full support of this Government, but we recognise that we must still pull our full weight in our own protection. A little further on in that speech, Mr Hayden said: Let me now explain why, on attaining office earlier this year the Government decided the time had come to put the ANZUS Treaty under the microscope-to subject it to a searching examination and to compare our findings with our partners. Our objective was not to revise the Treaty, nor was it to seek to weaken it. On the contrary, we were convinced that by stripping away the misconceptions, and the unrealistic expectations which surrounded the Treaty, we would strengthen it and bring it back to terms with reality. Perhaps the Opposition cannot understand simple language, but the Australian people know and fully appreciate the Hawke Government's stance on these issues. It may be that if the Opposition is not prepared to accept the Foreign Minister at face value it will at least believe the words of the United States, Australia and New Zealand, expressed in the joint communique issued at the conclusion of the ANZUS Council in Wellington on 17 July last. I quote from the relevant passage: Council members reaffirmed their commitment to the maintenance of peace, stability and democratic freedoms. They expressed their belief that the ANZUS partnership, based as it is on common traditions and shared interests, contributes to this. They welcomed the increased exchanges that had taken place on political, economic, security and defence issues and agreed that defence co- operation, including combined exercises, visits and logistic support arrangements played an essential part in promoting mutual security. Access by allied aircraft and ships to the airfields and ports of the ANZUS members was reaffirmed as essential to the continuing effectiveness of the Alliance. I will come back in just a moment to the issues raised by that last part of the passage and also by the urgency motion here today. Let me move to the question of the joint defence facilities which, as might be expected, come in for yet another demonstration of mock heroics on the part of the Opposition-mock heroics that were conspicuously absent, as I recall it, on one occasion in the past when the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, raised the question of the future of the joint facilities as some kind of bargaining coin when discussing better access with the Americans. If the bases issue can be debased to that extent, it is very obvious that the mind of the Opposition is simply unable or unwilling to get straight the seriousness of the issues which are here involved. The attempt to score cheap political points here, as in the past, is utterly misconceived. The Government's views on the joint defence facilities issue were laid down unequivocally and clearly in what must be the locus classicus on this issue, that is to say, the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the House of Representatives on 6 June this year in which he set out the fullest official statement ever made to date on the role and function of the joint facilities in Australia. The role of joint defence facilities has been debated both within and outside this Parliament at very considerable length. Again, the Government's commitment to those facilities has been fully outlined. However, specifically on the question of the future of these facilities, the Prime Minister made a statement which bears repetition here today because it simply does not seem to penetrate the minds of those opposite. I repeat what he then said: Some Australian groups and individuals call for the closing of the joint defence facilities. The Government recognises many of such calls as being sincerely made. We regard them as misguided but not hostile in intent. I do not expect that such calls will now cease. But I ask those making them to consider very seriously the implications of what they are demanding. As I have indicated, the removal of the joint facilities would hinder United States efforts to maintain effective and stable deterrence and would damage the capacity of the United States for monitoring and verification, so striking a very serious blow at the prospect of arms control agreements between the super-powers. Such a development would dash the hopes of ordinary men and women around the world for peace and disarmament. Moreover, I draw attention to the early warning function mentioned in the statement I have just made, and to the significance of that function for the avoidance of nuclear war. In an uncertain and suspicious international climate, no action should be taken which would reduce stability or increase the risk of war through miscalculation. Thus the statement covers stable deterrence, the capacity for monitoring and verification, the early warning function, all the things that are crucial if we are to survive in an atmosphere of continued, albeit unsteady, world peace. Nobody denies that the issue of Australia's involvement as host to these facilities raises very serious and very difficult questions. There could not possibly be a clearer or franker articulation of the Government's position and justification for it than occurred in the course of that address by the Prime Minister. There is simply no need to demonstrate Australia's commitment to the ANZUS treaty. It is crystal clear from everything this Government has said and done. The remaining matter dealt with in the urgency motion submitted by Senator Durack today was, of course, the question of access to ports. The Government's policy on the access question of allied warships to Australian ports is really now quite clear. The Australian Labor Party and this Government have gone on record as supporting the visits of naval ships of our ANZUS allies. That policy applies equally to our other friends and allies, particularly the British. We endorsed the statement contained in the communique issued at the end of the 33rd ANZUS Council meeting to which I have already referred and which was held in Wellington in July. The statement read: Access by allied aircraft and ships to the airfields and ports of the ANZUS members was reaffirmed as essential to the continuing effectiveness of the Alliance. Questions have arisen as to how that policy should be applied in practice. Senator Durack has referred to some of the issues which had to be confronted, a couple of them for the first time, in the context of the question that arose at the end of last year. As a result of that, as I explained on several occasions during debates as they unfolded, policy was formulated to cover the situation to the extent that it had not been previously necessary to do so. On 26 February this year the Minister for Defence, in an important statement, laid out with some precision and clarity exactly where we now are on the subject of visits by allied and friendly naval ships. That statement bears some repetition to make it clear that there is both a principle and practical foundation for the Government 's policy in this area and that policy is clear. I shall read the extract from that statement in relevant part: Visits by allied warships are fully consistent with our responsibilities as a sovereign nation which must protect its fundamental security interests, as is the provision of necessary repair facilities; As a matter of record, we wish to state that this Government does not require that allied governments reveal whether their ships carry nuclear weapons. Both the United States and British Governments have a policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons. We accept the reasons for that policy; The United States and British Governments are aware of Australian concerns with respect to the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory. That, I interpolate, is simply not on. The final element in the statement of policy expressed by the Minister for Defence was as follows and it followed discussions between Australian, United States and British officials over the intervening week when it was agreed that each request for the dry docking of such ships in Australian ports would-and I quote: have to be considered on its own merits taking into account technical and safety factors and the strategic and operational circumstances obtaining at the time. As Ministers have stated, Australia would not in any way endanger the safety of any allied or friendly ship or crew in need of access to Australian facilities. The attempts by the Opposition to generate some uncertainty or anxiety about the policy of this Government as it applies in relation to the porting of ships, either nuclear powered or carrying nuclear weapons, is mischievous and misconceived. One of the underlying themes that no doubt prompted the Opposition to bring forward this motion at this time has been the discussion that has arisen in recent days and weeks about the position of the New Zealand Government in this respect. It is perfectly appropriate to state again for the record precisely the position of the Australian Government in relation to those developments across the Tasman. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have informed the New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Lange, of the Australian Government's attitude towards the hosting of visits of allied warships. In doing this, we did not try to impose our view on the Government of New Zealand, nor were we acting in any sense as emissaries of the United States Government. New Zealand, as a sovereign country, determines its own policies in accordance with its own priorities. As a treaty partner, the Australian Government hopes that given time the United States and New Zealand governments will be able to reach an accommodation on this issue in the context of ANZUS. The Government sees no useful purpose in further speculation about hypothetical situations involving the ANZUS allies and visits by nuclear warships to New Zealand. It must be said that the issue has been given further impetus by the resolutions adopted recently by the New Zealand Labour Party at its annual conference. I have no doubt we will hear more about that in the course of this debate. The situation is this: Such resolutions have to be considered, we understand, by the New Zealand Labour Party's policy council before the New Zealand Government itself considers the relevant policy options. Obviously, we do not know when, how or to what extent that process might be set in train. The basic element in Australia's whole position on this is that we respect New Zealand's sovereign right to pursue its own political processes and adopt national policies accordingly. Our own policies and positions, as I have already said, are well known to the New Zealand Government. That Government has been in office barely two months. Clearly it requires considerably more time than that to consider and consult about the options and opportunities open to it. Further statements by this Government are neither necessary nor helpful to the resolution of that process. So there it is. Our position in respect of nuclear ships is clear. We have had extensive talks about it at the highest level with the United States in particular. When Mr Shultz was in Canberra and Wellington he talked to the Prime Minister the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister. There is no doubt that the Australian position is thoroughly understood and accepted by the United States in respect of nuclear ships, as much as it is in respect of joint defence facilities, and indeed as much as it is in relation to the whole question of the future of the ANZUS alliance, all of which have been called into question by this motion today. The reality of the matter is that, in calling these matters into question, the Opposition, predictably and inevitably, has done absolutely nothing by the force of what it has said or the questions it has raised to generate any serious concern or any concern at all on the part of the Australian people as to how these matters are being handled. The reality of the situation is that the Quixotes opposite cannot even find the windmills they are trying to thresh at. As far as this Government is concerned, Opposition members have advanced their cause not at all today in calling into question the nature of the Government's commitment, the rationality of that commitment, the principles underlying it and the relationship with the United States. They have not only acted foolishly, they have also acted in a way that can only be described as irresponsible. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.47) —The Senate today is debating the following matter of urgency brought on by the Liberal Party: The need to demonstrate Australia's commitment to the ANZUS Treaty by maintaining joint defence facilities and guaranteeing port access to allied naval units, regardless of means of propulsion or armament. I now state that the Australian Democrats are proud to say that we will vote against not only the spirit of that motion, but also its wording. In doing so we will be a minority in this Parliament and, I have no doubt, a minority among the people of Australia. We believe that the future of Australia and of all Australians could well depend on the thrust of this particular urgency motion. The nuclear arms race must force every person to examine past beliefs and test their validity now. I plead with the conservatives in the Liberal Party to realise that we are no longer in 1951 when the ANZUS Treaty was drawn up. We now live in a nuclear age. We are no longer in a conventional age. We live in an age when pressing a button can destroy and exterminate every living thing on this planet. So the philosophies, beliefs and standards that pertained in 1951 no longer apply. Failure to grasp this will only confirm Einstein's belief that the atom bomb has changed everything but our thinking. We have reached the crisis point. The stockpile of nuclear bombs is so large, the technology so advanced and the destructive power so awesome that it now takes the deliberate choice of people and politicians for there to be a hope for survival or progress towards any future at all. Anyone who doubts the gross insanity that the world has reached need only examine the statistics. In the early 1960s we were assured that peace was at hand through nuclear deterrence. Do not honourable senators remember the politicians then saying: 'We have now reached nuclear deterrence, produced by 1, 000 nuclear bombs'? I remember American Presidents saying that we had now reached deterrence because we had 1,000 nuclear bombs. In the 1980s they say that to maintain deterrence we need to build more nuclear bombs to add to the 50 ,000 in existence. If deterrence was a reliable concept in the 1960s with only 1 ,000 bombs, why has it suddenly become necessary to have 50,000 in the 1980s? By the year 2000, assuming that we avoid a nuclear war in the meantime, will they still be telling us that we need more nuclear bombs in addition to the 100,000 that will then be in existence? We must stop the nuclear arms race now. The world needs moral leadership of the kind given by the New Zealand Government, of a kind that could be copied and followed by the Australian Government if we took a moral stance. Let us look at where we are today. There are 50,000 nuclear bombs in the super- power stockpiles. At least five other nations are nuclear powers. More are trying to get nuclear bombs. Let us look at the size of the arsenal we have today. The bomb that obliterated Hiroshima and killed 200,000 people had a destructive capacity of only 12 kilotonnes. Today one average nuclear bomb- not the big ones-is equivalent to 42 Hiroshimas. Multiply 200,000 human beings by 42 and we then have the destructive capacity in human terms of one average bomb. The entire stockpile is equivalent to one and a half million Hiroshimas. One would have thought that any reasonable person would recognise that for one nation to risk annihilation in response to a nuclear attack, let alone trigger a chain of events that would lead to the extinction of life on this planet, is insane. Our political leaders, however, seem desperate to perpetuate that insanity. The United States of America plans to build another 29,000 nuclear bombs in the next decade. The Soviets, no doubt, have similarly insane plans. The nuclear arms race not only threatens the extinction of life but also is a criminal waste of resources that could be used to alleviate social hardship and thus create real peace and prosperity. In the face of this insanity the Liberal Party remains unmoved by the prospect of the total extinction of life on this planet. Its response is once again to fall in a craven heap, to laud the ANZUS Treaty, welcome nuclear bombs into our harbours and urban areas and demand we maintain United States bases which are officially recognised as nuclear targets. Those bases are now officially recognised as nuclear targets, yet the Liberal Party is saying that the bases must be there because the risk is worth while. At least the Liberal Party is frank enough to admit that it wants to perpetuate our role as a prime nuclear target and to have warships armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons near our cities. Its stance is honest, its stance is consistent and its stance, in my view, is wrong. The Labor Party has been less than frank. While professing on the surface concern for arms control and disarmament, it has changed nothing in substance. The regrettable fact is that to do nothing is to perpetuate the insanity that has propelled the nuclear arms race to its lunatic proportions. People have to understand that a deliberate choice has to be made if we want a secure, nuclear free future. To oppose nuclear weapons is the only path to survival. Nuclear weapons have to be opposed at all times no matter what flag they fly under or where they are. If Australia is to have a credible role to play in the urgent search for nuclear disarmament we must prohibit all nuclear weapons from entering Australian territory. We cannot make claims about the evils of nuclear weapons on the world stage and make grandstanding speeches that we are against disarmament if we let nuclear weapons into our ports and near our urban areas. We lose credibility totally if we do that. Many nations recognise the hypocrisy that the visits of warships loaded with nuclear weapons pose if we want nuclear disarmament. France, Spain and India are on record as having opposed the visit of nuclear armed warships of foreign powers. In answer to the argument that the banning of visits by nuclear armed ships imperils our membership of ANZUS let me quote the case of Denmark which is a fully fledged member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Although Denmark has opposed the presence of nuclear weapons in its territory since 1957 it has not faced United States hostility in respect of its continued membership of NATO. Let me remind the Senate that membership of NATO is far more binding upon its member states than is ANZUS. Even cities such as Boston and New York do not have visits of nuclear-powered or armed warships because of population density and the risk of accident. The New Zealand Government's policy is the latest initiative towards calling a halt to the nuclear arms race. The Australian Democrats applaud the New Zealand policy as one of courage, moral leadership and principle that will act as a powerful example to deviate the world from a path of nuclear insanity. Contrary to the hysteria emanating from the Liberal Party and contrary to the shameful pressure placed by the Australian Labor Government on the Government of New Zealand, these actions do not imperil ANZUS. The United States has not abrogated the Treaty because of the actions of the New Zealand Government. What did it say when New Zealand said: 'No more nuclear armed warships'? The United States simply said: 'Okay, we will not send any more to you'. Has there been any talk about abrogating ANZUS? Of course there has not. Any talk on this matter has come only from politicians in this country. The New Zealand Government, as I understand it, has not expressed a desire to abrogate ANZUS. It is happy to have a warm and constructive relationship with the United States, as Australia should have, but without nuclear weapons. Let us be clear about the meaning of ANZUS. Politicians have built up one of the great myths of our time about ANZUS. Most people in the street, because of the misleading statements of politicians, believe that if Australia were attacked ANZUS would guarantee automatic military protection from the United States. Of course, it does no such thing. Anybody expert in these matters shoud be honest enough to give the Australian people the truth. All ANZUS does is to compel the parties to consult in the event of conflict. ANZUS offers no protection to us anyway because the only country other than the United States that could attack, invade and conquer Australia within the next 15 years is the Soviet Union. Let us be frank. There are only two countries in the world that have the logistic and military capacity to do that. I do not mean countries than can make a damned nuisance of themselves by dropping a few bombs here and there. I mean countries that have the capacity to invade, conquer and occupy. The two countries that have that power are the United States and the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union coveted that desire-I certainly do not believe that it does; I do not know of any military strategists who say that the Soviet Union has those immediate designs on Australia-surely the United States would be at our side in a flash, not because it wants to maintain the integrity of ANZUS, but simply because it would be in its self-interest so to do as it could not bear to have the Soviet Union on its soft underbelly. Even if ANZUS could offer a defence, the concept of defence is meaningless in the nuclear age. I have heard Liberal spokesmen talking about a defence in a nuclear war. Talk of having a nuclear umbrella to protect us is pathetic make- believe. There is no defence against nuclear weapons. Once a nuclear offensive has been launched, one has only two options: One can wait to die, and as a living person one envies the dead, or one wreaks revenge on one's attacker by annihilating its population and then one waits to die. The major task is to remove the threat to humanity from the nuclear arms race. Running to the defence of a 33-year-old treaty which was designed to deter Japanese militarism does nothing to avert the crisis facing humanity. The crisis continues to escalate day by day. Two recent events have increased the urgency for bold initiatives to overcome the nuclear arms race. The outrageous and horrifying statement from the Pentagon last weekend that the United States President, acting alone without the consent of Congress or his allies, could and should be able to launch a nuclear first strike in Europe in response to a Soviet conventional supremacy shows that nuclear weapons are not for defence but for attack. I cannot comprehend how anybody who has children or who cares for others could allow a statement such as that concerning a person in a position of power to come from the United States Pentagon last week and not question the United States about it. A responsible Prime Minister of this country, no matter what his philosophy on the arms race, should have been on the telephone to Mr Reagan the moment that hit the deck asking him: 'Does this mean what it purports to mean or does it mean something else?' But apparently this Government has assumed, without even making a phone call or sending a telex, that it means something that was said about a possible NATO situation years ago. The second and later area of concern is the fact that the United States Navy is equipping its Pacific fleet with sea-launch cruise missiles. We are living in a pre-war, not a post-war world. The last world war ended in 1945, and the next one could start any second. With 50,000 nuclear bombs locked on target and ready to fire, we are all living on borrowed time. Nuclear war is imminent. It could begin at any moment, by accident or miscalculation by madness. The computer sophistry of the nuclear arms race is so complex that the North American defence system has two false alarms every three days. Is that not enough to send a chill through every senator? My source for that information is the Centre for Defence Information, Washington. (Extension of time granted) The world faces a stark choice-the nuclear race or the human race. The stockpile of nuclear bombs has produced an insane situation where humanity has developed the capacity to extinguish life in the name of peace. Australia has to do something. Making Australia a nuclear weapons-free zone would be an enormous act of moral leadership. Prohibiting the visits of nuclear-powered and armed warships would ensure there are no nuclear bombs in our cities. Renegotiating the agreements covering the US bases to ensure they do not contribute to nuclear war or its planning, and closing them down if that cannnot be done, would guarantee that Australia is not supporting the growing United States capability to launch a nuclear first strike. To do nothing about the arms race, as this Labor Government is doing or worse, to embrace nuclear weapons as the Opposition proposes, will keep the nuclear barrel firmly pointed at all Australians. There can be no security and little prospect of a future until other countries follow the path of New Zealand's total rejection of nuclear weapons. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.02) —The Senate is debating a matter of urgency, namely: The need to demonstrate Australia's commitment to the ANZUS Treaty by maintaining joint defence facilities and guaranteeing port access to allied naval units regardless of means of propulsion or armament. I did not agree with much of what Senator Chipp said but I did agree with his description, though I think he was setting up a straw man, of the fundamental limitation of the ANZUS Treaty. It does not provide, and as far as I know no person on this side of the chamber has ever said that it does, an automatic guarantee of support. It provides a mechanism for consultation and action according to constitutional processes that may or may not result in support. The basis on which America will come to our aid if we are ever threatened is that it must think it is in its strategic interest to do so. When we think about it, it would be highly improper for America to support us on any other basis. But if we were threatened, we would very much welcome that support. I draw the Senate's attention to a remark made by a Labor Prime Minister, Mr John Curtin, on 27 December 1941, when we were threatened. He said: Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America. I think if we got into a similar situation again, many of the people who seem to spend most of their time trying to kick the Americans in the teeth would be the most craven supplicants for the sort of support we would then desperately need from the United States. ANZUS is not a guarantee of support. It is a deterrent and it may be a mechanism-I will come to this in a moment-through which that support can be provided and without which the support would be much less effective. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the benefits to Australia of the ANZUS Treaty do not include the guarantee of support. The Treaty first provides a mechanism by which we can have joint defence exercises, exercising our forces in techniques we would not otherwise be able to employ. That is valuable to the efficiency of our Defence Force. In 1942, we were trying to co- operate with the Americans without these sorts of preliminaries and it was very difficult indeed. We had no common doctrine and no common communications systems . All these problems can be overcome only by holding joint exercises to prove the methods and prove the tactical doctrines. That is the first great advantage of the ANZUS Treaty to us. Secondly, the Treaty provides a method through which there can be an exchange of intelligence. Of course, intelligence is exchanged only between allies, and the ANZUS Treaty is the basis of our exchange of invaluable intelligence-we give some to America and we get much more from it. It is a great advantage in the defence of this country. The third benefit that the ANZUS Treaty provides for Australia is that it enables commissioned officers and senior non-commissioned officers to serve in particular types of United States forces in order to keep techniques and skills alive in the Australian Defence Force. That benefit could not conceivably be provided except to an ally. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the ANZUS Treaty enables us to be integrated into the United States logistic network. It provides enormous overhead savings in our whole defence support effort. Without that our defence would be either very much less effective or very much more costly. These are all great advantages for Australia . In addition, the ANZUS Treaty provides other advantages to both countries. It enables the Americans to have three facilities in this country-the communications stations at North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Senator Chipp talked as though these bases increased the risk of nuclear war. They are all concerned with deterrence. The North West Cape communications station communicates with Poseidon-armed, missile-firing submarines which are second strike weapons designed, by their existence and their invulnerability, to make a surprise attack, on the United States in particular, inconceivable. I accept that there is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war. We must try to prevent one starting and the existence and use of North West Cape, the electronic intelligence station at Pine Gap and the early warning station at Nurrungar, which can detect missiles launched in a surprise attack and give warning, so making that launching almost inconceivable, are great contributions to the prevention of an outbreak of nuclear war. They are therefore very much in Australia's interest. In my view it does not matter very much whether they are targets. If they are targets, it means nuclear holocaust has started, and that would mean the end of civilisation on earth. The more deeply we feel that, as Senator Chipp seems to feel, the more determined we must be to do everything in our power to prevent the outbreak of such a war. Members of the Australian Labor Party have the Americans, understandably, very worried about their attitude to the continuation of the use of these facilities in Australia. Senator Elstob —That is nonsense. Senator HAMER —I will come to that and Senator Elstob may contradict me if I am wrong. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has this view; joint Australia-United States defence facilities in Australia directly contribute to Australia's security, that their operations in no way derogate from Australian sovereignty and that the removal of the facilities would dash hopes of ordinary men and women for peace and disarmament because of the contribution of those facilities to stability in the strategic relationship between the super-powers. I agree with that, but not all members of the Labor Party do. Twenty-eight members of Parliament, including 11 senators, have dissented from that. For Senator Elstob' s information, the senators were Senator Child, Senator McIntosh, Senator Coates , Senator Giles, Senator Coleman, Senator Georges, Senator Hearn, Senator Primmer, Senator Zakharov, Senator Reynolds and Senator Bolkus. They wanted to express their deep concern about the content, timing and manner in which the statement of their own Prime Minister was made. They said: We do not believe that the Prime Minister's statement adequately addresses these issues. What are the issues? One which is not really relevant to this debate is whether or not we should export uranium. I put it briefly that by becoming a uranium exporter we have a chance to influence the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. That is a subject for a separate debate. It is a very important point and a very strong reason why we must be responsible exporters of uranium. Senator Chipp —It has nothing to do with dollars? Senator HAMER —The dollars help, but I would be in favour of it even if we received no dollars for it because it represents a very important contribution to world peace. We receive no dollars out of North West Cape, but I like that because it contributes to world peace. Likewise, the export of uranium-although a couple of thousand million dollars a year is very welcome-is still a contribution to world peace. I accept the point that this stability of balance of terror is a terrifying situation. Fifty thousand nuclear weapons, even in the hands of the super-powers, may start a nuclear war by mistake, accident or even by madness. That can happen. What we must do is try to reduce the level, try to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons into new fields. We must try to prevent the development of new types of nuclear weapons. We can help to do this because such an agreement will never work unless there is adequate verification. The stations at Pine Gap and Nurrungar provide the possibility of verification that if some sort of limitation treaty comes into existence it is not being broken. That is a very important contribution which Australia has the capability of making to the reduction of the level or the stability of terror with which we have lived for over 30 years. What else is this Government doing about the ANZUS treaty and these issues? Take the case of the British aircraft carrier HMS Invincible. Britain is not a member of ANZUS. Nevertheless, the absurdly clumsy handling by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) of that incident showed the attitude of this Government to ships that carry nuclear weapons. The Invincible is powered by gas turbines; it is not nuclear powered. I accept that probably it does carry nuclear weapons. Because of the bizarre handling by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) of the whole episode when it wished to dock and after long negotiations, we slipped back only to the position that existed before the Invincible arrived. Seeking guarantees that the situation had been corrected, I asked the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) whether, under the new rules and understandings which the Government had announced, if the Invincible arrived in exactly the same state as she had arrived in last year, she would be docked. The Attorney-General refused to answer a hypothetical question. We are no better off. We still have the same Minister for Defence, with the same confused mind, with the same capacity for creating chaos with our allies, and we have got no further forward to a firm understanding that we have obligations to our friends and our allies. We renege on those at our peril. We have also seen the bizarre episode of the Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain, trying to conduct his own foreign policy, trying to ban United States naval visits to Melbourne and trying to tell the ports not to co-operate with the visits of the US warships because he thought they might be carrying nuclear weapons. It is not for a State Labor Premier to conduct his own foreign policy. I think that Mr Cain was told correctly by the then Liberal Government not to behave in that silly way. Nevertheless, this silliness does infect the whole of this debate and it permeates the Labor Party. Forty per cent of the major warships of the United States are now nuclear powered. I suggest that probably all of the major warships carry nuclear weapons, but we will never know because it is a matter of principle which cannot in any way be changed. Governments will never announce what their weapon outfit is. They will never say whether their ships do or do not carry nuclear weapons. If we expect them to say that they do not and do not admit them to our ports unless they say they do not, we will not permit any of the ships of Britain, America and France, our allies or friends, to come to this country. In my view that is an absurd proposition. I turn briefly to the attitudes of members of the Labour Party in New Zealand, of which there are echoes in the Australian Labor Party, as I pointed out, and also in the Australian Democrats-in fact, Senator Chipp spoke strongly in favour of them-who are refusing to allow the visits of all American warships. That is what they are doing. They cannot be serious members of an alliance if they take that attitude towards their commitments. Quite frankly, the contribution of New Zealand to ANZUS is very small. Any value which New Zealand gets out of it could be provided adequately by joint bilateral defence relations between Australia and New Zealand. There is a great danger in the attitude of New Zealand. It is very damaging to all the treaty relations in the Western alliance if a country is permitted to opt out. The example of Denmark was given. That was very damaging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It was not a thing that was lightly conceded by the Americans. Countries prepared to opt out of their responsibilities while still remaining a member of an alliance undercut the whole network of alliances which unites the Western world. I believe, in view of the world-wide dangers of New Zealand's behaviour and the great political difficulties for the United States in taking an initiative without seeming to be bullying a small country, the Australian Government has to take action to renegotiate a new bilateral treaty with the Americans which would continue the benefits to both parties of the present ANZUS alliance, which would exclude New Zealand initially but would permit it to become associated if and when it was prepared to accept the responsibilities of such an alliance. What the New Zealand Labour Party has done, which is echoed in the Labor Party here and in the Democrats, is very damaging to ANZUS and is also potentially damaging to Australia and the Western alliance. The Australian Labor Government has power to take action to correct the situation. Instead, it supinely wrings its hands while looking for a feeble consensus. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(4.17) —We are debating a matter of urgency today which reads: The need to demonstrate Australia's commitment to the ANZUS Treaty by maintaining joint defence facilities and guaranteeing port access to allied naval units regardless of means of propulsion or armament. This is another beat up matter of urgency concerning an issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, on 12 June dealing with Australian- United States defence facilities. What Senator Chaney was then hoping to do was divide the Government ranks on this issue before the national conference of the Australian Labor Party. The truth is that the Opposition desperately wanted to be able to make an election issue out of this issue. It wanted to be able to paint the Labor Government as being anti-American and opposed to the United States alliance. However, the national conference of the ALP destroyed whatever hope the Opposition had, and now we have a pathetic situation in which we are debating an urgency motion based on the decisions of the New Zealand Labour Party conference. The conference decision is not a Government decision. The procedures of the New Zealand Labour Party conference mean that resolutions that are passed go before a policy review committee of the Party and then, if they are approved, to the parliamentary Labour Party, which has the power of veto over the conference decision. Therefore, this recent decision may never see the light of day. Yet we are discussing it as a matter of urgency this afternoon. Let us examine what a leading New Zealand member of parliament, Helen Clark, said in Australia yesterday. She is regarded as being strongly anti-nuclear in her attitude. A newspaper report stated: The New Zealand Government would maintain the ANZUS alliance, according to a member of the Government presently in Australia to explain her party's nuclear policy. The report continued: She said a conference decision was only the first step. The next was deliberation by the party's council which would, if it was in favour of the proposal, refer it to the parliamentary caucus and then to the party's national council. Finally, the report stated: She said New Zealand had sought to renegotiate ANZUS. Talk about drawing a long bow; next we will have a matter of public importance on the decisions of the Western Australian branch of young Labor or the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party as if it would automatically become party policy. Are we to have a matter of urgency debate whenever a Labor or social democratic party makes a decision that is not perceived to be in our best interests? It happens every day as it happens with conservative governments all around the world. The French Socialist Government, with which we are affiliated in the Socialist International, continues to test nuclear weapons in the Pacific . That is not in Australia's interests. The Japanese Government proposes to dump nuclear waste in the Pacific. That is not in our interests. I believe the Opposition would be better served by having an urgency debate on these issues rather than the one we are debating this afternoon. I intend to concentrate this afternoon on why we must maintain the joint defence facilities, and my colleague Senator Elstob will deal with some of the other aspects of the matter of urgency. There is no doubt that a great number of people in Australia and New Zealand hold different views on the ANZUS treaty, the joint defence facilities in Australia and their role. The reason why the Australian people hold different views is that the Liberal and National Parties when in power lied to the Australian people about the joint defence facilities and their purposes. The editorial in the Australian Financial Review on 12 June this year put the matter extremely well. It stated: The most important thing about the statement which the Prime Minister made last week about the U.S. communications bases is that it served, together with statements of the Foreign Affairs Minister, to bring the debate about Australia' s role in the world power balance into some kind of perspective. The worst thing about the way in which the discussion about the bases has been conducted, and was conducted under the last Government, was that it permitted and encouraged the Government and the bureaucracy to lie to the Australian people. The last Government lied, by omission, about the bases; the bureaucracy has tried to continue this line even up to the present, and has prevented the Government from giving as clear an account of the role of the bases as could have been done. Another part of the editorial reads: The real argument, then, is about the strategy of nuclear deterrence and whether Australia, by contributing to increasing the efficiency of the U.S. communications and surveillance system, increases the effectiveness of deterrence and so decreases the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. The lies and duplicity of both our allies and our own defence establishment and governments in the past have served to prevent proper public debate about this central issue. I believe that is why a great deal of confusion still exists. The government of the day, the Liberal-National Party Government, said, for example, that North West Cape, at that particular time was used for communicating between surface ships, both civil and military. There was no mention at that stage of its underwater role. The previous Government said that Pine Gap was a space research and communications base. What is the truth? North West Cape is a communications relay station for ships and submarines of the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy and serves as a key element in the complex system of communications supporting the global balance. As indicated in the statement which the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, tabled in the Parliament on 3 November 1983, agreement was reached with the United States Government on new arrangements to ensure that the Australian Government would be able to make timely judgments about the significance for national interests of developments involving North West Cape. That is something that the Liberal- National Party Government, of course, never did. Those new arrangements are now in force. This Government is satisfied that Australia's sovereignty in the operation of the joint defence facility at North West Cape is now adequately protected. The Government has also revealed for the first time that Nurrungar and Pine Gap provide early warning by receiving from space satellites information about missile launchers and provide information about the occurrence of nuclear explosions. They provide timely information about military developments which can be critical for the United States and its allies, including Australia. Effective deterrence and hence avoidance of conflict depend on this. They also contribute to monitoring and verification, which is critical for arms limitation agreements, test ban monitoring and non-proliferation. Of course, the majority of the Australian people knew nothing whatsoever about this until the Prime Minister's statement some months ago. The Opposition is often critical of the Australian Labor Party and its attitude to the facilities, but let us examine the record. What does the Labor Party platform say about this matter? The section which deals with foreign affairs states: Co-operate with the people of the United States and New Zealand within the context of the Australia-New Zealand-United States (ANZUS) Treaty. In the section on disarmament and arms control, the platform states: Labor upholds the principles of disengagement and disarmament. Labor will work towards meaningful detente and effective measures of arms control. Labor will support and, where Australia can be a party, take initiatives in bilateral and multi-lateral negotiations for global and regional arrangements. To these ends, Labor will use Australia's influence as an ally of the United States. Labor will - Support moves to enhance the capacity of the UN Security Council to pre-empt conflicts and facilitate initiatives under Article 99 of the UN Charter. Support implementation of a program for disarmament based on the proposals contained in the Palme Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament Security issues entitled 'Common security-a program for disarmament'. Further in the section of our platform dealing with bases and facilities, it states: Labor will- Ensure that the presence in Australia of foreign or jointly owned, controlled or operated bases and facilities does not involve a derogation from Australian sovereignty. The platform also states: Labor will- Not oppose the use of Australian bases and facilities by allies in war-time, or in periods of international tension involving a threat to Australia, or in so far as they are involved with verification of treaties, agreements, and understandings on disarmament and arms control, such as the various SALT accords ; provided Australian authority and sovereignty are unimpaired; and provided that Australia is not involved in hostilities without Australia's consent. Surely no member of the Opposition would disagree with that platform. The Government believes that the joint facilities play an important role in nuclear disarmament and deterrence. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated on 6 June, the general purpose and functions of the facilities are to provide information which contribute, firstly, to deterrence of nuclear war by enabling timely knowledge of developments that have military significance. A specific example of this is the provision of early warning information received from space satellites about missile launches. Secondly, they contribute to monitoring as part of verification of compliance with the provision of arms control agreements ; for example, by providing information about the occurrence of nuclear explosions, which assists in nuclear test ban monitoring and supports nuclear non-proliferation measures. The Australian Government is committed to complete nuclear disarmament. Its policy is the same as, and is precisely described by, the recommendations of the Palme Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament Security Issues concerning disarmament. The report states: Nuclear deterrence cannot provide the long-term basis for peace, stability and equity in International society. It must be replaced by the concept of common security. The conclusion is therefore inevitably that nuclear weapons must be eliminated. It continues: A doctrine of common security must replace the present expedient of deterrence through armaments. International peace must rest on a commitment to joint survival rather than a threat of mutual destruction. The Commission recognises that this objective-that is, complete and general disarmament-will not be realised in the near future. In other words, the Palme Commission explicitly points out that complete nuclear disarmament will not happen overnight. The Palme report correctly states that there could be no victors in a nuclear war. Nuclear war cannot be limited. Both the United States and the Soviet Union have satellite based systems which are designed to provide them with their first warning of a ballistic missile attack. In addition, they have ground radar systems which would confirm that such an attack was under way. The two systems are necessary to ensure that they would have reliable warning of such an attack and that a nuclear war should not occur as a result of an accident or miscalculation by either side. If Australia were to cease its co-operation with the United States in early warning of missile attack, the United States would be much less confident that it would not be the object of a surprise attack and would conclude that it was at a strategic disadvantage. This could lead to an instability and uncertaintly which, in a situation of crisis, might make the United States conclude that, based on its inability to be sure of adequate and timely information, it had to attack first in order to forestall a potential disarming strike against it. By refusing to co-operate in this important area, we would be adding to the instability and worsening the prospects for the avoidance of nuclear war. One of the major concerns of Australians is the prospect of the joint facilities being nuclear targets in the event of a nuclear conflict, as Senator Chipp pointed out this afternoon. It is undeniable that in certain circumstances those facilities could be nuclear targets. The argument often put, therefore, is that we should get rid of the facilities and erase the consequences of a nuclear war, should it break out. The undeniable fact is that regardless of the presence of the joint facilities, Australia cannot escape the consequences of a nuclear war and the nuclear winter which would follow. Since Australia would suffer the consequences of nuclear war whether or not we have the facilities, we cannot become immune by removing them. The real question is: Do these facilities contribute to arms control, disarmament and peace? The Government considers that they do contribute fundamentally to deterrence, which is the only option for the time being. They also contribute vitally to the verification of arms control and disarmament agreements. There will be no arms control agreement between the super-powers unless each side is reasonably confident that the other cannot cheat on that agreement. This is a fact of life. Both super-powers are deeply suspicious of each other. Both insist on effective monitoring and verification of any treaty on arms control into which they enter. To this point neither has been able to agree on full on- site inspections of arms control agreements between them. The only way, therefore, in which these agreements can be verified is by what is termed a national technical means of verification. It is highly unlikely that some major arms control agreements between the super-powers would have been concluded if there had been no Pine Gap or Nurrungar. If we were to abolish Pine Gap or Nurrungar we would seriously damage the prospect of agreements on the limitation of nuclear arms between the super-powers. Once again we would have achieved exactly the opposite of what we had set out to achieve. The Labor Government supports the joint defence facilities. The Opposition's arguments this afternoon have made a mockery of its matter of urgency. The Labor Government has no need to demonstrate Australia's commitment to ANZUS. Our actions show our commitment. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.31) —The Senate this afternoon is debating as a matter of urgency the ANZUS alliance and the Labor Government's action in not supporting that in a way that national government should. It is very disappointing for the Senate to have such poor speakers on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, such as Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Sibraa, as they failed to attack the substance of the motion before the Chair. I hope that Senator Elstob, when he speaks later, restores the honour of the Labor Party in this matter with an argument of substance. I will not dignify Senator Sibraa's argument-that the former Government lied about the bases-by going into it. But I would like to ask the Senate why the Labor Party put up only people from the extreme Right to speak on this issue. Why does not the Government put the average Labor member up? Why does it not put up the people from the Left and far Left? Why are those people denied the right to speak both in the Senate and the House of Representatives? Is it because the true colours of the Labor Party in relation to ANZUS and the American alliance will come out? Senator Chipp, for the Australian Democrats, presented a speech which honestly reflects his point of view, a point of view that I respect although I cannot agree with it. The only thing I can say about his speech is that it was unbalanced in a political sense, insofar as most of it was spent on attacking the point of view of the Liberal Party of Australia. The Liberal Party has never had any ambiguity- Senator Chipp —I said you were at least honest. Senator MacGIBBON —Yes. The Liberal Party has never had any ambiguity in our support for the United States alliance. We stand there right or wrong. The point of this motion is that the Labor Party wants it both ways. It wants to be on both sides of the fence, pretending that it is for and against the alliance simultaneously. That is why we moved to bring this matter to the Senate this afternoon. In 1952 Australia entered into an alliance with the United States. It entered into that alliance willingly, even gratefully. There were no real problems with it until the Hawke socialist Government came to power. The ANZUS alliance is the principal Australian defence treaty and it is by far and away the most important. As Senator Hamer said, it is not an absolute guarantee. There are many difficulties with it, which clearly relate to low level threats and the real possibility that the United States may have a genuine conflict of interest in some problems that we have with our international affairs. But it is very much in our interests to maintain that relationship with the United States. I point out in passing that it is a far more onerous and demanding relationship for the United States to bear than it is for Australia. There is no question that the Australian public want that relationship maintained. There is no question, by any military analysis or any appreciation of the strategic situation that Australia finds itself in, that we need that alliance, particularly given the serious rundown in the Australian Defence Force . We are in danger not only of losing our operational readiness under the Labor Government but also we are in danger of losing the expertise that we have built up over generations. Once we lose that expertise, because of funding cuts under the Labor Government's two Budgets, our military capabilities will go back ten years. I have lived outside Australia for a large part of my life. I am very proud to be an Australian. I would much rather be an Australian than a citizen of any other country. I am always interested in foreign affairs and defence matters but I have no illusions at all about what goes on in the international scene. I recognise that nations always serve their own interests. They are their prime concern. The law of the jungle is the eternal law of international relations and it is kept in quiescence only by the complex power arrangement that exists between nations at any given time. I have lived in the United States. It is one of those nations that Australia supports very much with respect to its values and standards. Respect for individual liberty and freedom and the dignity of the individual is a goal of that society, the same as it is in Australia. With a world that is regrettably polarised into two opposing beliefs, there is no question that the mass of Australians will place the values of United States society before those of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is where we stand in the Liberal Party -four square in support of our allies. That is a marked contradiction to item 7 of the ALP policy. One of its policy objectives is that Australia should move closer to an association with non-aligned nations. We are not interested in that at all. The ANZUS Treaty is not some dry, impersonal legal document. It is very much a matter of human relationships and friendships between two countries and peoples and the respect that they bear one another. It is important that that respect and friendship is demonstrated when Ministers and officials meet and the people of the two countries meet. The Australian-US relationship is under the greatest strain as a consequence of the Hawke socialist Government that it has ever been under. It is very important to our national interest that something is done about that. The Australian Labor Party has been stridently anti-British and anti -US throughout the whole of its existence since it was formed under that tree in Barcaldine. Many of the Labor members quite like and admire Americans, but there is no getting away from the fact that the public face of the ALP is strongly anti-American, and the Americans do not like that. America is the most charitable and most peace-loving nation on earth. It has difficulties with Europe because Europe is always prickly. The Third World is very anti-American. Australia is the only sizeable nation that has some common interest with the Americans, and they know that. We have a very great asset there which we ought to exploit to our mutual advantage. The United States does see the ALP as a socialist government and it sees the dangers of the extreme left. America knows the ALP's history. It knows that in 1976 the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a paid advertisement in the National Times, stated: . . . Military alliances are a source of international tensions . . . foreign military bases on our soil which are detrimental to Australia's safety. He went on to say: . . . the USA-Australia alliance dragged us into the Vietnam War. The advertisement demanded: . . . opposition to military alliances, foreign military bases and military interventions and support for national and social liberation. The United States knows very well the strength of the extreme Left in the Senate and the House of Representatives. It knows very well the whole history of the persistent criticisms of ANZUS-the problems we have had with ships visiting ports and the problems we have had with bases. In 1983, when this Government was elected, one of the very first things it did in international affairs was to embark upon an attack on ANZUS. It was going to renegotiate and rewrite it and do everything-it was unfair! Its respresentative went off to Washington last year and held disastrous talks with the United States. They were absolutely disastrous because the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) had two views. He had a view that he fed to the left wing in Australia on an anti-American basis. He went into the conference room in Washington, talked around the table and co-operated with the Americans. He then went outside and fed the same sort of claptrap to the Australian Press on the front steps of the building as he had been feeding to the left wing in this country. Was it any wonder that the Americans thought they were dealing with someone who spoke in two different languages? To move to the matter of bases and ships, the Americans know very well that Wran in 1976 tried to ban the entry of the USS Truxtun. They know very well that in 1982, but for the Fraser Government, Mr Cain would have banned the entry of American ships to Melbourne or any other Victorian port. They know very well what is going on in Western Australia at present with Mr Burke. If any further proof were needed about the entry of ships, before Christmas last year we had the saga of HMS Invincible, the shudders from which are still running through the American defence community. The Americans simply could not believe that their old ally could be as treacherous as we were during the situation that pertained in December. It is terribly important to the Americans that they have some harbour facilities for their ships in the South Pacific region; Australia is that haven. To turn to the United States bases in Australia-or joint defence facilities to give them their correct terminology-we have a long saga of disinformation and leaks from the Labor Party. From time to time the Labor Party has been dragged into defending them. We had the astonishing situation in Geneva in August this year when Mr Hayden implied that in the future some covert functions that he did not know about could well go on at those bases, in which case they would stop. But he then went on to make the most unconscionable attack of all on the United States when he accused the United States of not sincerely prosecuting disarmament talks and said that if the United States did not lift its game the bases would go. I was surprised, having talked to ALP members in the Parliament whom I respect, to be told that Mr Hayden's speech did not contain the things that were recorded in the Press. I accept that point but it is dissembling a bit . I have read his speech and I have also read what he said at two Press conferences outside-one with Alan McGregor of The Times of London and the other with the Australian Press corp. Those reports, since they are available to me, I am sure are available to the Labor Party. Honourable senators will find that what I am saying about the terms and conditions that he put on those bases is factual-so much so that Mr Hawke had to rush in and pretend that it had not happened. In view of this, is it any wonder that the United States does not trust Mr Hayden? It may not have liked some Australian Foreign Ministers beforehand; that is understandable. But we have never reached a stage in United States-Australian relationships where the United States has distrusted a Foreign Minister in the way that it distrusts Mr Hayden. It distrusts him because he speaks in conflicting ways every time he gets on to the subject of United States- Australian relationships. There are two other areas of concern about the ALP. The first is the nonsense of the nuclear free zone. The second is the peace motions put up by Australia in the fora of the world. When we are dealing with the nuclear free zone in the Pacific, we have to recognise that New Zealand has now taken the practical application of socialist philosophy to its logical end and dropped right out of any effective military alliance. Most of the island states in the South Pacific are similarly in a nuclear free zone state of mind. Effectively what this means is a ban on all military traffic through the area. Sixty-seven per cent of the United States Seventh Fleet now is nuclear, so when I say that it is an effective ban on military traffic, it means just that. But again the ALP carries on. If one talks to ALP members in this chamber about a nuclear free zone, one gets as many versions as one does on their anti-uranium policy. If it were not so tragic, it would be hilarious. On the subject of peace motions, there has been a set diplomatic offensive waged by the Labor Government in Australia against the United States interests. Basically the Government is in the business of putting burrs under the saddle of the United States and trying to embarrass it internationally on every occasion by pushing a line that would put the United States in a position of having to disarm unilaterally. The United States has kept the peace for 40 years with the nuclear deterrent. It simply cannot accept the situation of no cast iron verification before disarming. We live in a different world from that of 1952. Despite Senator Chipp's view that 1952 was not a nuclear age, we were seven years into it by that time. Russia is now a major power in the Pacific and we have to counter that both for ourselves and for our friends in the South East Asian area. The Association of South East Asian Nations has gone on record as supporting Australia's involvement in the ANZUS pact. There are risks and dangers in what we are doing in following the obligations of this treaty. But we believe in the values of our two cultures and our two civilisations. Let us take the proper course. Let us not have a Labor government in power that thinks it can flirt with the Soviets under the cloak of non- alignment which will result in the tried and trusted alliance that we have built up over the years being thrown away for some nebulous ideology. Let us see a mature Labor government for a change in the field of international relations. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(4.44) —I wish to counter some of the allegations made in this altercation. It was the Australian Labor Party under the Chifley Government that first brought up the idea of having the ANZUS Treaty . It is true that it was not finalised when the Chifley Labor Government went out of office. But it was the Labor Party under Chifley that dreamed up the ANZUS Treaty and the need for it. To say that the Labor Party has not been involved in this is an outrage. The Labor Party has always looked to defence. We are not a militaristic organisation but on the other hand we do not bow to pressure from outside; we will defend this country to the very last, which was proved in the Second World War. It is approximately 32 years ago that ANZUS came into being. It came in four days after Anzac Day in 1952. That is a long time. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, of which I am a member, looked at the ANZUS Treaty. We produced a report on it. We also produced a report entitled 'Threats to Australia's Security-Their Nature and Probability'. That was another valuable report that the Committee put out. These two reports deal with the future defence of this country. In that latter report all political parties agreed with the ANZUS Treaty as a whole, although there was some small amount of dissent. We also said that it was possible to renegotiate some parts of the ANZUS agreement. It is a source of great pleasure to me that the Hawke Labor Government, when it came to office, took up the recommendations of that report and put them into practice. It did not renegotiate with the Americans the agreement on the bases and some other aspects of the Treaty. Credit should go to the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee. All members of that Committee, irrespective of their party affiliation, act in the best interests of this country. We do not play politics, as Senator MacGibbon has done in his speech. I have been on that Committee for a number of years; all members of all parties on it have worked in the best interests of this country. That is the best way to go about it. The Labor Party sees the ANZUS treaty as a valuable asset. Right from the outset, as I said, under Chifley and successive Labor Governments, including this one, the treaty has been seen as a valuable asset in the defence of this nation. A treaty is not just what is written in it. Anyone can sign a treaty and break it. The valuable part of a treaty is that it must be respected by the peoples of the nations who sign it. That is its real strength. I believe that the ANZUS treaty has the respect of Australians and Americans, and that gives it its strength. It saddens me to some extent to see New Zealand drop out of that treaty. I can understand- Senator Chipp —They have not dropped out at all. Senator ELSTOB —New Zealand is on the verge of dropping out or it is talking about it. I do not believe that is the way to go. If New Zealand got into difficulties militarily tomorrow and if it was being threatened it would look to Australia and to the United States for protection. I believe that it is important for the nations involved in any agreement to see to their own defences . Commitments have to be kept. I can understand the attitude of the people of New Zealand. I can understand that of the Australian Democrats and their fear of a nuclear power. There is not one person in this Parliament who would not agree with what Senator Chipp has said, but we have to face the realities. What is the use of one side disarming if the other side does not? That is the problem. I have always advocated that Australia has a great role to play. Certainly Australia talks to one of the other members of ANZUS, the United States of America. In some instances, Australia can play a great role in talking to the smaller nations. As I have said in this place, the troubles in Indo-China are a real threat to this nation and to the surrounding nations. It is up to us to try to solve the difficulties in that area. We have played our part in ANZUS. We have provided the bases and this Hawke Labor Government is seeing that the ANZUS commitments are being kept. I believe that it is important for the safety of the world and especially that of our region that the ANZUS Treaty is maintained. It has been said that we would not allow American ships to come to our ports for recreational leave or for servicing. That is totally incorrect. At the last Labor Party conference we made our stand quite clear. The whole party made a decision. It was not made by any individual, and the Party must abide by it. Senator Durack raised some questions regarding fear of invasion of bombers from Vietnam. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in its report on ' Threats to Australia's Security-their Nature and Probability' looked at that question and did not see any threats to this country in he foreseeable future. The Committee admitted that only the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would have the capability to invade this country. The Committee also said that it did not believe that either one of those countries would want to do so. We have to look at defence in a global sense. Although ANZUS involves only three powers, New Zealand, Australia and the United States, I believe the Treaty has a flow-on effect to other nations and to other areas. Many people in the world are envious of the ANZUS Treaty, the only one to be formed at its time. It was the only such treaty at that time. People in the Labor Party and, I must say , those in the Liberal and Country Parties, went ahead and negotiated the Treaty . I believe that it has been to the benefit of this nation. I strongly believe that we must co-operate in this agreement. I do not believe that this country should be running along like a small dog at the heels of the Americans. We must maintain our independence and at times, if needs be, have some differences of opinion with the Americans. But basically the Treaty shows the strong relationship of the three nations involved. I hope the New Zealanders stay involved. It is easy to drop out of an agreement. The New Zealanders see that there is no fear of their being invaded. I do not see any fear of Australia being invaded but I also believe that, as I said earlier, we have a responsibility in world affairs. We have American bases here, and that is one of our contributions. We allow American ships to come to our ports, and that is a further contribution. If ever the day were to come, it may be generations ahead, when we need help it would be important for our two nations to maintain a very close relationship. After the First World War there was a great relationship between many Australians and Americans. They fought together side by side. But those people have grown old and are not influential any more. In recent times, Australia's winning the America's Cup has brought new life to ANZUS, and there is a better understanding between Australia and America. We compete in all sorts of sport. We have differences of opinion but basically the friendship is very strong and growing stronger. That is the important part of the ANZUS Treaty as I see it. If any future Government of the United States were to say that it would not go to Australia's help in a time of crisis I do not believe for one moment that the American people would allow that. The same would apply to the Australian people if America were in difficulties. We went with America into Vietnam, and I acknowledge that, though I did not agree with the decision. We fought with Americans in Korea, and I think that was justified. We have faced our commitment and we have a very strong agreement. I would not want to see any breaking of that agreement; I want to see it strengthened. I will do everything in my power to encourage the New Zealanders to stay in ANZUS. I would say to any New Zealand politician that he should re-think the matter. I would not want to apply any pressure or see any pressure applied but I believe that it would be in the interest of our countries and of the rest of the world for ANZUS to be maintained. I do not want to see it broken up. I think the majority of Australians do not want that either. They want to see it strengthened and maintained. The matter of urgency is somewhat frivolous. On one hand it is frivolous; on the other it is good because it informs the people of this country and of America about what the majority of people think about the Treaty. At least it gives the agreement some airing. I can assure members of the public that members of the Australian Labor Party have maintained and will maintain their important commitment to ANZUS. In conclusion, the raising of this issue has been beneficial in some ways but a waste of time in others. I do not think it is good in world affairs to raise red herrings, as the Liberal Party has done. The Opposition should think seriously about that. The defence and the prosperity of this nation are above politics. The Opposition should think also about that. It is not good to create conflict between powers that have been very friendly. All parties and all Australians should not bring politics into this issue. The defence of this nation is far too important to be fooled around with. Motion (by Senator Jessop) agreed to: That the question be now put. Question put: That the motion (Senator Durack's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 45 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. McClelland, DouglasCarrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Colston, M. A. Missen, A. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterCrowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Elstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Scott, D. B. Grimes, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Tate, M. C. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Jones, G. N. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Original question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I so move because Senator Macklin is obviously anxious that the matter should not disappear. We have here the second batch of correspondence. The first batch was tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the other place last week and this batch was tabled yesterday. We received the first batch in the Senate yesterday and we had, I think, close to half an hour's debate on that bundle of letters. I do not propose to take the time of the Senate now further to debate these items, except to express again on behalf of the Opposition our concern at the apparent failure of the Government to ensure an effective transfer from the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority. That failure was well borne out in the clear expression of views put by Mr Frank Costigan, QC, the Royal Commissioner. It is a matter which I am sure we will have the opportunity to debate further in this place. Accordingly, at this stage I simply seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report on the Murrumbidgee River in the Australian Capital Territory, dated July 1984, together with the transcript of evidence and extracts from the Committee's minutes and proceedings. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report has taken three years for the Committee to prepare and present. It is an important document which I hope will be read and noted, but perhaps this afternoon is not the time to go through it in great detail. The Murrumbidgee is a sensitive and fragile river that passes through the Australian Capital Territory, rising in New South Wales and proceeding on through important regions of New South Wales. In view of the size of the population which has grown up on the banks of the Murrumbidgee in this area, it is appropriate that we should examine it, analyse the impact and see what should be done to preserve it for the future. This all started because of the development on the river of the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control works and the problems that arose early in its life. Clearly those have been fixed and, as we indicate in the report, the quality of the water throughout the Australian Capital Territory is of high standard at present. However, there are things that need to be done to preserve it for the future. We took the view that the river by itself could not be protected on its own and that the corridor was highly significant. The size of the corridor is significant and the waters that run into the Murrumbidgee also need to be monitored. There are some 35 recommendations in all and I draw the Senate's attention to them. There are a number of matters that we feel quite strongly should be acted upon, in particular the preservation of the area of Lanyon and Lambrigg, Tharwa, Cuppacumbalong and that part of the Australian Capital Territory which is of great significance historically and the only remaining rural area which can be preserved as a rural landscape for future generations. We have recommended that construction of housing should not proceed anywhere near as close to Lanyon as the National Capital Development Commission had sought, although we have not cut it back as far as the National Trust would have liked. There has to be some compromise. We disagreed with the Minister for the Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in his view of what constituted the homestead of Lanyon in relation to the area where housing construction should not proceed. We took a different view-a wider view-of the area that should be preserved, and we hope that that will be acted upon. We noted that the Minister's comment earlier in the year that there should be no construction on the west bank of the Murrumbidgee River and we strongly urge that he takes steps to enshrine that comment and not merely leave it as a wish. The other comments I wish to make today relate to the Chairman of the Committee , Ken Fry. He has been Chairman since March 1983, and if there is an early election that may well be the end of his service. Tomorrow Ken is going to the United Nations as the Parliament's representative. It may well be that by the time he returns there will have been an election. He has announced his retirement and is not seeking re-election for the seat of Fraser, so it may be that his time has, in a sense, run out as far as the Committee is concerned. I think that he has served longer on the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory than any other member since the Committee's inception in 1957. He came into the Parliament when the seat of Fraser was formed in 1974, joined the Committee in July of that year when the Parliament resumed, and has been an active member ever since. He took on the job of Acting Chairman at the time of the death of the Chairman, Senator John Knight, and he remained in that position until I came into the Parliament in May, a few months later. I took over as Chairman at that time and I valued very much the assistance and support I received from Ken Fry, he having had so much more experience. During that time he assisted me greatly in the running of the Committee so that its activities proceeded without any significant interruption. We worked together then as Chairman and Vice-Chairman and subsequently from March of last year our roles were reversed and I have been Deputy Chairman. I will preside over the Committee in the remaining few months now that he is going away. He has contributed most valuably to work of the Committee and he will be missed. I wish to place on record that we have benefited greatly from what he has done on the Committee. There have been a number of members of staff who have worked with the Committee during the time of this report. We started with Mr Phil Bergin and he was replaced shortly afterwards by Mr Morrie Adamson. Then Allan Kelly became Secretary of the Committee and more recently David Elder. Some honourable senators who have had much more experience than I have in working with committees will know that it is difficult to complete a report with so many changes, but it has worked extremely well. Everyone has been very dedicated to the task of this particular inquiry and all the other things that we have done at the same time. I wish to place on record my thanks to those members of the Committee who have done so much and who have, from time to time, taken over and picked up the Murrumbidgee report so that we could finally make it to today when we are making the recommendations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the tabling statement of the Committee's report. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Tel. 72 1211 STATEMENT BY THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY, SENATOR MARGARET REID, ON THE TABLING OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON THE MURRUMBIDGEE RIVER IN THE A.C.T. REGION The report I have just tabled is the result of a long period of detailed investigation by the Committee. The inquiry into the Murrumbidgee River was referred to the Committee at a time when there was great concern about the extent of pollution in the river as a result of teething problems following the commissioning of the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre. These gross pollution problems were largely resolved as a result of the teething problems being overcome. Water quality in the Murrumbidgee is now quite satisfactory. As these immediate problems were overcome, the Committee addressed itself to the long term problems which could affect water quality in the river and and to issues concerned with the wider environmental protection of the river and its surround. A way of conserving and protecting the river from developmental pressures is through the delineation of an environmental corridor along the river. Suggestions as to the extent of the river corridor and the kind of protection necessary for it varied. However, it is clear that most people want some recognition of the river and its environs as being special, with its recreational, natural and aesthetic features being maintained or enhanced. The name Murrumbidgee is associated by most Australians with one of our largest rivers, yet in the A.C.T. region the upper part of that river does not have the size, permanency or resilience that it has further downstream. The river and its tributaries are subject to marked variations between and within seasons. We even saw the river stop flowing for a period early last year. It is within the concept of a fragile river ecosystem that the corridor must be viewed. It is a comparatively small water system to which we look for increasing water recreation facilities. There are increasing, and sometimes conflicting, pressures for other uses such as passive recreation, undisturbed natural areas, fishing, canoeing, horse riding, grazing, forestry, urban development, sand and gravel extraction and water supply. Careful planning of the river's resources is essential. The Committee supports the concept of a river corridor. It concludes that the boundaries of the corridor should not be of a fixed width but be delineated following a careful consideration of the visual, topographic, ecological, water quality and recreational factors affecting each section of the river along the length of the corridor. Users upstream and downstream of the A.C.T. also need to be considered. While the corridor will be a multiple-use area with different parts of the corridor having different planning and management policies, the Committee recommends that developments within the corridor should be compatible with the primary purposes of the corridor which are the preservation of the natural environment and heritage elements together with the provision of compatible recreational facilities. In order to achieve these primary aims, the Committee recommends that development proposals in the corridor should be the subject of environmental impact statements, that the corridor be widened in the Lanyon-River-Lambrigg area to provide a suitable rural landscape setting for the Lanyon and Lambrigg homesteads, that the nature conservation areas of the corridor be gazetted under the Nature Conservation Ordinance and that the corridor be placed on the register of the National Estate. While the concept of a river corridor is a useful one for some purposes, such as aesthetic considerations, planning recreational facilities and developing buffer areas, it can be a limitation in assessing the total environmental impacts made on the river. The Murrumbidgee drains the whole of the ACT and consequently activities throughout the Territory could potentially affect the river. The Murrumbidgee River catchment within the ACT should be seen as a single system such that its use and management should be considered as a whole. Options for the use of water and land resources should be determined in relation to the present and future needs within the community, including environmental considerations, so as to maintain their long-term capabilities. Water and land management therefore need to be closely co-ordinated. To achieve this close co-ordination of water and land management the Committee has recommended that the Water Use Plan for the whole of the ACT be completed without delay. The Water Use Plan will need to be integrated with land-use policy and development plans to ensure that objectives in terms of standards monitoring procedures, definition of responsibilities and regulatory mechanisms are achieved. As the Murrumbidgee passes through the ACT for only a small section of its length, it is essential that there be close co-operation with the New South Wales Government in ensuring the environmental protection of the river and that adequate water supplies are available to the ACT and downstream users. The report makes recommendations about these. Basic environmental protection legislation is still not in place in the ACT. Water, air and noise pollution ordinances are yet to come into effect. Hazardous chemical control in the Territory, including of agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, remains minimal. The House of Representatives Environment and Conservation Committee regarded the situation in the ACT in December 1982 as deplorable and sought urgent action to rectify these legislative deficiencies. The Committee recommends that this legislation be implemented within three months and it has made clear that any delay in implementing the legislation in this time would constitute negligence on the part of those involved. The heritage aspects of the Murrumbidgee Valley require particular attention. While the region has been long settled by Europeans, and much, much longer by Aboriginals, most of Canberra is quite new by comparison and its growth inevitably threatens heritage sites. These could be Aboriginal camp sites used for many centuries or the remains of buildings of the first European settlers. Preservation and access to heritage sites is important to any community but more so to the children of Canberra growing up in a comparatively new city. The ACT does not have the kind of heritage legislation that exists in several States to protect and promote important heritage elements within the Territory and the Committee recommends that a heritage ordinance be completed and implemented. While this legislation is being prepared the Committee recommends that the Department of Territories and Local Government acts to preserve historic sites on leasehold land. One of the most significant long term impacts on the river will come from future urban development in the ACT. It will affect both water quality, as a result of the effects of urban runoff, and the aesthetic appearance of the river and its setting through the visual impact of urban development. To protect the river from the effects of urban runoff, the Committee recommends that the use of sediment and oil traps prior to storm-water entering lakes and streams be maximised and that the use of biological filters be further investigated. These are particularly necessary for stormwater from Tuggeranong which will directly discharge into the river rather than through Lake Tuggeranong. The Committee also believes it is essential that construction work on the Tuggeranong town centre not commence unless special measures are in place to protect the river from urban runoff until Tuggeranong Lake is completed. To protect the aesthetic appearance of the river the Committee believes it is crucial that no urban development take place on the western side of the river. The Committee therefore welcomes the Minister for Territories and Local Government's decision that there will be no urban development on the west bank of the Murrumbidgee, but recommends that the Minister formalise his decision so that it cannot be arbitrarily changed at a later date. The rural settings of Lanyon homestead and Tharwa Village also lend a visually attractive setting to the Murrumbidgee River which the Committee wants to see retained. The Minister for Territories and Local Government has stated that there will be no urban development visible from the Lanyon Homestead. The Committee believes that this definition is subject to a range of interpretations and, as interpreted by the National Capital Development Commission, is too restrictive. The NCDC is proposing to develop an urban area south of Lanyon which would be visible from many parts of the Lanyon Homestead and which would effectively destroy the rural setting of Lanyon. The Committee has recommended that this proposed area of urban development not proceed. As this urban area would have proceeded to the limit of Tharwa Village, a decision not to develop it will also allow the rural setting of Tharwa to be retained. Finally, as part of this inquiry the Minister for Territories and Local Government asked the Committee to report on the environmental impact of the Murrumbidgee Country Club proposal on the river corridor. The major environmental concerns about the proposal related to its visual impact on the Murrumbidgee Corridor, especially in the Red Rocks Gorge area and the protection of water quality as a result of the effects of stormwater runoff and possible sewage spillage into the river. The Committee believes that the visual impact of the proposed development will be minimal from the Red Rocks Gorge area of the river and has recommended that housing in the Country Club Estate which may be visible from the Red Rocks area be restricted by siting and design controls to single storey level. The stormwater centre and sewage proposals are acceptable. The Committee has therefore recommended that the Murrumbidgee Country Club proposal proceed but with adequate guarantees being made that each stage of the development can be completed. The proposal should also be subject to the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. Canberra is the largest inland urban area in Australia. Lower rainfall than the coastal areas where the majority of our uban population lives means that per capita water consumption in Canberra is higher than the Australian average but similar to that of other inland centres in Australia. The volume of water in our river system is ultimately limited. While it appears adequate to supply our short to medium-term needs, there must come a point where quantity and/or quality will be inadequate. It is clear that we have to start looking at our own water usage patterns now, with a view to conservation if we are to avert or even delay future supply problems. There are increasing and conflicting demands being placed on the Murrumbidgee River and its corridor. Developments to satisfy these demands must be compatible with the primary purposes of the corridor. But while the corridor is a focus for our attention in addressing the problems which will affect the river, it does not exist in isolation and must be considered in a wider environmental context for its proper management. Measures to achieve adequate co-ordination of water resources, the implementation of vital environmental and heritage legislation and the elimination of the harmful effects of urban development are the important wider environmental issues affecting the river which this report has addressed. I believe that this report will assist in a better understanding of the Murrumbidgee River in the ACT and its future management. Senator REID —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the construction of the Australian Embassy complex at Beijing in the People's Republic of China. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The Committee concluded that inadequate, leased chancery and living accommodation in Beijing should be replaced by a new building which will be appropriate in terms of standard and efficiency to the developing relationship between Australia and the People's Republic of China. The complex will comprise five elements: A four-level chancery, a three-level official residence, 35 terrace houses for staff, and recreation and ancillary facilities. The complex will be designed with special attention to the climatic extremes experienced in Beijing. The Public Works Committee has recommended that the design of the complex be changed so that an additional floor can be added to the chancery section of the complex should this prove necessary at some time in the future. I commend the report to honourable senators. Bill presented by Senator Durack, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.20) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill provides for amendments to the Flags Act 1953 which designates our familiar blue ensign as the Australian National Flag and empowers the Governor- General to appoint, by Proclamation, other flags and ensigns of Australia. History Our flag, of course, is older than the 1953 Act. It was designed for a competition conducted by the Government in 1901 to choose a national flag. About 30,000 designs were submitted and finally the judges decided to divide the prize money of 400 pounds between 5 competitors. It flew for the first time at 2.30 p.m. on 3 September 1901 over the Exhibition Building, Melbourne whilst the Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, read a statement that: '. . . it was apparent (to the judges) that a Commonwealth flag, to be representative, should contain: the Union Jack on a blue or red ground; a six-pointed ''star'' representing the six federated States of Australia, immediately under the Union Jack and pointing direct to the centre of St George' s Cross, and of a size to occupy the major portion of one quarter of the flag; the Southern Cross in the flag as being indicative of sentiment of the Australian nation'. In November 1901 the flag, together with another flag which incorporated the Eureka Cross with a Union Jack in the top left corner, were submitted to King Edward VII and on 20 February 1903, the King announced his choice of the flag now known as the Australian National Flag. In 1908 a minor alteration was made; a seventh point was added to the Commonwealth star to symbolise the Territory of Papua which had been recently acquired. Over time this seventh point came to represent all of the Commonwealth Territories. During both world wars, governments encouraged citizens to fly the flag over their homes, offices and factories; and this did much to induce popular acceptance of the flag. In 1953 the Menzies Government introduced the Flags Bill, which was passed by the Parliament and presented to the Queen for her assent during her 1954 tour of Australia; the first Act of an Australian Parliament to receive the assent of the Sovereign in Australia. The National Symbol The Australian National Flag has now gained acceptance by a large majority of Australians as our national symbol and standard. According to a recent survey published in The Bulletin, 66% of those questioned were in favour of maintaining the existing design. In 1893, at the first modern Olympic Games, an Australian, E. H. Flack, won the 800 metres and 1500 metres track events. The Greek officials searched in vain for an Australian flag and, eventually, chose to fly the Austrian flag. In 1900, at Paris, when an Australian won the 200 metres freestyle swimming, the Union Jack was hoisted. We won no gold in the 1904 Games, but in 1908 at London, the Australians won the gold medal in the Rugby Union, which was then an Olympic event, and our flag was hoisted for the first time over an Olympic Games. Subsequently we have won medals at each Olympic Games and great pride has been felt in watching the Australian flag hoisted upon the victory flagpole. It is telling that, at the closing ceremony of the last Olympics, Australian competitors broke ranks to circumnavigate the Los Angeles coliseum carrying a giant Australian flag. Perhaps, however, the most telling story of the pride Australians feel in their flag is that related by Mr Frank Cayley in his excellent book, Flag of Stars, as follows: 'The first Allied flag raised in Singapore after the Japanese surrender in 1945 was an Australian Ensign that had been made in secret by Australian prisoners of war. 'A small Union Jack, which had escaped discovery during the many searches made by Japanese guards, was stretched onto the corner of some blue material '' borrowed'' from Japanese stores; handkerchiefs from Red Cross parcels provided the necessary white for the Commonwealth Star and the stars of the Southern Cross-and the flag was in readiness when news was heard by secret radio that Japanese surrender was imminent. When surrender came, the flag was raised over ' X3' Working Camp at Bukit Panjang and later over AIF Headquarters at Changi'. The Bill The present Bill will seek to strengthen and reinforce the flag as the symbol and standard of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Government and of our nation. These changes may not have been considered except for the manner in which the Government moved earlier this year to replace the national anthem, 'God Save the Queen' with a new version of 'Advance Australia Fair'. The replacement was effected merely by the gazettal of the Governor-General's Order in Council. This was possible because the anthem is not prescribed by legislation. It is by exercise of prerogative power of the Governor-General that the tune to be played at official functions is designated; of course, the prerogative is only exercised upon the advice of the Government. The change generated considerable criticism because of the arbitrary way it was effected. There was no inkling that a change was imminent, no public discussion, and, accordingly, all debate was precluded. There is now a growing fear that the Government will seek to make a similar, lightning change to the Australian Flag. Fortunately the flag is prescribed by the Flags Act 1953 and the flag designated as the 'Australian National Flag' could only be changed by legislation. Nevertheless, the Act does allow the Governor-General to 'Appoint such other flags and ensigns of Australia as he thinks fit'. The fear is now held that, without consulting the Australian people or the Parliament, the Government will advise the Governor-General to appoint other flags to replace the Australian National Flag for specific national purposes. For instance, a different flag might be appointed as the flag to be flown at Olympic Games, at the United Nations or above government institutions. If sufficient 'other flags or ensigns' were appointed, the Australian National flag might be replaced or undermined as the symbol of our nation. Accordingly, the Bill will effect the following changes: 1. Firstly, it will allow the Governor-General to appoint 'other flags and ensigns of Australia' only by regulation, not by Proclamation. Regulations are reviewable by the Parliament and may be disallowed whereas the Parliament has no control over Proclamations. 2. The Governor-General will be specifically prohibited from appointing, upon the advice of the Government, 'other flags or ensigns' as the standard for the Commonwealth of Australia, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Australian nation. This will prevent the Government from advising the Governor-General to appoint other flags to challenge or detract from the Australian flag as the symbol of our nation or national institutions. 3. Finally, a referendum provision will be inserted to ensure that the Australian National Flag may not be altered or replaced except after a referendum with a majority of voters in a majority of the states approving the change. Hopefully these amendments will guarantee that the flag continues to fly proudly over Australia as the symbol and standard of this country and its people . I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships, and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons, through Australian waters or in the airspace over them. Bill presented by Senator Chipp, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.21) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is the second stage of the Democrats' plan to declare Australia a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. The first stage-the Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill 1984-sought to prohibit the development, testing, manufacturing, transportation, storage or importation of nuclear weapons into Australia. That Bill, which is currently before the Senate, did not extend to Australian territorial waters, airspace or harbours. This second Bill explicitly covers Australian waters, airspace or harbours. Vessels (ships or aircraft) carrying nuclear weapons are prohibited from entering Australian waters or airspace. Nuclear powered ships are also prohibited. This Bill would implement the same policy as that of the New Zealand Labor Government which has sought to prohibit nuclear powered or armed warships of all nations from its ports. The Democrats applaud the New Zealand Government's policy as one of courage and principle, that will act as a powerful example of moral leadership to a world desperate for a path away from nuclear insanity. Anyone who doubts the gross insanity the world has reached need only examine the statistics. In the early 1960s they assured us that peace was at hand through nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence was produced by less than 1,000 nuclear bombs. In the 1980s they tell us to maintain deterrence we need to build more nuclear bombs to add to the 50,000 in existence. By the year 2000 (assuming we avoid a nuclear war in the meantime) will they still be telling us we need more nuclear bombs to the 100,000 that will then be in existence? We have to stop the nuclear arms race now. Let's look at where we are today. There are 50,000 nuclear bombs in the super powers' stockpiles. At least five other nations are nuclear powers. More are trying to get nuclear bombs. The bomb that obliterated Hiroshima and killed 200,000 people had a destructive capacity of 12 kilotons (12,000 tons of TNT). Today, one ''average'' nuclear bomb is equivalent to 42 Hiroshimas. The entire stockpile is equivalent to one and a half million Hiroshimas. Any reasonable person would have recognised that for one nation to risk annihilation in response to a nuclear attack-let alone trigger a chain of events that would lead to the extinction of life on this planet-is insane. Our political leaders, however, seem desperate to perpetuate this insanity. The United States plans to build another 29,000 nuclear bombs in the next decade. The Soviets no doubt have similarly insane plans. The nuclear arms race not only threatens the extinction of life, it is a criminal waste of resources that could be used to alleviate social hardship and thus create real peace and prosperity. People have to demand that their politicians act now to stop the nuclear arms race. The Democrats have made the deliberate choice to do everything possible to halt the nuclear arms race. No one is naive enough to believe that we in Australia can reverse the nuclear arms race overnight. But there is something we do know. That is, if we do nothing the present nuclear madness will continue to grow. If we make the effort to do everything in our power to make people aware, concerned and active there is at least hope. And where there is hope there is life. We have reached a crisis point. The stockpile of nuclear bombs is so large, the technology so advanced and the destructive power so awesome, that it now takes the deliberate choice of people and politicians for there to be a hope for survival or progress towards a future. It takes a deliberate choice because to do nothing will ensure that the nuclear arms race will continue apace. This Bill provides one deliberate choice that Australia can take. To oppose nuclear weapons-which is the only path to survival-Australia has to oppose all nuclear weapons, no matter what flag they fly under or where they are . If Australia is to have a credible role to play in urgent search for nuclear disarmament we must prohibit all nuclear weapons from entering Australian territory. You cannot claim the evils of nuclear weapons, on the world stage, then let them into our ports and urban areas. Many nations recognise the hypocrisy that the visits of warships loaded with nuclear weapons pose if you want nuclear disarmament. France, Spain and India are on record as having opposed nuclear armed warships visits of foreign powers. Denmark, a fully-fledged member of NATO, has opposed the presence of nuclear weapons in its territory since 1957. Cities such as Boston and New York do not solicit the visits of nuclear powered and armed warships because of population density and the risk of accident. New Zealand is the latest example of moral leadership on this issue. The Democrats' bill is similar to legislation that will implement the New Zealand Government's courageous decision. This bill is quite simple. Nuclear powered or armed ships or aircraft are prohibited from Australian territorial waters, airspace and harbours. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to take all reasonable measures to prevent contraventions. Powers are vested in members of the Customs, Police and Defence Forces to board vessels and take necessary action to prevent any contraventions. In practical terms this situation would most likely never occur. If this bill were passed the intention would be clear. No foreign Government would test or contravene such a clear policy. Two recent events have increased the urgency for bold initiatives such as this bill to overcome the nuclear arms race. The outrageous and horrifying statement from the Pentagon that the U.S. President, acting alone without the consent of Congress, could and should be able to launch a nuclear first strike in Europe in response to a Soviet conventional attack, shows that nuclear weapons are not for defence, they are for attack. Australia hosts U.S. bases which assist the U.S. nuclear weapons system to launch a first strike. They are officially recognised as nuclear targets. That confirmed risk has been accentuated. Our Government has to demand a full explanation as to the meaning and validity of this statement. The second latest area of concern is the fact that the U.S. Navy is equipping its Pacific fleet with sea launched cruise missiles. These are identical to the cruise missiles being deployed in Europe. They are undoubtedly first strike nuclear weapons. The fact that the nuclear tipped cruise missiles will be indistinguishable from conventional cruise missiles forces the enemy to assume every vessel carrying a cruise missile will be a prime nuclear target. We are living in a pre-war not a post-war world. The last world war may have ended in 1945, but the next one could start any second. With 50,000 nuclear bombs locked on target and ready to fire, we are all living on borrowed time. Nuclear war is imminent: it could begin at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us. The world faces a stark choice: the nuclear race or the human race. The stockpile of nuclear bombs has produced an insane situation where humanity has developed the capacity to extinguish life in the name of peace. The Democrats hope the choice will be the human race and that senators will support this because of the spirit of survival. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Representation Act 1983 to make provision for determining the order in which the senators shall be taken to be elected. Bill presented by Senator Macklin, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.23) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is a purely functional one which I hope will gain the support of both the Government and the Opposition in order that it can gain a speedy passage through this place and, indeed, the House of Representatives as well. In looking at the situation which we will face at the next election, it is quite clear that the Representation Act has failed to address the question of the order of election of senators although it determines the dates from which those senators who are elected will serve in this place, dependent on the order in which they were elected. This was an obvious over-sight by the Government which needs urgent rectification. The intention of the Bill is to ensure that the situation in regards to the order in which senators are elected at the next election remains the same as it is at present under the Electoral Act for a normal half-senate election. There seems to be no reason to change that situation, given that the next election-and this Bill will only apply to the next election-will, we have been consistently assured by the Prime Minister, most likely be a 'normal' half-senate election. Indeed, having looked at this situation, I am surprised that the Government chose to put clauses concerning the order of election of senators in the Electoral Act rather than the Representation Act in the first place. It would seem more logical to place it in the Representation Act, but I dare say the Government has a sound and logical reason for proceeding in the way it did. Before concluding I would like to comment on the opinion that some people have expressed that, because we are electing seven rather than six senators for each State at the next election, that the first part of section 13 of the Constitution somehow applies. That is not the Australian Democrats opinion. We believe that the first part of section 13 only applies to a double dissolution situation. What we are dealing with here is covered by section 14 of the constitution which deals with the increase or diminishing of the size of the Senate. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Debate resumed from 6 September, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.25) —The Loan Bill 1984 provides for the financing of the prospective 1984-85 Budget deficit. As is usual, a Bill of this kind is introduced at the time of the Budget. As expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund cannot legally exceed the moneys available to it, there is a need to seek authority to finance certain expenditures from borrowings to the extent that amounts appropriated by the Parliament for expenditure from that fund exceed estimated revenues. Under existing standing authorities some $2.7 billion of expenditure can be charged to the Loan Fund, leaving a short fall of some $4 billion for which separate funding authority is required. The Bill which we are discussing this afternoon seeks authority to borrow moneys accordingly. It is timely, when dealing with this companion Bill to the Appropriation Bills, to look at the structure of the Budget which this Bill seeks to finance. It is notable that public debt interest in 1984-85 will rise by about 29 per cent to over $5 billion. The deficit this year of some $6.7 billion will add a further $ 3 billion to $4 billion per year to the interest charged. These figures relate to Commonwealth borrowings only. However, the Commonwealth-State public debt interest bill will rise to something like $9.7 billion this year, which is more than the cost of the items in the Budget. It is noteworthy that about two-thirds of all the new borrowings we make will be used to pay interest on previous and current borrowings. Something over 60c in every dollar that we borrow is used for repaying interest. That is why it is appropriate that we should look at the structure of the Budget, the deficit and the indebtedness of Australia. The Treasury Papers for this year estimate that, given current programs, next year's deficit will be something over $8 billion. I think the Government has shown it is not prepared to reduce the deficit during an economic upturn. We have heard a lot said in recent days about the growth of the economy and the economic upturn, yet the structural deficit in this year's Budget has actually increased. So it is probably appropriate to suggest that when a government will not reduce the deficit during an upturn in the economy it will hardly reduce the deficit during a downturn. The predictions of a downturn in, say, 1986 mean that we are looking at a very solid level of indebtedness. It does not look as though that indebtedness will be reduced and we cannot be confident about the level of interest that has to be paid to service these debts. We have heard public claims that there may be no problem in financing a deficit of the magnitude of the one this year and that interest rates are falling. However, the fact is that short term interest rates have fallen because of the artificial manipulation by the Government through the Reserve Bank system. The Government is attempting to engineer interest rates so that housing loan interest rates will fall between now and the end of the year. This will have dramatic effects in the June quarter of next year. The long term government bond rate today is higher than it was at the time of the last tender, reflecting concern within the money market that this Budget is not all that it might be in terms of economics, the balancing of indebtedness and the need to fund indebtedness in one way or another. With those few words I have made the point that the Budget, with which this Bill is concerned, has provided for a high deficit which will add to the overall public debt and cause higher taxes in years to come. When one takes into account the need to fund the deficit and pay interest on public debts one realises that it is very difficult in future years to get the sort of structure in a Budget that one might otherwise feel is desirable. I do not think it is unfair to say that this Budget has been planned with the prospect of there being an election this year based on this Budget, and massive increases in taxation are ahead if the present Government is returned at the next election. This has already been publicly proclaimed by at least one Labor Minister, the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, in his noteworthy comment about a Budget being designed for an election and after the election the Government is able to make whatever adjustments it needs to the structure of it. Budget outlays will represent over 31 per cent of the gross domestic product. That is a 13 per cent increase, and a record for public expenditure. It is the first time in the last decade that the 30 per cent level has been punctured. From something over 28 per cent in 1974-75, at the height of the Whitlam Government, it is now at the all-time high figure of 31 per cent. Budget receipts will represent something over 28 per cent of the gross domestic product . That is a large increase, and again the figures are up on those of a decade ago. So it is a Budget with very high expenditure, very high revenue projections and also a very high deficit. The restructuring of the tax scale was proclaimed to be some sort of innovation that would give tax relief but the new five-step tax scale will effect a 23 per cent increase overall in personal tax collections this year. The Government has instituted a 10 per cent sales tax on wine and a 20 per cent sales tax on very low alcohol beer, and has provided for spouse rebates to be extended to de facto couples. It has decreased assistance to the export industry by something over 20 per cent and it has indexed pensions and benefits, including unemployment benefits, which it increased by some $2.50 a week for singles and $4.20 a week for couples to take account of the changes made as a result of the Medicare levy . Those measures are still short of fulfilling many of Labor's election promises to increase pensions and to give tax relief in terms of the promises made earlier because although tax cuts have been proclaimed and there is certainly a reduction in tax for a large number of taxpayers, of something over $7 a week on a scale that reduces as income increases, there will be a 23 per cent increase in tax collections. So that is the delusion of tax relief. At the same time as that delusion has been put forward, hundreds of thousands of Australians have been thrust into higher tax brackets as a result of the policy of indexing wages but not indexing personal taxes. The whole range of tax rebates abolished by the Labor Government has added to the average family's tax burden. The special income levy for Medicare has added to the costs of many families and again changes in the Medicare ceiling have added to the cost of many. So at the same time as we see increases in a variety of taxes and charges, we have the proclamation that there is tax relief. It is simply a reduction in the additional tax being charged through the Budget. If the Government structures the whole of its economic outlook on its prices and incomes accord, as it claims it does, it is important to look at the consequences this will have for economic growth and for the prospects that lie ahead because if economic recovery is too strong the accord itself could be in peril. In Budget Statement No. 2 the Treasury warns that the accord may be worthless if economic growth is sustained and there are pressures for a share of that economic growth, with further consequent pressure throughout the community on prices. This will create difficulties for those who cannot claim their share of the economic recovery. Another year of strong growth in activity and profits might place considerable pressure on both wage restraint and other aspects of the accord. That is not an unfair statement in view of the importance that will be placed on the accord in the forthcoming year. Already some union pressure seems to be building and according to people such as Mr George Crawford, an executive member of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Budget puts pressure on the accord. No doubt the pressure will become apparent after the election is held because predictions of wage increases when related to predictions of consumer price index increases show that a drift of one or two per cent and maybe more is expected, depending on the industrial pressure that arises. So we have a Budget that may still be affected by pressures from various parts of the community for a greater share of the growth in the economy, with very little improvement in the level of unemployment. Predictions in the Budget still allow us to say that something over 8 per cent of the labour force has no prospect of real employment in the near future, and the only real winners in the Budget will be the unions, the people who work in the Public Service and those who can in some way find protection from the difficulties of unemployment and the lack of growth in real jobs that could reach all sectors of the community. Administrative costs in the Budget have had a sizable increase of something over 9 per cent. This makes Public Service expenditure a very high percentage of Budget outlays. It is the highest proportion since the 11 per cent rise in the last year of the Whitlam Government. This year the increase in Budget outlays for public administration is more than that, reaching 14 per cent. That reflects one part of the Government's priority. There is strong growth in the public sector and in public administration, whereas there is very little opportunity for the same sort of growth in the private sector where the jobs can reach out to all sectors of the community. Predictions throughout the Budget for unemployment relief are not high. They are not ones that give comfort either to the Government or to those in the rest of the community who would wish to see a growth in jobs and a reduction in the high unemployment figures that have been with us for far too long. It is probably also fair to say that there is little incentive in the Budget for small businesses, despite promises that were made to them. No real acknowledgment is given to the fact that small business employs 60 per cent of the Australian work force. It is in that sector that one would want to see investment confidence, confidence in employment and growth in activity. Yet when one looks at the flow-on of full wage indexation and the mounting labour on- costs that have in no way been curtailed by this Budget, along with the increasing burden of tax and the bureaucratic difficulties caused by many of the regulatory forces that exist in present Acts, it has been made more difficult for small business to grow and prosper. Business will also be hit by the abolition of the investment allowance, and the pressure on wages and the consequent difficulty to attain competitiveness. That is reflected in the present lack of investment confidence and lack of growth. Business, of course, notes that the Hawke Government is spending at three times the rate of the Fraser Government. It is under pressure from many of its own members-members of the Australian Labor Party-to spend even more in the belief, that more government spending is the road to recovery. I think that business, looking at the rate of growth in the last two Labor Budgets, has reason for concern. This growth in the public sector philosophy has been tried before and it is seen as being difficult for business. There seems to be no attempt by the present Government to curtail that or to look at it in terms of achieving any realistic reduction. I believe the growth that we see in many areas of government is noteworthy. Changes have occurred in a whole list of areas from 1982-83 to 1984-85. The percentage change in the area of health is 80.5; labour and employment, 78.5; housing, 69.1; public debt interest, 65.8; culture and recreation, 40.5; administrative services, 38.2; law and order, and royal commissions, 34.2; foreign affairs, 31.7; social security, 27.9; defence, 21.7; education, 19.5; and transport and communications, 5.6. In the area of industrial assistance one finds a reduction of 5.1 per cent and in urban and regional development and environment a reduction of 27 per cent. Therefore, in terms of the percentage share of the total Budget outlays, the areas of defence, education, transport, industrial assistance and general and scientific research have all declined, while the welfare, job creation and redistributionist areas of government expenditure have grown dramatically. The implications of these spending priorities are important. Assistance to the productive sectors of the economy, especially those long term activities which have been the subject of Labor's highly publicised national strategies-for example, education, and general and scientific research-have all fallen in priority and some have suffered real decreases in assistance. The Government is raising tax primarily to increase its spending in non-productive sectors of the economy. That is one of the difficulties to which we point as we deal with this Loan Bill which is seeking to fund the deficit. The reaction to the Budget was somewhat mixed. I was interested in one of the Age reports on 22 August showing that the latest gross domestic product figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed a 0.4 per cent fall in non-farm GDP using expenditure-based estimates as contrasted with a 2.1 per cent rise on the income-based estimates. If the expenditure-based estimates, which are favoured by the Department of the Treasury as being more accurate, are correct, what would have been a modest recovery may have ended. Yet the Treasurer (Mr Keating) used the income-based estimates of GDP to paint an overly optimistic picture of the economy and, therefore, laid the Budget on an uncertain and possibly inaccurate foundation-that is, if one seeks to use the expenditure-based estimates rather than the income-based ones. Not much mention has been made of the foreign debt of Australia which is now estimated to take about 20 per cent of foreign earnings. These foreign debt repayments have thus risen to a level comparable with some of the troubled Asian and African nations. The London based National Westminster Bank's most recent survey of international foreign debt suggested that Australia's growing foreign debt repayment obligations were reaching levels which 'might cause Australia's credit rating to be reviewed'. These are the reasons we point to these matters as we deal with the Budget and its Loan Bill. I refer to the statement that was made by the retiring Secretary to the Treasury along the lines that in the past two years alone all the ground that was so painfully won back over the previous seven years has been thrown away. He spoke in terms of the restraint of growth of government expenditure. He said that the objective was to try to place restraints on the payments that are required to service the debts and the deficits which the public sector imposes. It was disappointing to all Australians to have the statements which were made a week or so ago concerning the difficulties which were encountered in the latest unemployment figures and to hear of the 23,000-odd jobs which were lost in August. This means that despite the breaking of the drought and the consequent economic recovery over the last 18 months, unemployment, under this Government, has fallen by a modest figure and can be reflected more as a drop in the participation rate than in any increase in permanent job opportunities. Based on the latest figures released, had the participation rate remained as it was in February 1983, which was the last full month in office of the Fraser Government, unemployment would now be about 23,000 worse than the latest figures show, leaving a genuine reduction in unemployment under the Hawke Government of a figure that is far from what was envisaged in the promises and the hopes at the time of its election. If one looks at any figures, without relating them to the total statistics that apply to this particular situation-in this case I stressed the fall in the participation rate-they really do not give any great comfort. They do not show that there has been some fall in the number of unemployed. The Budget does not give as much help as may have been hoped to single income families. There was no increase in this Budget in the dependent spouse rebate; neither was there any increase in that rebate in the last Budget. During the time that the former Government was in office there was an increase in the rebate for a family with dependent children of almost 70 per cent. That the figure has been frozen for the last two years. There has been a diminution in the benefit that is given to single income families, particularly those who have dependent children. I hope that some priority will be given to an increase in that area, because it is one way of directing support to a target group with only one income earner-for whatever reason that might be; whether it is through choice or because of family responsibilities. If we are not able to compensate for the loss, because of inflation, in the value of the rebate, that family's capacity to use every dollar is diminished. This Budget was not able to give any assistance to maintain the value of the spouse rebate, as it was two years ago. There are other things that could be said about the assumptions on which the Budget has been based. Significant comment has been made in the analysis of the Budget which has shown that those with economic expertise believe there are some risky assumptions within its structure. The Government hopes for the biggest ever real increase in revenue in this Budget. That might be an honest enough hope, but even if there is not that increase in revenue, there will be the increase in government spending on which it was predicted and, consequently, a greater deficit to fund, another loan to service, and more public debt interest to find. It is to be hoped that the risky assumptions will fall in the way of assistance to our economy rather than in the other direction. When I attended an Estimates committee hearing concerning this Budget, the Department of Trade predicted fairly gloomy prospects for all prices for our export commodities, be they grains, rural products or mineral products. World commodity prices are low. Demand is not showing great activity, so predictions of great growth and steadily increasing revenue may be risky assumptions. Therefore, the huge rises in total government spending are resulting in a lift in the total government interest bill by over $9 billion. That gives us some concern if the assumptions on which the Budget has been based are not realised. Newspaper headlines showed the public reaction to the Budget. A headline in the Melbourne Age reads: 'Treasury statement asks: have we even had a recovery?'. That sort of statement bears analysis as we look into the figures that are provided by the Treasury in the Budget Papers. A headline in the Sydney Morning Herald reads: 'Reserve's concern about credit clash'. Another headline in the Australian which referred to the structure of the Budget read: 'But there are chickens to come home to roost'. Another headline reads: 'Another Keating '' expansion'' Budget'. I do not think there would be any argument about that, when one looks at the facts and figures. The headlines of another article in the Age reads: 'A deeply disturbing document'. It is on those bases that we then look at the prediction, which is borne out by the Budget, in a headline which reads: ' Economists predict 8pc out of work in mid-1986'. These are the matters to which I wish to draw attention as we deal with this Loan Bill of 1984 which will fund the deficit. It seems to me that we have great difficulty in our economy. It is not a time to talk glibly, as the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, wishes to do, about Australia having the highest rate of growth of any country in the world and predictions of 10 per cent on this, that and the other. Figures can be used to say almost anything if one wishes to mislead. But I think we have a very serious problem in the Australian economy. We have great difficulty in structuring a Budget that can deal with the expectations of government and the reality that the Australian people have to pay for those expectations, either for themselves or for others. In dealing with this Bill, I again draw attention to the public indebtedness, public debt interest and the fact that 60c of every dollar that we now borrow is required to pay interest on total borrowings. That shows that, like many people, a government can get itself into a moneylender situation, so that the more it borrows, the more it owes, the more it must pay in interest and the less it has as disposable income. I would not like to think that Australia, through any lack of restraint in public expenditure or ability to take the tough decisions that have to be taken by government on behalf of the Australian people, allowed itself to drift further into this public indebtedness which is so difficult to service and which is such a drain on the resources of the Australian people. In dealing with the Loan Bill, I simply indicate on behalf of the Opposition that we regard it as part of the Budget package of Bills. It is not opposed by us. We see it as a quite proper and usual way to allow borrowings to be undertaken in terms of what is a traditional practice at Budget time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.54) —The purpose of the Loan Bill 1984 is to finance the 1984-85 Budget deficit-a deficit to win popularity for a 1984 election. The Labor Government is indeed mortgaging the future of our nation. It is conceivable that if these sorts of policies are pursued in the future they have the capacity to bankrupt future generations. The real tragedy, however, lies not only in this scenario becoming a reality, but also in the fact that those who are in a position to prevent such an occurrence refuse to act while the opportunity still exists. We have to acknowledge that there are structural problems that must be faced when one drafts a Budget, even if one cannot fully overcome all the structural problems. But these structural deficit problems should never be allowed to assume a role of some form of bureaucratic sacred cow and so remain largely unchallenged. The simple fact is that no country can continue to live beyond its means. Everything that is bought must be paid for. Likewise, everything that is handed out must also be paid for. Interest now accounts for 64c of every dollar borrowed-a horrendous amount. If history has taught economists just one thing it is that despite economic theories countries can go bankrupt. Germany in 1930 was bankrupt. Mexico, Brazil and some other Latin American countries are approaching bankruptcy, as is Poland. As much as I would like to say that the position in Australia is far different, in all truth I cannot say that that is the case. The International Monetary Fund has pleaded for austerity programs to be implemented in nearly all Latin American nations, particularly in the Argentine. Instead, the President submitted a plan to increase wages 6 per cent to 8 per cent above the inflation rate, which is currently running at an almost incomprehensible 568 per cent. I think that there are valuable lessons for Australia in studying the burgeoning debt crisis. International indebtedness has reached such staggering proportions that people-and, still worse, governments-find it almost impossible to effect any coherent economic revival programs. But such programs must be implemented, because we in Australia cannot allow the situation to go unchecked any longer. We must put our house in order. Decisions-and they are not easy decisions by any means-have to be made because we cannot allow another year to go by. The decisions required will necessitate the re-educating of Australia because people must learn to expect less. They must come to a realisation that if leadership is not taken the almost artificially inflated standard of living that we enjoy in this country will come crashing down. The people of this nation deserve and expect leadership from the Government. That is the essence of democracy. A government must never abdicate its responsibility. President Kennedy once remarked that he was the President of the unborn as well as the living. This country needs a government with just such a vision of its role. But at a time when this country needs leadership, none is forthcoming from this Government. At a time when this country needs a freeing up of regulations and big government bureaucracy, it finds itself saddled with a big spending, high taxing, socialist government. This year Australia needed a Federal Treasurer who would bring down a responsible, future-saving Budget. This year Australia was let down for a second successive year. Australia is saddled with an inept government and a Prime Minister whose sole motivating factor is the retention of power and personal glorification. Australia is currently in debt to the tune of about $75.3 billion and it is estimated that in two years this could rise to as high as $105 billion. Senator Button —Is that the public or private sector? Senator WATSON —It includes authorities. The writing is on the wall for all to see, if we care to look. John Stone was one such man who cared enough for the future of his country to look and to tell the people of the future he saw. This country cannot paper over the enormous cracks in the economic edifice. Since March of last year the Government has added about $15 billion to the total debt by its own spending programs. In just 18 months a thousand dollars for every man , woman and child in Australia has been added by this Government to our debt. Just the interest on the public debt will cost each person $380 this year, or a staggering $875 for every person employed in this country. Every person who is employed is in effect in debt by $11,700, a situation which I think must border on the catastrophic. Fifteen years ago the total debt was $3.5 billion. Just this year alone, the Government intends to run an overdraft approaching twice that. There is no doubt the Government is guilty of abdicating its responsibility to rein in the deficit. It has produced a deficit this financial year estimated at $6.7 billion. In just two years this Government has achieved a record of economic mismanagement and suicide surpassing even the excesses of the Whitlam spending splurge. The average real growth of Federal government outlays has been 7 per cent under this Government compared with an average of just 2 per cent over the seven years when the Liberal Party was in government. In the last decade-and most of this has come in the last two years-Federal government spending has increased from 24.3 per cent of gross domestic product to 31.7 per cent. Total public sector outlays have risen to an almost unbelievable 42.3 per cent of GDP. It is easy to dismiss these figures as inappropriate, or to pretend they do not mean as much as they in fact do. That was the sort of attitude that John Stone found hard to accept, and in the end found quite intolerable. Burying one's head in the sand is not a solution. All it achieves is an ignorance of reality. Senator Button —He laid down his life for his country! Senator WATSON —The Minister is one of the members of Cabinet who are burying their heads in the sand. The pace of the economic recovery in the past two years has been encouraging, but no one believes that such a rate is sustainable over a period of years. This is where the Australian population may have been fooled. It must also be remembered that the recovery is the result of the Liberal Party' s wages pause, the breaking of the drought, and the short term success of ' Reaganomics' in the United States. It is as well to remember that despite the rhetoric and euphoria generated by the Government, economic activity has yet to surpass the levels of 1980-81, when the Liberals were in power. The accumulated debt will now have a negative effect on future economic growth, a fact that the Labor Party refuses to acknowledge. High deficits require high borrowings to finance them, which leads to higher interest rates. To the Commonwealth deficit must be added the new Budget borrowings and including a responsibility under the Loan Council for State and local government borrowing. Higher interest rates result from the inevitable clash of private and public sector borrowing demands. High interest rates-and currently our prime lending rate-act as a disincentive for investment in the private sector, again a factor which this Government refuses to acknowledge. The deficit will hold interest and exchange rates at levels higher than they would otherwise be, thereby damaging Australia's international competitiveness. These factors act to the detriment of our essential export industries. Australia's inflation rate is above that of the United States. This Government must be careful to avoid a crisis generated by the oversupply of liquidity in the market. The Government has abandoned any attempt to have a monetary target or to control the monetary base, which is easy to control. Any pretext of controlling the monetary base has had to be abandoned so that the Government can fulfil its social democratic ambitions. The Economics Editor of the Australian has said of this Labor Government-quite accurately I believe-that it is the most social democratic of Labor governments Australia has had. No doubt this Government has directed the bulk of its spending towards the social welfare system and those areas from which it believes its traditional supporters spring. But the priorities of this Government are very wrong indeed. Those who say that this is the best Liberal government Australia has ever had are very wide of the mark. A Liberal government would not attack the poor and aged as this Labor Government does and has done. A Liberal government would not ransack the middle and lower income earners, nor would it move to dismantle the family unit, the very basis of our society. Defence under a Liberal government would not be allowed to become as run down as this Government has permitted. What is this Government trying to do? At a time when it should be trying to rein in on the deficit, it is trying to spend its way out of a number of problems, just as the socialist Government under Mitterand in France attempted to do. But just as Mitterand had to reverse his policy, so will Bob Hawke and the Labor Government very shortly, if-and that is a big if-Labor wins this next election, because the tide is starting to turn. If the Labor Party wins this next election it will have to bring forward a mini-Budget or an austerity Budget in the next year. We hope that Australians have the good sense to see that this Labor Government, because of its folly, is defeated at the next Federal election . Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.06) —The Senate has before it the Loan Bill 1984. As other senators have indicated, this is an annual device which empowers the Government to raise by loans the money necessary to offset the deficit. The questions therefore are: What is the magnitude of the deficit? How does it compare with the past and what impact will it have upon the nation? The deficit is almost $7 billion, which compares, under the last Budget year of the Fraser Government of 1982-83, with a deficit of $4.4 billion. It also compares with the deficit of $7.9 billion in the first Budget year of the Hawke Government, 1983-84. In those three years the accumulated deficit has rapidly risen to almost $20 billion. We would have to move back some 10 to 12 years to get anything like the same aggregate. The interest bill has moved from $6.2 billion in 1982-83-which is paid by the taxpayers-to $7.6 billion in 1983-84, the first year of the Hawke Government, to an amount estimated in the second year of the Hawke Government to be $9.5 billion or $9.6 billion. This indicates that over those years there has been at least a 50 per cent increase. Let me express that in precise terms by relating it to the Budget papers. In 1981-82 the per capita debt charges-including the increase on the previous year- were $1.779 billion, an average of $118.4 per capita. In the following year, 1982-83-the last Budget year of the Fraser Government-the debt charges were $2. 134 billion or $139.7 per capita, being an increase of 19 per cent over the previous year. In 1983-84, the first Budget year of the Hawke Government, debt charges were $3.364 billion, being $217.8 per capita-a 57 per cent increase on the previous year. This year, 1984-85, the debt charges are $4.742 billion, being $302.9 per capita, a further increase of 41 per cent. So we had an increase of 57 per cent, compounded by an increase of 41 per cent, resulting in a 100 per cent increase in those two years. We have now achieved a phenomenon- that is, that the interest burden to be paid out of the Budget now represents 8. 8 per cent of total expenditures. That means that it represents more than is spent on education. Each year we are deprived of valuable expenditure of that order. Of course, one can say: 'What are you talking about? If you believe that we should reduce the deficit, what do you cut?' That is not the question. Indeed, there are no Ministers in the chamber at present. The question is: Is there sufficient money to produce a lower deficit? In the mini-Budget the Government brought down a series of measures which, on its own figures, were to save $2, 009m in 1984-85. There was some offsetting expenditure. The saving was of the order of $1,397m. That could rise to $1,516m next year. Here is a key to the whole situation. The Government has given an impression that it did not raid the taxpayer in its Budget last year or in this Budget. The truth is that the solid ground of tax grab and cutbacks was in the mini-Budget. I simply refer to how the Government abolished the income tax rebate on health insurance, reduced the $1,040 threshold for minors to $416, increased the block concessional rebate level to $2,000 and abolished the $1,000 dividend rebate. It is a mean and petty list. For retired people, it reinstituted the income test on pensions for those over 70 years of age and put a tax at the standard rate on lump sum payments. For home buyers, it terminated the home deposit assistance scheme, the housing interest income tax rebate and from 1 October terminated the housing interest rebate. The list goes on. In case it is felt that I am being selective in the figures from the document, I will seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. I understand that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has agreed to this. The figures are from the mini-Budget. I seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- EFFECTS OF HAWKE MINI-BUDGET Reductions 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $m $m $m 1. Taxpayers (General)- Abolish Income Tax Rebate-Health Insurance (1 July 1983) 95.00 550.00 575.00 Reduce Current $1040 Threshold of Minors to $416 (1 July 1983) . . 70.00 70.00 Increase Bloc Concessional Rebate Level from $1590 to $2000 (1 July 1983) 11. 00 70.00 75.00 Abolish the $1000 Dividend Rebate 75.00 181.00 105.00 795.00 115.00 835.00 2. Retired People- Reinstitute Income Test, Age and Service Pensions, 70 years and over 167.00 188.00 167.00 Tax at standard rate lump sum payments 15.00 182.00 70.00 258. 00 120.00 287.00 3. Home Buyers- Terminate Home Deposit Assistance Scheme (1 October 1983) 50.00 90.00 90.00 Terminate Housing Interest Income Tax Rebate Scheme (1 July 1983) 50.00 175.00 175.00 Terminate Housing Interest Rebate (1 October 1983) 30.00 130.00 155.00 420.00 190.00 455.00 4. Public Works and Employment- Reduction in proposed expenditure-Brisbane Airport 20.00 1.00 . . Suspend and defer Elements of Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan 8.00 1.50 . . Alice Springs-Darwin Railway: Northern Territory 40% share 20.00 29.80 45.50 Not proceed with Supplementary Water Resources Program 70.00 70.00 70.00 Terminate Special Youth Employment Training Scheme 35.40 153.40 89.90 191.20 96 .20 211.70 5. Telephones and Postage- Telecom and Australia Post-increase interest rate on capital 101.00 101.00 101 .00 101.00 101.00 101.00 6. Rural dwellers- Reduce freight equalisation-petroleum products 10.00 11.00 12.00 Alter primary producer averaging and IED interest rates 15.00 20.00 20.00 Extend depreciation of farm plant and equipment from 3 to 5 years 9.00 44.00 89.00 Wheat Board-remove subsidy re commercial borrowings 19.80 53.80 29.30 104.30 29 .30 150.30 7. Aviation fuel- Increase excise by 2 cents a litre on avgas and avtor 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 8. Industry- Reduce to no more than 5 cents difference in multi-brand pharmaceuticals 6.00 6.50 7.00 Terminate special depreciation allowance-petroleum storage (19 May 1983) . . 10.00 10.00 Terminate special tax concessions-conversion of oil- fired and LPG plant (19 May 1983) . . 15.00 . . Remove exemptions from interest withholding tax AIDC 12.00 18.00 26.00 57.50 33.00 50.00 9. Hospitals - Reduction in Commonwealth contribution to Reinsurance Trust Fund 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 10. Migrants- Income test living allowance Adult Migrants (Education) 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2. 97 2.97 11. Public Service- Reduce activities overseas posts-Department of Immigration 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 12. Repatriation- Pay certain pensions fortnightly in advance 43.00 43.00 +27.00 +27.00 +30.00 + 30.00 13. AUSSAT- Sell 49% equity in AUSSAT 24.30 24.30 11.00 11.00 1.50 1.50 Reduction in expenditure 984.74 2 009.24 2 159.74 Additional expenditure Home buyers and renters- Establish a First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme 80.00 165.00 190.00 Provide additional funds for Welfare Housing 127.00 207.00 (Budget) (Budget) Employment- Establish Community Employment Programme 300.00 447.00 453.00 Additional Manpower and Training Programmes 50.40 350.40 . . 447.00 . . 453.00 557.40 . . . . Summary of gains and losses- Taxpayers (General) -181.00 - 795.00 - 835.00 Retired people -182.00 - 258.00 - 287.00 Home buyers - 50.00 - 255.00 - 265.00 Welfare housing + 127.00 (Budget) (Budget) Public Works and employment +197.00 + 255.80 + 241.30 Telephone and postage -101.00 - 101.00 - 101.00 Rural dwellers - 53.80 - 104.30 - 150.30 Aviation fuel - 15.00 - 15.00 - 15.00 Industry - 18.00 - 57.50 - 50.00 Hospitals - 80.00 - 80.00 - 80.00 Migrants - 2 .97 - 2.97 - 2.97 Public Service - 0.27 - 0.27 - 0.27 Repatriation - 43.00 + 27.00 + 30.00 AUSSAT - 24.30 - 11.00 - 1.50 -427.34 *-1,397.24 *-1,516.74 * Does not include any additional welfare housing. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —What has happened is that the mini-Budget gave the Government a glorious opportunity. It gave it reduced expenditure of about $1.5 billion. That money could have been used for the reduction of the deficit. But in the Budget of last year it increased taxes. There was buoyant revenue from pay as you earn income tax. There was no indexation so the harvest was reaped. But the Government then put on a series of taxes and excises. The indexed excise gave the Government a more buoyant revenue. In spite of greatly increased revenue, the Government managed not to reduce the deficit by any significant amount. It cannot plead that it did not have the money. The table that is now incorporated in Hansard shows the basis of its revenue saving and its ability to handle this matter with at least $1.5 billion, probably $2 billion, of leeway or elbow room. Why are we concerned about this matter? The fact is that we now have a national debt and an interest burden. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle used the figure of 67 per cent as being the amount being used to service old debts. It is a burden which is carried on and on. We are now building a situation which comes dangerously close to the debt situation of developing countries which are in trouble. People frequently say: 'You should not worry about that'. In opposition , the Labor Party, in its economic statement just before the election, said: 'It is not the size of deficits that matter. It is the effect on interest rates that matters.' Incidentally, this economic document was a phenomenon: As soon as this Government came to power, it reversed its policy and used it to attack the Liberal Opposition. In the economic document it argued very fiercely that a large deficit was beneficial provided it did not push up interest rates. It said that the size of the deficit was irrelevant. I can produce that document and quote it to this place. I repeat: In opposition the Government argued furiously in its key economic statement for the election that large deficits were of no particular significance; large ones had great virtue if they stimulated the economy provided they did not impact on interest rates. I want to examine that because this Government is claiming virtue at the moment for the fact that interest rates in Australia have not gone up in recent times. Two things ought to be borne in mind. It is not the lack of pressure of deficit funding that is keeping interest rates relatively stable at the moment; it is the fact that private and commerce industry have withdrawn from the market. There is no competition. What is happening is extraordinary. The Government is taking pride in an interest rate level which is caused by an economy that is not only stagnant but also declining. As it goes on, it is hiding a most profound situation. The Government knows that the figures for investment in manufacturing and mining are disastrous. it knows that manufacturing industry is predicted to be down some 30-odd per cent this year. Manufacturing industry is the one industry that can create employment. What a proud picture it is. Some years ago manufacturing provided 28 per cent of employment in Australia; now it is 18 per cent and falling. Indeed, the real start of the fall was back in 1975 when there was massive inflation and a 25 per cent cut in tariff rates across the board which created disemployment of 110,000 people. The situation has never recovered . Manufacturing investment has fallen. Each day of each week there is an announcement from the manufacturing industry of some further closures. There is an indication from the mining industry that mining investment has fallen by about 30 per cent or 35 per cent. Statements in an Estimates Committee C Hansard of some months ago from the Department of Primary Industry show that revenue from all primary industry exports this year will be down by 24 per cent. I have asked the House repeatedly : If investment is down in manufacturing and mining and if the prospective yield in primary industry is down, where is this upturn that the Government talks about? At an Estimates Committee hearing only a few weeks ago my colleagues and I took the Department of Trade and the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) step by step through every commodity. There was no joy to be found in anything that was said. The beef market was in peril. If I recall the figures, whereas we were exporting 600,000 tonnes of meat in years gone by, we are now thinking about exporting 420,000 tonnes. There is the likelihood of an invasion by European Economic Community subsidised meat throughout our typical Pacific market. We took the representatives of the Department through coal, iron ore and all the basic commodities and nowhere, except for some little hope in the aluminium industry, did we get a glimmer of hope that anything would happen. The terrible danger is that the situation is being cloaked by four things at the moment: A drought; a wages freeze which created the only effective reduction in inflation other than the reduction caused by the fiddle of the consumer price index; a rise for the time being in buoyancy in America; and a huge investment of government funds by the Hawke Government which has given us a temporary Indian summer buoyancy. Some of those funds were put into housing, which makes it for the time being a buoyant industry. Only two industries in Australia today are temporarily buoyant. One is the Public Service and the other is the housing industry. The housing industry will not continue at its present level. It cannot because in the end it requires the support of commerce and industry to bolster it. If that does not happen the industry will be in considerable danger. So the prospect from all the estimates and from all the evidence the Government has put forward-not evidence the Opposition is advancing-is one of peril and danger for Australia for the future. If anyone believes on the facts before us that as the rest of the world comes out of the recession Australia will simply hang on to its coat tails and be dragged out he is fooling himself. Developing countries are moving ahead fast. New markets and old markets are being taken over. Under this Government's trade and marketing policies we have been left for dead. We have the classic socialist dilemma whereby the Government seeks to get itself out of recession by increasing public debt and by increasing the public sector. The grave danger in the classical interest rate situation is that for the moment pressure is off interest rates overseas. For the moment the American interest rate, which is the bell-wether of the world, is somewhat stable. I do not want to be a gloom monger. I was in America not many weeks ago. I was able to look around. In my judgment, after the Presidential election and for reasons that are obvious in terms of what is happening in America, particularly with regard to the debts of the developing world which that world cannot pay, interest rates will rise perceptibly and will have an impact on Australia. That will occur at a time when our debt burden is climbing and climbing and we will pay more and more. The simple fact is that it cannot go on. This innocent looking Bill which says that it needs our authority to raise the money to finance the deficit exposes a sick situation. Whereas the Fraser Government over its seven years in office kept its public sector down very strictly indeed-for example, the Commonwealth Public Service over a long period virtually stayed stagnant or rose by only several thousand-the number of employees in State public services and local government rose by 100,000 or more. The story of the Fraser Government is a story of trying to get pressure off the market so that enterprise and industry could move into it. It is no alibi to say now: 'I do not need to take pressure off the market because there is nobody in there'. That is the ugliest kind of defence I have ever heard. At all times we have to make sure that there is always room in the market for industry. If we were not such borrowers interest rates would fall for the time being. I say emphatically that we would be helping industry if we could retreat more from the market and let interest rates fall so that industry could come in. I have talked to quite a number of employers in the course of the last year or two and they have told me that the interest burden of their borrowings is a much heavier burden than wage increases. We tend to look at wages as forming the cost structure but so many industries are perilously poised because of the balance of their debt structure. As I have said, the Government has committed the classical socialist error. It has said: 'We will move into the market. We will take over the market. Do not worry because interest rates have not been affected. We will not tell you, of course, that they have not been affected because industry and commerce are receding and they do not have any kind of stimulus to get into that market'. The Hawke Government will not tell us that because it has gone into the market it has artificially propped up interest rates. If the Government were only partially in the market, interest rates would tend to fall. So the Government is holding up interest rates. The great illusion that the Hawke Government creates is that interest rates have fallen. If interest rates are 11 per cent at a time that inflation is 9 per cent and there is therefore only a real interest rate margin of a couple of per cent, things are vastly different when they remain in that stratum. Inflation- let us take the Hawke Government figures because that is what it has invited us to do-is now down to about 7 per cent. That means that over a period interest rates have risen very seriously in terms of the cost structure of industry and commerce. Therefore we have an ugly situation for Australia. Australia has a government that is not looking to do anything to promote growth or to promote employment in the private sector. At the moment it is bolstering things in the public sector and the building industry, knowing in its heart that this is temporary. Of course, it is relying on one policy to cure all. If it can only get the chance to run quickly to the electors and get re-elected quickly, the electors will not find out. That is it. It is simply another classical illustration that the purpose of running an election after 20 months instead of 36 months is to hide what is behind this Bill and what is behind the whole strategy or non-strategy of the Government. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.00) —The Senate is tonight debating the Loan Bill 1984. The explanatory memorandum to that Bill states: The purpose of the Bill is to enable the financing of the prospective 1984-85 Budget deficit-- That really is what this debate is all about. I want to argue that the unacceptably high deficit, in part financed by this Loan Bill, first places undue risk on economic recovery, secondly, is evidence that the Budget is failing to address a strategy that gives hope to the unemployed in this country, and, thirdly, shows the rhetoric on the part of the Government in relation to its science and technology policy as part of a long term economic strategy to be simply that-rhetoric. In other words, I want to argue that this Bill is part of a package which implements a Budget which fails to meet the objective of providing a long term economic strategy. We have heard a lot about structural changes in the economy, a broadening of the economic base, incentives for efficiency and so forth that would reverse Australia's slipping standard of living and give hope to the continuing unacceptably high level of unemployed. But not even the committed could argue that this Budget was a step in a long term strategy. Rather, it gives nominally increased benefits to a wide range of recipients as an election sop. It will be remembered as a Budget of lost opportunity to those really worried about the long term economic future of this country and all the desirable objectives that flow from a stronger economy. I turn now briefly to the deficit. This Government is clearly one of high deficits. This year we are looking at a sum of $6,745m. I will very briefly compare that with the deficits of the last Fraser Government. In its first two years the Hawke Government has left us with an average deficit of 3.8 per cent of gross domestic product. Seven years of Fraser Government provided an average of 2.3 per cent of GDP. If one looks at the Commonwealth sector deficit as a whole, which includes the non-Budget sector, one finds that under the Hawke Government the figure for last year was 4.8 per cent of gross domestic product. During the Fraser years the average was 2.6 per cent of GDP. It is a high deficit Government because it is a high spending Government. Commonwealth Budget outlays have increased on average by 6.9 per cent, compared to the 2 per cent average increase during the Fraser years. As a proportion of gross domestic product, Budget outlays under the Fraser Government averaged 28.4 per cent, whereas following the second Labor Budget, outlays now comprise 31.1 per cent of GDP. This means that the total public debt following this Budget is estimated at a massive $47 billion. What is particularly ominous is the public debt interest which is estimated to rise by 29.4 per cent this coming year. As a proportion of total outlays, public debt interest is estimated to be 8.8 per cent compared to 7.7 per cent in 1983-84. To put that briefly in perspective, the public debt interest bill for this year is $5.6 billion, only $200m less than the defence expenditure and $1.1 billion more than education expenditure. Beyond the present Budget, the forward estimate shows public debt interest payments of $6.2 billion in 1985-86, which is 9 per cent of total Budget outlays and $7 billion for 1986- 87, 9.2 per cent of total Budget outlays. These figures indicate the longer term difficulties which will be created by this Budget. The size of the deficit and the public sector borrowing requirements needed to finance the deficit will clearly lock Australia into a succession of high structural deficits for years to come. This can ultimately only have the effect of leading to increasing pressure on interest rates. As Des Keegan, economic commentator for the Australian, said on 22 August: The deficit adds to a time bomb ticking away. There could be a huge public sector debt requirement of $17,000 million to fund in 1984-85. It is nonsense to talk of declining interest rates with this swag of debt hanging over the market. The effect of this high deficit policy decision on Australia's recovery should not be underestimated. A warning can again be found in the Budget statements themselves. I quote from page 12: Such a recovery process in Australia would be taking place in a world where growth is expected to moderate, financial markets are precariously placed and competitive pressures are becoming increasingly fierce. Australia's domestic economic policies in the years ahead will have to take account of this uncertain and demanding world environment. In that context, the evident widening in the current account deficit of the balance of payments-from an already high base- must be taken into consideration. In other words, Treasury is advising of the danger associated with this high deficit, high debt decision in today's international climate. The Government, of course, has not heeded that advice because high expenditure is necessary for it to keep its electoral plans on track. But it is an unwise policy, not only in the vagaries of today's international economic climate, but also because of the considerable latent internal economic pressure. The Government's much vaunted accord has placed the economy under substantial pressure. Economic recovery has had to run the gauntlet of centralised wage fixing arrangements which, although resulting in wage rises more moderate than the year before, placed an additional wage bill on the private sector of the sum of $12 billion, irrespective of whether different sectors in the economy could pay. The Government has also been temporarily fortunate in that the Medicare fiddle in February of this year provided a negligible consumer price index increase for the March and the June quarters. But, although average weekly earnings are estimated to rise by 5.5 per cent this coming year, there could be a rapid upward adjustment if the accord fails. This in turn could well occur earlier than the Government expected, due to the changed taxation scales announced by the Government. It has been suggested, in fact, that under the new taxation scales close to one million taxpayers will move into a higher tax bracket by June 1985. If, for example, average weekly earnings increased by 7 per cent, as suggested in the Budget Papers, under the new tax scales an additional 500,000 taxpayers would find themselves moving into the 46 per cent tax bracket; 350,000 would move into the 48 per cent bracket; and 155,000 would move into the 60 per cent bracket. As outlined in the Australian Financial Review of 23 August, the marginal tax rate of a taxpayer earning over $17,000 at the start of 1984-85 who received standard wage increases during the year would jump from 30 per cent to 46 per cent by the end of the current year. The effect of such developments will be that workers asking for wage rises in future wage indexation hearings will seek increases higher than the CPI figure in order to compensate for higher tax losses by moving into higher tax brackets. Added to this, of course, will be the expected superannuation push by the building unions in 1985. That will be equal to a 3 per cent rise, which will no doubt inexorably flow through to other sectors. The effects of the Arbitration Commission's decision on redundancy, termination and technological change will add to business costs and further entrench unemployment and the likelihood that the more powerful unions will attempt to achieve part or all of the 9.1 per cent so-called catch-up from the Fraser Government's wage pause. These factors, together or in part, may have the effect of bringing the accord down. The perceived fragility of the accord will therefore play a significant role in determining the investment plans of business and the level of employment. Budget Statement No. 2 points out on page 32: But investment decisions and decisions regarding the hiring of permanent staff depend not only on the current levels of real wages and profitability but also on expectations about their future course. Sustained growth in investment and employment requires confidence that income moderation will continue and that reasonable profit rates will be maintained. Investment figures do not indicate that business has that confidence. Business investments in 1983-84 in fact fell by 11.6 per cent, and although there has been a moderate improvement since there is no indication that that is likely to continue. Manufacturing investment activity has declined in constant terms from the year 1981-82. In fact, the estimated figure for 1984-85 is still below that of 1979-80. As for employment, figures for the past financial year show that most of the growth of employment, and it is only very moderate growth at that, has taken place in public administration and defence, financial services, communications and community services. Of these employment growth areas, public administration and defence has grown by 8.2 per cent over the year, which is more than double the increase provided by any other sector. Thus the very moderate improvement in unemployment also does not reflect increased business confidence, it largely reflects the direct Government expenditure on short term employment schemes and also the increased fiscal stimulus to housing and limited short term stimuli of this nature. Everyone would concede that that cannot go on forever. The Government cannot forever continue borrowing to keep people in work . The shadow Treasurer has very validly pointed out the concern about revenue levels for the future. He pointed out that provisional tax under this Budget will rise by 44.7 per cent, and no one can seriously say that that will be maintained. If one looks at the increases for the two previous years, the 8.4 per cent in each year, one is likely to get a better guide for the future. That, in turn, can only mean that in the future there will be higher borrowings or higher taxes or both. Therefore, the cynical expediency evident in this Budget has been at a considerable cost to long term economic growth. The Government would have gone a long way in encouraging business confidence and investment if it had had the courage to wind back substantially the structural deficit. Even with the $1.3 billion tax cuts as the quid pro quo of the accord, the Government could have wound the deficit back to $6 billion or less if it had not undertaken its own spending spree. In fact, the economy at this stage is in need of no further additional stimulus, and the maximum deficit reduction would have gone a long way in reducing further pressures on interest rates and encouraging business investment. As the Australian Financial Review editorial noted on 22 August: Where the Government has successfully so far misled the greater part of the business community is the way it has sold its Budget deficit of just under $7 billion as a triumph of responsibility and good management and the best that could be achieved in the circumstances. This is simply not the case. What is particularly disappointing is that despite this huge deficit and the Government's free-wheeling spending policies, the Government has failed to recognise the importance of science and technology to the future economic strength of Australia. I remind the Senate what was said at the Williamsburg Summit last year. I quote: Science and technology are a source of national and international strength and can provide immense opportunities for revitalisation and growth of the world economy. And there is a recognition of this in the Budget Papers which say: Building an ongoing recovery will require an expansion of Australia's productive capacity. Many people in this country were looking to the Budget as an opportunity for the Government to put its rhetoric in relation to science and technology into action . The Government had long professed to see the strong scope for growth inherent in this economic sector. But that rhetoric does not sit well with a 1.6 per cent increase in real terms in the science and technology budget. Australia's continued leadership in research activities had been put in jeopardy by the Government's lack of commitment to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which suffered a decline in its capital funding budget. As Professor Arthur Birch, President of the Australian Institute of Science, said a few days after the Budget: Australia faces the possibility of becoming a third world nation in its scientific efforts. How does this Budget outcome reflect on the Government's professed aims as outlined in its national technology strategy? I remind the Senate of the preface to the discussion draft, National Technology Strategy, in which the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) said: The Government recognised that science and technology clearly has a central role to play in Australia's economy by revitalising existing industries and encouraging growth of new ones. Moreover, how does this Budget outcome sit with the fact that on the Government' s own figures Australia has been performing poorly in the high technology export race? The Government's science and technology statement for 1983-84 shows that out of the 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, only Iceland, Greece and Turkey are exporting less technology-based goods per head of population. In responding to these depressing figures, the Minister for Science and Technology said: We must overcome the essential fragility of our industrial infrastructure and build our own export market based on high-value advanced technology goods. The Minister was reported as indicating his belief that within 18 months there could be an upward swing and a rise in Australia's ranking compared with the other 20 OECD countries. Added to this, the science and technology statement also showed that Australian spending on research and development had fallen as a proportion of gross domestic product to only 1 per cent. In 1968 the figure was 1.34 per cent. For those of us who see Australia's efforts in science and technology as critical to Australia's economic future in an ever more technically sophisticated world, the Government's performance, particularly remembering its rhetoric, is lamentable. Again it evidences the lack of a long term strategy. This Government is clearly more concerned with the short term political gain attached to spending increases in other areas. The Minister's reported explanation for the meagre funding increases for science and technology that there were 'not votes in science' is a staggering indictment of a government which professes to have policies which are correct for Australia's long term economic future. Basically this Budget represents a victory of electoral expediency over any long term economic strategy. Great uncertainty still remains as to the viability of our long term economic recovery , yet these uncertainties have not been addressed in any serious manner. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has attempted to present the Budget with a veneer of responsibility. Australia would have been better served by a government which showed greater courage and foresight. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(8.22) —It is appropriate when speaking to the Loan Bill 1984 to point out that 8.8 per cent of this year's total Budget has been allocated for interest repayments compared with only 7.1 per cent for education. Perhaps that says a great deal about the state of the economy and our attitude towards education in particular. We are faced with the situation that the deficit over the last two years is $15,000m compared with $17 ,000m over the previous seven years. I think it is relevant to look at the Budget allocation of $460m for the Department of Territories and Local Government. As far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned the Budget is a national budget, a State budget and a local government budget. All three are relevant. I would not want the Senate to think that I am suggesting that more than $460m should be spent in the Australian Capital Territory through the Department of Territories and Local Government. However, I suggest that it could be spent differently and with better effect. We should first look at the way in which this Budget allocation is made up. We are told by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) that the amount of money allocated to the Territory has increased by 41.5 per cent on the allocation last year. It would appear at a glance that a fairly substantial sum of money is being spent. The total amount that is being spent on Canberra may even be used against the people of the Territory. But, of that sum, $111.8m is allocated to the Parliament House Construction Authority for the construction of the new Parliament House. In addition, $60m has been allocated for land servicing, and that is certainly a very important item. But let me remind honourable senators that over the last three months the sale of land in the Territory has raised $35m, every cent of which has gone back into Consolidated Revenue. So the $60m allocated this year can in no way properly be regarded as money given to the Territory. However, it appears that way from the Budget figures and I believe that is misleading. The Commonwealth will get back a great deal more than that from the sale of land which is serviced and the money will go into Consolidated Revenue. Again, this item is not properly listed as money spent on the Territory. Of the remaining $288m, $199m is allocated to the National Capital Development Commission. However, when one looks closely at that figure one finds that in fact only $31.5m is to be used for new works this financial year. A sum of $6m has been allocated for Commonwealth offices and $16m to national works. It is necessary to sort out all of these figures in order to get some idea of the amount of money which is actually spent here for the benefit of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. We need to do this so that the figures are not distorted and used by other against us, especially at a time when the Territory is proceeding towards self-government. As I said, I believe the money allocated through the Department of Territories and Local Government could be spent with better effect and I am not suggesting that the Department be given more money. The Budget Papers tabled on Budget night indicated that 1,800 jobs would be created this year through the capital works program. However, given that last year the minister said that 1,600 jobs would be created through the capital works program, I would suggest that with an increased Budget allocation of 41.5 per cent this year we could have expected more than only 200 extra jobs. This indicates that the program in fact is capital intensive and not job intensive. I wish to say more about jobs. Certainly the unemployment rate in the Capital Territory has dropped to 4.1 per cent and that is highly desirable and commendable. But amongst the unemployed in Canberra are a lot of young people, many of whom have never had jobs and have been unemployed for a long time. It is said that the number is 2,000; it may in fact be more than that. If we are not careful that number will continue to grow each year. These people can look forward to a very depressing situation-no real jobs, no real careers and no real prospects in the community in which many of them have been born and educated and have grown up. I am not thinking just of the 2,000 young people who are presently unemployed. I am also thinking of young people who will be leaving school and wanting careers in the future. There is no doubt that the Public Service will continue to be the major employer in this Territory. About two-thirds of the Territory's work force are employed in the public sector now. Excellent jobs and a wide variety of opportunities exist within the Public Service. There is no doubt that most people in Canberra will continue to seek jobs in the Public Service from which they will derive a great deal of satisfaction. But it is not sufficient merely to look to the Public Service. It is necessary to broaden the base of our economy. We need a broader division between the public and private sectors. We need to be able to offer more choice, more diversity and more opportunity. I regret that this Budget has not done more in this area. I believe that some of the moneys allocated in the Budget could have been better spent in creating an environment in which real jobs and real opportunities could emerge. The Budget Papers indicate that the allocation to the incentives to industry program is down 24 per cent on the allocation last year. The program is to provide a mere $570,000 for jobs. I want to remind the Senate of the work that was done by the Canberra Development Board last year. The Board, which has been using moneys allocated to it to attract industry and business to Canberra, has been successful in attracting a couple of large computer companies without the payment of any incentive whatever. In the last two years $1.4m involving 17 companies has been committed under the scheme. That is a very real indication that given the money to spend on the incentives program the Canberra Development Board is able to attract business to Canberra. The Board does not hand out the money it receives in the form of wages. It makes money available to companies for use as capital for infrastructure according to the number of jobs which will be generated by the incentives program. The Board last financial year was able to create one job for every $6,750 it spent. As I said, this money was not used to pay wages. The money allocated to the community employment program is said to be up 52 per cent this year. The Budget Papers indicate that the total amount to be spent in the Australian Capital Territory is nearly $7.5m, of which $1.7m will be spent through the Department of Territories and Local Government. Certainly, not every person who gets a job through the community employment program would find employment through the incentives to industry program. But I seriously suggest that if more money were spent through the incentives program a much greater number of people would be provided with real jobs, real prospects and real futures. As a consequence, other jobs would flow from that. The community employment program's record shows that its jobs last for an average of 45 weeks and cost $11,600, most of which is wages, and once that is paid out after 45 weeks, that is the end of the job. Some of the people employed in the community employment program do acquire skills which enable them to obtain employment and I am not for a minute suggesting that the program should not take care of the type of jobs and training it can provide. But it seems to me to be an incredible imbalance that the allocation to the incentives to industry program is down 24 per cent but funds for the community employment program are up 52 per cent when, with a more equal distribution between the two, we could create a situation in which many of the present long term young unemployed would have better prospects and those who will be leaving school and looking for careers in Canberra would also have much better prospects. The other significant area for job opportunities in the Australian Capital Territory is tourism. There can be no doubt about the jobs that flow from that area. It is pointless my taking up a great deal of time this evening dealing with the history of other places but in 1983-84 New South Wales increased its budget for tourism by 95 per cent. The Northern Territory's budget allocated $ 13m for the promotion of tourism but Canberra had a rise of only 3.8 per cent. That does not even keep pace with last year. There was no increase in the amount for the promotion of tourism. The Australian Tourist Commission has received more money and it is clear that the Federal Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has a very high regard for the benefits of tourism, and consequently its promotion, but somehow the Government does not seem to appreciate the benefits which would flow to the Australian Capital Territory from an increase in the amount available for promotion. There is no doubt that the promotion of tourism pays off. For some time we have been hoping that the position of Tourist Commissioner would be upgraded. In a sense it has been but it is within the Department of Territories and Local Government and I very much regret that that there has not been a decision to create a separate tourist commission because I believe it would be more effective. The private sector in Canberra is very active in tourism and does a great deal to help itself. A scheme involving the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau was established three years ago whereby government and the private sector contributed on a dollar for dollar basis. Three years ago the maximum government contribution was set at $30,000. It remained at $30,000 last year and I regret to say that this year it is still $30,000. In fact, the Bureau has spent considerably more than the $30,000 it is required to spend to match this Government sum. That goes to show the contribution the private sector makes towards helping itself. It does benefit the whole community and creates opportunities for young people which would not otherwise be available. There is spending on welfare programs for the homeless and unemployed youth. Certainly while we have those groups in our community we must have welfare programs that attend to their present needs but, as I have said, I regret that there are no real prospects of a long term solution for them. It seems to me that at present the attitude is that they should be provided with something like a creche or a kindergarten to care for them while they are homeless and unemployed. It is a pity that we are not really addressing ourselves to their long term needs. Certainly help is needed at present, but let us aim for a better balance. Recently-I shall not go over all the details tonight as I have mentioned this matter before-Canberra had a crisis concerning Commissioner for Housing loans. That has had a devastating effect on the community. The Minister for Territories and Local Government regrets that when Labor went out of office in 1975 there was an 18 per cent rate of government ownership of houses but that in 1983 it dropped to 13 per cent. He aims to build up Government ownership of houses. This year $29m has been devoted to this purpose. Vast sums of capital are tied up in the ownership of government houses. Certainly some are needed but surely it would be better to use the money to encourage private ownership and to assist with rents for those who need assistance for a time, and so spread the money further. It is another case of how I believe money available in the Budget could be distributed differently. The allocation for Commissioner for Housing loans, plus an extra $6m for this financial year, has already been used up. People have been left in a very different situation as a consequence. I believe that part of the problem was that the Minister became over-enthusiastic in encouraging people to register for this scheme. I think the money allocated provides about 500 mortgages and it is said that about 2,000 people who would like to participate in the scheme have registered. It will be particularly difficult for the number of people who rely on a Commissioner for Housing loan to enter into property settlements in the Family Court which would enable them to continue to provide a home for themselves and their children. Commissioner for Housing loans have enabled women or men to borrow money to pay out any existing mortgage and to pay out the other spouse so as to continue to provide a home for the children. I do not know where the money will come from now this source has dried up and I can see a great deal of hardship arising this year. It is unfortunate because a woman who is required to sell her home to settle the property will find herself, in time, on the emergency housing list. The whole cost of providing a house is probably $60,000 or more whereas with a mortgage of perhaps $24,000 or $30,000, which is a great deal less, she may be able to stay in the home that she has. I suggest that the allocation of $460m to the Territory be re-examined to see whether better use can be made of it in that area. This recent problem with the Commissioner for Housing loans has been a most unfortunate fiasco. Many people have been hurt emotionally and I fear that many more will be hurt financially. I repeat my theme: We need real solutions, real hope, real encouragement and better use of resources. One area which was expecting to do better in the Budget than it did is Tuggeranong. Certainly a large proportion of the money allocated for land servicing and roads is to be spent in that area. Land servicing and roads bring more people into an area but do not necessarily provide services. Two thousand blocks were serviced in the Tuggeranong area last year and 3,000 are to be serviced there this year, a total of about 5,000, which will bring into that area approximately 20,000 people. There will be roads and certainly some more facilities but shopping facilities are missing most of all. Mr Deputy President, I wonder, whether you have tried to buy petrol in the Tuggeranong area. There are two service stations in the northern end of the Kambah-Wanniassa area but none in Tuggeranong. The Chisholm shopping centre should have been under way well before now but the money for servicing the area where the shopping centre is to be was not made available in the Budget. It is perfectly clear that the land needs to be given to the private sector to develop so that it can go ahead with the shopping centre, service station and facilities that are so badly needed in the area. Money has been allocated in the Budget for ambulance and fire brigade accommodation in that area. I wonder whether that can go ahead without the land being serviced, and when will that servicing occur if it is not given to the private sector to do? Much of the $60m allocated for land servicing could be used for Commissioner for Housing loans and in some of the other areas I have mentioned if the private sector were encouraged to do more. The Minister has become involved with private sector land servicing development in the last 12 to 18 months. I have congratulated him in this place on doing so, but I urge him to do more of that and to use the money thus saved to develop other areas that are needed. Senator Peter Baume —Did the other Australian Capital Territory senator support you on this? Senator REID —I expect that my colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), the other Australian Capital Territory senator, would also support development, especially in the Tuggeranong area. The other promise was that the Tuggeranong town centre would be in operation and that money would be available for that development. No money for that development was provided in this Budget. There has been controversy in the community as to whether it is appropriate for the town centre shopping area to be developed now or later. There is no doubt about the need for the Chisholm centre. It was a promise of the Minister that the Tuggeranong centre would be developed and, to the great surprise and amazement of the people in Tuggeranong, it has not occurred. If the Tuggeranong centre is necessary the Government should put that area out to development by the private sector and not stick rigidly to the concept of it being developed by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, because it is quite clear that the money is not available for that purpose. Mr Deputy President, you may recall that I have spoken previously about the international standard sports facilities funds that we did not receive as a result of the activities, or the lack of activity, of the Minister, which funds would have generated $2m, having been first allocated in 1981 for the development of international standard sports facilities in Canberra. I shall not repeat the sorry story tonight. The fact is that five sporting groups were recommended for funding by a committee of the House of Assembly set up by the Minister for that purpose, but somehow it took so long to advise the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism what was to happen to the money that it was lost to the Australian Capital Territory. More money is allocated in this Budget for international standard sports facility development. I hope that we will receive not only our share of that money but also the balance of the amount of which we were deprived previously. There is a certain amount of urgency involved for at least one of those sporting bodies; that is, the water skiers. The world championships are to be held here on the Molonglo River in January 1985. That important event will bring many people to Canberra. If one tries to water ski in that area one will find out just how primitive the facilities are. It is a beautiful stretch of water and it is very suitable for water skiing, but there are no proper and good facilities for getting boats into the water; there is no secure ramp for jumping; there is no electricity; and there are no toilets. Whenever an event is held there temporary power and transportable toilets have to be provided. For $200,000-not a huge sum-which could have come from those funds that facility could be developed in a way which would enable a world championship event to be held in much better surroundings. I ask the Minister to give his attention to this matter urgently to see that these five groups, none of which is located at the Australian Institute of Sport, are at least given an opportunity to develop their facilities and to bid for international standard events in Canberra. It is an important part of the tourist industry that we be able to attract these events and the people who come with them to Canberra. I suggest that this matter requires early attention. The Minister was congratulated in the Canberra Times recently for what was called a coup in his agreement with the New South Wales and Victorian governments over the arrangements for the refund from those States to the Territory of profits from the sale of lottery tickets here. I was pleased to see the result of his negotiations. They took a long time. The Minister who preceded him had attempted to reach a similar conclusion. I understand that the present Minister has entered into a treaty with the New South Wales and Victorian governments. I would like him to make a copy of that treaty available so that people can know exactly what has been negotiated. There is some confusion in the community as to what concessions have been made, as to which lottery tickets cannot be sold here as a consequence of this agreement and the right to sell tickets at the same rate. Whether the agreement will have any effect on sporting groups and others running lotteries is not known. The way to clear up this confusion is to make the treaty available so that everybody can see exactly what has occurred and know what the consequence will be for the future. I cannot speak on the Budget without referring to the development of Civic and the acute parking problem which exists there. The private sector could develop parking facilities in Civic, but not unless it knows that the Commonwealth will not compete with it next door, as it were. If there is to be private sector development of parking it needs to be planned in a way which makes it secure. If that is not to be the case, something needs to be done. It was widely expected, with good reason, that the question of parking in Civic would be addressed in this Budget. If the Commonwealth is not prepared to come to an arrangement which makes it attractive to the private sector, I suggest that it reorder its $460m so as to make funds available to address the problem of parking in Civic. Perhaps a better bus service would be a part of that. I appreciate that this is a chicken and egg situation, but something needs to be done so that the traders in Civic are not more disadvantaged than they are at present. We should not have to miss out both ways. If the Commonwealth is not able to provide parking facilities it ought to be able to come to a commitment which will enable the problem to be redressed. Education is another area that has caused some concern because of the amount that has been allocated. Funds have not been allocated in addition to those allocated last year, which funds one would expect with new schools being opened. There is concern in the community about the McKellar primary school not going ahead. The reason for that school was the acute difficulty for young children crossing busy roads from their homes to get to the other available schools. I hope that something will be done to see that that does not become a problem to young children. I hope that something will be done to redress the problems of the other new schools, money for which was allocated last year. How are we going to staff the new schools with teachers and ancillary staff by merely spreading the present allocation more thinly? It is a matter to be addressed. (Quorum formed) Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.48) —The item under discussion in relation to the Loan Bill before us tonight, the Budget brought down recently by the Government, has to be characterised in one word-'expediency'. There is absolutely no doubt that the Government has proposed such a document with one view in mind; that is, it is simply looking to an election in a few weeks time and consequently wants to comfort as many people in the community as possible so that it can achieve what it hopes will be a favourable result in the election. There are three elements in the Budget which quite clearly demonstrate how expedient this Government has been in the drawing of the document, and all of them touch upon this Bill. The first point, of course, is the very large deficit of $6.7 billion which is set out in the document. The second point is that this is the biggest spending Budget that any government has ever introduced. The third point is that this is the biggest taxing Budget that has been introduced by any government at any time in the history of the Federation. When we examine the position a little more closely and put some figures into perspective, we can see exactly what it is that the Government has achieved. First, the estimated 10.5 per cent increase in real terms in the revenue in this Budget represents 28 per cent of the gross domestic product and that, of course, is the biggest in Australia's history. I exclude the revenues raised by State governments. The second point is that personal income tax receipts will rise by 23 per cent in this Budget-again, the highest collection since the demise of the Whitlam Government in 1975. This means that personal income tax now represents 53.1 per cent of total receipts, despite the so-called tax cuts of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, which give back only a small amount of that which was taken away last year. That is quite easily demonstrated by the fact that the highest cut in income tax which some people will obtain is $7.60 a week. Yet when we consider that the 1983-84 Budget contained the loss of the Medicare tax rebate, the loss of the housing interest tax rebate, the loss of the general concessional rebate and, of course, also the imposition of the indexed excise taxes on petrol and ordinary goods in common use, there was an increase in total taxation for the average weekly earner of about $17 to $20 a week. This paltry handing back of an amount of $7.60 leaves the average family in deficit to the tune of $10 to $12 a week. That is what this Government has done and it is as a direct result of its big spending, big deficit and big taxing policies. The deficit is the area which is perhaps of the greatest concern to all because we now see that it is costing very significant amounts in the Budget by way of interest repayments. We note in the Budget that the estimated increase in public debt interest this year will be 29.2 per cent and will rise to an amount of $5.6 billion in 1984-85. That represents a far bigger expenditure in dollar terms than the amounts the Government is spending on education and many other areas of high priority. So there has been very little attempt on the part of the Government to cut back its deficit. Prior to the Budget, of course, it had very significant and strong representations from business and the industrial sector seeking a far more substantial reduction in the Budget deficit than the one that has been put forward. One might speculate that the former Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Stone, who has now resigned, may well have advocated a greater reduction in the Budget deficit than the one which the Government has sought to implement. Some commentators have said how clever it was of the Treasurer, Mr Keating, to have been capable of cutting back the Budget deficit-the predetermined figure a little earlier was $5 billion-to about $6.7 billion; in other words, new spending programs, new tax cuts and so on were part and parcel of this deficit. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that while agreeing with any attempt to reduce expenditure, deficits and taxation, the reasons this Government saw its first priority as cutting income tax were chiefly political, with the object of currying favour with the electorate prior to the election which is expected in December. There can be no other interpretation. It has, of course, sought to ameliorate some areas of social security concern. There have been one or two innovative programs, such as the home care program which is about to be introduced which, of course, we all applaud. But in the main the assistance given to social security beneficiaries has been relatively small. The $2.50 increase that is available to single pensioners is less than the amount of the income tax cut that will go to those wage earners and taxpayers earning more than $700 a week. I wonder how the pensioner community will feel when it realises that point. The Government, of course, will seek to justify its tax cuts in terms of the maintenance of the prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement. That accord is rapidly falling into disrepute and disrepair, particularly in the trade union movement's eyes and also in the wider community. We see that the Government is aiding and abetting the circumvention of the accord by encouraging action to be taken by unions to get superannuation benefits for employees which are not, in the real sense of the word, superannuation schemes; they are merely deferred wage programs or schemes to which individual employers are required to contribute involuntarily for the benefit of employees, with no contribution on the part of employees. In other words, they are merely devices to get around the accord and to deliver some kind of money benefit to employees and in that way to maintain the fiction of an apparent maintenance of the accord. For that reason we cannot endorse the pressure that is coming from the community for that kind of superannuation scheme which, of course, is a total misnomer. That kind of superannuation scheme, as I say, aided and abetted by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), is not a superannuation scheme. It should not be called such. It is simply a means by which deferred wages can be obtained by employees getting around the legal requirements, if that is the right phrase, of the accord. Let us look at the state of the economy in 1984-85. The Government has predicted quite substantial growth rates in this financial year and also quite substantial reductions in the rate of inflation. It attributes the drop in the rate of inflation to its good management and the introduction of Medicare in the last financial year. Of course, underlying the economy is the enormous growth in public spending. I examined the figures over the last 10 years or so. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, ably spelled out those figures during his speech with regard to the Budget last week. I will cite those figures again so that they are on the record, and we can see what has occurred over recent years. Let us compare the three Budgets of the Whitlam Government in real terms-that is , in constant dollar terms-compared with today. We see that the average growth rate in expenditures by the Whitlam Government in those three Budgets in real terms was 10 per cent. If we compare that with the expenditures by the Fraser Government in the next 7 years in real terms we see that the average growth rate was 2.2 per cent-only a fraction of the growth rate of the previous Whitlam Government. What is it under the last two Budgets of this Hawke Government? The rate has risen to 6.9 per cent per annum. So there we have it, a clear example of the way in which this Hawke Labor Government is approaching the management of the economy. During the Whitlam period we saw a growth rate of 10 per cent, under the Fraser Government we saw a substantial fall to 2.2 per cent and subsequently, under the Hawke Government, an increase to 6.9 per cent. This means that the fires of inflation are being fuelled again by this Government. We know that the growth rate which it is predicting is being generated by this prodigious rate of Government expenditure. It is being camouflaged in all ways but obviously it is directed towards a short term fix, if you like, of the economy to get it right for the forthcoming political events, chiefly characterised by the election in a few weeks. Let us compare a few other figures which Senator Chaney provided us with last week in this regard. If we compare personal income tax in real terms we see that under the Whitlam Government there was an increase on average of 11.7 per cent per annum. Under seven Budgets of the Fraser Government there was an average increase of 3.7 per cent, a very substantial drop. But under the Hawke Labor Government the figure is double the Fraser Government figure; it is now up to 7. 6 per cent. Right across the board we have seen this trend. This Hawke Labor Government is rapidly becoming a mirror image of the former Labor Government in the last decade, the Whitlam Labor Government. The principles which this Government espouses-that is, small governments and a reduction of taxation-are merely a mirage when one examines the figures. We see that there is a substantial move towards the implementation of similar programs, perhaps lacking in the vision of the former Whitlam Government but obviously directed and driven by the same kinds of initiatives as were intended in those days. They proved to be disastrous in terms of employment and inflation in the years 1974 and 1975 and subsequently led to the demise of the Whitlam Government. The deficit, as it stands today at some $6,700m, with accumulated public debt- not only of the Federal Government but also of its statutory authorities and the various bodies which are connected with it-which now stands at some $88,000m, is overwhelming. As I said earlier, that has caused an increase of some 29.2 per cent in the cost of public debt interest. But that figure of some $88,000m, which represents an increase of some $15 billion in the last couple of years, can be equated in more realistic terms in the following way: It can be seen as being representative of $6,000 per person added to the debt of the nation, or $ 14,000 per working person, or in the case of each household, $18,750 as a result of these big spending and big deficit policies. Those figures are significant in terms of where this economy is eventually going. It is clear that if such deficits run for a long period they will lead to substantial increases in interest rates. That has been observed over a long period, and the Government knows it. This is another reason why it is rushing to an election at this early time. It knows that real interest rates today are higher than they have ever been. They are approaching nearly 10 per cent, if one can rely on the inflation figures of the Government included in the Budget. If that is so it means there is a colossal disincentive for people to borrow and put their money into new projects. This justifies our general feeling that there is a lack of private investment in the community. Of course it is that private investment which is going to be the source of increasing numbers of jobs and consequently the long term solution to our unemployment problems in this country . The Bill that we are discussing tonight is very much related to the longer term problems of this community. Chiefly, those policies revolve around unemployment and the way in which we can find work so that our young people and the perhaps forgotten group today, the middle aged unemployed, can lead useful lives. I turn to the area of social security and address myself to the commonly held view that there is an insurmountable projected buildup in the cost of looking after the aged. In the last few days we have discussed social security legislation as a result of the Budget. In my remarks in the debate I made the point that the Gruen assets test review panel, which was the group set up by the Hawke Labor Government to advise it on the form of the assets test which it would introduce on pensions, advised the Government that the likely growth in the aged up to about the year 2011 was not likely to exceed growth rates in the economy generally. This means that it is not likely that we will have to be subject to a whole new range of taxes in order to afford care for the aged in the community. In other words, with normal growth rates-even those which we have been experiencing over the last 10 years-we should not be put to such a disadvantage. So very largely the Government has been led by the nose down the wrong track in considering this problem. It simply has not got its thinking right. We have seen piecemeal and ad hoc measures introduced-such as the incomes test on the over-70 -year-old pensioners, the assets test and the lump sum superannuation tax-one contradicting the other and others being inconsistent. All of them were put down in this place without any explanation from the Government as to its real objectives. In fact it got itself into an unholy political mess both within its own Party and the community generally as a result of not having thought through the basic issues from the start. In fact, Mr Acting Deputy President, you will recall that the Opposition, in conjunction with the Australian Democrats, successfully moved in this place last September to refer to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare the whole area of retirement income. When that Committee's report is tabled-I understand that is not too far away-its recommendations will be vital to getting together the views of Australians on a bipartisan and, hopefully, community basis so that we can better understand the issues and the philosophy which drive the thinking behind the community's desires for security in retirement. It will be most important to resolve those issues ahead of any action which any government might take in terms of developing an alternative retirement income strategy. I think that can never be emphasised too much. What is needed in this community is bipartisan and community understanding of the issues involved. There is far too much misunderstanding about the nature of retirement income systems in this country and about the nature of the private sector and how those benefits are obtained and distributed. There is far too little understanding about the way in which the present income security system is distorted by anomalies, by the way in which impediments are created to people to build up their assets during their working lives and the way in which it destroys incentive for people to save for their future. Related very closely to this issue is the issue of taxation. One cannot really in any way separate taxation from social security when we come to look at the two most important and interrelated matters. Those things taken together hopefully will be the issues which will be resolved in the forthcoming report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. That is why I stress that that will be a most vital document in terms of this country's understanding of the issues, and for the future development of longer term policies. That approach on the part of the Opposition sets us quite apart from the Government which, of course, has rushed into decisions in this area without thinking them through, compounding error with further error. We do not have to reiterate those things. They have been made clear in the public mind over the past 12 months or so. The fundamental point to which we should have regard if we are to look at the future costs of social security, particularly retirement income security, is how in this country we can best transfer the burden so that individuals, instead of drawing social security benefits, can better develop their own assets and their own wealth and consequently become reliant upon that in their retirement. Those things are at the core of our basic thinking for the future. We have to remind ourselves that we are not talking about next year or 10 years' time. We are talking about the period well beyond 20 years from now- well into the third, fourth and fifth decade of the next century. For that reason we must get our basic thinking right as to how we can develop those alternative systems and encourage people to look after themselves. I reiterate the message which comes through from the experience of looking after the aged in the twentieth century. People who are now reaching retirement or are retired-those in their sixties or seventies-grew up through the Great Depression. They were not able to obtain coverage under occupational superannuation schemes in the way in which people who are entering employment now are covered; they possibly did not have the same opportunities as exist today, with government assistance, to get their own homes. There are so many ways in which people in the last 50 years or so have been deprived of the opportunity to build up their assets. If we look ahead to the next 40 or 50 years we see how different that pattern will be for people currently entering employment or who are in employment. They have the likelihood of far more generous superannuation schemes provided by employers. Also, a far greater proportion of the work force will be covered. Up to 50 per cent of the work force is now covered compared with only about 25 per cent a little over 10 years ago. The growth rate in this area is nothing short of phenomenal. We on this side of the chamber will encourage that trend. Furthermore, there is a need to encourage more and more home ownership in this country. Home ownership is the core of our income security system. It provides people with a store of capital which can be borrowed against but which, of course, also has its basic functional role of making sure that people have some shelter and are therefore in that sense independent. Those things are the core features of a proper consideration of long term policy. If this Government were really serious about attacking what it perceives to be the long term cost problems or the long term care problems of looking after the aged into the twenty-first century, it would be thinking how it could best develop security policies, industry policies and employment policies aimed in that direction. Instead, it takes the short way out by trying to attack those who are currently in the work force, currently in retirement or currently dependent upon social security. It is stripping benefits from those groups now in order to prevent some kind of mythical future problem. It is that short term thinking which is at the core of this Government's error in this area. Of course , it will not be acknowledged here or at any other time but I hope that the Government pays serious attention to the final report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare into retirement income systems, when it becomes available. I hope that will not be too long. It will become the core reference document for examination of these issues which will be so important for the determination of proper policies in the twenty-first century. (Quorum formed) Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.18) —I do not propose to delay the passage of this Bill any longer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with paragraph (10) of the resolution of the Senate of 6 September 1984 establishing the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, the Hon. Francis Xavier Connor, QC, and the Hon. John Leonard Clifton Wickham, QC, be appointed the Commissioners Assisting the Committee. The Hon. John Wickham, QC, aged 65, recently retired from the Supreme Court of Western Australia, having been a judge since 1969, the senior puisne judge since 1981, and a legal practitioner since 1942. He was admitted to the independent Bar in 1962. He was the Foundation Chancellor of Murdoch University from 1974 to 1980. The Hon. Xavier Connor, QC, is aged 66. He was a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court from 1972 to 1982 and a judge of the Federal Court from 1978 to 1982. He headed the Board of Inquiry into Casinos in Victoria in 1982. He is currently President of the Courts-Martial Appeals Tribunal and Chairman of the Committee of Review of the Special Broadcasting Service. They are both distinguished men who have served their community well. I am sure that they will serve the Committee and the Parliament equally well in the very delicate and difficult task that lies ahead of them and the Committee. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.22) —The Opposition welcomes the fact that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has moved to appoint two distinguished retired judges as Commissioners Assisting the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. This is the first sign that the Government has accepted that sensible resolution of this difficult issue requires co-operation by all parties. The proposition by the Australian Democrats that commissioners be appointed to sit alone was not acceptable to the Government. The Opposition suggested that commissioners be appointed to work with the Committee to ensure that the basic advantage of independent advice sought by both the Opposition and the Democrats could be practically achieved within the Senate committee structure. The Opposition believes that these appointments will enable the Parliament to carry out its constitutional responsibilities with fairness and expedition. We are pleased that the Committee will now be able to proceed with its inquiry without delay. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be granted to the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge to meet during sittings of the Senate during September and October 1984. Debate resumed from 5 September, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.24) -I rise to address myself to the Biological Control Bill 1984. The Opposition is pleased that this sort of legislation has at last come forward. It is the Opposition's intention to support the legislation. I think it is important to note at the beginning of this discussion, which so far as I am concerned will be a relatively brief discussion, that a significant part has been played in the drafting committee by members of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The CSIRO certainly stands very high in the world of scientific research both here in Australia and overseas. I mention that only because it is reasonable to assume that its close involvement in the production of this legislation which seeks biological control of certain pests is likely to be constructive and certainly well based in the scientific field. The Bill seeks to establish the procedures by which one can assess a problem relevant basically to the great rural areas of Australia-a problem that relates to the pastoral and agricultural industries-and then authorise properly developed and tested biological control. We have to establish in the first place that there is a significant problem which may be addressed by biological control and then we have to find an agent that is considered to be suitable for controlling the problem having regard to the various difficulties that can arise in the area of biological control. It is known and accepted that complementary legislation will be necessary in all Australian States and the Northern Territory. It is the determination of those entities to bring about that sort of legislation. This is absolutely necessary in order to have universality in the identification and application of this necessary form of control. This legislation seeks to ensure that any biological control which takes place will be in the public interest and is not likely to be interrupted by litigation , as has been the case in the relatively recent past. I guess the trigger for this legislation was an injunction taken out in June of last year, 1983, which stopped the release of insects to control a plant known as echium, which is variously known as Paterson's curse and salvation Jane, depending on which part of Australia one happens to be in at the time. This plant is a well known noxious weed in virtually the whole of south-eastern Australia and has been a very significant contributor to enormous problems in the grazing and grain growing areas. Infestation can be controlled to some extent by intensive grazing but there are undoubtedly far better pastures on which to graze, and its presence can hardly be justified on that ground. In agricultural areas the weed quite commonly chokes vast areas of grain producing crops of various types and consequently makes a significant contribution to lessening the standard of productivity in Australian agriculture. The injunction I mentioned was taken out, as I understand it, by two beekeepers and two graziers on the common law ground of private nuisance. Because that injunction was capable of restraining the release of a well researched insect to control a well identified problem, for some significant time we have been waiting to resolve the matter. This legislation does not actually set out to control Paterson's curse or any other specific weed or plant; it establishes the method by which biological control can be applied. It establishes quite clearly the procedures necessary to establish that there is a target, that is, a plant that is a sufficient problem to industry to warrant finding a measure for its destruction by biological means. Having assessed that there is a target, the release of an acceptable agent to destroy it will be authorised. Biological control in Australia has a relatively long history. The problem relating to Paterson's curse goes back to the very early 1970s. Over many decades the rabbit population, prickly pear, water weed and a whole range of other problems, have been controlled by this method. Indeed, control of the rabbit population was as important as being able to rub out a drought by other than natural means. It is worth remembering that even though this Bill brings in the basic procedures and all the qualifications necessary for biological control, it still retains the basic scientific, technical and safety procedures which apply to such control at present and which have applied in the past. The Bill will not reduce the effect of the relevant Acts. By that I mean that it will not reduce the relevance of, for instance, the Quarantine Act, nor will it any way interfere with the relevance of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. That is enormously important because the environment would be the most significant consideration in an examination of an agent. It has to be examined with a view to its possible effect on a range of other plants and perhaps animal life. The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act will also still apply. I mentioned earlier in my remarks that complementary State legislation in all Australian States and the Northern Territory will be necessary and will be pursued. The Australian Agricultural Council bears the prime responsibility for taking action and making decisions under this legislation. The Council will seek information from appropriate and well informed bodies such as the Australian Forestry Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. A legal entity will be established in the Australian Capital Territory in the form of a Biological Control Authority. It will be able to act on behalf of the other parties relevant to this legislation. Within the Act, certain things will happen before a certain line of action is established. In the first place, very importantly, public opinion will be very widely canvassed in order to ascertain a view as to the genuine nature of a project target. Depending on the result of that public opinion, an in-depth inquiry as to all the possible effects of the implementation of biological control in a certain area may be held. There is a capacity to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal over a whole range of issues. At the conclusion of any inquiry it is found necessary to hold, a program may be declared and at an appropriate time the agents will be released. Those authorised by the program will be protected from legal action. That means that in that specific circumstance the common law injunction will not operate. I do not want it to be assumed that one is not aware of the possibility that there will be a few losses as well as very significant and probably widespread gains from the implementation of this sort of legislation. In the final result, as in so many areas, the matter of judgment is of some significance. But it is generally contended and certainly generally agreed that the range of disadvantages that stem from biological control legislation will far outweigh any possible and relatively confined problems. The Bill contains an opportunity for assistance to those who are adversely affected. That seems appropriate and is relevant to the matters I was discussing a few moments ago. Whilst there must be an overwhelming advantage, there may well be a disadvantage in some relatively isolated areas. The targets of this control legislation are to be clearly and widely advertised . They will be declared before an agent can be declared. The agent will be subject to the quarantine laws and to other protection Acts. The Biological Control Authority, after considering information available and consulting the Agricultural Council, may order an inquiry if it considers there may be circumstances that would make such an inquiry reasonable and responsible. The final decision is made when the Authority believes that control of a target is in the public interest. It is ultimately a decision for the Authority and would, of course, be acted upon. There are circumstances when literally emergency action needs to be taken. When one considers what might be called the invasion of the lucerne aphid some years ago, one can see that an inability to take widespread emergency action, certainly over the dry grazing lucerne areas of Australia, especially eastern Australia, resulted in the loss of pastures and carrying capacity of quite enormous proportions. It set back the development of pastures in many parts of eastern Australia by almost a decade. So it is necessary to have a capacity to react to an emergency. It hardly needs me to say that biological control of weeds and pests is regarded as highly cost-effective and is of enormous value to all those industries that form part of rural Australia. That really goes much further that the agricultural or grazing industries, because ultimately they are part and parcel of a whole socio-economic structure of rural Australia. This biological control legislation in its present form seeks to do nothing more than identify a problem. Having identified the target, it is necessary to identify the measures of control that would seem to be appropriate. It can be seen that this legislation is of very great significance to the whole of primary industry in this country. It is a piece of legislation that has been sought for a significant length of time. It has been well researched. It concerns not only the Commonwealth but also the States and the Northern Territory. It needs the unanimous support of the agriculture Ministers around Australia I believe that it will prove to be a very successful adjunct to all sorts of other controls and aids to agriculture and to the grazing industry in this country. I commend the legislation to the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.43) —The Biological Control Bill, which we are discussing tonight, is an important Bill. It is a Commonwealth Bill in respect of which the various States will pass complementary legislation. It is a Bill which has had an interesting history and possibly it will have an even more interesting history in its operation. It is fair to say that there is general agreement on the need for a biological control Bill. However, I do not believe that this particular Bill is necessarily the best way to do the task that needs to be done. Indeed, I think there are a number of problems with the Bill. I will discuss the specific problems in the Committee stage. On behalf of the Australian Democrats I have circulated 19 amendments which seek to deal with basically technical matters. In my speech at the second reading stage I will restrict myself to talking about the policy basis of this Bill. The necessity for a biological control Bill has been felt for a considerable time. Undoubtedly, a country which covers a continent has many advantages that few other countries in the world enjoy. In terms of biological control we have a natural boundary, yet in this area we have had problems-as we have had in many other areas-by virtue of the fact that we are a federation. Biological control can only take place in Australia, except in terms of highly specific items, if we have agreement between the States as to how to operate it and on the method we will use. It is useful to look at the item that Senator Scott raised-the echium affair-because that gives us a pretty clear indication of the problems that are likely to occur with this Bill. I shall rehearse some of the history of that affair. The weed we are talking about is known as salvation Jane, Paterson' s curse, or a variety of other names, depending on what State you come from. The affair goes back to the mid-1960s when there was conflicting opinion between councils, growers and others, particularly in Victoria, about the value of salvation Jane. The Standing Committee on Agricultural Weeds in 1973 recommended that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation should approach the Departments of Agriculture in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria to seek their opinion about the biological control of echium. Very little occurred for a while and indeed it was not until almost 1978 when the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists' Associations learned that there was to be a proposed control program of that weed. The Australian Agricultural Council recommended in 1978 that that biological control should not go ahead. That particular recommendation is illustrative of the federal nature of Australia. While some of the States were in favour, others were opposed, and without general agreement in this area very little could be done. Following that meeting considerable political pressure was brought to bear to mount a biological control program and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation asked the Standing Committee of the Agricultural Council, that is, the Standing Committee on Agriculture, to convene a representative committee to inquire into the control of echium and to make the recommendation to the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in the following year. This resulted in 1979 in the Agricultural Council reversing its earlier decision and agreeing to go ahead with the biological control program as it had been set out. At that particular time the South Australian Minister of Agriculture said that his Government would prepare a cost-benefit study on echium on the understanding that the program would be held over until the next meeting of the Agricultural Council in January 1980. The South Australian government of the day in the meantime changed its political complexion and the Agricultural Council confirmed that the biological control program would go ahead. Later that year graziers and bee keepers considered taking legal action on this matter and indeed proceedings were started in the High Court of Australia in July of that year for an injunction to prevent the CSIRO from importing specific insects from Europe, for a control program, from releasing the insects in Australia and to have existing stocks of those insects destroyed. An interim injunction was granted to that effect by Mr Justice Stephen in the High Court of Australia. The case from that point on involves us with this particular Bill. Legal proceedings started in the High Court but were then transferred to the South Australian Supreme Court exercising Federal jurisdiction because the issues in terms of the legal protagonists in this debate were basically in South Australia. The Supreme Court of South Australia injunction continued until a trial could be held. The trial began in about mid-1982. Once the hearing had begun the CSIRO agreed to a proposal which had been put forward by apiarists concerned with the setting up of a public inquiry before a third-person tribunal before anyone went ahead with the biological control program. In September 1982 a very interesting meeting took place here in Canberra which I think bears directly on this Bill. Approaches were made by the CSIRO to the plaintiffs in the case to consider modifying the agreement by substituting an Industries Assistance Commission tribunal for the earlier agreed three-person independent tribunal. The plaintiffs agreed to consider this proposal. In fact, a meeting was held in Canberra between officers of the Attorney-General's Department, the IAC, the plaintiffs, representatives of the FCAAA and the CSIRO to discuss the very suitability of the IAC being the body to serve as a tribunal . After extremely lengthy discussions it was agreed by all parties that the IAC tribunal was not a suitable alternative mechanism for the determination of such a wide social conflict as the echium issue presented. Indeed the IAC suggested it was inappropriate for it to undertake this task and that its expertise lay in other areas. As a consequence of the failure of that suggestion the parties endeavoured to negotiate and a satisfactory resolution of the court proceedings culminated in a comprehensive agreement which was signed on 21 June 1983. Indeed , the CSIRO, in agreeing to that permanent injunction against the importation and use of insects for the biological control of echium, agreed to pay the plaintiff $93,000. And there the case rested until this Bill was introduced. The Bill in fact takes away common law rights and substitutes a process of public inquiry. I think that the notion of public inquiry is an excellent one. In these types of areas a court hearing is not necessarily the best way to proceed. However, it still seems to us that there are continuing rights, particularly in the case that I have just outlined, which this Bill, at least on some readings, seeks to do away with. The Bill addresses itself to continuing cases. I do not want to have the lawyers rushing in here, but it seems that there is still some doubt as to whether the continuing case-that is, the permanent injunction-would come under this Bill. I have been assured by some that it does not and by others that it may. But in any case, I believe it is important not to give a lever in possible resuscitation of that injunction even if, as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said in the other place, this item would be submitted to a review tribunal. I think it is important that we take some care with this Bill. The history of biological control in Australia has not been a terribly happy one and I think we need to take great care to make sure that all parties who could possibly be affected are involved in the public process. In saying how careful we need to be , by way of illustration I would like to quote from the South Australian Liberal Party policy on echium. I refer to a response from the Liberal shadow Minister for Agriculture in the South Australian Parliament. He said: . . . the Liberal Party policy on the control of Salvation Jane is to support the control of Salvation Jane by the release of biological agents proven by the CSIRO. (1) to be effective in the wetter, colder climates of Australia (not so effective in the drier, hot regions). (2) to be no threat to other plant varieties. Of course, that looks at only one aspect of this matter. I sought some comments from the Division of Entomology of the CSIRO, particularly in relation to the claim that I know has been made in a number of discussions about the possible effectiveness of biological agents in wetter climates and hotter, drier climates . I received the following reply. (1) The area in France where agents for control of Salvation Jane (Paterson's Curse) will be obtained has a climate similar to the moister parts of the weed's range in Australia. It is possible that these insects would be less well adapted to drier or hotter regions. However climate is not the only factor determining whether an organism introduced to a new environment will survive and be effective as a control agent. This can only be known after the organism has been released and its behaviour monitored in different localities over a period of time. (2) Thorough testing of the agents (approved by plant quarantine) has shown that they are highly specific to Paterson's Curse and would, at most, cause minor damage to a few very closely related plants such as borage and comfrey. I find interesting the proposition that care must be exercised in making claims in relation to particular organisms. I think that we need to gather together in any of the inquiries which are likely to be held the maximum possible amount of information and input. It is not sufficient for uninformed discussion to take place. I think that the Bill usefully points out how this might be achieved. However, I am not at all sure that the various mechanisms that the Bill contains will achieve that result. Indeed, in the minds of a number of people there is still doubt as to whether or not this Bill will allow a fair hearing to all the people and interests who are likely to be involved. Hence I will be proposing some amendments in the Committee stage which I believe will strengthen the representation of those interests so that they can be assured, firstly, that they will be able to appear before the inquiry; secondly, that their evidence will be taken into account; and, thirdly, that the possibility of review will exist in the various areas that are involved in the review process. The Bill is odd in a number of ways because the various clauses do not seem to mesh very well at all. Some clauses are almost identical and one would have thought that identical propositions could have been employed, but they have not been so employed. For example, I refer to clause 17 and clause 26 which involve the notice of proposed target organisms and the notice of proposed agent organisms. Quite different advertising propositions are put forward. I can see no relevant reason why that ought to be so. Indeed, it would be useful to use similar propositions for notification. Clause 40 concerns the notification of inquiries and again I think that if we are to have an inquiry there ought to be an obligation upon the Commission not just simply to put it in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. I know that that is a widely read journal. It is pored over by a number of people in this place. However its popularity compared with that of other magazines and journals in Australia is pretty small. Hence it is important that we recognise the means of communication in Australia and that we make use of our major newspapers to alert people that we are about to undertake an inquiry in an area in which they may be concerned. Those types of propositions are minor but I hope we can do something in relation to them. More importantly, it is of concern that the review mechanism will necessarily be a costly operation and care must be taken, if certain interests are to be enhanced-and undoubtedly the release of many organisms will be extremely useful for Australia's agriculture-that in the promotion of those interests other interests are not damaged. If it appears that they may be damaged we need to make sure that they are fully represented, that their views are taken fully into account and that the mechanisms the Bill provides for, such as compensation, are put forward. Clause 50 of the Bill says that a witness summoned under the Act to appear will be entitled to be paid allowances. That is an important provision and it gives effect to the principle that witnesses that various groups feel ought to be called can have the chance of appearing. I will propose an amendment whereby people who make submissions have the right to be called-if not themselves, then their nominees-and if the Commission decides that it does not wish to call such people-of course there are plenty of perfectly acceptable reasons why it may not wish to do so-there would be the possibility of review. In matters dealing with many of the biological agents which are to be released we will necessarily be calling upon experts from overseas. Hence costs could be involved in bringing overseas specialists to Australia for an inquiry. Senator Watson —That is included in the safeguards. Senator MACKLIN —That is not included in the safeguards in the Bill. Senator Watson —It is part of the procedure. Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry, Senator, it is not part of the procedure at the moment. At the moment the Commission and the Commonwealth Biological Control Authority have total discretion in relation to the witnesses who appear, and that is unreviewable. It is important for a number of reasons that the Senate makes sure that all witnesses are protected. The Australian Democrats will support the Bill. I believe that when the concurrent legislation is passed in the various States in terms similar to this Bill we will have a very useful mechanism for dealing with a very important matter. While we may be enthusiastic about that taking place, it is still important to make sure that we learn a little from the history of what has occurred, that we learn that the conflicting interests of various groups are not items of simple resolution. Indeed, the case I have outlined indicates the length to which people will go to protect their interests, as they see them, and to protect their particular industries. While it may be nice to think that one particular item will not affect an industry, it happens to be the case that it could well be that the interests of certain rural industries are diametrically opposed. If that is the case, the inquiry and review mechanisms, and the possible appeals from those review mechanisms, made on either a judicial basis or through Federal courts, have to be as clear and as precise as we are able to get them. I do not believe that it is in the interests of this country to go back through that type of legal history that has arisen in relation to echium. I believe-I do not know whether anybody else does-that it would be a singular waste of energy to go through that type of exercise. Hence it is worth while listening to the proposition of people who have had experience of this and who can bring forward some considerable knowledge in order to make sure that what we are putting in place at least fulfils the criteria about which they are concerned. We do not necessarily have the foresight to overcome all of the problems that may occur in the future in this area but at least let us overcome the problems that have occurred in the past. The Australian Agricultural Council, in its deliberations on this matter and in its agreement to get complementary legislation, has taken us a long way. I hope that the Commonwealth, in the exercise of its powers in the Australian Capital Territory, will put into place a mechanism which clearly operates in the interests of the citizens of this country and does not seek a priori to distinguish in favour of any particular groups. I notice that the Minister for Primary Industry has been exceptionally careful in his statements to point out that, while he personally has supported one particular side of the salvation Jane debate, for example, this Bill provides a mechanism which goes across this area in its totality. I have referred to that item only because I believe it gives us at least a hold on what has occurred in Australia. It enables us to understand that while the release of these organisms may be in the interests of some groups it may be detrimental to others. In trying to adjudicate between the economic interests of various groups in the primary industry area, I believe it is important for us to make sure that we dot all the i's and cross all the t's with this Bill. I do not think that is the case at the moment. I hope that the Senate, in its deliberations at the Committee stage, will make sure that that occurs. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.11) —The Biological Control Bill 1984 introduces a new and perhaps unusual set of procedures whereby before biological control programs can proceed there must be the establishment of a public interest. The mechanisms provide for an appropriate inquiry. That having been carried out, biological control programs can proceed without fear of interruption as a result of private litigation from minority interest groups. The biological control of weeds and pests is not a new phenomenon in Australia. Indeed, I believe it has been a highly successful one. I disagree with my colleague Senator Macklin that it has not been a happy one. So far as target species in Australia are concerned , it has indeed been an unhappy one because, fortunately, target species have been largely controlled in a very positive way. In saying that it is not a new phenomenon in Australia, let me trace some of the success stories. One of the most memorable successes was that of prickly pear in Senator Macklin's State of Queensland in the 1920s. In this instance, the caterpillars of an Argentine moth were identified as the natural enemy of the prickly pear cactus and they were introduced into the environment. Within five years prickly pear, which had been ravaging the country at a rate of two hectares a minute, was reduced to economic insignificance, whereas prior to biological control some 10 million hectares of pastoral and agricultural country had been rendered totally useless and another 10 million hectares was seriously damaged. So one can see the tremendous benefits to the State of Queensland. Another significant case was in 1952 in my own State of Tasmania where the sirex wasp was first discovered in radiata pine trees. Initially it was found in the south of the State not far from the airport. There was also an outbreak in Victoria in 1961. To combat this poisoning effect, nematodes were introduced into the female wasps, making them sterile. While initially it was slow to spread, there is now a stable, specific, cheap and effective means of biologically controlling the sirex wasp. Further examples-the list is not entirely comprehensive, but it does illustrate the effectiveness of biological control procedures-include the biological control of lucerne aphids. These were first identified in Australia in 1977. Originally they were controlled quite easily by insecticides. However, the expense, combined with the aphids' increasing immunity to insecticides, warranted the introduction of biological control, which was effective. One of the problems is that over time the insects, et cetera, become immune to many of the chemicals. The use of myxomatosis as a control agent for a plague of European rabbits which stripped pastures and thus had a detrimental effect on Australia's wool and meat productive capacity was highly successful. The biological control of skeleton weed, resulting in projected Industries Assistance Commission saving estimates of $265m by the year 2000, is a very dramatic and effective program. The community and primary and secondary industries have benefited. I think it is important to emphasise the fact that not only primary industry but also the community and secondary industry-in fact, the whole of Australia-benefits as a result of this work. What is the problem? Pests often immigrate unaccompanied. Therefore, the host country is initially deprived of the natural enemies which regulate the pests' proliferation in the homeland. The use of biological control to eradicate exotic target organisms has considerable advantages which, if the possibility arose, could also apply to indigenous pests. After the location, testing and establishment of natural enemies-all of these procedures are important-the controlling organisms attack the pest without any external assistance. So the expenditure is thus finite, unlike chemical controls. Following the preliminary research and control introduction procedures, the ecological process proceeds independently. Biological control is target specific, which means that other plants and animals are not threatened, for once effective the attacking organism becomes obsolete and does not seek a new target. This is one of the fears that the uninformed continue to raise about this whole problem of biological control. By contrast, chemical control is non-target specific and is likely to endanger beneficial organisms. We have all read of and have fears about the widespread use of certain chemicals in primary industry because many of these chemicals do have residual effects. Chemical pesticides also require continuous application while simultaneously pest resistance to the pesticide does rise and increase over time. Other methods, such as cultural control by the use of crop rotation, can be used and applied to control pests, but again this is quite expensive. One can apply mechanical control, such as cutting and hoeing. The old tradition of the farmer going out with a hoe and hoeing out thistles is a laborious, time consuming and costly process, but it is a means of control. Then there is the more modern method of genetic control by the introduction of a new host to eradicate the pest. Those methods have been effective but with negative consequences or they have been unsuccessful, harmful and expensive. Instead of a last resort, the biological control of weeds and pests is now widely recognised as a viable and effective mechanism because it is very cost efficient. Once established, biological control can reduce or eliminate the need to apply chemical or other forms of control of weeds or pests to which I referred earlier . How does one effect biological control? How does it work? It can be achieved by a number of means. It can be direct-for example, introducing insects to attack the plant directly. Alternatively, it can be via stress-introducing a stress to the leaf, the stem or the target organism. It can be achieved by way of competitive displacement, or by introducing disease susceptibility, as in the case of rust with blackberries. It can be achieved by reducing potentially favourable conditions for noxious plants or by rendering the seedlings themselves subject to various stress factors which affect their reproduction. With a history of success in the regulation of weed and pest proliferation, it is regrettable that relevant and necessary legislation has been so long in coming before this Parliament. As identified by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives, the impetus for biological control legislation came from a rather contentious incident in South Australia last year. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation planned to release a species of insect in order to control a plant which is familiarly referred to as Paterson's curse or salvation Jane. The decision to commence eradication procedures was made by the authorities. Nevertheless, a general consensus existed in south-eastern Australia that this particular weed was a noxious weed and undesirable. However, two landholders and two local bee- keepers stepped in and claimed that this weed could be positively utilised and obtained an injunction preventing the insect species' release. The injunction was obtained on the common law grounds of private nuisance. This would be the blocking mechanism that one person or any small interest group could adopt anywhere in Australia to prevent the effective use of biological control mechanisms. The injunction was obtained on the common law grounds, as I mentioned, of private nuisance. Biological control had hitherto been deprived of legislative legitimisation. Without legal status, court challenges similar to the South Australian case 'could have the potential to undermine the overall effectiveness of all biological control programs. This would be unfortunate given the increasing sophistication of biological control technology. It is important to remember the great diversification of our continent. We are a primary producing country, deriving a large amount of our export income from the land. The utilisation of agriculture is heavily dependent on machinery and capital means. The other avenues of controlling pests are extremely expensive. Biological control is therefore efficient and effective. So the perceived need for last resort tactics will now be eliminated. An instance in Victoria is significant. A person illegally introduced a rust which had the effect of creating stress in the blackberry plant as an effective means of controlling the plant throughout Australia. But the problem was that this person illegally contravened the Quarantine Act and in so doing there was no testing or research. If we do not proceed with this sort of legislation, people would introduce a host which had the potential to wipe out a particular problem but which would not necessarily be target specific to that area. The establishment of appropriate mechanisms through the auspices of the CSIRO enable adequate safeguards to be built in for complete protection to ensure that the biological control is target specific. The control Bill does not infringe upon the jurisdiction of other Commonwealth legislation such as the Quarantine Act and the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act. Preliminary research also safeguards other plant species when agent organisms are introduced. Thus biological control legislation ensures a safe and specific ecological process that cannot be halted by common law injunction. The Australian Agricultural Council is obliged to publish in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and major newspapers in all States notifications which detail the proposal to declare a target organism. The nature of the Biological Control Bill is commendable in that it legislatively requires the active seeking of public comment. This public support or opposition determines target declaration. If adverse public comment results, a community- funded public inquiry will be held to resolve the conflict of public interest. The legislation thus upholds the fundamental democratic principles while primarily functioning to prevent common law action. When assessing the worth of a proposed target organism declaration, the Commonwealth Biological Control Authority must determine that the biological control will be effective. The Authority must also ascertain the relative value of biological control as a means of eliminating the target organism as opposed to other mechanisms. We acknowledge that the legislation recognises the possibility that an individual or minority group may be disadvantaged when the public interest prevails. Indeed , the Bill has incorporated the notion of assistance to the disadvantaged, albeit realistically, and such claims will be scrutinised. Submissions and correspondence which I have received and which oppose the legislation have misunderstood on occasions two basic premises upon which this legislation has been assembled. Firstly, the main intention of the biological control legislation is to justify the biological control program of an organism rather than to establish the precise methodology to be followed in the biological control program. Secondly, there is no legislative demand that all programs using biological control are to be investigated under the legislative provisions. Furthermore, biological control programs which are not included in the gamut of this legislation may be contested under common law. So that avenue is still open. The legislation, while mainly concerned with the weeds and pests of agriculture , has provision for the biological control of weeds and pests which endanger human health. I think this is important. Hopefully, this latter provision will be unnecessary, yet it is a useful mechanism which could ensure that the public betterment is the ultimate concern should any threat to our health arise. Wisely , the States and the Northern Territory, we hope, will have complementary legislation to ensure uniformity and hence nationwide benefit for biological control programs. The future of biological control programs is thus ensured and encouraged under this legislation. I think it important that we adopt this legislation because we must acknowledge that new pests will enter Australia, and that pests are spreading around the world. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) 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. First Readings Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) 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. First Readings Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(10.30) —I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time tonight to refer first of all to an editorial that appeared in the Toronto Star of 7 July. Although that is a reasonably long time ago, I think it suits the issue I want to develop this evening. If the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) agrees, I seek leave to incorporate the article in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- ROLLING OUT THE BARREL Pierre Elliott Trudeau has pirouetted back into private life with a fine flourish of contempt for the Canadian public. A departing prime minister might be forgiven for rewarding a small handful of deserving long-time comrades-in- arms with plum jobs or cushy contracts. In an imperfect world, its hard to think of a democracy that hasn't built in some system of rewards and incentives for the party faithful. But a last waltz with 146 or more partners is simply indecent. ''The 'pork barrel,''' wrote M. Grattan O'Leary 60 years ago, ''dispensed with equal rapacity by all parties and governments since Confederation . . . has been the chief source of whatever corruption has degraded our public life . . . It has sinned more than all other agencies combined against efficiency and honesty in politics.'' Harsh words. But they reflect the public's revulsion at the thought that public service jobs are there to be plundered by the government of the day, or used as a dumping-ground for the tired party hacks. The public may have learned to swallow patronage in small doses, but there's still a healthy choking at patronage on the scale that we've just seen. There's no doubting that party politics and public service can and do mix. Former Liberal cabinet minister Gerard Pelletier is serving with distinction as our ambassador to the United Nations. Former Liberal minister Don Jamieson is an effective High Commissioner in London. So was Tory appointee Jean Wadds before him. Former privy council secretary Michael Pitfield is playing a useful role in the Senate. There have always been outstanding people who have devoted a lifetime to public service-even in a partisan cause-whose talents, energy and experience can subsequently be put to work for the public in some other, appointed job. But when hundreds of people are suddenly appointed to fat and comfortable posts just so a retiring prime minister can pay off old cronies, the public is right to be offended. What special qualities do all these speechwriters, wives of friends, defeated candidates and tired party war-horses bring with them to jobs on aviation boards, museum boards, the bench or ambassadorships? What possible public interest can be served by such appointments? Nor have we seen the bottom of the barrel. The incoming prime minister has been strong-armed into promising a new raft of appointments, when the time is right. All in all, it's shabby business. Senator TOWNLEY —Part of the editorial states: There have always been outstanding people who have devoted a lifetime to public service-even in a partisan cause-whose talents, energy and experience can subsequently be put to work for the public in some other, appointed job. What I am developing tonight is the view that this Government appears to be going down the track that Mr Trudeau went down when he left office earlier this year. As those who read what I have just incorporated will see, at that time Mr Trudeau asked that certain public servants, or other people who have worked for him or within his Party, be appointed to certain positions. The contribution of some of those people could really be of benefit to the community if they continued to work, but I believe some other people did not deserve to get the jobs that they got. An editorial in the Australian of 5 September this year-when it appeared that there was going to be a change of government in Canada-stated: Mr Turner-- who took over office from Mr Trudeau-- got off to a bad start by appointing 17 top Liberals to Government posts- Australians label it jobs for the boys-on Mr Trudeau's recommendation. The Tories seized on this as a sign of weak leadership and it dogged him throughout the campaign. I have a document that was given to me. It is headed 'Jobs for the Boys and Girls' and it is dated July this year. It lists many of the positions that have been filled in one way or another throughout this country by appointees of the Government. I have shown it to the Attorney and with the concurrence of the Senate I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- JOBS FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS Millions of dollars are being spent each year by the Hawke Government rewarding friends of the Labor Party. Up until July, on the latest count the Labor Government had filled more than 80 appointments to various Boards and Authorities with union officials. These range from Mr Laurie Carmichael's appointment to the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes to Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon's job as a member of the Reserve Bank. A further 17 ''jobs for the boys and girls'' have gone to former Labor politicians or Party Presidents such as Mr Gough Whitlam's appointment as Australian Ambassador to UNESCO and former ALP President, Mr Neil Batt as Chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. More than 20 former Labor staff members and friends have gained special highly paid positions while the Labor Party's election campaign advertising agency and opinion polling companies are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, from taxpayers' pockets, for special Government jobs. All of this comes from a Government and a Prime Minister who made a Policy Speech Promise that ''Labor in office will be committed to . . . cutting away extravagance and self indulgence in public office''. The last Labor Government was well known for its 'jobs for the boys (and girls) ' programme. The current Labor Government turned this into an art form in the following categories: jobs for politicians jobs for unionists jobs for political staffers and friends assistance for the business interest of friends Jobs for Politicians This list so far includes Mr Gough Whitlam appointed Australian Ambassador to UNESCO (Commonwealth Record 8/18, p. 567) Dr Moss Cass, former Whitlam Government Minister, was appointed to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Council (CR 8/49, p. 2176) Mr Les Johnson, former Whitlam Government Minister, was appointed High Commissioner to New Zealand (CR 9/14, p. 550) Mr Don Willesee, former Whitlam Government Minister, appointed Chairman of the Australia-New Zealand Foundation (CR 8/27, p. 972) Mrs Kathleen Anderson, former Labor MLC in NSW, appointed to a Committee to review the Experimental Building Station, Ryde, NSW (CR 8/49, p. 2172) Mr K. Doyle, Labor MHA in ACT, appointed to ACT Publications Review Board (CR 9 /5, P.123) Mr Tony Mulvihill, former NSW Senator, was appointed Deputy Chairman of the National Population Council (Hansard, Representatives, 7/6/84, p. 3071) Mrs Franca Arena, NSW MLC, was appointed to the National Population Council ( Hansard, Representatives, 7/6/84, p. 3071) Mr M. Everett QC, former Tasmanian Deputy Premier, appointed President of the Interstate Commission (CR 9/10, p. 357) Mr M. Everett, QC, former Tasmanian Deputy Premier, was appointed to the bench of the Federal Court (Australian, 28/6/84) Ms Pam O'Neil, former Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory , was appointed Sex Discrimination Commissioner (Sydney Morning Herald, 28/6/84) Ms Robin Walsmsley, Labor MHA in the ACT, was appointed to a panel reviewing welfare services in the ACT (CR 9/21, p.946) Ms Sue Craven, Labor MHA in the ACT, was appointed to the ACTION liaison body to review bus services (CR 9/22, p. 1041) Mr Hugh Hudson, former Deputy Premier of South Australia, appointed Chairman of the Territory Education Commission (CR 9/11, p. 381) Mrs Elaine Darling MP, appointed member of Australian War Memorial Council ( Senate Hansard, 2/3/84) Mr Neil Batt, former ALP National President, appointed Chairman of Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (Australian, 7/7/84) Mr Justice McClelland, Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of NSW ( and former Labor Minister under Whitlam) appointed head of a judicial enquiry into the British atomic test (Age, 3/7/84) Jobs for Unionists While it is accepted that some committees have a mandatory provision of union representatives, it is nonetheless interesting to see the numbers (and personnel ) appointed. The list so far includes: Mr George Slater, formerly of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union, appointed as part time Commissioner of Telecom (CR 8/49, p. 2129) Mr John Ducker, former NSW ALP President, was appointed to the Board of Qantas (CR 8/34, p. 1296) Mr R. G. Cook, Secretary of NSW Health and Research Employees' Association, appointed to Board of Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd. (CR 8/27, p. 955) Mr T. Crothers, Secretary, Liquor Trades Union, Adelaide, appointed to Board of Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd (CR 8/27, p. 955) Ms Jan Marsh of the ACTU appointed as Director of the ABC (CR 8/23. p. 772) Mr C. W. McDonald, Secretary of the ACT Trades and Labour Council, appointment of membership of Canberra Commercial Development Authority (CR 8/22, p. 750) Mr A. McLeish, Secretary of Electrical Trades union (NSW) reappointed as director of AIDC (CR 8/16, p.503) Mr G. Hogg, Victorian Trades Hall Council, appointed to Australia-China Council (CR 8/28, p. 1020) Mr B. C. Lock, former executive member of Administrative and Clerical Officers Association in Adelaide, appointed to Administrative Appeals Tribunal (CR 8/38, p. 1548) Mr H. Hauenschild, President of Queensland Trades and Labor Council, reappointment to TAFE Council of Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CR 8/38, p. 1552) Mr G. Weaven, Industrial Officer ACTU, appointed to Car Industry Council (CR 8/ 41, p. 1718) Mr Ted Lipscombe, organiser, AMFSU, appointed to Car Industry Council (CR 8/41, p.1718) Mr G. Harris, Industrial Officer, Association of Drafting, Supervisory and Technical Employers, appointed to Car Industry Council (CR 8/41, p. 1718) Mr L. Townsend, Federal Secretary VBU, appointed to Car Industry Council (CR 8/ 41, p. 1718) Mr S. Crean, ACTU, appointed to Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes (CR 8/ 43, p. 1779) Mr W. J. Kelty, ACTU, appointment to Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes ( CR 8/43, p. 1779) Mr J. Halfpenny, AMFSU, appointed to Australian Manufacturing Council (CR 9/13, p. 496) Mr C. Harvey, PKIU, appointed to Australian Manufacturing Council (CR 9/13, p. 496) Mr J. Kelty, ACTU, appointed to Australian Manufacturing Council (CR 9/13, p. 496) Mr W. Mansfield, Australian Telecommunications Employees Association, appointed to Australian Manufacturing Council (CR 9/13, p. 496) Mr C. Northover, Pulp and Paperworkers Federation, appointed to Australian Manufacturing Council (CR 9/13, p. 496) Mr W. Hopkins, Federated Ironworkers, appointed to Basic Metals Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 555) Mr W. Martin, AMFSU, appointed to Basic Metals Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 555) (and two further union representatives to be named to this Council) Mr S. Harrison, Federated Ironworkers, appointed to Chemical and Plastics Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 556) Mr J. Ryan, Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union, appointed to Chemicals and Plastics Industries Council (CR 9/14, p. 556) (three further union representatives to be appointed to this Council) Mr C. Northover, Pulp and Paper Workers, appointed Chairman of Forestry and Forest Products Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 556) Mr C. Harvey, PKIU, appointed to Forestry and Forest Products Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 556) Mr K. G. Carr, Furnishing Trades, appointed to Forestry and Forest Products Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 556) (Two further union representatives to be named to this Council) Mr L. Carmichael, AMFSU, appointed to Metal Fabrication Council (CR 9/14, p. 556) Mr W. A. Greig, Association of Drafting Supervisory and Technical Employees, appointed to Metal Fabrication Council (CR 9/14, p. 556) Mr R. Morgan, Australasian Society of Engineers, appointed to Metal Fabrication Council (CR 9/14, p. 556) Mr R. Redmond, Federated Ironworkers, appointed to Metal Fabrication Council ( CR 9/14, p. 556) Mr S. Maurice, AMFSU, appointed to Paper Conversion, Printing and Publishing Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr C. Harvey, PKIU, appointed to Paper Conversion, Printing and Publishing Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr J. Cahill, PKIU, appointed to Paper Conversion, Printing and Publishing Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr B. J. Eames, Manufacturing Grocers Employees Federation, appointed Proposed Food Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr L. Shelley, Cold Storage and Meat Preserving Employees, appointed to Proposed Food Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr S. W. Norwak, Pastrycooks, Bakers, Biscuit Makers etc., appointed to Proposed Food Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr T. D. Ryan, Food Preservers Union, appointed to Proposed Food Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr F. Peterson, Clothing and Allied Trades, appointed to Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr S. W. Bitmead, Australian Boot Trade Employees, appointed to Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr W. Hughes, Australian Textile Workers, appointed to Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Ms A. Booth, Clothing and Allied Trades, appointed to Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr J. Halfpenny, AMFSU, appointed Chairman of Machinery and Metal Engineering Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr G. N. Whitehead, Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees, appointed to Machinery and Metal Engineering Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr J. G. Caesar, Federated Ironworkers, appointed to Machinery and Metal Engineering Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr R. Morgan, Australasian Society of Engineers, appointed to Machinery and Metal Engineering Council (CR 9/14, p. 557) Mr W. Mansfield, Telecommunications Employees, appointed Chairman of the Electrical, Electronics and Information Industries Council (CR 9/14, p. 558) Mr E. Cowell, representing the ACTU, appointed to Electrical, Electronics and Information Industries Council (CR 9/14, p. 558) Mr T. Oliver, representing ACTU, appointed to Electrical, Electronics and Information Industries Council (CR 9/14, p. 558) (Two further union representatives to be named for this Council) Mr James Baird, research co-ordinator with AMFSU, appointed to Arbitration Commission (CR 9/16, p. 688) Mr Peter Nolan, former Secretary of the ACTU, appointed to Arbitration Commission (CR 9/16, p. 688) Mr Ken Stone, Vice President ACTU, appointed to Foreign Investment Review Board (CR 9/21, p. 949) Mr James Maher, President of Shop Distributive and Allied Employees, appointed to the Board of the Bicentennial Authority (CR 9/21, p. 935) Mr Ray Gietzelt, former Secretary of MWU, appointed to Qantas Board (Australian , 20/6/84) Mr George Zangalis, ''a Victorian union official'', appointed as member of SBS (CR 9/20, p. 861) Ms Jan Marsh, ACTU, appointed as member of EPAC, (Senate Hansard, 2/3/84) Mr J. Maher, Shop Distributive and Allied Employees, appointed to Small Business Council (CR 9/10, p. 343) Mr C. Dolan, ACTU President, appointed member of EPAC (CR 8/28, p. 1031) Mr W. J. Kelty, ACTU, appointed member of EPAC (CR 8/28, p. 1031) Mr C. H. Fitzgibbon, ACTU, appointed member of EPAC (CR 8/28, p. 1031) Ms Jennie George, ACTU, appointed to National Women's Consultative Council (CR 9/24, p. 1075) Ms Beryl Ashe, ACTU, appointed to National Women's Consultative Council (CR 9/ 24, p. 1075) Ms Anne Forward, ACOA, appointed to working party on affirmative action (CR 9/ 24, p. 1075) (and another representative of the ACTU to be named to the same group) Jobs for staffers and friends The list so far includes: Mr Phillip Adams, prominent ALP supporter, appointed chairman of the Australian Film Commission (CR 8/38, p. 1559) Mr John Shaw of Lionel Bowen's staff appointed to the National Media Liaison Service (H. of R. Hansard, 7/12/83) Mr Tony Ferguson of John Button's staff appointed to Ministerial Media Group (H . of R. Hansard, 7/12/83) Mr D. Atkins of Senator Bolkus' staff appointed to Ministerial Media Group (H. of R. Hansard, 7/12/83) Ms L. Hornsey of Senator Coates' staff appointed to Ministerial Media Group (H. of R. Hansard, 7/12/83) Ms J. McDonald of the ALP (Queensland) Secretariat appointed to Ministerial Media Group (H. of R. Hansard, 7/12/83) Mr G. A. 'Jim' Bayutti, friend of Lionel Bowen, appointed to special consultant in trade matters (Bulletin, 21/2/84) Mr T. G. Pilavachi, friend of Lionel Bowen, appointed to special consultant in trade matters (Bulletin, 21/2/84) Mr J. Doueihi, friend of Lionel Bowen, appointed to special market advisor specialising in the Middle East (Bulletin, 21/2/84) Mr Dennis Argall, formerly adviser to Lionel Bowen, is the new Ambassador to China (Canberra Times, 17/2/84) Mr Peter Wilenski, former Whitlam aide, appointed Chairman of the Public Service Board following a period as Secretary of Department of EYA (CR 8/43, p. 1804) Mrs Cynthia Menadue, wife of former Whitlam staffer, John Menadue, appointed to the Australia-Japan Foundation (CR 8/24, p. 808) Mr John Menadue, former Whitlam staffer, appointed as Secretary, Special Minister of State (CR 8/12, p. 357) Mr Richard Butler, former Whitlam aide, appointed Ambassador for Disarmament ( Australian, 8/7/83) Mr Bill Butler, one time business acquaintance of Richard Farmer, and chairman of Government staff selection panel, appointed consultant to Department of Finance at the Deputy Secretary level (National Times, 9-15/3/84) Mr Ian Temby, QC, former ALP candidate in Nedlands (WA) appointed special prosecutor (see Evans/Young Press Release 17/2/84 and Australian 15/3/82) Minister Barry Cohen failed to have Minister John Brown's wife appointed to the Board of the Film and Television School but succeeded in having his son appointed as secretary of a delegation of Labor Parliamentarians to Israel ( Canberra Times, 11/1/84 and SMH 15/9/83) Mr T. Connolly, former President of Young Labor in 1979, appointed to Board of Directors of Bicentennial Authority (CR 8/36, p. 1443) Mr I. Hodgson, ACTU, appointed to Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes (CR 8/43, p. 1779) Mr B. Unsworth, ACTU, appointed to Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes (CR 8/43, p. 1780) Mr L. Carmichael, ACTU, appointed to Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes ( CR 8/43, p. 1780) Mr R. Overall, research officer, ACTU, reappointed to Bureau of Labour Market Research Advisory Council (CR 8/43, p. 1781) Mr P. L. Neilsen, reappointed as employee's representative on Australian Wheat Board (CR 8/43, p. 1803) Mr C. McDonald, ACT Trades and Labour Council, appointed to ACT Schools Authority (CR 8/47, p. 2029) Mr C. Fitzgibbon, former vice president of ACTU, appointed to Steel Industry Authority (CR 8/49, p. 2181) Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon, formerly with the ACTU, appointed as a member of Reserve Bank (CR 8/49, p. 2220) Mr Cliff Dolan, ACTU, appointed to National Population Council (Hansard, Representatives, 7/6/84, p. 3071) Mr Alan Matheson, ACTU research officer, appointed to National Population Council (Hansard, Representatives, 7/6/84, p. 307) Mr Greg Zakharoff, of ACT Trades and Labour Council, appointed to ACTION liaison body on bus services (CR 9/22, p. 1041) Mr Robert Dougall, of ACT Trades and Labour Council, appointed to ACTION liaison body on bus services (CR 9/22, p. 1041) Mr Ted Wilshire, national research officer with AMFSU, was appointed director of a unit in Department of Trade to develop consultations with unions, etc. ( Canberra Times 28/2/84-note that Wilshire was also seconded to Lionel Bowen's office for 12 months in 1981) Mr Len Townsend, Federal Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees' Federation, appointed to Prices Surveillance Authority (Age, 1/3/84) Mr T. Johnson, National Assistance Secretary ETU, appointed to committee on computer-assisted industry (CR 9/13, p. 496) Mr Fred Peterson, secretary of Clothing and Allied Trades Union, appointed deputy secretary to the Australian Manufacturing Council (CR 9/13, p.495) Mr L. Carmichael, AMFSU, appointed to Australian Manufacturing Council (CR 9/13 , p. 496) Mr Ken Baxter, former adviser to Senator Ken Wriedt, appointed a member of the Australian Egg Board (CR 8/40, p. 1681) Mr Daniel O'Farrell, on the staff of the Victorian Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation, appointed as a member of the Film Censorship Board (CR 9/19, p. 818) Mr Gary Simpson, a friend of Barry Cohen, appointed to the theatre board of the Australia Council (Bulletin, 17/4/84) Mr Emmanuel Klein, on the staff of John Brown, has been appointed by Brown as a judge in a national tourism competition (CR 9/21, p. 895) Mr Darcy McGaurr, former adviser to Lance Barnard and to Premier Doug Lowe, has been appointed Secretary of the Department of Special Minister of State ( Canberra Times, 2/3/84) Mrs Hazel Hawke has been appointed to the Board of the Children's Television Foundation (CR 9/18, p. 787) as an invited member Professor Di Yerbury, formerly protege of Clyde Cameron, appointed to Universities Council and to Australia Council (Senate Hansard, 2/3/84 and Canberra Times, 1/7/84) Mr David Hill, Chairman of NSW State Rail Authority (and formerly on Mr Wran's staff) appointed to Board of TAA (Australian, 20/6/84) Assistance with Business Associates The Hawke Government is using Forbes Macfie Hansen as its agency to launch Medicare, a $980,000 campaign. (B & T Advertising Marketing and Media Weekly, 16 /12/83) This agency also services the ALP in election campaigns ANOP is the agency used by the ALP for both regular and campaign polling, and ANOP's head, Mr Rod Cameron, has privileged and structured access to ALP Federal Executive meetings. The Hawke Government used ANOP to conduct survey research on health insurance prior to the advertising campaign on Medicare. (Australian 23/1/84). As revealed in Senate Estimates' Committee hearings in May 1984, ANOP has also been involved as follows: survey on attitudes towards government programmes and school funding ($155,000) survey on attitudes in Tasmania over the Franklin dam issue ($74,000) attitudes of youth ($85,000) survey on referendum issues (amount not known). See Senate Hansard, 9/5/84, pp. 362-3) Senator TOWNLEY —I do not for a moment say that all the people who are named in this document and who have been appointed to different positions since this Government came to office are not worthy of those appointments. Many of them are very competent. As an example, I name an ex-Senator, Mr Justice Merv Everett, who is now the President of the Inter-State Commission. We discussed the annual report of the Commission in the Senate earlier today. Although I am not on the same side of the political fence as him, I have a great regard for him and I realise that he will handle that position of President of the Inter-State Commission in a very sensible way. But I do suggest to those people who look through this list that it may well be that some of the people are not worthy of the positions to which they have been appointed. I wonder whether they will bring any benefit to this country by their appointments to the positions that are named. I have no idea whether the positions are filled at this stage and I have no idea whether they are paid or honorary positions. But I still ask: Are these the most competent people we could have got for some of the positions, or is it in fact a situation like we saw in Canada earlier this year, where we are appointing people who have resigned from Parliament, who were beaten at the election or who were union representatives-people like that? Even up until July- I intend to get this document updated from July onwards-80 appointments to various boards and authorities were filled by the Labor Government and they went to union officials. A further 17 jobs for the boys and girls had gone to former Labor politicians or Party presidents. Mr Gough Whitlam's appointment was one of those. I do not for a moment question that as he is a man of great ability. But I do not know whether Mr Neil Batt's appointment as Chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission is really going to be of much benefit to this country. I would have thought it would have been much better to have found somebody with a technical background rather than a person who happened to be an ex-President of the Australian Labor Party. I think we all remember that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his policy speech , said: Labor in office will be committed . . . to cutting away extravagance and self indulgence in public office. I am not sure that that is happening. I suggest that this list deserves some very thorough examination. It is a worrying list because I do not think the public likes jobs for the boys at all. I am not saying for a moment that it has happened only since Labor has been in power. But I am saying quite strongly that I do not believe the people of Australia like the idea of cronies or people who work for the Government or who by some chance the Government is able to fit into a position, being appointed to positions such as those that are in this list which I have incorporated. Years ago Mr Grattan O'Leary in Canada wrote that the 'pork-barrel', as it is called: dispensed with equal rapacity by all parties and governments since Confederation . . . has been the chief source of whatever corruption has degraded our public life. That is what worries me about these appointments. Once a person is beholden to a government due to an appointment, that government is able to insist that that person act in a certain way, albeit not by directly telling him to do something but just by the pressure that it is able to exert on that person because of the situation. As I said a moment ago, there can be no doubt that on some occasions party politics and appointments to public service can and do mix. But if, in the short time that the Labor Party has been in power, it has been able to appoint all these people to all these positions, and some of them to several positions- as I said, I do not know whether they are paid or honorary but I am going to find out-I hate to think what they are going to do after the next election. There are a lot of things that I am worried about after the next election, and that is one of them. Senator Gareth Evans —I am glad of the assumption that you are going to lose. Senator TOWNLEY —No, no. It could well be that many people will be seeking appointment after the next election when they lose. I do not mean Liberal Party people. I do not like the idea of people being appointed to positions because they are friends of a Minister, of the Prime Minister or of somebody for whom they were working in an office, or something like that. There is no room in the Australian system for giving a job to a person unless that person is the best possible person for that position. The only people I will have working for me, and have always had working for me, are those that I feel are best able to work in the position that I have available to be filled. How much more important this is when it becomes a public position. If I lose money out of my pocket by appointing somebody to do a certain job for me, it is my money that I lose. But when it becomes the public's money, the taxpayers' money, I believe that the taxpayer has a right to examine what is being done, to be informed of what is being done and if necessary to take action to see that it is stopped. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.41) —I do not think that the people of Australia whom Senator Townley called in aid tonight will be very impressed by his contribution to the adjournment debate. He expressly did not claim that all the appointments on his list were inappropriate; nor could he. A huge number of appointments are made by any government to statutory positions on boards, authorities and the like. Very many of those are filled perfectly appropriately by people with special interests or backgrounds, including in particular trade union officials, given the character of our economy and the desirability of that interest being represented in many different kinds of public positions. He did not in fact claim that any single position was inappropriately filled except that of the Chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission when, no doubt in pursuit of some ancient Tasmanian tribal feud, he drew attention to the alleged incapacity or inappropri- ateness of Mr Neil Batt for that job. Of course, he utterly overlooked the fact that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is a major commercial operation and Mr Neil Batt for many years since his withdrawal from the Tasmanian political scene has been a very prominent man of commerce engaged in a major executive role with Sir Peter Abeles's business organisation, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. What Senator Townley has done tonight has left a trail of defamatory imputations about all the people whose names he has incorporated on the record, using even at one stage the language 'corruption, degrading public life'. It was wholly inappropriate language. It was a squalid speech and it will be regarded as such. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.43 p.m. The following papers were presented: Health Insurance Act-Statements of particulars of disqualification under sub- section 19C (2), dated 2 September 1984. Health Insurance Commission Act-Directions pursuant to sub-section 8J (1), dated 18 August 1984. Governor-General's Proclamations-Commencement of Acts: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Act and sections of an Act to come into operation on the dates specified: Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984-Sections 4 and 5 and Parts III and IV-9 September 1984 (Gazette No. S345, 7 September 1984). Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Act 1984-7 September 1984 ( Gazette No. S353, 7 September 1984). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 971) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 15 June 1984: (1) What is the name, designation and salary of each member of the staff of: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) the Ministry; (c) the Caucus Secretaries; (d) the Government Party Committees; (e) the Leader of the Opposition; (f) the Shadow Ministry; (g) the Government and Opposition backbenchers; (h) the Australian Democrats; (i) Senator Harradine. (2) Which staff members are permanent public servants. (3) What was their level prior to taking up their present positions. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3) The details as at 15 June 1984 are set out in the tables below prepared by the Department of the Special Minister of State. Information as to the level of staff prior to taking up their present positions is shown where known. The salary scales of the staff concerned are shown below. SALARY RATES FOR MINISTERIAL STAFF As at 15 June 1984 Classification Salary range $ p.a. *Principal Private Secretary *Principal Adviser 56,840 *Senior Adviser *Adviser/Int Relations *Principal Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister 48,262 *Senior Adviser to Deputy Prime Minister *Senior Private Secretary to a Minister in Cabinet 46,156 *Senior Private Secretary to a Minister not in Cabinet *Speech Writer to Prime Minister 43,974 *Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister 36,612-38,143 *Private Secretary 33,963-35,255 31,531-32,671 29,098-30,239 *Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister 26,330-27,068-27,806 23,973-24,734-25,494 21,531-22,106-22,681-23,257 *Assistant Private Secretary 23,973-24,734-25,494 *Clerk 21,531-22,106-22,681-23,257 *Research Officer 19,142-19,718-20,293-20,868 *Head of the National Media Liaison Service 43,865 *Press Secretary to the Prime Minister (Journalist, Grade A4) 37,622 *Journalist Grade A3 35,440 *Journalist Grade A2 33,235 *Journalist Grade A1 29,924-31,053 Personal Secretary 21,107-21,683-22,259 Assistant Personal Secretary 18,904-19,424-19,946 Electorate Secretary 21,107-21,683-22,259 Electorate Assistant Legislative Assistant 18,838-19,609-20,380-21,151 Secretary/Typist 16,830-17,350-17,872 15,277-15,667-16,058 Clerical Assistant, Grade 5 16,590-17,058-17,524 Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 15,461-15,787-16,113 Clerical Assistant, Grade 2 13,203-13,420-13,637-13,855 *Ministerial Staff Allowance of $7,648 per annum, in addition to salary, is payable to occupants of these positions but the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister and both the Journalists Grade A2 on the Prime Minister's staff receive Ministerial Staff Allowance of $15,296 per annum. Ministerial Staff Allowance is by way of compensation for long and irregular hours and other special features of the positions. Overtime is not payable. SALARY RATES FOR OFFICE-HOLDERS' STAFF As at 15 June 1984 Classification Salary range $ p.a. *Private Secretary Grade 4A 46,156 *Private Secretary Grade 3 33,963-35,255 *Private Secretary Grade 2 29,098-30,239 *Private Secretary Grade 1 23,973-24,734-25,494 *Journalist Grade A2 33,235 *Clerk to Opposition and National Party Whips 23,973-24,734-25,494 21,531-22,106-22,681-23,257 19,142-19,718-20,293-20,868 Assistant Private Secretary Grade 2 21,107-21,683-22,259 Assistant Private Secretary Grade 1 18,904-19,424-19,946 Electorate Secretary 21,107-21,683-22,259 Electorate Assistant 18,838-19,609-20,380-21,151 Steno-Secretary Grade 1 15,277-15,667-16,058 *An allowance of $7,648 per annum, in addition to salary, is payable to occupants of these positions. The allowance is by way of compensation for long and irregular hours and other special features of the positions. Overtime is not payable. CONSULTANCY FEES IN MINISTERS OFFICES As at 15 June 1984 Fee $ p.a. Prime Minister's Office- Mr N. G. Freudenberg (Part-time position) 36,505 Treasurer's Office- Dr D. B. Hughes (Part-time position) 28,770 OFFICE OF THE HON. R. J. L. HAWKE, A.C., M.P. Prime Minister Classification Occupant Former level Administrative and Secretariat Group- Principal Private Secretary Mr G. C. Evans P Assistant Secretary, Level 2 Senior Private Secretary Mr J. V. Townsend P Clerk, Class 11 Personal Secretary to Prime Minister Mrs J. D. N. Sinclair . . Private Secretary/Cabinet Mr R. S. Mitchell P Clerk, Class 9 Private Secretary/Administration Mr A. E. Sutton P Clerk, Class 10 Assistant Private Secretary Miss J. A. Saunders . . Assistant Personal Secretary to Mrs Hawke Ms E. S. Massey P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Secretary/Typist Ms V. Hodgson P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Secretary/Typist Mrs J. B. Hamon P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Secretary/Typist Ms G. K. Farrow P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Secretary/Typist Ms E. M. Bogusz P Word Processing Typist Secretary/Typist Mrs H. LeNevez P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Telephone (C.A. Grade 5) Mrs J. Wood . . Advising Group- Principal Adviser Mr P. E. Barron . . Senior Adviser Mr R. D. Hogg . . Senior Adviser Dr R. Garnaut . . Adviser/International Relations Mr J. Bowan P National Assessment Officer, Grade 1 Private Secretary Mr P. E. Simonds . . Speech Writer to Prime Minister Mr D. A. Buckingham P Foreign Affairs Officer, Grade 4 Assistant Personal Secretary Miss J. P. O'Brien . . Media Relations Group- Press Secretary Mr G. D. H. Walsh . . Journalist, Grade A2 Mr C. M. Parks . . Assistant Personal Secretary Miss J. T. Willis . . Secretary/Typist Miss J. J. Nicholson . . Secretary/Typist Miss R. Forster P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Electorate Staff- Electorate Secretary Ms M. Tamburrino . . Electorate Assistant Miss D. Scurry . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. LIONEL BOWEN, M.P.Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Vice-President of the Executive Council Principal Private Secretary Mr B. E. Burdekin P Foreign Affairs Officer, Grade 3 Senior Adviser Mr K. R. Bennett . . Senior Private Secretary Mr G. J. Crough . . Private Secretary Mr P. A. Hussin P Clerk, Class 11 Assistant Private Secretary Mr J. J. Armstrong . . Personal Secretary Mrs P. E. Baker . . Secretary/Typist Ms K. Thomas P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Ms E. Durham P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Electorate Assistant Mrs B. Fahey . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. JOHN BUTTON Minister for Industry and Commerce and Leader of the Government in the Senate Senior Private Secretary Dr G. N. Evans P Clerk, Class 11 Private Secretary Mr R. F. Johns . . Assistant Private Secretary Mr P. A. Clark . . Assistant Private Secretary Mr N. J. Gruen . . Personal Secretary Mrs P. E. Smith . . Personal Secretary Ms M. R. Caruana . . Secretary/Typist Miss G. W. Baker P Steno-secretary Electorate Secretary Miss J. K. Phillips . . Electorate Assistant Miss L. A. Careedy . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. DON GRIMES Minister for Social Security Senior Private Secretary Mrs N. Burns . . Private Secretary Mr D. J. Tune P Clerk, Class 10 Assistant Private Secretary Miss P. P. Warn . . Personal Secretary Ms S. Oldfield . . Secretary/Typist Ms A. T. O'Connor P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Ms C. E. Walker . . Electorate Assistant Mrs S. McKenzie (Part-time) Mr M. Powell (50/50 Basis) P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. RALPH WILLIS, M.P. Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations Senior Private Secretary Mr J. V. Langmore . . Private Secretary Mr D. J. McKenzie P Clerk, Class 6 Private Secretary Mr P. J. Medlock . . Assistant Private Secretary Ms M. A. Carew-Reid P Clerk, Class 1 Personal Secretary Miss H. M. Connors . . Secretary/Typist Miss D. L. C. Higginson P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Electorate Secretary Mrs N. I. Gardner . . Electorate Assistant Mr A. Haermeyer . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. P. J. KEATING, M.P. Treasurer Senior Private Secretary Mr A. S. Cole P Assistant Secretary, Level 2 Private Secretary Mr G. J. Smith P Clerk, Class 9 Private Secretary Ms B. K. Ward . . Assistant Private Secretary Ms P. P. Furnell P Senior Research Officer, Grade 1 Journalist, Grade A2 Mr T. Mockridge . . Personal Secretary Ms J. M. Kell P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Secretary/Typist Ms D. L. Sella P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Secretary/Typist Ms A. Henderson P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Mrs E. G. Charchalis . . Electorate Assistant Vacant P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. PETER WALSH Minister for Resources and Energy Senior Private Secretary Dr D. E. Shogren P Principal Executive Officer, Class II Private Secretary Mr I. D. Henderson . . Assistant Private Secretary Dr C. A. Emerson . . Personal Secretary Miss P. R. Haigh . . Secretary/Typist Miss H. D. Hendry P Typist, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Ms N. Masel . . Electorate Assistant Mr M. F. Jones . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. BILL HAYDEN, M.P. Minister for Foreign Affairs Senior Private Secretary Mr M. J. Costello P Clerk, Class 11 Journalist, Grade A2 Mr D. Nagle . . Private Secretary Mr W. M. Swan . . Private Secretary Ms M. Moustafine P Assistant National Assessments Officer Assistant Private Secretary Miss L. Holgate P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Assistant Private Secretary Mr R. F. Whiddon . . Personal Secretary Ms D. J. Taunton P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Secretary/Typist Mrs H. Le Good . . Electorate Secretary Mrs Y. Tully P Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 Electorate Assistant Ms D. L. McKenzie P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. SUSAN RYAN Minister for Education and Youth Affairs Senior Private Secretary Mr W. C. L. Lang P Foreign Affairs, Officer Grade 4 Private Secretary Dr A. Thomas P Foreign Affairs, Officer Grade 2 Assistant Private Secretary Ms P. M. Kelly . . Personal Secretary Ms M. E. Martinez . . Secretary/Typist Ms W. H. Inkpen P Typist, Grade 2 Secretary/Typist Miss D. K. Jonassen P Typist, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Ms G. J. Hush P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Electorate Assistant Ms F. Dixon . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. GARETH EVANS, QC Attorney-General Senior Private Secretary Mr C. M. Maxell . . Private Secretary Mr P. Pascoe . . Private Secretary Mr P. G. Willis . . Private Secretary Ms S. P. Tongue . . Assistant Private Secretary Ms C. Neville . . Personal Secretary Mrs A. M. L. Andrews P Typist, Grade 1 Secretary/Typist Ms E. Rattenbury P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Electorate Secretary Miss. B. Worrall . . Electorate Assistant Vacant P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. GORDON SCHOLES, M.P. Minister for Defence Senior Private Secretary Mr R. H. Mills P Assistant Secretary, Level 1 Private Secretary Mr G. Keogh . . Private Secretary Mr M. A. Brown P Clerk, Class 9 Assistant Private Secretary Ms L. Holub . . Personal Secretary Mrs M. L. Turner P Clerk, Class 1 Secretary/Typist Miss H. C. Payne . . Electorate Secretary Mrs S. Surdich P Clerk, Class 1 Electorate Assistant Mrs M. Bain . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. J. S. DAWKINS, M.P. Minister for Finance Senior Private Secretary Mr M. J. Delaney . . Private Secretary Mr G. D. Gardner . . Private Secretary Mr N. Edwards P Clerk, Class 11 Assistant Private Secretary Mr W. J. Stitt P Clerk, Class 8 Personal Secretary Ms C. A. Jakobsen . . Secretary/Typist Miss V. A. Fox . . Electorate Secretary Ms P. G. Ryan . . Electorate Assistant Ms E. D. Lorin . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. JOHN KERIN, M.P. Minister for Primary Industry Senior Private Secretary Ms J. E. McKay . . Private Secretary Mr A. R. Gleeson . . Assistant Private Secretary Mr J. M. Tanzer . . Personal Secretary Mrs B. R. Meijer P Personal Secretary, Grade 1 Personal Secretary Miss M. F. Conley P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Secretary/Typist Vacant Electorate Secretary Ms M. A. L. Green . . Electorate Assistant Mrs F. Necic (Part-time) Mr S. M. Titmarsh (50/50 basis) P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. MICK YOUNG, M.P. Special Minister of State and Leader of the House Senior Private Secretary Mr G. R. Dodds . . Private Secretary Ms A. E. Vass . . Private Secretary Mr E. Williamson . . Assistant Private Secretary Miss K. A. Lewis . . Personal Secretary Ms V. Gregory P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Secretary/Typist Ms E. Koundouzi P Typist, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Mrs P. Johnston . . Electorate Assistant Miss V. Argirov (Part-time) Miss C. Hudson (Part-time) P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. STEWART WEST, M.P. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Senior Private Secretary Mr M. J. Ross . . Private Secretary Mr G. A. J. Green P Clerk, Class 9 Assistant Private Secretary Mr A. J. Robinson P Clerk, Class 9 Personal Secretary Ms S. J. Spencer . . Secretary/Typist Vacant . . Electorate Secretary Mrs J. B. White . . Electorate Assistant Mr A. H. Hill P Senior Research Officer, Grade 1 P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. PETER MORRIS, M.P. Minister for Transport Senior Private Secretary Mr P. J. Reece P Clerk, Class 11 Private Secretary Mr L. M. Jacob . . Assistant Private Secretary Vacant Personal Secretary Ms S. Egan . . Secretary/Typist Ms P. G. Horgan . . Electorate Secretary Mrs J. Moase . . Electorate Assistant Mr P. T. Kerr . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. KIM C. BEAZLEY, M.P. Minister for Aviation Senior Private Secretary Mr D. F. Wallace, P Clerk, Class 11 Private Secretary Mr S. W. Hickman P Clerk, Class 1 Private Secretary Ms M. Anderson . . Assistant Private Secretary Ms L. T. Holman . . Personal Secretary Ms S. Grant P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Secretary/Typist Ms L. Cullen . . Electorate Secretary Ms V. Ferguson . . Electorate Assistant Ms M. Maruff . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. CHRIS HURFORD, M.P. Minister for Housing and Construction Senior Private Secretary Mr L. J. Early P Assistant Secretary, Level 1 Private Secretary Mr T. Burton P Assistant Research Officer Assistant Private Secretary Vacant . . Personal Secretary Vacant . . Secretary/Typist Ms M. R. Barry . . Electorate Secretary Ms J. M. O'Brien . . Electorate Assistant Miss A. K. Hurley . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. JOHN BROWN, M.P. Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services Senior Private Secretary Mr E. Klein . . Private Secretary Mr W. Peel P Clerk, Class 9 Assistant Private Secretary Miss F. Grew . . Personal Secretary Miss V. Ginnane . . Secretary/Typist Vacant . . Electorate Secretary Mr D. Sharpe . . Electorate Assistant Ms M. H. Bacon . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. NEAL BLEWETT, M.P. Minister for Health Senior Private Secretary Mr W. D. Bowtell P Foreign Affairs Officer, Grade 2 Private Secretary Mr P. J. Baulderstone P Clerk, Class 5 Assistant Private Secretary Ms A. M. Hodgson . . Personal Secretary Ms P. C. Rowe . . Secretary/Typist Ms K. J. Smith P, Grade 2 Steno-secretary Electorate Secretary Ms S. P. Stephens . . Electorate Assistant Ms V. McCusker . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. BARRY O. JONES, M.P. Minister for Science and Technology Senior Private Secretary Dr K. R. Butler . . Private Secretary Mrs P. J. Kennedy . . Assistant Private Secretary Miss T. L. Etherington P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Personal Secretary Vacant . . Secretary/Typist Vacant . . Electorate Secretary Miss K. N. Murray . . Electorate Assistant Mrs C. McDonald P Typist, Grade 2 P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. MICHAEL DUFFY, M.P. Minister for Communications Senior Private Secretary Mr M. F. Flemming . . Private Secretary Mr R. D. Rudland, P Clerk, Class 11 Assistant Private Secretary Miss M. L. Nolan . . Personal Secretary Ms S. E. Coombs P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Secretary/Typist Ms C. M. Browne P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Electorate Secretary Mr J. G. Thomas . . Electorate Assistant Ms R. O'Ryan . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. BARRY COHEN, M.P. Minister for Home Affairs and Environment Senior Private Secretary Mr S. Sergi P Foreign Affairs Officer, Grade 4 Private Secretary Mr P. M. Conway Clerk, Class 10 Assistant Private Secretary Mr M. D. Danby . . Personal Secretary Ms J. M. Spring . . Secretary/Typist Miss K. N. Sellman . . Electorate Secretary Mrs R. Ransley . . Electorate Assistant Mr A. N. Sansom . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. A. C. HOLDING, M.P. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Senior Private Secretary Mr K. Wilson . . Private Secretary Ms P. O. Navuetaki . . Assistant Private Secretary Ms D. C. Merryfull . . Personal Secretary Ms J. Dunbar . . Secretary/Typist Mrs E. Howard P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Electorate Secretary Mr E. McCormick . . Electorate Assistant Miss E. Willox . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. A. T. GIETZELT Minister for Veterans' Affairs Senior Private Secretary Mr P. J. Hansen . . Private Secretary Mr J. G. F. Gilling P Research Officer, Grade 2 Assistant Private Secretary Mr N. J. Williams Personal Secretary Mrs Grawshaw . . Secretary/Typist Ms D. V. Mills P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Ms N. Soloman . . Electorate Assistant Mr R. Salpeter . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. TOM UREN, M.P. Minister for Territories and Local Government Senior Private Secretary Mr M. A. Gallagher . . Private Secretary Mr J. R. Thwaite P Clerk, Class 9 Assistant Private Secretary Mr F. G. Muller . . Personal Secretary Miss J. D. Bent P Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 Secretary/Typist Vacant Electorate Secretary Mrs D. Miles . . Electorate Assistant Mr F. M. Rees . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. BRIAN HOWE, M.P. Minister for Defence Support Senior Private Secretary Mr R. K. Forward . . Private Secretary Mr P. R. Madden . . Assistant Private Secretary Mr B. V. Shaw P Clerk, Class 8 Personal Secretary Mrs E. L. Riley P Typist, Grade 2 Secretary/Typist Miss C. T. Crowe P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Ms J. Edwards . . Electorate Assistant Mr J. Patsikatheodorou . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF MR B. C. HUMPHREYS, M.P. Government Whip in the House of Representatives Clerk Miss J. M. McKain . . Electorate Secretary Miss E. Reed . . Electorate Assistant Ms F. McLeod . . OFFICE OF SENATOR E. A. ROBERTSON Government Whip in the Senate Clerk Mrs J. O. Harvey P Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 Electorate Secretary Mrs C. A. Bourke . . Electorate Assistant Ms L. Anderson . . OFFICE OF MRS R. J. KELLY, M.P. Caucus Secretary Personal Secretary Ms C. J. Mundy . . Electorate Secretary Ms A. Ellis P Communicator 3 Electorate Assistant Ms M. Conley . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF MR R. V. FREE, M.P., CO-ORDINATOR Government Caucus Committees Secretariat Director (Private Secretary, Grade 1) Mrs J. Gordon P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Personal Secretary Grade 1 Mrs J. Cook . . Personal Secretary Grade 1 Mrs G. Crawley . . Legislative Assistant Mrs J. Kiermaier . . Legislative Assistant Mrs P. Everson . . Electorate Secretary Mrs R. Peno . . Electorate Assistant Mr G. Hungerford P Clerk, Class 4 P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. A. S. PEACOCK, M.P. Leader of the Opposition Private Secretary, Grade 4A Mr B. C. Jeffriess . . Private Secretary, Grade 3 Mr R. J. Clarke . . Private Secretary, Grade 3 Dr S. DeW. Webster . . Private Secretary, Grade 2 Dr P. C. Kerr . . Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr P. Woolcott P Foreign Affairs Officer, Grade 1 Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr J. T. Harvey . . Journalist, Grade A2 Mr I. Perkin . . Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss A. E. Gubbins . . Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss D. Norton P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Prof. C. Walsh . . Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Ms M. Kilian . . Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss K. L. Logan P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss C. L. Mullan . . Electorate Secretary Mrs J. Carter . . Electorate Assistant Miss M. McFadden P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. J. W. HOWARD, M.P. Deputy Leader of the Opposition Private Secretary, Grade 3 Mr M. E. Baume . . Journalist, Grade A2 Dr G. Henderson P Principal Executive Officer Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss B. A. Williams . . Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mrs K. Vollett . . Electorate Secretary Miss J. M. Saunders . . Electorate Assistant Mr E. R. White . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. F. M. CHANEY Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Private Secretary, Grade 3 Mr P. Shack . . Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr H. Hodges P Clerk, Class 8 Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss A. Cleverly . . Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr A. Rutherford . . Journalist, Grade A2 Mr K. M. Kessell P Journalist, Grade A Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss K. Mardardy . . Electorate Secretary Vacant . . Electorate Assistant Miss J. Hoskins . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. P. D. DURACK, Q.C. Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr G. D. Willis . . Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mrs S. McDonald . . Electorate Secretary Miss K. J. Carr . . Electorate Assistant Miss C. McLure . . OFFICE OF THE RIGHT HON. I. McC. SINCLAIR, M.P. Leader of the National Party Private Secretary, Grade 4A Mr L. D. Bathgate . . Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss C. Corbiere . . Journalist, Grade A2 Mr G. Mort . . Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss C. T. Russell . . Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss D. M. Lunnon . . Electorate Secretary Miss P. Koebel . . Electorate Assistant Ms R. Upton P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 OFFICE OF THE HON. R. J. HUNT, M.P. Deputy Leader of the National Party Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr R. Neal . . Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Miss F. McKenna P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Miss P. Richardson . . Electorate Assistant Mrs J. L. Doyle . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. I. M. McPHEE, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr R. Southey . . Electorate Secretary Ms J. M. Viner . . Electorate Assistant Ms B. White (Part-time) Mrs A. Simson (Part-time) OFFICE OF SENATOR P. E. RAE Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr P. G. Blanchard . . Electorate Secretary Mrs A. Carmichael . . Electorate Assistant Mrs R. Rae . . OFFICE OF THE HON. J. C. MOORE, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Ms K. Graham . . Electorate Secretary Ms B. S. Stehn . . Electorate Assistant Mr R. J. Wilson . . OFFICE OF THE HON. DAME MARGARET GUILFOYLE, DBE Electorate Secretary Ms J. Gleeson . . Electorate Assistant Miss C. Byrne . . OFFICE OF THE HON. M. J. R. MacKELLAR, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr A. T. Griffith . . Electorate Secretary Miss H. Ovens P Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 Legislative Assistant Mr D. Cumming . . OFFICE OF MR R. S. HALL, M.P. Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr R. McGregor (Pos. shared with Mr Fife) Electorate Secretary Ms M. K. McBryde . . Electorate Assistant Mr S. G. Wade (Part-time) Mrs J. Turner (Part-time) P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF THE HON. W. C. FIFE, M.P. Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Mr R. McGregor (Pos. shared with Mr Hall) Electorate Secretary Mrs J. Nugent . . Electorate Assistant Mrs P. A. Allbutt . . OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. P. E. BAUME Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Miss C. Mackay . . Electorate Secretary Mrs N. Kirkpatrick . . Electorate Assistant Ms C. Crawford (Part-time) Ms A. Kirk (Part-time) OFFICE OF THE HON. W. M. HODGMAN, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr R. P. Achurch . . Electorate Secretary Mrs G. P. Denniss . . Electorate Assistant Miss K. M. Hall P Steno-secretary, Grade 1 P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. A. J. MESSNER Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr B. O'Farrell P Clerk, Class 1 Electorate Secretary Mrs M. L. Murray . . Electorate Assistant Mr M. Catelin P (Part-time) Clerk, Class 1 OFFICE OF THE HON. J. J. CARLTON, M.P. Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Ms J. Fisher . . Electorate Secretary Mrs C. E. Elton . . Legislative Assistant Mrs A. T. Holford . . OFFICE OF MR B. LLOYD, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mrs A. E. Fischer P Steno-secretary, Grade 2 Electorate Secretary Ms V. G. Green . . Electorate/Legislative Assistant Mrs B. W. Bassler (Part-time) Ms M. Bradley (Part-time) Ms E. K. McKeon (Part-time) P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF MR P. J. FISHER, M.P. Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Ms C. Martin . . Electorate Secretary Mrs M. Schlemme . . Electorate Assistant Mrs J. Waldie (Part-time) Ms P. Birrell (Part-time) OFFICE OF THE HON. D. T. MCVEIGH, M.P. Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr B. R. Hill . . Electorate Secretary Miss L. M. Peters . . Electorate Assistant Ms A. Barnes (Part-time) Ms K. Rollason (Part-time) OFFICE OF MR R. A. BRAITHWAITE, M.P. Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss M. G. Camilleri (Position shared with Mr Lusher) . . Electorate Secretary Miss R. McIlvenna . . Electorate Assistant Mr R. J. Mallett . . OFFICE OF MR S. A. LUSHER, M.P. Steno-secretary, Grade 1 Miss M. G. Camilleri (Position shared with Mr Braithwaite) . . Electorate Secretary Mrs E. Price . . Legislative Assistant Miss M. R. Hendrie . . OFFICE OF DR H. R. EDWARDS, M.P. Electorate Secretary Mrs A. May . . Electorate Assistant Mrs C. Kelly (Part-time) . . (a) Employed part-time OFFICE OF MR D. M. CONNOLLY, M.P. Electorate Secretary Mrs V. A. Webb . . Electorate Assistant Ms T. Wren . . OFFICE OF MR J. M. SPENDER, Q.C., M.P. Electorate Secretary Ms D. Jacobson . . Electorate Assistant Ms W. Christison . . OFFICE OF MR J. R. PORTER, M.P. Electorate Secretary Miss S. Lock . . Electorate Assistant Mrs R. James . . OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. D. B. SCOTT Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss B. A. Daly (Position shared with Senator Collard) Clerical Assistant Electorate Secretary Mrs A. Plummer . . Legislative Assistant Mrs H. Grey . . OFFICE OF MR R. F. SHIPTON, M.P. Electorate Secretary Miss A. Walsh . . Electorate Assistant Ms H. Farrington . . OFFICE OF MR P. M. RUDDOCK, M.P. Electorate Secretary Miss R. Lee . . Electorate Assistant Miss J. A. Boothby . . OFFICE OF SENATOR K. J. MARTIN Electorate Secretary Mrs J. Fitzpatrick . . Electorate Assistant Mrs P. Smith . . OFFICE OF SENATOR J. J. COLLARD Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Miss B. A. Daly (Position shared with Senator Scott) Clerical Assistant, Grade 6 Electorate Secretary Miss M. Franettovich . . Electorate Assistant Ms M. Mellick . . OFFICE OF THE HON. J. D. M. DOBIE, M.P. Clerk Mrs C. McVeigh P Typist, Grade 1 Electorate Secretary Mrs G. Ridoutt . . Electorate Assistant Mr M. Bowmer (Part-time) . . Ms R. Smith (Part-time) P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF SENATOR B. F. KILGARIFF Opposition Whip in the Senate Clerk Ms P. Hamilton P Steno-secretary Electorate Secretary Mrs K. Maurice . . Legislative Assistant Miss K. Wells . . P-Permanent Officer OFFICE OF MR N. J. HICKS, M.P. National Party Whip Clerk Miss G. Van Dam P Typist, Grade 2 Electorate Secretary Mrs R. Baldwin . . Electorate Assistant Mrs E. L. Hookey . . P-Permanent Officer SENATORS Electorate/ Legislative Senator Electorate secretary Assistant B. R. Archer Ms J. Humphries Mr B. Birrell F. I. Bjelke-Petersen Miss B. M. Hanman Mrs D. Burke N. Bolkus Mrs A. Tantis Ms M. J. Cornwell R. L. D. Boswell Miss S. Gonano Mr A. Listro Hon. Sir John Carrick, K.C.M.G. Mrs G. Chapman Miss H. M. Hughan B. K. Childs Ms V. Bason Mr M. Byrne J. Coates Ms L. Spurr Miss P. M. Reardon R. N. Coleman Mrs S. G. Landquist Ms M. Bourke M. A. Colston Miss M. K. Dunning Miss S. Elliott P. F. S. Cook Mr J. Agnew Vacant N. A. Crichton-Browne Miss T. Wallace Vacant R. A. Crowley Ms J. Taylor Miss F. Kaider R. C. Elstob Ms P. Hansberry Ms M. Perna D. J. Foreman Miss B. Molloy Mr N. J. O'Brien G. Georges Mr G. Weir Mrs B. Watts P. J. Giles Ms C. Davenport Ms R. Terry D. J. Hamer, D.S.C. Miss B. King Mrs W. M. H. Brazil J. M. Hearn Mrs B. S. Cundall Mrs J. Tunney R. Hill Mr J. Griffin Mrs H. Atldorffer D. S. Jessop Ms T. D. Northridge Mr A. Crawford G. N. Jones Mrs J. Seiffert Mr D. May M. E. Lajovic Mrs L. Doherty Miss N. Malone A. W. R. Lewis Mrs J. Bosch Mr J. Hume Hon. D. McClelland Mrs T. Overy Vacant D. J. MacGibbon Miss C. Draper Miss J. Schriel G. D. McIntosh Mrs H. D. Butorac Mr S. Wakeham G. R. Maguire Ms K. Couper Ms J. Gregory A. J. Missen Mr A. J. Thomas Mrs B. Block C. G. Primmer Ms K. M. Ayres Mr A. J. Sargent R. F. Ray Mrs K. Morris Mr D. Cragg M. E. Reid Mrs K. Messner Mrs J. A. Mahon M. Reynolds Miss K. Hunter Miss P. Cook G. F. Richardson Mrs M. Grace Mr D. Tierney K. W. Sibraa Ms M. Geoghegan Mr T. Cusack Ms M. A. Armstrong M. C. Tate Mr S. Daley Mrs C. Dunning Ms L. Bellchambers Ms M. Daley B. C. Teague Mrs E. Pooley Mr R. G. Reid M. Townley Mrs S. Richardson Vacant M. S. Walters Mrs B. L. Hurburgh Mr E. J. Clark Mrs H. J. Joske J. O. W. Watson Ms C. M. Campbell Mr S. Eldridge Rt. Hon. R. G. Withers Mrs M. Taylor Mrs S. Withers A. O. Zakharov Ms J. Hoysted Ms H. O'Connor Note: Known former levels are as follows: Mrs L. Doherty, Clerk, Class 1; Miss M. K. Dunning, Typist, Grade 1; Mrs M. Grace, Typist, Grade 1; Miss B. M. Hanman , Secretary-Typist; Ms P. Hansberry, Typist, Grade 1; Miss K. Hunter, Clerical Assistant, Grade 3; Miss N. Malone, Typist, Grade 1; Mr N. J. O'Brien, Clerk, Class 5; Mrs S. Richardson, Typist, Grade 1; Mr A. J. Thomas, Clerk, Class 1. MEMBERS Electorate/ Legislative Member Electorate secretary Assistant Hon. A. E. Adermann Miss U. Murray Mrs K. Hooper K. J. Aldred Mr A. Verbickis Mrs B. J. Richards J. N. Andrew Mrs S. R. Reeves Mr T. L. Barker Mrs J. Henricks P. J. Baldwin Ms C. E. Tout Mr A. Katzmann D. P. Beddall Mrs K. Jitts Ms H. Hubbard G. N. Bilney Mrs F. Finley Mrs S. Colhoun Mrs S. T. Kear C. A. Blanchard Mrs P. Tassell Miss A. Hogg C. W. Blunt Mrs J. H. Wein Miss A. C. Chitakis R. J. Brown Mrs E. A. Boyd Miss M. Robson J. M. Brumby Ms R. MacKenzie Ms D. Looney M. A. Burr Ms H. E. Rosevear Mr R. Robertson A. G. Cadman Ms J. E. Andrew Mrs V. Rosemeyer D. M. Cameron Mrs V. Birkbeck Miss M. Cohen E. C. Cameron Mrs M. Deering Miss M. Brown I. M. D. Cameron Mrs M. Seay Miss N. Pegler G. Campbell Ms S. L. Hills Mr P. McKerrow Mr R. Price D. E. Charles Mrs H. Young Mr R. Lindell R. I. Charlesworth Mrs C. Towie Mrs E. Collier Ms A. Keane Mrs J. Child Ms K. Alexiadis Mr J. Halloran R. L. Chynoweth Ms C. Clarke Ms T. Genge W. P. Coleman Mrs I. Lees Miss S. Creer D. B. Cowan Mrs W. McKeough Mr S. Outtrim M. D. Cross Miss C. Allen Mrs M. Fewins B. T. Cunningham Miss J. Onger Miss T. Cunningham Mrs E. E. Darling Miss K. M. Byrne Ms M. Freeman P. H. Drummond Miss S. D. Fotakis Mr J. C. G. Buxton R. F. Edwards Mr T. Lewis Ms B. Fussell Hon. D. N. Everingham Ms V. Laletin Mrs L. Wright Mr A. R. Coker Ms W. F. Fatin Ms R. Hughes Ms S. Talbot K. L. Fry Mrs M. Charchalis Ms P. Mullane J. Gayler Mr S. Gray Miss B. Stewart Mrs P. Holt G. Gear Ms G. White Ms V. Buchanan B. J. Goodluck Mrs G. B. Wilson Mrs B. I. Cusick R. N. J. Gorman Mrs J. E. Hartley Mrs S. J. Caldwell A. G. Griffiths Ms D. Hughes Mr G. Lennox Ms T. Saville Hon. R. J. Groom Mr G. W. Walkley Ms H. J. Wilkinson G. L. Hand Ms G. Stradijot Mr K. Healy D. P. M. Hawker Mrs L. Slorach Ms C. Proos C. Hollis Mrs M. Bradford Mr J. Grace R. Jacobi Miss S. J. Hogben Mr P. Holloway Hon. Dr H. A. Jenkins Miss S. J. Wilkes Mrs B. Gleeson Hon. R. C. Katter Mrs C. Ahnfeldt Mrs M. Wollaston Ms M. Gallwey L. Kent Mrs J. Sullivan Ms E. J. Cary L. F. Keogh Mrs L. Tobin Ms P. Lawrence R. E. Klugman Mrs G. W. Boyce-Monaghan Mrs M. Turner E. J. Lindsay Ms K. Carpenter Mr J. Littlefield F. S. McArthur Mrs N. Ward Ms B. Murch P. J. McGauran Ms P. Boothman Vacant Ms J. McHugh Mr E. Galtos Ms F. Gervasoni L. B. McLeay Mrs A. Williamson Mrs M. Newman Mrs V. Gauld M. J. Maher Mrs M. Shaw Miss B. A. Willats Mrs H. Mayer Ms N. Sparrow Ms L. Lloyd Ms N. Wilson J. B. Mildren Mr D. J. Miller Mrs H. J. Horrocks P. C. Millar Miss M. Olds Mr R. Donald P. Milton Ms L. D'Agostino Ms K. A. Large A. A. Morris Ms A. E. Cassidy-Jordan Mr J. R. Parker Hon. W. L. Morrison Ms V. M. Blackvall Mr J. Hutchinson J. G. Mountford Mrs K. T. Creighton Mrs M. Shepherd Hon. K. E. Newman Mrs J. R. Calvert Miss S. Paterson F. L. O'Keefe, A.M. Miss P. Carlton Mr D. Campbell L. R. T. O'Neil Ms D. McEwan Mr W. Johnson Ms C. F. Hutchison G. F. Punch Mrs N. McAloon Mrs M. Dodkin J. E. Reeves Mrs C. Quelch Mr M. A. Heward Ms K. Elliot Ms D. Stirling Hon. I. L. Robinson Mrs H. Pullen Ms R. King A. C. Rocher Mrs Y. Brophy Mr J. Nurick J. Saunderson Ms P. Decker Ms C. Ryan J. L. Scott Mrs C. Pickles Mrs L. Ivchenko D. W. Simmons Mrs J. Navin Miss S. West J. H. Snow Mrs R. C. Clasper Ms P. Lockwood P. R. Staples Ms E. Wightman Mr L. McInnes A. P. Steedman Ms M. Barr Ms G. Freeman Dr A. C. Theophanous Mr W. Albon Ms C. Fabian Mr M. Trethewey R. E. Tickner Ms A. Gillies Ms M. Dwyer Ms S. Penman C. W. Tuckey Mrs S. W. Goldstone Mr N. T. Haywood D. McM. Wells Mrs L. Storey Ms R. Walters P. N. D. White, MC. Miss M. Hartstein Mrs F. Wright Hon. I. B. C. Wilson Mrs B. J. Champion Miss F. Vorassi Mr P. J. de Cure Note: Known former levels are as follows: Miss C. Allen, Typist Supervisor, Grade 2; Mrs V. Birkbeck, Clerical Assistant, Grade 1; Miss K. M. Byrne, Steno- secretary, Grade 2; Mrs B. J. Champion, Typist, Grade 1; Miss M. Cohen, Steno- secretary, Grade 1; Mrs M. Fewins, Typist Controller, Grade 1; Mr J. Halloran, Clerk, Class 2/3; Miss S. J. Hogben, Clerk, Class 1; Ms R. Hughes, Typist, Grade 2; Mrs L. Ivchenko, Typist, Grade 1; Ms R. King, Clerk, Class 1; Ms K. A. Large, Clerk, Class 1; Mrs I. Lees, Typist, Grade 2; Mr R. Lindell, Clerk, Class 2/3; Mrs J. Navin, Clerical Assistant, Grade 4; Mrs S. R. Reeves, Typist, Grade 1; Miss S. J. Wilkes, Clerical Assistant, Grade 1. THE AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS OFFICE OF SENATOR THE HON. D. L. CHIPP Leader of the Australian Democrats Classification Occupant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr S. Spindler Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr D. Campbell Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr G. Butman Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mr C. Carter Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Ms L. S. Barton Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 1 Ms J. E. McEwan Electorate Secretary Ms A. Defteros Electorate Assistant Ms H. Jeffcoat OFFICE OF SENATOR C. V. J. MASON Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats Classification Occupant Electorate Secretary Ms V. W. Bourne Electorate Assistant Ms W. L. Barron OFFICE OF SENATOR M. J. MACKLIN Australian Democrat Whip Classification Occupant Assistant Private Secretary, Grade 2 Mrs G. Wimmer Electorate Secretary Mrs J. Hadley Electorate Assistant Mr J. Jacklin OFFICE OF SENATOR J. G. EVANS Classification Occupant Electorate Secretary Vacant Electorate Assistant Mr C. Walton (Part-time) Mrs D. Newton (Part-time) OFFICE OF SENATOR J. HAINES Classification Occupant Electorate Secretary Ms M. F. Oster (Part-time) Ms M. A. Williams (Part-time) Electorate Assistant Ms R. Jacquier SENATOR NOT AFFILIATED WITH A MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY SENATOR B. HARRADINE Classification Occupant Former level Private Secretary, Grade 1 Mr D. W. Strangman P Clerk, Class 7 Electorate Secretary Mrs V. M. Challenger . . Electorate Assistant Mr J. P. Kearney, P Clerical Assistant, Grade 1 P-Permanent Officer.