Wednesday, 12 September 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Australian Capital Territory Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Legislation To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support 'The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of wide-spread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 300 citizens), Jack Evans (from 298 citizens), Haines ( from 312 citizens) and Mason (from 310 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 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 people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian Flag with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 27 citizens) and Messner (from 417 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the senate, in parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X classification for films and video tapes, nor category 2 for Printed Material, Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and video tapes and category 1 Printed Material And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 1,254 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power, in particular (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitioners most humbly pray that: (1) No new uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of uranium be approved; (3 Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 175 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 programs. (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned taxpayers of Australia, respectfully show that we deplore the use of taxation funds to allow privileges and entitlements, such as overseas travel, for homosexual staff members of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the same basis as legally married couples. As taxpayers, we humbly request that this decision be reversed immediately and our taxation contribution be used for more urgent needs, such as defence, housing, education, roads, transport and social security benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 252 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Australian Federal Parliament the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 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 the three 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 geographical location on this planet earth (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 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 the Flag will produce division in the Australian community Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That as the assets test, 1. will cost the Australian taxpayer at least $30 million in the coming financial year, leaving less money available for pensioners, 2. is causing worry and apprehension amongst older people and their families, 3. will affect those people least able to alter their financial situation, and 4. is confusing many people about to retire after many years of paying taxes; that it be abandoned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley (from 18 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the vote on Tuesday, 11 September, 1984 on the matter of urgency where every member of the Labor, Liberal and National Parties voted in favour of a motion which indicated the urgency of the need to demonstrate Australia's commitment to the ANZUS Treaty by supporting the continued presence of United States bases in Australia and the visits of nuclear-powered and armed warships to Australia as a means of reaffirming the ANZUS Treaty; (b) condemns successive Liberal and Labor governments for continuing to make Australians and their children nuclear targets through the presence of United States bases and nuclear-armed warships in our harbours and cities; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to take deliberate and bold steps to remove the threat of the nuclear holocaust through unilateral initiatives to reject all nuclear weapons, such as prohibiting the entry of nuclear-powered and armed warships. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(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 establish a register of foreign corporations owning or controlling Australian property. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That- (a) noting that most people in Australia well recognise that without satisfactory defence, Australia could easily be overrun by outside forces; (b) well aware of the importance in defence of both the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean; (c) convinced that unless satisfactory defence is obvious to those countries that have shown that they are aggressive, the likelihood of attack is much increased; and (d) noting with deep concern the attitude of New Zealand to the defence of this area, calls upon the Government of Australia to contact the New Zealand Government at the highest level to impress upon them the importance that Australia places upon the ANZUS treaty and requests the New Zealand Government to show some maturity in world affairs, and once again accept its responsibilities in this area. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Government's decision to place its political fortunes ahead of the universally significant tropical rainforests of North Queensland, particularly in the Daintree region; (b) condemns the deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of Federal Government Ministers that the Federal Government lacks the power to act until the Daintree region is nominated or on the World Heritage List; (c) condemns the Federal Government's total failure to act to preserve Australia's unique world heritage areas in North Queensland by abdicating responsibility for their nomination for the World Heritage List to the Queensland Government; and (d) calls on the Government to regulate now, under section 3 (2) (ii) (a) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, to save the Daintree rainforest by preventing any further construction on the road, and to nominate the area for World Heritage listing by December 31, 1984. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that on September 12, 1977 Steve Biko was killed while under police detention in South Africa; and (b) condemns the Government of South Africa for maintaining its apartheid policy and for persisting in its claims that it is improving conditions of life for non-whites and allowing them access to power, while simultaneously repressing protests from non-white leaders who maintain that the South African Government continues to be blatantly racist. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its grave concern over the serious consequences of the ruling New Zealand Labour Party's decision to withdraw from all military exercises and alliances with nuclear powers, thereby putting an end to the ANZUS alliance, and in view of the fact that the Soviet presence of nuclear powered submarines and other naval vessels is continually increasing in the southern Pacific region; (b) calls upon the Australian Government to denounce this harmful action on the part of the ruling New Zealand Labour Party which threatens the security of Australia and the Pacific area. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the proposed Federal Government interference in the Daintree rainforest area, noting that this area is not listed on the World Heritage List; and (b) condemns the Federal Government for its interference in a matter which is the responsibility of State and local governments and outside the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. High-level trade mission to Japan-report July 1984-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Trade relating to the report. 2. Army and Air Force Canteen Service board of management-annual report 1983-84 -pursuant to section 23E of the Army and Air Force Canteen Service regulations 1981. 3. Science and technology statement for 1983-84. 4. Local government grants commission N.S.W. 1983-84-report-pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. 5. Government's new water policy, guidelines for the Federal water resources assistance program, and the response to the recommendations of the 'Water 2000' report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy relating to the documents. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to: 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. Bill presented by Senator Durack, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.10) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend the external affairs power in section 51 placitum 29 of the Constitution to narrow the very wide interpretation it received by a majority of the High Court in Commonwealth v State of Tasmania ( the Franklin Dam Case). This amendment is necessary to preserve the basic federal policy of the Constitution. In the Australian Federal system, the Commonwealth Parliament has specifically enumerated heads of legislative power. Some of these are exclusive to the Commonwealth and some are shared concurrently with the States. Legislative power with respect to subject matters not specifically assigned to the Commonwealth is reserved to the States. As a result of the judgment in the Franklin Dam Case the Commonwealth now has the power to legislate on subject matters that have traditionally been the preserve of the States, that is, subject matters which in the absence of an international obligation, would be reserved to the States. The High Court in the Dam Case held by a narrow 4:3 majority that the mere existence of a treaty obligation is sufficient (although not necessary) to give rise to an external affair for the purposes of section 51 (29) of the Constitution. Thus the Executive of the Commonwealth can expand Commonwealth legislative power simply by entering into a treaty or other international agreement. Because the external affairs power is purposive, it has greatly expanded with the increasing interdependence of nation States. There is no limit to the range of matters, economic and social, with which the international community is concerned. Accordingly, there is no limit to the range of matters that may come within the legislative power of the Commonwealth. Although the judgment in the Dam Case is subject to express and implied constitutional prohibitions, they do not provide an effective barrier against the potential of the wide interpretation of placitum 29 to undermine the Federal balance. The Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs, in Koowarta v Bjelke- Petersen warned of the ramifications of adopting the interpretation that found favour with the majority in the Dam Case. He said ''if s51 (29) empowers the Parliament to legislate to give effect to every international agreement which the Executive may choose to make, the Commonwealth would be able to acquire unlimited legislative power. The distribution of powers made by the Constitution could in time be completely obliterated; there would be no field of power which the Commonwealth could not invade, and the federal balance achieved by the Constitution could be entirely destroyed''. Concern about the ambit of the External Affairs Power has been the subject of discussion between the Commonwealth and the States and amongst constitutional lawyers for a long time. It has been an item on the Agenda of the Constitutional Convention since 1974 although the matter was not debated in the Convention until Adelaide in April last year. The Fraser Government took the initiative at Premiers' Conferences in 1977 and 1978 in proposing guidelines for consultation with the States on the negotiation of treaties and about their domestic implementation. The Premiers' Conference in 1982 adopted guidelines in broad terms as follows: - the States be informed at an early stage of all treaty discussions; - the States to have the opportunity to participate in the negotiation process including representation in the Commonwealth delegation to an international conference which deals with matters within State responsibility; - Commonwealth to seek appropriate Federal clauses in such treaties; - the States to have the first opportunity of implementing treaty provisions within their own area of responsibility; - the existing Commonwealth/State Ministers' meetings should be used as forums for detailed discussion about treaty proposals within their area of responsibility. Following the Dam Case, I detailed five ways in which the Opposition would mitigate the effects of that decision. In Government we will: (a) not use the External Affairs Power to expand the role of the Commonwealth in a way which disturbs the balance of Federalism; (b) involve the States in the negotiation of all international conventions; (d) seek the approval of the Parliament for the ratification of all treaties except those relating to defence or national security; (e) pursue within the framework of the Constitutional Convention a suitable form of amendment to the External Affairs Power limiting its operation so that the traditional balance of power between Federal and State governments cannot be undermined by the Commonwealth entering into international treaties. A suitable amendment to the Constitution is an important element of the package . Without it the division of legislative power between the Commonwealth and the States will be governed more by political than legal considerations. The proposed amendment focuses on the problem highlighted by the Dam Case, that is, the virtually unrestricted power of the Commonwealth Parliament to domestically implement treaties entered into in good faith by the Commonwealth. The external affairs power is not confined to the domestic implementation of international obligations. It extends to a wide range of activity, such as diplomatic representation and the extradition of criminals, where Commonwealth legislative power exists independently of the existence of an international obligation. The external affairs power may also validate Commonwealth legislation with respect to people and places outside Australia. The Bill does not affect these aspects of the power. Nor does the Bill limit the power of the Executive arm of the Commonwealth to enter into treaties or other international agreements. The Bill limits the scope of the external affairs power with respect to persons , matters or things within the Commonwealth. Placitum 29 will only support a law of that description if those persons, matters or things have a substantial relationship to other countries or to persons, matters or things outside the Commonwealth and the law deals with that relationship or if it concerns the movement of persons or things into or out of the Commonwealth. This limitation applies notwithstanding the existence of an obligation under existing international law or of a treaty or other international agreement, resolution or declaration on the subject. The Bill specifically preserves the treaty making power of the Commonwealth. The amendment only applies to enactments passed after the commencement of sub- section 1 and will not invalidate legislation upheld under the external affairs power prior to that time. The limitation is based on Sir Harry Gibbs's formulation of the scope of the external affairs power in his language judgment in Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen. The aim of the amendment is to achieve a balance that recognises the Commonwealth's international status but deprives the Commonwealth of the power to arrogate legislative power unto itself without meaningful restriction. This amendment does not render Australia an international cripple. The treaty making power of the Commonwealth is intact. It may be argued that the legislative power to domestically implement international obligations should be co-extensive with the treaty making power. However this principle is not, and never has been, absolute. Even under the wide view of section 51 (29) adopted by the majority in the Dam Case, the legislative power is not co-extensive with the treaty making power. The legislative power is subject to express and implied constitutional prohibitions. Although these are not a sufficient bulwark against the erosion of federalism as we know it, they illustrate that the principle of co-extensive legislative and executive power is not absolute. Furthermore no Australian Government can guarantee that legislation fulfilling an international obligation incurred by Australia will necessarily receive Parliamentary approval. Unlike the situation in the US, international agreements are not self-executing in Australia. Domestic legislation is required to give force and effect within Australia to an international agreement. Thus the legislative power to domestically implement treaties is not presently co- extensive with the treaty making power. Although this amendment further narrows the Commonwealth's legislative power to implement treaties, it does so in the interests of preserving a meaningful division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States. The preservation of Federalism is a justifiable ground for enlarging the discrepancy between the power to make and the power to implement treaties. Indeed two other Federations, West Germany and Canada, have divided internal legislative competence to implement international obligations. Neither can be labelled as an international cripple. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Tate) proposed: That leave be granted to the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge to meet during sittings of the Senate in September and October 1984. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-My reason for wishing to say something on a formal motion is that the motion which has been moved by Senator Tate is one which is of very great interest to the Senate as a whole. I do not wish to raise the general principle which we have adopted in the Opposition, which I think is broadly accepted by the Government, that as far as possible Senate committees should not meet while the Senate is sitting. That is a principle which we have overturned from time to time on the basis of either the importance of a matter or, usually, the urgency of a matter. In this case I wish to put before the Senate the fact that there was some concern among Opposition senators that given the unusual nature of this inquiry and given the fact that in the ultimate the responsibility in this matter rests with the Senate, and indeed with the whole of the Parliament, it was the view of many Opposition senators-I think I could say the view of the Opposition generally- that were it possible for the sittings of the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge, at which public evidence is taken, to be held at a time when senators were free to attend, that would be highly desirable. It is very difficult at this stage to predict what the result of this will be. It may be that it will require the Senate's attention after the work of the Committee. Clearly, in terms of the Senate making a judgment on the matter, were honourable senators able to see the witnesses that could be of considerable advantage. Given the circumstances and given the view of the Government, which again is shared by the Opposition, that this matter should be dealt with expeditiously, it was not thought reasonable for the Opposition to suggest that the Committee be precluded from meeting while the Senate is sitting. It is possible to imagine a scenario in which that would delay the hearings in a way which would be quite unfair to the judge and which would in fact preclude the expeditious handling of this matter. That would not be the Opposition's wish. The Opposition therefore determined, after consideration of Senator Tate's notice of motion, which he gave yesterday, that we should be prepared to support it. But we wish to place on the record, for the consideration of the Committee, the view that as far as possible public sessions at which evidence is taken should be held at times which would enable senators to attend those hearings. I appreciate the opportunity the Senate has given me to put that on the record and I ask Senator Tate and the other members of the Committee to bear in mind that view in setting down the meetings of the Committee. We agree that the matter should be dealt with expeditiously and we hope that that will be possible consistent with the point which I have just raised on behalf of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. General Business Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.16) —I move: That after consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day Nos. 1 and 2, the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1984, intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of General Business Order of the Day No. 106, Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984. I will speak very briefly to that motion. The Opposition has seldom sought to rearrange the business and has largely left the setting of business in the hands of the Government. I acknowledge that on many occasions the Government has co- operated with the Opposition in providing opportunities for debate. However, on this occasion, as I indicated when Senator Chipp gave notice of the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill on Monday, it is the view of the Opposition that the importance of the subject matter is such that we do not believe it is desirable that the Bill should simply remain on the Notice Paper. Given that we have no period for General Business this week because of the sitting of Estimates committees tomorrow, this is the last opportunity that we realistically have for dealing with this Bill this week. The Bill goes to the ability of Australia to co-operate with its major ally, the United States of America. In the view of the Opposition, it raises significant doubts about our full participation in the ANZUS Treaty. In the view of the Opposition it is not desirable that a Bill of this nature should remain on the Notice Paper without the view of the Parliament being clearly determined. For that reason we would like to see this Bill dealt with today, debated today and indeed voted on today. That is the reason for moving this motion. In the interests of reasonable Senate housekeeping we have proposed that the Bill should not be brought on until the Australian National University Amendment Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill, which are partly dealt with, are concluded. After that, we would seek the earliest possible debate of this Australian Democrats measure. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.18) —The Government opposes this rearrangement of business. Like Senator Chaney, I will speak briefly on this matter. I understand from hearing the scuttle-butt around this place that some arrangement has been made and that this motion will in fact succeed. But there is every reason in the world for the Government to oppose it. I am sure that Senator Chaney, if he were in government and an opposition tried something as outrageous as this, would oppose it too. The simple fact is that Bills are never debated in this place in the same week as they are introduced into the Parliament unless there is an agreement on all sides that that be done. Usually Bills that are debated under those circumstances are Bills of a non- controversial nature; otherwise they are not dealt with. The most recent examples we have had, of course, were the Sales Tax Amendment Bills (Nos. 1 to 9 ) 1984 which arose from this year's Budget and which, as they are Budget measures, we would have liked to get through in the first week because of the importance of them. But the Opposition, not unreasonably, said that it did not have time to look at them and put them through its shadow Cabinet or through its party room. In this case, the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill was introduced only yesterday. No one in this place except the person who introduced the Bill, and I assume his colleagues, had seen the Bill until then. The Cabinet has not considered the measure; neither has the parliamentary Labor Party. I doubt whether it has been considered in the Liberal Party rooms or in the National Party rooms. Other Bills have been introduced recently by individual senators. Senator Harradine introduced a Bill. He wrote to the Government and, I understand, to the Opposition about that Bill. He considers it a very important Bill. We made a decision that that Bill should be considered in the normal time in General Business. But he let us know what was going on and we responded. Senator Mason did the same thing with a Bill regarding the Chamberlain case. The Government responded to those requests. The responses may not have been welcomed by those who introduced the legislation, but we were approached and we responded. I do not know whether Senator Chipp has made any formal approach concerning this legislation. Certainly there were rumours that he was to introduce this sort of legislation. As far as we are concerned, Senator Chaney's notice of motion is the only indication that this Bill would be treated with such urgency. These questions have to be asked: Whose Bill is it? Who has brought in the Bill and who has introduced it? Does the person who brought in the Bill think it should be treated with such urgency? Senator Chaney today said that the reason that this was a matter of urgency was that despite the fact that we had not seen the Bill until it was introduced and that neither the Party room nor the Cabinet could consider it, it was important that it did not lie around on the Notice Paper, because it was important that a declaration relating to the matters that Senator Chipp introduced be made on how Australia felt about the defence of this country. Yet yesterday we debated a matter of urgency when much the same things were discussed. I dare say they will be discussed in the debate on this Bill, although I have not seen the Bill. Much the same things were discussed and much the same issues were gone over. I point out that the Government is willing to debate this Bill later in the current sittings. But the Bill should be considered properly by the Cabinet and by all parliamentary Party rooms. It is highly inappropriate and, I suggest, against all previous practice in this place to call on debate of a Bill like this only one day after its introduction into the Parliament. The only reason for calling on the debate must be that the Liberals and the Leader of the Opposition consider that they will somehow get some political advantage out of it. I do not pretend that people do not try to get some political advantages out of the procedures in this place. To introduce legislation as important as this on one day and then for the Opposition to say that it is so urgent that we must debate it the very next day before any reasonable consideration can be given to it is an outrageous attempt to interfere with the order of business in this place. The Government and I therefore must oppose this attempt. If a deal has been done to bring on this legislation, if there is a determination that this will be so, I believe that an irresponsible deal has been done. I cannot see any justification for going against normal procedures. I think Senator Chaney should realise that people who act in this way will end up on the wrong end some time in the future. There may well be some circumstances in the future when a government has the numbers in this place and will use those numbers to push legislation through in a way that is most undesirable. That will mean we will have legislation going through without consideration. If we are going to proceed in this way and if we are going to tear up the normal procedures in this place, I suppose in the future we will all have to consider whether any rules or conventions will operate at all. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.24) —I make it clear that, as does the Liberal Party of Australia, the Australian Democrats support moves like this only with the greatest reluctance. From memory, in the 18 months during which the Senate has sat since Labor won power, this is one of the very few occasions when business has been taken out of the hands of the Government. In fact, I do not think it has been done before. This is possibly the first or second time it has ever been done. Therefore, no deal was done. Although Senator Chaney gave notice of his motion on Monday, I did not know he was going to move it today until I came into the chamber at 10 o'clock this morning. I have some sympathy with the view put by Senator Grimes on behalf of the Government, but with great respect I say that upon examination his reasons are a little thin. Quite often very important matters such as censure motions are raised in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and are debated forthwith without any notice being given to the Government. Senator Grimes —This is legislation. Senator CHIPP —This is legislation, but surely a censure motion is as serious as if not more serious than any legislation. Censure motions are debated forthwith. Matters of public importance on which votes are taken are raised every day without notice being given. I just say that in passing. Senator Grimes's argument that Cabinet has not considered the matter falls to the ground, although I accept his word that Cabinet has not considered it. This Bill will prevent the entry into Australian waters of ships which are nuclear powered or nuclear armed and will prevent aircraft that are nuclear armed from landing on Australian soil. That particular matter is not new to the Labor Cabinet. When I was overseas five weeks ago I read with some shame that the Australian Labor Government, in the person of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), was heavying the New Zealand Government for its most courageous decision to do precisely what this Bill seeks to do. I hope that I will not be told by Senator Grimes that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister heavied the New Zealand Government to change its mind without a Cabinet decision. This very question has been considered several times by the Cabinet. It certainly considered it in terms of what New Zealand did and the aims of this Bill are identical with what New Zealand did. Am I to be told that if the Cabinet met to consider the exact terms of this Bill it might come to a different decision, as it did with regard to the situation in New Zealand? That is absolute humbug; it is absolute nonsense. The whole question of a nuclear-free zone and visits of nuclear powered ships has been considered in detail, not only by Cabinet, but also by Caucus. Therefore, this Bill will came as no surprise. Its fate before a Cabinet meeting would be predictable and the discussion on it would be limited to seconds. One would not expect the same situation in Caucus, but Cabinet has already made up its mind about it. There is no more important item on the Notice Paper than this Bill, because its subject makes every Australian a nuclear target. No subject can be more important than that which makes Australia and every living Australian a nuclear target. The Government's position is well considered. I disagree with it, but I respect it. But the matter has been well debated within the Government. Therefore, as with the urgency motion yesterday, this Senate should be totally prepared to debate this most important issue today. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.29) —I should like to say that at this time I consider that the motion to bring on the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984 is somewhat premature, but I believe it ought to be brought on, certainly before the Senate rises, because it deals with a matter of major and vital national importance affecting the national security of this country. Therefore, since a senator has decided to exercise his right to bring forward a piece of legislation dealing with this matter of major national public importance, I believe that it cannot be left hanging in the wilderness. I listened to Senator Grimes's remarks and some of them were relevant to this question, namely the question of notice. I am in that situation myself on this matter. However, if this matter goes ahead today, I intend to speak on it because it is a matter of great national importance. But as Senator Grimes said, there are other senators who have Bills which they have put forward on other matters of vital national importance and other matters of great principle underpinning the law. One of those matters is my Bill, the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2). I do not accept Senator Grimes's suggestion that those measures should be left to only the General Business times , when it is easy enough for other senators to talk out time. When time is talked out the Bill then goes to the bottom of the Notice Paper and is not dealt with. I am not prepared to accept that situation in respect of my Bill or other measures such as this one brought forward by Senator Chipp, which goes to the heart of fundamental issues relating to the national security of this country. However, at this stage I am not prepared to vote for the motion seeking to bring this matter on today. I would have been prepared to vote for a motion seeking to bring it on at the next day of sitting; that is, in a fortnight's time. That is my position. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Mason, C. V. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Missen, A. J. Evans, Jack Rae, PeterGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Reid, M. E. Haines, J. Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B. Zakharov, A. O. Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Gietzelt, A. T. Boswell, R. L. D. Button, J. N. Walters, M. S. Hearn, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 7 September. Clause 16 (Statutes). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.39) —When we last considered the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 in Committee we disposed of Opposition amendment No. (2) which sought to insert certain words in section 27 (1) (o) (ii) of the Act. I now move amendment No. (3) in the following terms: (3) Page 4, clause 16, paragraph (c), proposed new sub-paragraph 27 (1) (o) ( iii), line 36, after 'fees', insert 'the payment of which shall be voluntary and which are'. The effect of this amendment is to introduce the principle of voluntarism, in the same way as we sought to introduce that principle in the previous amendment. But this is a more important amendment because the provision proposed by the Government will allow the funding of the Australian Union of Students, or whatever its successor organisation is. While we are concerned generally about the wide wording of the provisions in this Bill, we find this new provision even more objectionable than the one we argued against before the Committee last time we sat. Unless our amendment is included, the Government's proposal will extend the punitive sanctions of the university against students who do not want to fund organisations which are not campus organisations. It is one argument for people to say that students have a responsibility to those organisations on campus; it is quite another argument to say that students will be forced to be part of the funding of organisations which are not part of their college or university but which are, as it were, national organisations. A general question arises in relation to the funding of outside bodies: Is this the business of the university? Is the putting of compulsion upon individual students a proper exercising of power? The proposed new sub-paragraph as it has been presented to the Committee by the Government would permit compulsion in the funding of organisations which are not part of the campus on which the students have enrolled and not part of the academic road down which the students have started. This is simply a form of taxing in support of organisations which are supra-university or supra-college and which may be national organisations. That is something we find objectionable. The amendment we have proposed simply says that payments to national organisations-the AUS or its successor-should be voluntary. The argument the Government puts is not only that fees should be able to be paid but also that compulsorily levied fees should be paid to the national organisations. At the second reading stage I set out the objections we had to some of the activities of the AUS in the past, and the record of that national organisation shows what the funds were used for. The kinds of activities which the AUS funded are proper only where those funds are voluntarily collected. I commend the amendment to the Committee as one which is entirely appropriate, given the fact that this provision is not one which relates to an activity on campus and is not one which relates to any proper function of scholarship or belongs to a particular campus community which could be laid upon any particular student. The amendment we have moved is entirely appropriate and one deserving of the support of the Committee. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.44) —I wish to make a very brief comment at this stage in respect of the Australian National University Amendment Bill as I was not able to do so during the second reading debate. I make it clear to both the Government and the Opposition that I do not regard student unions as having in any way the same status as trade unions; that is, industrial organisations of employees registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The provisions of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights quoted by Senator Baume in his speech on the second reading do not apply to the question of trade unions registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. From memory, that was made very clear at the time by Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt. I cannot recall the precise details, but I know that when I was the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation that section of the Declaration was put forward by the then Government, the Fraser Government, as justifying its attack on the preference for unionists provisions in industrial awards. The evidence indicates that that section is not applicable to trade unions. It is a different matter when it comes to organisations of students. The question to be asked is whether those organisations should be treated in the same way as registered industrial organisations. Of course they should not be treated in the same way as registered industrial organisations. The trade union movement does not have them treated in that way. None of the organisations are affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions or State branches of the ACTU. Indeed, were they to seek affiliation the rules of the ACTU and of the State branches of the ACTU would preclude them from being affiliated. Similarly, they could not obtain registration under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. My concern is that in the past many so-called student leaders have sought to establish themselves and to give student unionism the same status as trade unionism. That is an attempt to usurp the authority and proper role of the trade union movement and translate that to a student body. I too am concerned about the history of payments made by certain student bodies for purposes other than the purposes for which those bodies were established, namely, to protect and promote the welfare of students. Can it be said that contributions to support the racist propaganda that went over 3CR are promoting and supporting the welfare of students? Of course it cannot. Can it be said that the contributions made to pro-abortion lobbies by certain of the organisations are advancing the interests of the student group? Of course it cannot be said that that is so. I believe one has to distinguish between the responsibility of students to contribute to their own welfare, their own sports and welfare committees, and their right to refuse to have compusorily levied from them moneys which will be applied for exterior purposes for ulterior motives. I believe that is where the issue lies. My view is that students have a responsibility to join their appropriate student body. That is my general attitude to any association in society. Too many people allow others to attend to the organisational affairs of particular groups. It would be better for society all round if people accepted their responsibility not only to join associations but also to take an active part in them. Nevertheless, we are faced with a situation here in which a student could be compulsorily levied money which could be applied not for purposes associated with the rights, responsibilities or indeed the welfare of the students but for other party-political purposes or issues by ideologically motivated organisations. Therefore, I intend to support the Opposition's amendment which would then, as I understand it, leave the legislation by and large as it is. Senator Peter Baume —We would add certain words to make it plain that fees are voluntary in relation to those organisations. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, exactly. That was the point of my entering into this debate at this stage and making this contribution. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.51) —Senator Harradine and Senator Peter Baume have spoken strongly and well on the strengths of the amendment which the Opposition wishes to make to the Government's proposal. We wish to retain freedom of association in universities and colleges in Australia with regard to student associations, and indeed a national association, which have social policies and undertake political activities which are controversial. Within our higher education institutions there ought to be the provision of facilities, apart from lecture theatres and libraries, to encourage educational discussion: Facilities for dining, sport and other activities which lead students to discuss with one another, to meet one another and to share in the wider and broader purposes for which universities and colleges have always existed. We are not opposed to the existence of student organisations at the national and local levels, but we insist that they be not compulsorily laid upon every student in a university or college. We say that not only for the reasons so well set out by Senator Baume and Senator Harradine-that is, to guarantee freedom of association in universities and these associations and to enable those who do not wish conscientiously to be identified with the purposes of one or other of these student organisations to keep their consciences and to keep apart from activities they do not support-but also because those student associations will be the stronger for being based on a voluntary principle. If by going into the local university student body they can win members to their political or social policy association they will be the stronger for having gained that commitment voluntarily. Their voice will be listened to more often, whether in the local community or the national community. At this Committee stage of the Bill we want to retain a guarantee, which the Liberal and National parties placed in the legislation for the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education, that universities cannot insist on this compulsory levying and compulsory membership of controversial association. In a nutshell, we wish to maintain not only the traditional concept in which there is seen to be strength of freedom of association in these activities but also the voluntary principle, because it brings strength, conscientiousness and integrity to the activities that those student associations have. Even at this late stage I urge the Australian Democrats to join with the Opposition parties and Senator Harradine in passing this amendment so that we can ensure that in higher education there is a principle of voluntary membership and payment of fees in regard to activities of a political and social policy nature. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(10.55) —The Opposition's amendment is not acceptable to the Government and the reasons for this have been given during previous stages of the debate when the Opposition sought to amend the Government's intentions in a similar way and for similar reasons. Let me remind the Committee that the restrictions on the activities of the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education which this legislation is designed to remove do not exist in any other university throughout Australia. The Opposition and Senator Harradine are seeking to maintain restrictions on the life of the national institutions- the CCAE and the ANU-which are not imposed on any institutions in the States which those senators represent. I think this is totally unreasonable and shows the contradictory nature of what the Opposition is trying to do. The Government' s amending legislation will give to those two institutions the same freedom to manage their own affairs enjoyed by all other institutions throughout Australia. That is a perfectly reasonable and consistent approach to this issue. We have heard a lot from the Opposition and Senator Harradine about the principles of voluntary associations and the need to prevent students in these institutions supporting causes which Opposition senators do not support. But all of those points, when cast in terms of freedom of association and so on, are quite contradictory and do not stand up to examination. I remind the Committee that the Government's amendments have not only been proposed because they concur with our view about the properly autonomous functions of these institutions and of the student organisations within them-as they certainly do-but they have also been proposed at the request of the governing bodies of both of those institutions. We have the spectacle of Opposition senators seeking to oppose the expressed wishes of the properly constituted governing bodies of the institutions in the name of some sort of principle of freedom of association. It is totally contradictory and quite intolerable. I also remind the Committee, because some time has elapsed since we were last in Committee on this issue, that the principle of voluntary membership is being retained at both of the institutions in question. Both of the institutions in a voluntary manner have decided on certain procedures which will protect the conscientious objections of any students within them. That is the way in which these matters should be managed; not by the heavy handed approach of a Federal government ordering institutions and organisations within them to behave in a certain fashion, but by those institutions developing properly democratic procedures to protect the conscience of students within those institutions. Both of those institutions have done so. I referred in some details last time the Committee met to the arrangements within the ANU which give an absolute guarantee of freedom of conscience and conscientious objection to students within that institution. I have here a letter from the Registrar of the CCAE-I will read it, because it is brief-which states: I am writing to confirm that if the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1984 is passed as drafted, it is the intention of the College to ensure that appropriate administrative procedures will continue to allow a student to seek, on conscientious grounds, exemption from membership of the Students' Association and the College Union. Such procedures exist within the current administrative procedures of the College, and the enactment of the Amendment Bill will in no way adversely affect them. I seek leave to have the full text of this letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Dr Alan Thomas Private Secretary to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs Room M153 Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Dr Thomas, I am writing to confirm that if the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1984 is passed as drafted, it is the intention of the College to ensure that appropriate administrative procedures will continue to allow a student to seek, on conscientious grounds, exemption from membership of the Students' Association and the College Union. Such procedures exist within the current administrative procedures of the College, and the enactment of the Amendment Bill will in no way adversely affect them. Yours sincerely R. L. JORY Registrar Senator Peter Baume-You have just read it. Senator RYAN —Of course, Senator Baume is muttering and mumbling because he does not like the exposure of the contradictory position he has adopted throughout this debate. He is pretending to be the great champion of freedom of associainto and autonomy of institutions and so forth-a pose he often likes to adopt on many issues-but when it comes to the point, he is actually demanding that the Federal Parliament interfere with, regulate and control the affairs of autonomous institutions and interfere with, control and regulate the activities of student organisations. So his pose of freedom of choice and freedom of association is exposed as being as thin on this issue as it is on any other issue when he poses in that fashion. The fact is that both of the institutions in question have established democratically proper procedures for the protection of conscience. The other matter, of course, that aroused comment from Senator Baume and Senator Harradine was that in the past student organisations have spent money on political causes or social causes which neither of those senators support. Yet again we have this contradictory attitude. They say: 'We are prepared to have voluntary membership and participation and people making up their own minds about things only as long as they make decisions that we support'. That is a mockery of the democratic and participatory principles. They say: 'We will have democracy as long as you agree with it'. There is a name for that attitude but I will not risk violating the Standing Orders by mentioning it. But it is absolutely contradictory. Senator Harradine said that student organisations are not the same as registered industrial bodies. No one is saying that they are the same as registered industrial unions. But they are organisations that can be properly constituted and make decisions about the welfare and views of their members in the same way as can other proper organisations. They are not set up to be industrial bodies. But that does not mean that they do not have the rights to have their own policies and to expend their moneys as they wish. Senator Harradine also said that they should be looking after the welfare of students. Who is to decide what is the welfare of students? We are, after all, talking about adults. We are not talking about children over whom we should exercise some sort of paternalistic control. If students in an organisation decide to support a particular cause, I believe it is not for Senator Harradine to say: ' It is not in the welfare of students to support that cause'. I may not agree with some of the causes that student organisations have supported in the past; in fact, I do not. But it is not for me to say in this authoritarian fashion: ' You will only have freedom so long as you spend your money on causes which I consider to be in your welfare'. What a travesty of the rights of organisations to pursue their own policies! We live in a democracy and our Government seeks to ensure that the democratic principle is in force in all of the organisations within our society. If student unions have policies with which our Government or Senator Harradine disagrees, we should wear it, because that is the price that we pay when we are dealing with democratic institutions. Senator Harradine implied some criticisms of student leadership in the past. I am not sure whether he also referred to the present. We may all have those criticisms. Senator Harradine suggested there should be more active involvement of students in their organisations. I heartily concur with that view. But even if we had total active participation in students' organisations, my bet is that those organisations would still develop policies which Senator Harradine might not like at a certain point in time or which perhaps I might not like at a certain point in time. That is the way in which democratic organisations work. I do not see that Senator Harradine's criticism or Senator Baume's criticism of certain decisions made by student organisations in the past in any way justifies the kinds of restrictions they are attempting to maintain on student bodies- restrictions which, I remind the Committee, do not exist in student organisations in institutions in any other part of Australia. Senator Teague similarly raised points about conscience and so forth. I simply point out to Senator Teague the same contradictions in which he is tangled up in proposing those points as I have pointed out to Senator Baume and Senator Harradine. Both of the institutions involved in this legislation have established proper procedures for the protection of conscientious objection to membership of organisations. They have done so voluntarily, within the properly constituted decision making processes within those institutions. We do not need Senator Teague saying that in order to protect the conscience of students within these institutions we will have this unduly restrictive and undemocratic intrusion into their affairs. The amendment is not accepted by the Government. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.06) —Whenever Senator Ryan resorts to personal abuse, we can be quite sure it is because she either has not understood the argument or does not wish to address it. She has answered at some length the issue of voluntary membership or non-voluntary membership. It is interesting to note that the amendment has nothing to do with voluntary membership. She has failed to address the amendment, which is about the voluntary payment of fees. Senator Ryan has quite deliberately, or perhaps inadvertently because she cannot comprehend, failed to address the question that what we are seeking to amend is the requirement to pay fees. It is all very well for her to give us some messages of assurance from the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education that students will not have to belong to a union. She omitted to say that they will have to pay the money whether or not they choose to belong. In case she has not understood the matter, that is what we are concerned about. In case she has not read the amendment, it requires that the payment of fees should be voluntary. She has totally failed to address that issue. I will not take very long, but that is what the amendment is about. It is about whether people should be forced to pay fees to the Australian Union of Students. Either that 10-minute tirade was deliberately to divert us or she did not comprehend. We are aware that the ANU has found ways to pay the AUS and that it has taken out corporate membership . We are aware that it has paid the Council for the 1983 conference and that it has listed the AUS as a sundry debtor and forgiven it all its debts. We are aware of the number of ways in which the University had decided to fund the AUS. All we are asking in the amendment is that the payment of the fees be voluntary. The argument of consistency between institutions of course does not go to the merits of the matter. On the basis of merit, it could be consistently good, bad or coercive. The argument of consistency has absolutely no bearing on whether the merit is there or whether it is lacking. It does not address the principle in any way. Talking about consistency between universities simply brings in a red herring. Let me make it quite clear that what we are proposing here is a principle that we would like to see adopted and applied Australia-wide. Where we are talking about institutions which may be supra-campus, which may be national institutions , we believe students should have the option of electing whether to pay those fees. If they do not wish to pay them, they should be able to say so. It is one thing to have voluntary membership, but if the money is collected and disbursed on a complusory basis, it makes a mockery of the voluntary membership about which the Minister talks. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.07) —I heard, with some surprise, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) say that the Government is doing this at the request of the governing body of the Australian National University. Would she care to refer to this specific request? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.08) —I will ask the departmental officer to find it. It is certainly the view of the Council that the amendment should be proceeded with, and Senator Peter Rae, as a member of the Council, knows that. As I have a fairly lengthy letter from Peter Karmel, the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, I will table it, if that satisfies the honourable senator. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.09) —I ask the Minister to refer to the specific resolution of the Council of the Australian National University which requested the amendments which are being moved by the Government in relation to the subject matter of the debate. Unless the Vice-Chancellor's letter refers to a particular resolution, it is not necessarily relevant to the answer I am seeking . The Minister said that this was being done at the request of the governing body. I would like to know what was the date of the meeting and what was the resolution carried. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.10) —To assist Senator Peter Rae I will read the letter which was addressed to Dr Peter Wilenski, who was then the Secretary of my Department. It states: Further to my letter of 6 April 1983-- I do not know whether we have that letter on file- I write to tell you that the Council of the University at its meeting on Friday 13 May 1983 welcomed the initiative of the Government and resolved: (i) that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs be informed that the Council of the University concurs in the Minister's proposal that the ANU Act 1946 should be amended to remove the restrictions introduced by the insertion in the Act of sections 29A, 32A and the amendment to section 27 (1) (o) on the use by student organisations of General Service Fee funds. (ii) to inform the Minister that, in the opinion of the Council the return to the situation that existed before 1979 would necessitate the Government to amend the ANU Act by removing both section 29A and section 32A. It would also be necessary for Section 27 (1) (o) to be restored to its wording prior to the 1979 amendment (ANU Amendment Act . . .) to read: Then it goes on to set out the necessary amendments. That is very clearly the view of the Council of the ANU and it is very clearly in accord with the view of the Government. I acknowledge that Senator Rae is now going to make a verbal play on the word 'request', which does not appear in this letter. But I can assure him that in my informal discussions with Council members I was frequently asked when we were going to take these steps. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.12) —The Council's decision to which the Minister has referred was one of those 'If rape be inevitable, why not relax and enjoy it ?' situations. There was not a vote as to whether the Council wished to have the matter repealed; rather it was a matter of getting an indication from the Government as to what the Government's intention was and what would be the university's reaction to that Government action. I would like to see the correspondence which preceded the letter which the Minister read. I think she would find, if she checked with other members of the Council, that there was never an indication that there was on option for the Council as to whether it preferred to have a continuation of the pre-existing situation. The situation was: Given that this Government's policy is to do X, what will be the results of X being implemented. That letter says what the results were. To describe that as a request of the governing body is a complete misstatement of what in fact happened. It was very different from any request. To the best of my knowledge, at no time was the university given an option by either government as to what it wanted. It may be that both were as bad as each other in relation to this, but at no time do I recall the university being given an option. Rather it was told what the Government's intentions were and then reactions were sought. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.14) —I wish to make three brief rejoinders to the statement made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) in this debate on the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984. The matter at issue is one of philosophic and policy differences between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party-the Government and the Opposition. The Labor Party, as a socialist party, wishes to place compulsion upon membership of and payment to student organisations, and the Liberal Party wishes to enshrine freedom of association and a voluntary principle. The Minister tried not to address that clear and, I think, uncontested difference of policy between the political philosophies of the Government and the Opposition by saying that it was requested by the Australian National University Council. Senator Peter Rae is a member of the ANU Council. He contested the point and the Minister was not able to demonstrate other than concurrence. That was the word in the letter of Professor Karmel, the Vice-Chancellor, which she read. The University Council has concurred with the Minister's proposal. The initiative was with the Minister . Indeed, the undertaking to do this was with the Labor Party and with the Labor education spokesman prior to the last election. The initiative for this amendment before the Senate today is a promise, an undertaking, to left wing students in universities and colleges of Australia that the Government would take away the barriers and restrictions to that compulsion, that gravy trail, that existed prior to the Fraser Government's enactment of 1979. This will enable compulsory funding of a national association of students irrespective of the wishes of the students of Australia who are dissatisfied, who believe that that body is not acting democratically and so on. This is not being done at the direct request, the direct initiative, of the ANU Council. The University Council did not take the initiative to ask the Government to remove this section in the Act. It noted this Government's undertaking to left wing students that it would be removed and it concurred. It concurred on the principle on which the Minister has tried to stand, that is, the high ground of university autonomy which I mentioned earlier. That brings me to the second point to which I want to refer, the distinction that we on the Opposition side are making in this debate. We do seek to overcome democracy, and the free expression and determination of policy by students in the University and the University Council. The Minister said that we of the Opposition want, in an authoritarian way, to tell the students at the ANU and the University Council that we do not approve of certain political activities or social policies that they have been promoting in some of the student associations and that therefore we are taking this stand on voluntarism and voluntary payment. I assure the Minister that that is not the case. I state again plainly that, irrespective of the controversial political activities, even if all the students at the ANU wished to promote Liberal policies, wished to have Liberal social policies, I would still urge they they do so on the basis of voluntary association and voluntary payment of membership fees. That is the issue. We are not seeking to be authoritarian in the Senate. I believe there is a very real distinction to be made between democratic and compulsory on the one hand and democratic and voluntary on the other. If a body is democratic, all its members can elect the officers and determine the policy of that association. But if they have to be a member of it-and every student on campus is a member even if 80 per cent of them are not interested or are opposed to their association with that body-that is a different atmosphere entirely from a democratic body or a democratic association based upon voluntary membership and voluntary payment. As Senator Georges is interested in this matter, I ask him: Is it not the case that a voluntarily democratic body is likely to have much more integrity than one that operates on the dragooning of democratic principle? I say to the Minister that there is a very real difference between a democratic compulsory body on the one hand and a democratic voluntary body on the other. I am not in any way seeking to argue for this amendment put by the Opposition on the basis of the particularity of the social policies or the political activities of some groups. The Minister, in her response just now, revealed no credibility when she said that it was requested by the University. It is Labor Party policy with which the University happened to concur. Secondly, I ask honourable senators please to note that the Opposition does not want to be authoritarian about social policy or political activities in universities. It wants only to ensure that the students determine whether they become members and pay fees to those controversial associations. Therefore, I urge the Senate to accept the Opposition's amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.21) —I buy into this Senate version of bikie warfare with some trepidation. I will actually refer to the Bill that we are discussing in Committee and to the clause that we are concerned about, clause 16 (c) (iii), which seeks to amend the principal Act. The principal Act states: The Council may from time to time make, alter and repeal statutes with respect to all or any of the following matters:-- In other words we are talking about the powers of the Council. We are talking about the payment to the University of fees payable in respect of the provision to students of amenities or services not of an academic nature and fees payable in respect of an organisation of students or of students and other persons. I am not sure what Senator Teague was talking about but I do not think he was talking about the Australian National University. If we look at the income for last year that came from student fees, that is, $755,647, an amount of $399,810 went to the ANU Union, that is, to that organisation that provides catering and the types of services that we have talked about previously. That is the amount of money that goes to provide services to students from those student fees. I do not know whether Senator Teague is supporting bludgers, but certainly the Australian Democrats are not. We believe that it is fair that students pay for those services. To continue, $217,881 goes to the Sports Union. Senator Ryan —Compulsorily under the Fraser legislation. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, that was compulsory under the previous legislation. I suppose Senator Teague is not worried about that. He did not raise that issue when the Fraser Government was in power. Then there is an amount of $12,354 to the ANU Research Association; $1,175 to the Law Society; $10,000 to the Performing Arts Centre. For the servicing of loans, $250,000 was provided to the ANU Union to provide facilities and $308,000 went to the Sports Union. If we come to the area that presumably Senator Teague is talking about, the total amount to support the Students Association is $98,000. What does that provide? It includes services to the newspaper. I do not know whether Senator Teague ever got involved in the newspaper when he was at university but I do not know how it can produce a newspaper for $98,000, considering the number of issues it publishes and the way it generally conducts it. If any money were left over from that, they would have to pay staff. I remind honourable senators that these staff provide facilities for students. Often they provide the first point of contact for loans or students' problems. The Students Association provides counselling services out of that money. I do not know what the councillors are paid but they cannot be paid very much. After all those expenses for all those associations are taken out the clubs and societies are left. In any university there is a wide range of clubs and societies and they are all competing for funds. I presume that the allocation of some of the remaining money is what Senator Teague is talking about. Let us be clear on this: I would prefer that all students pay their way to support these organisations and that the Senate not support those who bludge off other students who are getting services. If services are to be provided by students for students, let all of them put in a little money to pay for them. Some of that money could be going to groups that Senator Teague does not like. Other amounts of that money could be going to groups that I do not like-the Liberal association, for example. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, these types of on-campus associations are part of university life. An important part of university life is the fermentation of ideas. If Senator Teague wants to cut that off, that is his view; it is not ours. Let us look at the furphy Senator Peter Rae raised. Senator Ryan probably said what Senator Rae said she said, and in that case it would have been wrong. Senator Peter Baume —She was wrong; let her admit it. Senator MACKLIN —Perhaps she was wrong. I refer to the aspersions that Senator Rae and then Senator Teague cast on the ANU Council. Who is actually running the Council of the ANU if in fact the type of proposition put by Senator Teague or Senator Rae can stand up? That suggests that that Council does not know the difference between a proposition put up by the Government and a proposition passed by the Parliament. It suggests that the Council does not understand that the Government does not have a majority in the Senate and that occasionally Bills do not get through here. Therefore, what the Government says it wants and what the Government actually gets are often two quite different things. In fact, we will probably spend a lot of time during the elections discussing some of those things. Senator Rae and Senator Teague are saying not only that the Council does not know how this Parliament and the Government are run but also that if it does not happen to agree with something that the Government asks it about it will necessarily cower and say: 'We must concur'. Senator Rae has now returned to the chamber. I am quite sure he, as a member of the Council, has never been backward in coming forward and expressing his views and in trying to convince the Council of the value of various propositions. I have not attended any of those Council meetings, but if his performance there is like his performance here I am sure that he would not be a wilting flower in any type of argument. The Council could put forward a contrary view and say to the Government: 'Take a running jump; we do not concur. We will not put down in a letter that we do concur, and we think the Bill should stay as it is'. The Council is quite capable of doing that. I have sat on councils where such a statement has been made to governments. It has been said to the Queensland Government. It is pretty dangerous to say things such as that to the Queensland Government. I do not believe that these councils are the types of wilting flowers that Senator Rae and Senator Teague referred to. The councils can knock things back. They do not have to concur. The point we must take is that they agree with the Government's proposed amendments to the Act. They want the Act amended in this way. That is what we have to accept. Whether or not they instigated the change-- Senator Peter Baume —The Minister said they did. Senator MACKLIN —I accept that point. If the Minister said that, she was wrong. I will not support her on that issue. The only point that I want to make, and I want to make it strongly, is that the councils of both the ANU and the Canberra College of Advanced Education agree with the amendments that the Government has brought forward. That is an important point in relation to the amendment moved by Senator Peter Baume. That is the reason why we support voluntary association. There is voluntary association. The councils of both of those organisations have agreed that there will be voluntary association. Senator Peter Baume —But compulsory payment to the AUS. Senator MACKLIN —I do not mind if students have to pay fees for services for those various other things. Senator Peter Baume —To the AUS as well? Senator MACKLIN —If the honourable senator actually wants me to set up a separate accounting system to raise separate fees, he will find that the total amount that will have to be paid will be more than has to be paid now. Senator Peter Baume —Compulsory fees to the AUS; that is all I am asking about. Senator MACKLIN —I say again to Senator Baume that the university will be given the power to repeal or make statutes in relation to these items. I accept the assurances that it will provide for conscientious objection. I believe that that satisfies the view of the Democrats, who support the notion of voluntary association and also that of fee for service. If services are to be provided to people, all people should put in to help pay for them. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.30) —The aim of a university, as I understand it , is to seek the truth. Senator Ryan's most recent contribution to the debate certainly does not fit that description because she has shrouded the truth in a smoke-screen of innuendo against those of us who are supporting the amendment now before the chamber. She virtually said that that amendment is motivated by some undemocratic view that unless student bodies toe the line-- Senator Ryan —That is right. Senator HARRADINE —The Minister says: 'That is right'. She confirms what I am saying; she has shrouded the truth in a smoke-screen of innuendo. She has now confirmed that she said that the motivation behind the amendment is some undemocratic view that unless students toe some authoritarian line, the integrity of student bodies ought in some way to be undermined. That is not the situation at all. I thought I made my view on that aspect perfectly clear in a previous speech. What we are trying to do is to protect the rights and consciences of students. What has been suggested now in the debate is that because the Australian National University Council has made a decision, we ought to follow. First of all, there is some doubt about whether the ANU Council initiated this matter-- Senator Peter Rae —There is no doubt about that. It certainly did not initiate it. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Rae happens to be on the ANU Council and he now confirms that it did not initiate the measure. Senator Ryan —They opposed it in 1978. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Ryan says that the Council opposed it in 1978. Senator Ryan —That is right, and they have retained that opposition all along. Senator HARRADINE —I am glad the honourable senator said that. Through you, Mr Chairman, I ask Senator Ryan whether she remembers the Peter Berzins case, which is a case in point. This is one reason why I mentioned that we should not take a great deal of notice of what the University Council might or might not say. Senator Ryan —Oh! Senator HARRADINE —I ask the honourable senator to listen. There was a case involving Peter Berzins at the ANU. I think it was in 1977. This student objected to his money being paid out by the university body to an outside pro- abortion lobby. Because he objected the University Council refused to have his examinations corrected. Is that democracy? Is that how we think that the universities should seek the truth? Students go to universities to study, to seek the truth and to have their grasp of the truth examined. On that occasion the university denied that right to that student because of his firmly held conscientious belief that none of his money should go to an outside organisation promoting a pro-abortion attitude which violated his conscience. I did not raise 1978; the Minister did. Let us concentrate this debate on why this measure came before us in the first place. The Berzins example provides one of the reasons why it came before us. The Government is now trying to say that in a similar event it would not demand that a new Peter Berzins join this organisation, but that it would demand that he pay the organisation. If the Government insisted, because that organisation said so, that some of his money was to go to outfits outside the university promoting beliefs which violated his conscience, it would be undermining the rights and consciences of individual students. I am not necessarily talking about internal organisations in the university. Of course, all sorts of viewpoints need to be expressed and exposed within the university campus. That is part of seeking the truth. But if students' money is allowed to be used to promote activities outside the university campus, including radio station 3CR which is violently anti-Jewish, the rights of individual students not only to the integrity of their conscientious beliefs but also to their intellectual integrity will be denied, because one would be saying: 'If they do not pay the money, their exams are not corrected'. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.38) —In defence of the Australian National University Council, Senator Harradine's reference to it is a slight exaggeration . I have been concerned about the attempt by any government to impose on the university rules and requirements in relation to what should happen, but because it is by the strength of statute made by this Parliament that the university is able to exist and to assert various requirements, including the requirement for the payment of fees, it is our function to discuss the issue. The Berzins case took a tremendous amount of time at the university. An appeal procedure was created. I was a member of the appeals committee that dealt with the case. It has a longer history than Senator Harradine suggested. Senator Harradine —I know the history very well indeed, Senator, because I know Berzins and have his file. If you want to have a debate on it we can have it at some other time. Senator PETER RAE —I was trying not to. I was just trying to say that eventually steps were taken by the university which were a lot fairer that those initially taken by some of the hotheads who wanted to take the very strict attitude to which Senator Haradine referred. Eventually, a series of appeals meetings was held for people who had conscientious objections. Over a period of some years that system has been developed. I think the Minister was wrong in saying that there has been a continuous attitude from 1978 onwards. Senator Harradine —That is right. It was only forced upon them then. Senator PETER RAE —The membership of the Council changes from year to year, as does the majority in the Council. I can remember that I could not get a seconder to a motion I moved at one Council meeting. Eventually it was carried unanimously. That took me about six years. That is the sort of change that takes place on the university Council. A tremendous amount of time and effort has been put into the question of voluntary student membership. The voluntary nature of membership is the current proposal of the university Council. I would not wish it to be taken that some of the sins of 1978 or so are the sins of the current Council. I think lessons were learned as a result of some actions which in my view were unjustifiable at the time but which were ultimately correct. Senator Harradine —Don't you think the 1979 legislation helped? Senator Ryan —The Council opposed the legislation in 1979. Senator PETER RAE —By a majority. Senator Ryan —Peter, the Council opposed it. Senator PETER RAE —Yes, by a majority. The Council objected to the legislation. It eventually spent a great deal of time working out how it was going to implement it. The reasons for the objection varied. Some of them were objections in principle and some objections in practice. Some objections were about the practicalities of the implementation of the legislation. It was not so simple. Let us not spend too long on this; I just want to try to defend the Council from being accused of being the most monstrous body that ever existed, which is the impression one could get listening to some honourable senators from both sides of the chamber. Senator Ryan —We haven't attacked the Council. Senator PETER RAE —I thought that the Government had done so by suggesting, for instance, that the Council had requested the Government to take this action. The Council has not made that request of the Government. It has said that, assuming the Government was going to do such and such, forward planning required it to involve itself in consideration of the consequences and how best it could go about it. This is where Senator Macklin was a little astray in his comments about the Council. The Council merely considered how, if the legislation were implemented, it could practically carry out its responsibilities for having a general services fee management structure which retained certain features, including voluntary membership of student bodies. That was the sort of work that was being done. A lot of work and a lot of time was spent on it. I merely assert that the Council, while taking different majority attitudes at different times as the majority has changed, has been an extremely responsible body which has endeavoured to work within the rules imposed by the government of the day in the best interests of academic and student freedom and in the best interests of the development of an academic institution. Increasingly, as academic institutions have become beholden to government for their funding, they have become beholden to government for their regulation. I find this a matter for concern every time an Australian National University Bill comes before the Parliament. I find it unfortunate that the Parliament is telling a university what it must do; on the other hand, I accept that when the taxpayers of Australia are paying out $125m in round figures, plus student allowances and the like, they obviously have an interest in what happens at that university. I would wish to defend the University Council from some of the comments that have been made. The last time it took a positive attitude was in 1978 when it objected basically to government intervention. This time around it accepted that the Government was going to intervene and therefore it tried to take the steps which would be most appropriate in the event of that intervention. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.46) —I must admit that I am rather disappointed with Senator Peter Rae's contribution to this debate. When he came into the chamber to join the debate I was looking forward to what we on this side of the chamber have come to expect from Senator Rae-that is, a very independent, intelligent and clear exposition of a point of view. However, I am afraid that he is terribly confused . He tried to say, or certainly to imply, that the legislation, which is being supported by the Australian National University and has been, I believe, the wish of the ANU since 1979 when it opposed the Fraser amendments, was being foisted on the university. He was saying that ANU does not really welcome the legislation although Professor Karmel, the Vice-Chancellor, has said it does, but that it is only putting up with it because it is the Government's view. In fact, Senator Rae used the very unfortunate analogy of rape to suggest-- Senator Peter Rae —I withdraw and apologise. I accept that the reference could be offensive and I am sorry for using it. I once used the words 'motherhood statement' and I got 10 phone calls complaining about that. Again, I apologise. Senator RYAN —I accept Senator Rae's gracious apology and withdrawal of that analogy. It is not the case that this is something that is being foisted on the Council of the ANU. It is a case that in 1979 when the Fraser Government interfered with the life of the ANU in this unacceptable way, the Council at the time opposed such interference. I speak not only as the person who is currently the Federal Minister responsible for the ANU but also as a local senator and as a post-graduate of the ANU and therefore as a person who has close associations with the ANU, with Council members, with the Vice-Chancellor and the academic staff and with the general staff and students. It has been my strong impression that since these restrictive amendments were introduced by the Fraser Government in 1979 it has been the view of the ANU that they should be removed. Senator Peter Baume —That is not what you said in Committee and you know it. Senator RYAN —When Senator Baume is on a losing streak he always resorts to the most pedantic quibbles about semantics. It is my view that the collective wish of the ANU Council and the ANU is that these restrictions be removed. Council members certainly expressed that view in 1979 when the restrictions were introduced and those views have been expressed on a number of occasions since. I remind the Senate that the correspondence I have had in the course of this debate spoke of the Council not just putting up with a decision that the Government had made, but welcoming it, concurring with it, providing constructive advice and assistance on its implementation and so forth. It is to the credit of the Council that it did this. I am afraid it is not to the credit of Senator Rae, who I understand has been a most effective and active member of the Council, to suggest that the Council just had to agree because the Government was going to do it anyway. Senator Macklin has already pointed out that university councils throughout this country regularly oppose the views of the Government, and that the ANU council has opposed the view of the Government in the past. The only fair and objective assessment of the view of the current ANU Council is that it is welcoming and endorsing these amendments because that is what it wants. Anything else is a slight on the ANU Council and no such slight will be tolerated by this Government or by me. Senator Baume said that the issue of whether fees should be compulsory had not been addressed by me in my response to the previous parts of the Committee discussion. This is a red herring. The issue of compulsory fees is not at stake. The Fraser amendments in 1979 did not remove the compulsory levying of fees on students for student services. There is no argument in the chamber that there should be compulsory fees levied on students for student services. The argument is whether those compulsory fees can be used for certain purposes. The compulsory fees are there. As Senator Macklin said, there could be just as many objections from students whose money, compulsorily levied from them, is being used on sports facilities-something that would be agreed to by Senator Baume and other honourable senators opposite-that they would never want to use as there could be about it being used on student activities that they do not approve of. One cannot say: 'We support compulsory levying of fees and we think that those fees can be used for sports facilities and catering and so on, but we do not want them to be used for other activities'. There is no consistency in that. Both sides of the chamber support the compulsory levying of fees for student services. Senator Baume —No. What about the amendment we lost last time? We said the payment should be voluntary for those services. We have been consistent. Senator RYAN —No, I am afraid that Senator Baume's attempts to suggest that he has been consistent will not succeed. The 1979 amendments by the Fraser Government, which we are now seeking to remove, did not affect the compulsory levying of fees for student services. Fees were still levied for sports and so forth. The argument in the chamber today is about the direction of those funds. The Opposition and Senator Harradine say that the funds ought not be directed to certain purposes. We say that that decision must be made internally within the university. Obviously this debate is becoming very protracted. I simply repeat that the Government does not accept the Opposition's amendment. We do not accept that the kinds of restrictions that the Opposition's amendment would maintain at the ANU are conducive to the proper operation of a democratic institution. We oppose the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator M. Townley) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Hearn, J. M. Durack, P. D. Button, J. N. Rae, PeterBolkus, N. Messner, A. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to Clauses 17 to 22-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 23 (Repeal of section 32A). Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.59) —Clause 23 seeks to repeal section 32A of the Act which prevents retribution for non-membership of student organisations. I put it to the Committee and I put it to Senator Macklin in terms of the arguments he has advanced that now we have been assured that there is voluntary membership of student organisations there can be no reason to want to repeal that section which prevents retribution for non-membership. The Government has given no coherent reason for wishing to repeal the clause which prevents retribution for non-membership. If membership is voluntary, there can be no coherent argument against leaving that provision in the Act. Section 32A provides no disability. The desire to remove the section is an admission of the possibility of institutions wishing to take retribution. Senator Georges —No. Senator PETER BAUME —I am sorry, but there is no coherent reason to take this section out of the Act if membership is going to be voluntary. Section 32A merely provides that retribution cannot be taken against people. I suggest there is no reason for supporting this clause which seeks to remove that provision. We oppose clause 23 for the simple reason that there is no coherent argument for the removal of section 32A. We now know that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) was not being strictly accurate when she said that the institution had requested these changes. Since what she said has now been demonstrated to be false she should not try that argument on us. The fact is there is no coherent reason why the Committee should agree to the repeal of this section. I indicate that the Opposition will oppose the repeal of the section. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(12.02) —The Government wishes to remove section 32A from the Australian National University Act. This section guarantees students and citizens of this country three things-admission, enrolment and non- discrimination. I believe it is unthinkable that a university could fail to admit a student to a course, fail to enrol a student in a course or fail to mark examination papers or give results, or in any way interfere with the normal educational progress through a university, on the grounds that the person, for conscientious reasons, chooses not to be a member of an association that he or she finds offensive. I believe it is unthinkable for a university to interfere with admission or enrolment activities by discriminating in this way. The Government, by advocating the removal of the section of the Act which provides for a guarantee, is saying 'Yes, let the university have the power not to admit; let the university have the power not to enrol; and let the university be able to discriminate', because this guarantee would stand in the way of that. I said in my speech on the second reading of this Bill that no one can sustain an argument for the removal of this guarantee. I believe that the Minister is not offended by the principles relating to the guarantee provisions of section 32A. The Minister, to this point, has not said that anything in section 32A offends. The Minister will have a chance when she speaks in a moment to specify whether there is any phrase or part of section 32A which offends her. We will be very interested to hear what she says. Maybe she will add a rejoinder if she thinks there is. As far as we are concerned there is nothing in section 32A that offends. All that section 32A does is give a guarantee that students' progress academically in university will not be interfered with on the basis of their conscientious withdrawal from an association of students. Therefore, at this late stage, as I did at the beginning of the second reading debate, I urge that section 32A be retained in the legislation. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(12.04) —The Opposition's amendment is not acceptable to the Government. I remind-- Senator Peter Baume —We have told you that there is no amendment. Senator RYAN —Really, Mr Temporary Chairman, how far do we have to tolerate this pedantry? The Government will not accept the wish of the Opposition to retain section 32A in the legislation. Since reference has been made to the view of the Australian National University Council, I will read again from the letter which I read earlier from Professor Peter Karmel, the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, who wrote to Dr Wilenski on 17 May 1983 in the following terms: . . . to inform the Minister that, in the opinion of the council, the return to the situation that existed before 1979-- a move supported by the Council- would necessitate the Government to amend the ANU Act by removing both Section 29A and Section 23A . It is the Government's intention to return to the situation in place prior to the introduction of the restrictive Fraser amendments and in order to do so in a coherent fashion we will-as it is the opinion of the Council of the ANU that we ought to-remove section 32A. There is no need for section 32A, which offers guarantees against discrimination, because the institutions themselves have developed appropriate procedures to guarantee a student's protection against discrimination. Senator Rae will be aware of that. In fact, he adverted today to the very lengthy and thorough work of the ANU Council in developing such procedures. I place on record my appreciation of the work of the Council and of Senator Rae in developing those procedures. I do not think that Senator Teague has any criticism of the procedures developed, nor would he have about the procedures developed at the Canberra College of Advanced Education if he were equally well informed about that parallel situation. So the right to be protected against discrimination, which we all want to see, is now guaranteed by procedures within the ANU and therefore section 32A is no longer necessary. It is also the opinion of the Council of the ANU that section 32A ought to be removed. Senator Peter Rae —To implement the Government's policy. It is prefaced by ' implementing the Government's policy', then that follows. Senator RYAN —It is certainly our policy to do that, and we are happy that the Council is in accord with our policy. Senator Peter Rae —Would you read the words again? Senator RYAN —I will start from the the first sentence: Further to my letter of 6 April 1983 I write to tell you that the Council of the University at its meeting on Friday 13 May 1983 welcomed the initiative of the Government . . . That wording does not suggest that as it is being inflicted on the Council, it has to give some advice. It welcomed the initiative. The letter goes on to advise how the initiative ought to be implemented, and says: . . . to inform the Minister that, in the opinion of the Council, the return to the situation that existed before 1979-- something that the Council welcomed- would necessitate the Government to amend the ANU Act by removing both Section 29A and Section 32A. We are proceeding to do that. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(12.09) —I welcome the Minister's constructive approach to this clause, in deference to the rather provocative overstatement that led to the debate of the last hour. Whilst we can all make fine points about whether the Council of the Australian National University in concurring is just accepting that it is government policy and does not wish to argue about it, to take Senator Macklin's point, and whilst the exchange between the Minister and Senator Rae was also a matter for fine points, the main point I sought to make was that the Minister is not offended by any particular phrase or sentence in the Australian National University Amendment Bill but is saying that because the University has provided for each and every one of these matters as a result of its own decisions, there is no need for section 32A. Therefore, I only make the point that whilst we are all wanting to see the same goal achieved the University Council may have a different majority in the future and so not concur any longer with this contract, if you like, between the present University Council and the Government as expressed in this letter. If there is a regression in the future and the public-particularly the student body-becomes alarmed because a particular student's conscientiousness leads him to be not enrolled or admitted, or his academic progress not proceeded with, there will be those in the student body who will say that a guarantee at a higher level, in the Act itself, would have prevented that. I speak on that very narrow ground at the moment and, noting that the Minister has not disagreed with any part of section 32A, argue that section 32A be retained so that in future years it will not be up to the mood or particular majority of the Council at that time but rather that there be a guarantee of these freedoms in the Act itself. I urge, then, that the Minister retain section 32A. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(12.11) —I think Senator Teague and others in this chamber have missed the point of the whole exercise. The Council of the Australian National University originally opposed any legislative intrusion into the day to day affairs of the Council, the university, or of any institution which is set up, as Senator Harradine said, to seek out the truth and to carry out all those functions which are necessary to advance knowledge without any imposed limitation from outside. Even though the budgetary requirements of these institutions are met by society as a whole, the independence of those institutions is vital to their functioning. We are attempting here to take out that last element of legislative intrusion into the affairs of the University. The whole exercise undertaken since 1978 has meant that the institutions-the Australian National University in particular-have adjusted their procedures, and would have adjusted their procedures without legislative action by this Parliament, to correct-- Senator Teague —I doubt that, I really do, because they didn't do it in 1979. Senator GEORGES —The University began to adjust its procedures, but it did not do it because of legislative imposition. It would have been done anyhow. Senator Rae has indicated, as a member of the Council and as a member of the appeals committee, that it instituted procedures which would limit that sort of abuse. I believe that that is the way it should continue to be. For that reason we should not allow a statute provision which would be a precedent for the reimposition of legislative action by parliaments upon the educational institutions of this country. All I am suggesting is that we should accept the withdrawal of this intrusion by legislation into the affairs of the two major institutions in the Australian Capital Territory. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator M. Townley) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Gietzelt, A. T. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Hearn, J. M. Rae, PeterBolkus, N. Messner, A. J. Button, J. N. Durack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.19) —I wish to explain to the Senate that the reason I did not vote on any of the amendments which were proposed was that I believe there was a conflict of interest for me as a member of the Australian National University Council and a member of the Senate. For that reason I sought a pair and did not vote. It was not because I do not support my Party's view and the views expressed very ably by Senator Peter Baume, the shadow Minister for Education. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 31 May, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Commencement). Amendment (by Senator Ryan) agreed to. Page 1, clause 2, lines 11 and 12, leave out 'be deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 1984'', insert ''come into operation on 1 January 1985'. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 6-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 7 (Members elected by non-teaching staff). Amendment (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: Page 3, clause 7, lines 2 and 3, leave out 'commencement of this section', insert 'election of that non-teaching staff member'. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8 (Members elected by students). Amendment (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: Page 3, clause 8, lines 28 and 29, leave out '26 September 1985', insert 'the 26 September in the calendar year next following the calendar year in which those elections were held'. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 9 (Members elected by the alumni of the College). Amendment (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: Page 3, clause 9, lines 38 and 39, leave out 'date of commencement of this section', insert 'election of that graduate member'. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.24) —I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that the positions which we laid down in relation to the Australian National University Amendment Bill apply equally to the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill. The amendments which we have proposed would have the same effect as the amendments we moved in relation to the Australian National University Amendment Bill; that is, we would oppose one clause and would move amendments in two other places. I indicate that we are still opposed to the particular clause. I seek leave to move the other two amendments together . Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move amendment No. 3 and amendment No. 4 circulated in the name of the Opposition: Page 6, clause 17, after paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraph: '(aa) by inserting after ''fees'' in paragraph 2 (b) '', the payment of which shall be voluntary,'';'. Page 6, clause 17, paragraph (b), proposed new paragraph 25 (ba), line 7, after 'fees', insert ', the payment of which shall be voluntary,'. Senator Teague —As well as amendment No. 2? Senator PETER BAUME —Amendment No. 2 is merely that we oppose a clause. Amendment No. 1 has been superseded by the Government's amendments to which we have agreed. Amendments Nos 3 and 4 are the ones which I have moved together. I indicate that the arguments which we advanced previously are still valid and should apply in relation to this matter. We oppose clause 16. We support our two amendments. We do not intend to take the Committee to divisions on matters which have already been determined. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.26) —Yesterday was the last day of duty of Dr Sam Richardson as Principal of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. It would be in- appropriate to let that occasion pass without comment in the Senate. Dr Sam Richardson has been for some 16 years, I believe, a distinguished Principal of the Canberra College of Advanced Education. He has been a very good ambassador for the college and he has been a friend of government in terms of the advice he has given and his willingness and capacity to resolve problems which may have existed between government and the college. At all times he has presented the case for the Canberra College of Advanced Education with skill and dedication. I believe that all people associated with education-all those associated with the advanced education sector and all those associated with the institution he has represented-will wish him well both in the sea voyage he is about to take to England and in his eventual retirement in Australia. I also place on record our welcome to Dr Parfitt who will be the new Principal of Canberra College of Advanced Education. I understand he will take up his post within the next month and that Dr Richardson is making certain that he will not be around for at least the next six months, to give his successor a chance to establish himself without, as it were, the old dog being around to bark. I would like to make sure that the good wishes of the Opposition go to Dr Richardson for a job well done and for a race well run, and to Dr Parfitt for the enterprise on which he is about to embark. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(12.28) —I support the remarks made by Senator Baume . I have a particular interest in the Canberra College of Advanced Education and for that reason I have developed a great admiration for the work of the college. Much of the excellence of that work has depended upon the efforts of Dr Richardson. Because of his work and the work of other members of the staff of the Canberra College of Advanced Education, this Parliament ought in due course to give consideration to the lifting of the status of that college because of its peculiar nature and the type of courses which it provides and will provide. Its status ought to be lifted so that it is described as the Australian College of Advanced Education, or it should be given the status of an institute, because the nature of its work far exceeds that of other colleges of advanced education. I present such a proposition because of the work of Sam Richardson. I do not doubt the quality of the work of the person who will follow him. But we ought to give consideration to that proposition and those who represent the Australian Capital Territory should lend their support to the proposition. It is not a matter that can be easily determined, but it is an initiative that ought to be started, so that within the next decade it might reach a conclusion. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.30) —I spoke previously on the tabling of the annual report of the Canberra College of Advanced Education about the work of Dr Richardson and my regard for him and what he has done. I shall not repeat those remarks. I think the success of the college is measured by the very good reputation it has in regard to its graduates obtaining employment, which these days is particularly important. It does have a good record. I certainly note Senator Georges's comments, and I hold the institute in high regard. I think his suggestion flies in the face of the proposals for the college should self-government occur in the Territory. For that reason alone, given that the college was not consulted on the question of its situation in regard to self-government, I think the proposition needs to be re-evaluated and re-examined. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(12.31) —We seem to have ranged a little beyond the extent of the legislation that is before us. But I am happy on behalf of the Government to support the comments by Senator Baume when he expressed his satisfaction with the contribution made by Dr Richardson as Principal of the Canberra College of Advanced Education over the last 15 years and his regret that Dr Richardson has finally retired. Certainly, the CCAE has been a most important institution in the life of the Australian Capital Territory. As Senator Reid pointed out, it has achieved very high standards which are most easily demonstrated by the success of graduates from that institution. The success of the CCAE in progressing from a brand new institution to the flourishing and very successful institution that it is now is, of course, due very considerably to the efforts of the first Principal of the college, Dr Richardson. I am happy to place on public record what I have made known to Dr Richardson privately: The Government greatly appreciates his efforts and, like Senator Baume, we welcome his successor, Dr Parfitt. The other matter that we seem to have started to debate at this point, for which I have to thank my colleague Senator Georges, is the future status of the CCAE. Speaking as the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, I would rather not enter into this debate at this stage. I say only that the continuation and strengthening of the very important role played by the CCAE in the Australian Capital Territory is very much to the foremost in our considerations. Indeed, the discussion paper shortly to be made public on options and suggestions for future development and administration of education at all levels within the Australian Capital Territory reflects the discussions which were held between officers of my Department and the CCAE on its views about the matter. Once that discussion paper is in the public domain, we might have the full and vigorous debate on the future of the CCAE in which Senator Georges is obviously very anxious to participate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Senator Chipp: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.34) —On behalf of the Government I respond to Senator Chipp's private member's Bill, representing as I do in this place the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). Senator Chipp covered a great deal of ground in his remarks in introducing his Bill and has presented a good deal of factual material in support of it. I should say at the outset that the Government cannot , however, agree with many of his assertions-for example, his characterisation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's policy of flexible response-for the reasons I have given in answers to questions on this subject over the past few days. Nor can we accept his description of the role of the United States- Australia joint defence facilities or his assertion that nuclear war is imminent . As I have told the Senate on a number of occasions recently, the Government, while fully acknowledging the dangers associated with the continuing arms race, believes that the prospect of nuclear war should not be exaggerated. That was all too frequently a tendency of Malcolm Fraser during his tenure as Prime Minister. He regularly fantasised about the imminence of world war III. I do not think it helps the quality of debate on this very difficult issue to paint the picture in quite such lurid terms as have been commonplace to some contributions to the debate. The role and functions of the joint facilities in particular have also been made clear on a number of occasions, including in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the House of Representatives in June and in the pamphlet entitled: 'Uranium, the Joint Facilities, Disarmament and Peace' issued by the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, on 4 July. Having said all that, let me make it absolutely clear that the Government nonetheless certainly agrees with the central thesis of Senator Chipp's remarks, which is that there are far too many nuclear weapons in the world today. It is a fundamental element of Australian foreign policy that the world's nuclear weapons stockpiles should be reduced and eventually eliminated. Australia's position has been to urge that agreement should be reached between the super- powers, which would lead to both qualitative restraints and quantitative reductions in nuclear forces and that there should be an early resumption of negotiations between the super-powers on the limitation and reduction of nuclear weapons. This position has been registered with both Soviet and United States governments. Australia is working actively-I will come back to this aspect later in my speech-in all relevant international forums, for the achievement of this objection. Let there be no doubt about it; this Australian Government is totally committed to complete nuclear disarmament. But the Government also realises that we live in a real world. However horrible they might be, nuclear weapons cannot be wished away, and as the Palme Commission points out, complete nuclear disarmament will not happen overnight. The Government believes that every effort must be made to avoid an outbreak of nuclear war. It accepts that, in the interim and as a step along the long road towards the goal of total nuclear disarmament, stable nuclear deterrence and maintenance of the strategic balance are the only practical options available to avoid serious international nuclear instability and overt nuclear conflict until such time as a better system of restraint is in place leading to nuclear arms control and disarmament. I repeat that the Australian Government's international efforts are directed at doing everything within our means to achieve the objective of nuclear arms control and disarmament. This approach extends to the question of the possible development of a nuclear capability for Australia. The Government's position on this is clear and unequivocal. In the House of Representatives on 2 April this year the Prime Minister said: I repeat that the commitment of this Government to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, which has been made clear in this place and in this country by me, and internationally in many forums by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is complete and unequivocal. Mr Speaker, you will understand that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty creates a permanent and binding obligation on Australia not to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not only honour that obligation, but this Government, in the country and around the world in all relevant forums, will do all in its efforts not merely to support that but to widen its application. It is not inconsistent with any of this, nor with the steps being specifically taken to develop a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific-to which I shall refer later-for this Government to reject, as it does, this proposal from Senator Chipp to ban completely nuclear powered and possibly nuclear armed ships from Australian waters. What is the Government's position on this issue of nuclear powered and possibly nuclear armed ships in Australian waters? The basic position was set out in my speech in the Senate on 15 December last year during the debate on HMAS Invincible, as supplemented subsequently by a further public statement from the Defence Minister, Mr Scholes, on 26 February. For the record let me repeat that statement as clearly as I can. There are four basic strands in the Government's policy that are relevant to the subject matter of this legislation. The first is the proposition that the Australian Government will not allow nuclear arms on Australian soil. That proposition has been enunciated, as I said in December, with vigour and clarity by the present Government before the last election and certainly during our term of office. It is also, of course , consistent with the policy that has been adopted by our predecessors, the Liberal-National Party Government, at least so far as the B52 bomber issue was concerned. I mention in that respect that our Government has reaffirmed support for the arrangements by which United States Air Force B52 aircraft are permitted to stage through Australia or pass through Australian air space on navigation training or sea surveillance flights or both. These aircraft are not armed and the agreement of the Australian Government would be required for any modification of the existing agreement with the United States Government on the pattern of B52 flights. The second strand of relevant policy relates to the visits of nuclear powered ships to Australian ports. Here again, as I said on 15 December: . . . a clear bipartisan approach-perhaps even clearer than in the case of nuclear arms on Australian soil-has evolved over time and there is no question of that bipartisan approach being in any way at risk. The situation here is that nuclear powered vessels will be allowed to visit Australia subject to certain guidelines. Those guidelines were first laid down after some considerable period of discussion and negotiation by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, in the House of Representatives on 4 June 1976. They have subsequently been slightly modified to take account of later developments including, in particular, the controversy around the proposed visit of a nuclear warship to Victoria in 1982. As they now stand, with only very minor modifications to the original 1976 statement, they are as follows-- I will read the guidelines again into the record: (a) Visits will be for purposes such as crew rest and recreation and not for fuel handling or repair to reactor plant necessitating breach of reactor containment; (b) Visits will be subject to satisfactory arrangements concerning liability and indemnity and to provision of adequate assurances relating to the operation and safety of the warships while they are in Australian waters; (c) Movement of vessels must take place during daylight hours under conditions where visibility is not less than three quarters of a mile; I suppose we will have to change that now to kilometres. I continued: (d) Navigational controls on other shipping will be applied during the time that nuclear powered ships are entering or leaving ports; (e) There must be a capability to remove the vessel either under its own power or under tow to a designated safe anchorage or to a designated distance to sea within the time frame specified for the particular berth or anchorage and in any case within 24 hours, if an accident should occur; and (f) An operating safety organisation competent to carry out a suitable radiation monitoring program and able to initiate actions and provide services necessary to safeguard the public in the event of a release of radioactivity following an accident must exist for the port being visited. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty about that particular policy statement, nor any disposition on the part of this Government to review or modify it in any way . In this respect I mention, when one is considering the question of nuclear powered ships, that over 40 per cent of the United States Navy's combatant ships are now nuclear powered. We are aware that this percentage will continue to rise . Restraint by Australia on port access for United States nuclear powered ships would create serious problems for the United States in planning its fleet deployments and operations. It also has to be said that no nuclear related problems of any kind have arisen in the past in respect of the many visits to Australia by US nuclear powered warships over the last eight years. I make those specific points in relation to the United States, but of course the policy that is here being enunciated is applicable to ships of other nations as well. The third strand in the relevant policy relates to the visit of nuclear armed ships, or ships which may be nuclear armed, to Australian ports. Again, there is a long-standing bipartisan policy initiated by the previous Government and continued by the present Labor Government that we do not ask our allies either to confirm or deny whether nuclear weapons are being carried. The final strand in the policy concerns the dry docking of ships armed with conventional weapons, or ships which may or may not be armed with non- conventional weapons, as the case may be. This was the issue that generated some controversy at the time of the visit of HMS Invincible last year. It was in that context that Mr Scholes, the Minister for Defence, made it clear, after reviewing the applicable policy in his statement of 26 February this year, that for the future: . . . each request would 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. He went on to say: . . . Australia would not in any way endanger the safety of any allied or friendly ship or crew in need of access to Australian facilities. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that Senator Gietzelt will be absent, ill, for the rest of this week. Questions for Senator Gietzelt should continue to be directed to Senator Grimes. Senator CHANEY —I preface my question by wishing Senator Gietzelt a speedy recovery. My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Has he yet studied matters I drew to his attention in a question on Friday concerning apparent discrepancies between evidence given to the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration and a submission from the Comptroller-General of Customs? I refer also to my question on Monday concerning the treatment afforded to the Special Minister of State in light of the Minister's statement of 5 July that Mr Young would be treated in the same way as any other passenger. Is the Minister aware of the examples at pages 798 and 799 of the transcript of evidence of the Black inquiry in which Mr Black notes that actions were taken contrary to normal Customs practice? Is he aware that these concern the way in which the Customs form was handled and the failure to check for previous offences through the intelligence system? As these observations are made by Mr Black and not by the Opposition, does the Minister still maintain that Mr Young was treated in the same way as any other passenger? Senator BUTTON —I do not know how many times I have to say it in this chamber but I will say it again: Senator Chaney has a great capacity for confusing a statement made by me on 5 July with what happened subsequently. On numerous occasions in the Senate I have said that on 5 July I said that Mr Young was to be treated by Customs in the same way as any other passenger. I believe he was so treated by Customs in most respects. Subsequent to 5 July, however, a number of events occurred which, of course, made it quite apparent that Mr Young was not going to be treated in the same way as any other passenger. I refer to the fact that the Liberal Party had a committee on the matter, that there was a great glare of publicity associated with it and so on. I want to repeat this point because it is important and the Opposition clearly does not understand it. As I said in answer to a question the other day, all the documents which Senator Chaney alleges contain inconsistencies- Senator Chaney —As identified by Senator Chaney. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney alleges there are inconsistencies. All the documents were submitted to the Black inquiry and considered by Mr Black. Mr Black's conclusions on those matters are quite clear. I refer particularly to the highly selective quotations which Senator Chaney has dragged from the transcript, I suppose as a result of the diligence of some member of his staff. I will refer specifically to those because he has asked me to do so. I do so as a matter of courtesy, though not as a matter of relevance, because I said that I would address those matters. On Monday Senator Chaney prefaced his question to me by saying: 'I want to address a question to a Minister about his portfolio'. I will answer it. If one reads Mrs Young's statement and the transcript, it is quite clear that Mr Black, in the course of his inquiry, was trying to establish what occurred during the process of valuation. He asked whether she could remember exactly what she paid for certain things, what questions were asked her by Customs officers, et cetera. As I understand it-it is the only way I can interpret it from reading the documents and the report-Mr Black was trying to establish the circumstances in which the valuation was made because he wanted to make a finding about that. He went through this aspect exhaustively, as the transcript reveals. Mr Black suggested that Mrs Young may have used guesswork in relation to some of the items. Mr Black said: I mean, that does not mean to say that there is anything wrong about that. Senator Chaney —Very helpful and friendly, wasn't he? Senator BUTTON —Of course it is helpful and friendly. Most Customs officers in conducting valuations have a very good reputation. They are helpful and friendly . They are not all law school inquisitors. They are helpful and friendly to the Australian public. But the essential point at issue that Mr Black was trying to explore was the circumstances under which the valuation was made and whether those circumstances revealed impropriety on the part of anybody. He concluded, after examining the documents to which Senator Chaney keeps referring: The assessment of duty is a matter of very common occurrence and the Customs officers rely upon their general experience and their assessment of the honesty of the owner of the goods. The process is essentially a matter of judgment. Nothing out of the ordinary occurred in the present case . . . I do not think the ordinary Customs procedures should be criticised. That was his conclusion after examining the material. He examined all the circumstances surrounding the valuation and said: I am satisfied that the relevant officer, Mr Jennings, formed a genuine opinion that the amount of duty sought to be evaded did not exceed $500 and that the conditions of s. 209 of the Act were properly applied. I entertain no doubt about this. In the light of that sort of conclusion drawn by Mr Black, it is absurd for Senator Chaney to keep dragging up these questions of alleged inconsistencies. The fundamental inconsistency which he claims in this place was between something that the Collector of Customs wrote in a document prior to the commencement of the Black inquiry and something that Mrs Young said some time later in her evidence about what she could remember about prices of goods and so on. Senator Peter Rae —If you read pages 108 and 109 you will see they are full of inconsistencies. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator should read it himself and see whether he can ask an intelligent question for once. If Senator Chaney thinks Mr Black is wrong in the conclusions he draws on these matters, he should say so. Mr Black examined the matter and his conclusions are in the report. I commend the reading of the report to the Opposition. I must say that the whole tone of Opposition questioning on this matter was revealed last Monday when Senator Chaney asked me a question prefaced by this statement: . . . As a matter of novelty, I shall ask a Minister a question relating to his portfolio. My God, it is a matter of novelty in the Senate for the Opposition- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. It is that the Minister is clearly misquoting me from last week. I used those words following a series of totally irrelevant answers given by his colleagues, which is so typical of their behaviour in this place. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —The words are incapable of misquotation. He said: . . . As a matter of novelty, I shall ask a Minister a question relating to his portfolio. That was a matter of novelty all right in the Senate last week. No questions were asked of Ministers relating to their portfolios. There were very few questions about the Budget, the economy or any of the issues which concern the people in this country. Senator Chaney —Stop trying to slide out from under. Senator BUTTON —I am invited to stop trying to slide out from under. As I said on another occasion, what hurts the Opposition most about this issue is that it was handled properly right from the beginning. The Opposition assumed that we were a collection of shonks like it was in government. The Opposition tried to have two Ministers, and indeed the Cabinet of the previous Government, conceal facts for a long period. In that case it took seven months for the Minister concerned to pay the duty-not the five days that it took Mr Young, or Mrs Young as the case may be, in this matter. That is the matter which really hurts. I note with a great deal of interest that this matter so gripped the Opposition that at an earlier time this year-I think it was on 1 August-the Opposition set up a committee to examine this whole question. The committee met in Townsville and the conclusion of the meeting, as recorded in an article in the Press, was as follows: The committee said in a statement that the public information on record was insufficient for the Opposition to conduct an inquiry. All the information is now on record. The Opposition can conduct its inquiry. Let us look at who is on this Opposition committee. There is Mr McGauran, a new member for the seat of Gippsland in Victoria. Senator Chipp —Mr who? Senator BUTTON —Mr McGauran, who made his name as a legal luminary by making wills for cow cockies, with a thumb nail dipped in tar, in the darker regions of Gippsland. Another member is Senator Reg Withers, who spent five years in this place complaining that standards were too high, not that they were too low. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. My point of order is that the Minister is clearly debating the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! I was about to suggest to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that he was bringing in extraneous matter. He should confine himself to the question. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I do not wish to canvass your ruling but there is nothing extraneous about Senator Withers. He has been sitting here as long as I can remember. That was the topic I was dealing with at the time. The Opposition says that it wants all the facts in this matter. It has all the facts. They were submitted to the Black inquiry, and the Opposition has the conclusions of the Black inquiry. Where, of course, nothing is happening is in respect of this committee which has been set up by the Opposition to inquire into the matter. Senator Chipp —Who else do we have? Senator BUTTON —Mr John Spender is on the Committee. His legal light is so surrounded by fibrous pomposity that he cannot even interpret the Freedom of Information Act. Of course, the star on the Liberal Party committee is Senator Durack. I think we will find that the report of that committee will remain in the bottom drawer, as have other reports under Senator Durack's jurisdiction. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. It took the Minister 12 minutes to fail to answer part of my question. I ask the Minister whether he denies that in at least two respects identified in the material that he has tabled, Mr Young was not subjected to normal Customs procedures. Does he agree that that is the case? Senator BUTTON —I have been subjected to earlier questioning on this matter. One question I was asked was why the Black inquiry was instigated on 24 July. Senator Chaney —Answer the question. Senator BUTTON —I ask the honourable senator, if he does not mind, to let me answer the question. I was asked why the Black inquiry was instigated on 24 July and what was the new information. One of the pieces of new information which came to light was that the Customs form, having been returned to Customs, was taken back to the Minister's office. That was one of the things which were not normal. Senator Chaney —That makes three. There may be a couple of others. Senator BUTTON —There may be other-I do not know what Senator Chaney would call them-inconsistencies in the treatment of Mr Young. I concede that. Senator Chaney —There was failure to follow proper procedures. The PRESIDENT —Order! This back chatting has to stop. Senator BUTTON —The essential point is that all these matters have been dealt with by Mr Black, their relevance has been assessed, and so on. The finding of Mr Black, as far as the Government is concerned, is conclusive on all these matters. Senator Chaney —It sounds like a blackwash. Senator BUTTON —That has provided the opportunity for a joke and I welcome it. The findings of Mr Black embrace the consideration of all the issues. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that there appear to be some anomalies in regard to parliamentary representation on statutory authorities? How many statutory authorities have a parliamentary representative? How many statutory authorities are functioning without parliamentary representation? Why has this policy of appointing parliamentary representatives to some statutory authorities and not to others developed in such an apparently ad hoc fashion? Would statutory authorities be more accountable to the Parliament if they all had an elected member, thus preventing the practice of some statutory bodies being a law unto themselves? Senator BUTTON —I am aware that there appear to be anomalies in regard to the presence of members of parliament on statutory authority boards. Some statutory authorities have such members and others do not. I am not able to tell Senator Reynolds at the moment how many statutory authorities are in that position. I certainly agree that there are policy anomalies relating to those issues. I am not sure whether statutory authorities would be more accountable if they had elected members of parliament on their boards. That would depend very much on the calibre of the members of parliament concerned. I suppose that is a matter for debate. Insofar as the question seeks facts about the number of statutory authorities concerned, I will seek that information from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. Senator PETER RAE —I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce once again to the documents tabled last Wednesday by the Prime Minister which raise further serious questions about the Government's handling of the false Customs declaration by the Special Minister of State. Where breaches of the Customs Act occur, is it standard procedure to have two Customs officers present at interviews with transgressors in order to provide corroboration, and is it departmental practice not to conduct any such conversation by telephone? Why was the normal procedure not followed in the case of the Special Minister of State? Why did a Customs officer speak several times on the telephone with the Special Minister of State and visit him alone on at least one-the Minister claims two- occasions? Further, is it normal, having decided to examine a person's baggage, having actually examined it and having formed an opinion that the baggage contained goods which have not been declared, for a senior Customs officer then to ask the alleged owner of the unaccompanied baggage for permission to examine it? Is this consistent with the repeated attempts of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to assure the Senate that the Special Minister of State was treated like any other person making a false Customs declaration? Senator BUTTON —Senator Rae has put through a sieve sections of the transcript of the proceedings of the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration and has come out with those little selective conclusions. Senator Chaney —If you did not want us to read it why did you table it? Senator BUTTON —I am happy for Senator Chaney to read it. That is why we tabled it. But Senator Rae keeps coming back in his question to whether Mr Young was treated like any normal passenger. I suppose that in some respects Customs officers extended courtesies to Mr Young because he was a Minister, courtesies which may not be extended to everybody but which would certainly be extended to many people. I am sure all those sorts of things happened. I want to make it quite clear, because apparently the penny still has not dropped, that the phrase that Mr Young should be treated like a normal passenger was used by me on 5 July . That was my instruction to the Comptroller-General of Customs. Customs officers, in the course of that day-the instruction was issued very late that day-or the following day, indulged in the activities which Senator Rae seems to suggest are so heinous. I do not regard that as being in any way inconsistent with the carrying-out of that general instruction. I have never said in this place that Mr Young was treated in all respects like any normal passenger. Of course he was not. He was treated less like a normal passenger in respect of a number of matters of detail, I suppose, because he was very quick to acknowledge the fact that his Customs declaration was incorrect. He was very quick to make the matter public. He did not try to conceal it month after month as Ministers in Liberal governments did. Senator Peter Rae —No, he sought to put in another one and withdraw the false one. Senator BUTTON —That is a very shonky reading of the evidence, but I am not surprised at that from Senator Rae. The fact of the matter is that Mr Young was very quick to acknowledge publicly what had taken place. That is the difference between us and the Opposition. Senator PETER RAE —I ask a supplementary question: Having finally admitted that Mr Young did receive special and different treatment, will the Minister now answer the question of why he has not taken any action in relation to the Customs officers who disobeyed his instruction not to treat Mr Young any differently from any other person importing goods? Senator BUTTON —I suppose the essential answer to that question is that I am not as small-minded as Senator Rae. As far as I am concerned, the point is that Mr Black investigated this matter very thoroughly and found that there was no dereliction of duty and no abnormal departure from practice by Customs officers. If these scourges of public morality on the other side want Ministers of this Government to race around disciplining Customs officers or anybody else for behaviour which has been found by a reputable inquiry to be quite normal behaviour, they can keep on with that effort but they will not get much comfort from me. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a former distinguished President of the Senate, Mr Justin O'Byrne, and to former Senators Sir Reginald Wright, Neville Bonner and Geoff McLaren. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to our erstwhile colleagues a warm and friendly welcome on their return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator BOLKUS —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to newspaper stories last month that secret agreements between Australia and the United Kingdom covered the arrangements between those two countries for the Maralinga nuclear weapons test range? Can the Minister confirm whether or not these agreements are in fact secret? Further, can the Minister assure the Senate that copies of those agreements will be made available to the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963? If the agreements are in fact not secret, is the Minister willing to make them available to the public as soon as possible? Senator WALSH —There were Press reports in the Australian on 13 August this year about the memorandum of arrangements between the United Kingdom and Australia which were based on an article previously published in the Sunday Observer newspaper in London. That article claimed that the agreements were secret. The agreements were, in fact, declassified on 29 September last year. I am not sure whether the McClelland Commission has been supplied with copies of these agreements, but they certainly would be supplied on request. Indeed, in response to the last section of Senator Bolkus's question, I now table the two agreements , the memorandum of arrangements dated 7 March 1956 and the memorandum respecting the termination of those arrangements dated 23 September 1968. Senator CHIPP —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I refer to the shameful decision of the Government, announced this morning, that, despite advice from the Australian Heritage Commission that the Daintree region is of undoubted world significance, it plans to take no decisive action to stop construction of the road causing the destruction or nominate the area for the World Heritage List. First, does not the recommendation of the Australian Heritage Commission for the Daintree region to be nominated for World Heritage Listing clearly establish the 'primary constitutional support' of the external affairs power necessary for Federal action to which the Attorney-General referred last Friday? I ask also whether that report of the Heritage Commission also states: Thirteen families of primitive flowering plants which give the area the highest concentration of such families on earth, the highest diversity of animal life of any area in Australia, and the only habitat for numerous species that are regarded as threatened and elements of plant life that relate to the four major stages in the earth's evolutionary history dating back more than 35 million years. Finally, is the Minister aware that the National Environmental Law Association of Australia wrote to the Prime Minister on 3 September outlining five reasons for regarding Daintree as being of outstanding universal value, prior to the Heritage Commission's report, thus giving the Federal Government the power to save the region now? Senator RYAN —I am not aware of the correspondence to which Senator Chipp referred in the last part of his question. I do not have any briefing material on it. I was not aware until Senator Chipp drew it to our attention by way of his question that the Heritage Commission has now reported on the Daintree area. However, I point out to the Senate that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Barry Cohen, has announced our intention to pursue, in co-operation with the Queensland Government, a conservation plan for the area. I think it is the case that if the area is to be preserved there needs to be co-operative action. We are very well aware that some damage to the area has occurred by way of building the road. The Federal Government and the Minister have regretted that damage. However, it seems that the most sensible and constructive steps that could be taken would be to ensure that no further damage takes place and that there is an agreed plan of conservation for the area. I am sure that the Minister could provide Senator Chipp with more details about what he intends to do by way of negotiating this plan with the Queensland Government. We hope that these steps will lead to what most people-certainly most members of the Government-acknowledge to be a unique and very valuable area. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Would the Minister please explain how we can save an area by building a 60-metre wide road through it which, in the opinion of all experts, will destroy it? Senator RYAN —The building of the road was not an act undertaken by our Government. It has been severely criticised by our Government. We are concerned to prevent further damage in the area and that is the purpose in setting up the consultations for a conservation plan for the area. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask honourable senators to look at the length of their questions because quite often lengthy and detailed questions involve lengthy answers. Because Question Time is a time for back benchers to express a point of view, I ask all honourable senators to keep this in mind. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Has the Minister seen the article in Quadrant of September 1984 by D. C. Stove in which he claimed in reference to university appointments that in many cases women are being appointed because they are women over better men candidates? He adds that his own department of philosophy has never appointed a man because he was a man over a better woman. Indeed, he claimed that philosophers would appoint a broomstick if it was the best philosopher. In the face of considerable evidence that anything the Minister says will make no difference, will she explain affirmative action so as to reassure one anguished philosopher and people who might be misled by him? Senator RYAN —I have seen references to Professor Stove's claims about bias against men in favour of women in appointments made by the University of Sydney to the philosophy department. Those claims appeared originally, I understand, in Quadrant but were repeated in the daily Press. I will not extrapolate on the broomstick analogy and suggest that in the appointment of Professor Stove there was perhaps something other than total adherence to the merit principle. I do not really have any information on that. I am also aware that Professor Stove's claims about the percentage of women who had been appointed to the philosophy department at Sydney University have been denounced as being totally inaccurate and distorted by spokespersons from the university, including Professor Dame Leonie Kramer, who is, as we know, no supporter of affirmative action. I think it is a matter for concern when a prestigious university such as the University of Sydney is appointing, not only to its tenured staff but also to professorships in its philosophy department, people who are unable to compute the most basic statistical material. The fact that Professor Stove was so outrageously wrong in his claims about the percentage of women appointed to the philosophy department does more to undermine confidence in the employment practices of the philosophy department of Sydney University than the appointment of women. Seriously, the fact is, as has been stated from the time of the very first discussions about the equal employment opportunity policies of this Government, that affirmative action or equal employment policy does not undermine the merit principle. The whole point of an affirmative action program is to ensure that people are appointed on the basis of merit, which has not been the case for women in institutions over the years, and that irrelevant criteria such as the applicant's sex or marital status are left out. The whole purpose of affirmative action is to remove structural discrimination in making appointments and to enable the merit principle to operate purely and simply. I am convinced that when that happens within our institutions we will indeed see a great increase in the percentage of women who are appointed on their merits. At this stage the percentage originally claimed by the very innumerate Professor Stove-to use Senator Walsh's description-was entirely wrong. It is a much lower percentage of women. I remind honourable senators that Professor Kramer insisted that all appointments made in that faculty, as in other faculties of the University of Sydney in which she is a professor, have been made, in her view, on the basis of merit. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Was the Ambassador for Disarmament, His Excellency Mr Richard Butler, brought back to Australia to participate in a debate at the recent Australian Labor Party Conference? Government senators-No. Senator PETER BAUME —Did he in fact participate in any ALP Conference debates? Government senators-No. Senator PETER BAUME —Did the Australian Government pay his return travel costs between Europe and Australia at that time and his expenses while he was in Australia, particularly during the time of the ALP Conferences? Government senators-No. Senator PETER BAUME —Finally, were any officers of the Australian Public Service enlisted to participate in the ALP Conference and were public funds used to pay either for travel or daily allowances for any of these officers? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not have a detailed briefing in front of me on this matter, but with the assistance that I have been deriving from my colleagues during the the question I think I can answer with a reasonable degree of confidence in the negative on every one of those points. My understanding is that Mr Butler came back to Australia recently for departmental briefings and consultations with a number of peace and disarmament groups around the country, which is part of his responsibility. While he is wearing that hat he has a responsibility to consult and liaise with them. It is my understanding that he was not in the country at the time of the ALP Conference and he certainly did not participate in any debate. As to the circumstances of funding his return and so on, I think that question is no longer remotely relevant in the light of the information I have just given, but if there is any outstanding question that justifies a further answer I will ensure that it is given. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. In view of concern that delays in the processes of the Family Court, particularly in cases involving custody and maintenance, may have contributed to violence related to that Court, what steps is the Government taking to reduce such delays, particularly in the availability of counselling? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is acutely aware of the need to avoid delays in the Family Court, especially in cases of custody and disputed maintenance. The problem of violence, which tends to be closely associated with cases involving custody of children and so on, is a matter on which the Government has taken a number of urgent remedial actions which I outlined to Senator Elstob in answer to questions earlier this session, particularly on 22 August. Senator Zakharov's question adverted particularly to the need for increased counselling facilities. When this question was last raised in the Senate by Senator Crowley in June I said that we were doing our best to monitor delays and to overcome them. I am now pleased to be able to advise the Senate of an immediate increase of 25 staff for the Family Court, which was announced in July , and a further set of Budget increases of another 40 staff for the Court, making a total of 485 or a 9 per cent increase this year. The decision on how that extra staff will be allocated is a matter for the Family Court. However, I think that honorable senators will agree, as I do, that priority ought to be given to augmenting the conciliation staff of that Court. There are a number of other initiatives that we are taking in the family law area, in particular the building programs to improve accommodation and security for the Court. More particularly we are creating a new approach to dealing with Family Court matters. Rather than involving people immediately in the litigation process where there appear to be irreconcilable conflicts looming, we are anxious to develop the concept of mediation, conciliation and the resolution of disputes other than by litigation as much as possible. With that in mind, we are developing pilot family law centres with those objectives in Wollongong and Dandenong which will operate as projects for 12 months each and for which budgetary allocations have been made. The bottom line in dealing with Family Court problems, as with many other areas of government activity, is adequate staffing resources. The type of matters that the Court deals with, marital breakdown and custody disputes in particular, involve strong emotions, and any delays can only heighten distress for the people involved-clients, judges and the Court staff. Certainly, whatever approach one brings to bear on this, it is only with the addition of increased staff resources of the kind that this Government has made available that these problems can and will be appropriately tackled. Senator LEWIS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, is about the new taxation measures that we read about in the newspapers this morning and in particular the proposal to lift the corporate veil to enable prosecution of directors of companies involved in tax avoidance schemes. Will this proposal enable the Commissioner of Taxation to prosecute the Honourable J. S. Dawkins, the Government's Minister for Finance, for the involvement of his company in its massive tax avoidance scheme involving more than $1m? Senator BUTTON —I would have thought that Senator Lewis, having regard to his background as I read it, would know that that question, if taken seriously, would require me to give a legal opinion, which I decline to do. But I do not see that as the purpose of the question at all. I see the purpose of that question as the same as that of many other questions that have been asked here in the last week or two-that is, to enable the making of a speech of a derogatory nature about another member of parliament. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the family income supplement which is paid to low income working families. What are the reasons for the 35 per cent lift in outlays on this item in the Budget? How many families with how many children will benefit from the family income supplement compared with last year? Are any special measures taken to promote the scheme to the target group of low income working families? Senator GRIMES —The expenditure on the family income supplement was increased by $12.9m between 1983-84 and 1984-85, which is a 35.6 per cent increase from the $ 36m spent in 1983-84. This increase in expenditure mainly reflects the increased rate of payment in November 1984 from $12 to $14 a week and the full year effect of the November 1983 increase from $10 to $12 a week. The number of families benefiting from family income supplement in 1983-84 was 26,530. At the end of August 1984 there were 26,784 families benefiting and the estimated number for the end of this financial year is 27,500. That represents 74,000, 75,000 and 77, 000 children respectively. The Department has been examining ways of increasing awareness of this payment. All payments of this type in the past have had a very variable take up largely because of the difficulty of contacting families who are eligible and in most need. A sample group of family allowance recipients were recently surveyed to find out about their awareness of family income supplement publicity. They were sent publicity on the supplement. The results of this survey are currently being evaluated. We are trying to investigate ways of increasing the take up. In particular, we want to see whether this method of increasing the take up can be justified in the light of postal costs and other administrative costs. I am to be advised after this survey of methods of promoting the family income supplement to see whether we cannot improve the take up. But there has been a steady, if slow, increase in the take up of this supplement since it has been introduced. We certainly hope that we are getting to as many people who are eligible as possible. Senator MacGIBBON —I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Who is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force? Senator BUTTON —That is not a question that has gripped me as a burning issue in my mind. I will obtain the answer for the honourable senator as soon as possible . Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question. Can I have an indication as to when that answer will be available? Senator BUTTON —As soon as possible. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns the entry of foreign banks into Australia. Is the Minister aware of the South Australian proposal for enforced decentralisation of foreign banks? Is he also aware that South Australia could offer a financial infrastructure comparable to that of the traditional financial centres, with the added cost benefit of lower property values? Will consideration be given to the headquartering of some of these banks in other than the eastern States? Senator WALSH —I am advised by the Treasurer on the question of a possible bank being located in South Australia that the Government is continuing to examine participation subsequent to the announcement the other day, including participation by foreign banks. The Government is, of course aware of the capabilities that South Australia has as a financial centre and, I am sure, so are those interested in establishing new banks in Australia. I think before any definitive answer can be given to Senator Foreman's question, obviously the Government will have to wait until the applications have been received-I think from memory they must be in by 12 December this year-and the advantages not only to South Australia but also to the country generally of locating one of those banks in Adelaide are considered, providing that a satisfactory consortium can be put together to make such an application. Senator ARCHER —I would like to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is the Government aware of the practice known as reference pricing as it is used in other countries? Has the implication of its use been studied as it would be relevant to Australia's primary products such as frozen and processed vegetables, dairy produce, fresh and preserved fruit, fish, wine and timber, especially as the actual costs of imported goods cannot be accurately determined because of export and/or production incentives, or for other reasons? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the use of the term 'reference pricing' in more than one context. But the context in which it is possibly best known and certainly most notorious I would think occurs in the European Economic Community's common agricultural policy, a policy which restricts our access to and promotes surplus production and export subsidisation in third country markets. There are also examples of similar stabilisational price or supporting arrangements in Japan, United States of America and a number of other countries including, I might add, to a limited extent Australia, although that term is not used by us. However, I am not sure what the purpose of the question is. I do not know whether Senator Archer believes that reference pricing is being used as part of a mechanism or a subterfuge for what is commonly called dumping goods in Australia. It is just not clear to me from his question whether he is referring to that. Senator JONES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. I refer to the Government's intention to introduce supplementary broadcasting licences. What improvement in programming is expected to follow the Government's introduction of supplementary licences? Will the increase in channels available in both commercial radio and television services provide a diversity of services in non-metropolitan areas, particularly in country areas of Queensland? Will the Minister provide me with details of the areas from which applications are expected to be received by 28 September 1984? Senator BUTTON —The supplementary licence scheme, which has been the topic of discussion in this Parliament for several years now, was introduced and announced by the Minister for Communications to provide greater diversity in television and radio markets, particularly those markets which could not support an additional independent commercial radio or television station. The scheme provides a vehicle for additional independent commercial radio or television services in markets that can support such services. The introduction of the scheme is expected to result in more choice in practically every non- metropolitan market. Insofar as the question relates to program choice, of course the scheme is expected to provide greater diversity of programming. A supplementary licence covers both radio and television services. I should point out that 86 of a possible 101 radio stations have expressed interest in a supplementary licence. All of the 36 television stations have also expressed interest in a supplementary licence. The closing date for applications under the scheme is 20 September-I think Senator Jones said 28 September in his question. For Senator Jones's information, 22 out of a possible 23 radio stations in Queensland have expressed interest in a supplementary licence. All the eight television channels in Queensland have also expressed interest in a supplementary licence. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is directed to Senator Button either in his capacity as the Minister for Industry and Commerce or as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Does the Minister acknowledge that, in the vast majority of cases, small businesses do not retrench employees for reasons of malice or cynical financial gain but do so only in order to prevent the collapse of the businesses and the resulting loss of many more jobs; that when so many small businesses are close to closure and are fighting for survival, the redundancy conditions set by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will cause business closures and job losses; and that the redundancy provisions are inappropriate for small businesses? Is the Minister willing to give an assurance that the Government will act to exempt or protect small businesses from the drastic effects of the Commission's redundancy conditions? Senator BUTTON —Senator Jack Evans in the early part of his question asked me to acknowledge certain facts about small business. I acknowledge those facts about the importance of small business, the virile nature of many small business sectors in Australia and the importance of small business to the Australian economy. I also acknowledge the facts which he suggested about the number of employees they engage. He then went on to ask me about the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to redundancy payments. Let me say first of all that that decision was the subject of long deliberation by the Commission in which all parties involved had an opportunity to put their points of view. The Commission's decision on redundancy payments was to provide a standard set of rules for businesses across Australia-rules which I might say do not in any way exceed the sorts of norm operating, for example, in many European countries. I fully appreciate that any change in conditions of employment and the conditions of termination of employment in this society is regarded as anathema to some sections of the community. We cannot change anything without causing some degree of apprehension. Undoubtedly considerable apprehension has been caused in the small business sector by the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Nonetheless, I believe that it is an important decision in the history of industrial relations in this country and that given time its importance will be seen not in the pejorative terms that the question implies but in terms of benefit by way of the continuity and consistency of practices in business in the circumstances described in the question. I will not give an undertaking in the way in which I am invited that the Government will act in respect of a decision concerning a certain sector of the business community. There would be enormous problems if one did not approach this question with equity across businesses. Whatever the Government's attitude, and whatever the attitude of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission might be, it would be untenable for the Government to entertain the sort of suggestion which Senator Jack Evans has made, and we would not do so. I remind Senator Evans that the terms of the Arbitration Commission's decision on redundancy payments and the orders that will be made consequent upon that decision are currently subject to negotiation. That matter of course is still subject to further discussion. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It relates to Bills introduced by the Hawke Government to recover revenue lost through tax avoidance schemes and which were defeated in the Senate . I ask: Can the Minister say what the consequences of the defeat of those Bills has been to the tax liability of ordinary taxpayers in Australia? Senator WALSH —The consequences of the defeat of those various Bills could be viewed in a number of different ways but the maximum cost to Commonwealth revenue as a result of their defeat is around $570m, which would have been enough to finance a tax cut of nearly $87 a year for every taxpayer in Australia . Confined to taxpayers receiving the announced $6.60 tax cut, their yearly tax bill could have been reduced by another $160, bringing the total tax cut to about $10.65 a week. The tax avoidance Bills were defeated in the Senate by the Opposition with support from some of the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine. One wonders whether those same honourable senators will again combine to defeat the anti-evasion legislation imposing higher penalties which is to be introduced into Parliament soon. As I mentioned yesterday, one of the most notorious architects of the tax avoidance schemes was Christo T. Moll. I have here copies of a number of cheques, which I now table, which may shed some light on the matter, because they are drawn on a well-known Moll company. Of course it would be entirely improper of me to speculate about whether there is any relationship between these copies and votes which have been cast in the Senate. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for sleaze. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to address his remarks correctly. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, whom I believe I named accurately, if in a disorderly way, a moment ago. I ask the Minister whether he will confirm that any tax saving as a result of introducing new retrospective taxes of the sort which were defeated in the Senate would have been a one-off tax saving and would not have affected current income tax rates at all. Senator WALSH —The direct effects would have been one-off. However, the lesson to every would-be tax evader in the country would have been that this Parliament would take decisive action against tax evaders, and the lesson flowing on from that would have been that there would be no point in attempting tax evasion in the future. But, thanks to the actions of the Opposition, some of the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine, that message has not been transmitted to would be tax evaders in Australia and tax evaders know that, as far as the Opposition and the other people I have named are concerned, they have a licence to continue their anti-social behaviour in the future. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that in April this year the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation initiated court action in New York challenging a United States Government interpretation of its Meat Import Act? Can the Minister verify that the United States Government decision to apply import restrictions to voluntary restraint agreements from August 1983 cost Australia an estimated $18.5m worth of beef exports last year, and can the Minister inform the Senate of the outcome of the court case or whether there has been a satisfactory resolution to the problem? Senator WALSH —I cannot confirm definitively whether it cost Australia $18.5m but from a quick glance at the figures I have it would seem that that is about the correct amount. As to what happened to the case, in April this year the AMLC and a couple of other processing-exporting companies filed a formal complaint in the United States Court of International Trade seeking a judgment on whether, under the Meat Import Act of 1979 and the Agricultural Act of 1956-both US Acts-the Meat Import Act minimum access floor of 1.25 billion pounds is an absolute maximum limit on aggregate United States meat imports. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with a very lengthy answer, which I suppose it will be best to table. However, I do want to add a couple of things. In June of 1984 the Court of International Trade refused an injunction to prevent the United States Government from negotiating voluntary restraint agreements with supplying countries. It was found that in the negotiation of voluntary restraints the President was not constrained in any way by the 1979 Act and therefore was not precluded from negotiating voluntary restraint levels below the 1.25 billion pounds floor. However, the court did find that the action of the United States Administration had caused material injury to the Australian industry. Subsequently, the AMLC has sought clarification of the judgment to determine whether the President has the discretion to negotiate voluntary restraints to the minimum access floor level even where the trigger is below that floor. The court declined to offer judgment on this submission, considering it to be hypothetical at this time. However, it did invite the plaintiffs-that is, the AMLC and the other two exporters-to bring the matter before the court again should similar circumstances arise. If I may say so, that is reminiscent of the behaviour of the High Court of Australia on the Uebergang case. I table the rest of the answer supplied by the Minister. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I preface my question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by saying that, as I understand it, documents which are tabled in the Senate by Ministers by and large are expected to be authenticated by the Ministers. Ministers are expected to know and believe, and have reason for believing, that the documents are authentic. I ask the Minister: What standards does he impose upon his Ministers, in the event that they table a document, to ensure that the matters contained in the document are a reflection of the facts or that they seek to inquire as to their authenticity? Senator BUTTON —I am sure that documents are tabled in this place on numerous occasions which in a sense contain arguments, points of view and so on about which there could not, in the regular course of the process of the Senate, be checks about their authenticity. In the course of the Budget discussions there have been numerous interpretations of the figures and so on tabled in this place by honourable senators which may or may not be authentic. Insofar as I believe Senator Crichton-Browne's question has a particular point, I will look into the matter and provide him with an answer in due course. Senator BUTTON —Earlier today in Question Time Senator MacGibbon asked me a question about who was the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force. I think the question was couched in terms of whether, arising from new letters patent, the Governor-General is no longer Commander-in-Chief? The 1900 letters patent referred to the Governor-General as Commander-in-Chief in and over the Commonwealth of Australia. There is no constitutional basis for that title and it has been removed. On the other hand, section 68 of the Constitution vests a command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth of Australia in the Governor-General. There has been no redirection of this command function. The Governor-General will continue to use the title Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force that has been used in recent years for ceremonial purposes connected with the armed forces. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.02) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, to the question which the Leader of the Opposition ( Senator Chaney) asked him and the question which Senator Peter Rae asked him in Question Time today relating to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I will not abuse the leave which has been given me by debating at length those answers. I am sure there will be an opportunity to do so in the course of this session. However, in a part of the Senate's afternoon, which in part will be taken up by personal explanations arising out of the antics and tactics adopted in this place, I do want to say that I am very disappointed that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, should have breached what I regard as the very high standards he normally maintains in this place. Several times in the course of a 14 1/2-minute answer to a question in Question Time, which is a rather unusual length of time for even a Minister of this Government to occupy, Senator Button referred on a number of occasions to the fact that I had prefaced a question I asked him by saying that as a matter of novelty I would ask the Minister a question relating to his portfolio. He continually carried on about how that indicated that questions were not being directed in that way. The Minister would know that at the same time on the same day-this appears on the same page of Hansard-I raised a point of order with respect to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, immediately before asking that question, on the basis that Senator Walsh was answering a question which had nothing to do with the administration of his own portfolio or indeed any portfolio responsibilities. All I can say is that in a series of answers on the report of the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration', the Government has so far simply refused to face up to the questions asked and to admit to the fact that the Minister has any responsibility for the administration of Customs. That is one small illustration of the fact that Senator Button is falling into the happy knack of being prepared to mislead this Senate. I will seek leave to continue my remarks later but I look forward to an opportunity of giving further consideration to the totally unsatisfactory answers which have been given to the questions which have been put to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I now seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.05) —by leave-Articles have been published in the Age newspaper of 10 September 1984, the West Australian of 11 September 1984 and the Daily News of 10 September 1984 which refer to Mr Christo Moll and which suggest an association between me and a company associated with the Moll group of companies. As is reported in a number of the articles, I have already stated that I have had no financial, business or social relationship with Christo Moll. I again confirm that now: I have had no financial, business or social relationship with Christo Moll. It is stated in a number of articles that my name appears on a notarised document as the holder of 20 shares in a named Panama company, Financiera Wisemburg South Australia, and that company involved former associates of Christo Moll. I have already stated, and it has been reported in some of the articles, that I have no knowledge of that company; nor have I made any further contribution to it. I confirm that now. I have no knowledge of that company; nor have I made any contribution to it. I should add, of course, that I have received no benefit from that company. Until the articles were published I had never heard of it. I wish to make it quite clear to the Senate that I have at no time applied for shares in any such company. I have not purchased shares in any such company and I have done nothing which would justify my name being used in connection with that company as a shareholder or in any other capacity. I have no connection with or any interest in any company registered in Panama. I draw the attention of the Senate to the words used in the article in the Age on 10 September headed 'WA senator was shareholder in Panama company'. That article states: The name Noel Ashley Crichton-Brown, Perth, Western Australia appears on a notarised (witnessed) document as the holder of 20 shares, valued at $US2,000 in the Panama company. There is, of course, no allegation other than that my name allegedly appears. It is not suggested that my signature appears on any document; simply that my name appears. The headline of the article in the Daily News on 10 September was particularly offensive in stating 'Top Liberal linked with Moll's men', I utterly reject any suggestion that I am linked with 'Moll's men'. As I have made clear, I have no financial, business or social relationship with Christo Moll. In Question Time yesterday, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), referred to me and to the fact that I have been in Panama during my recent overseas trip. I went to Central America with Senator Maguire and a number of others as part of a parliamentary delegation. At the conclusion of the parliamentary delegation I visited Brazil, Argentina and Chile. Qantas Airways Ltd made my bookings and routed me through Panama as the most convenient and the only way of getting to South America from Central America. That was my only visit to Panama. In fact, it was an overnight stay. I did no business in Panama. Government senators-Oh! Senator Townley —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. This is a very serious matter that is being discussed in the Senate at this time. I think that the frivolity of members of the Australian Labor Party is disgusting. They ought to listen in silence. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I call Senator Crichton-Browne . Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I must say that I find it utterly disappointing that a man whom I have always judged to be sincere, honest and to have integrity, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, is smirking and enjoying this frivolity. Senator Walsh is babbling over there also, as he normally does. That is perfectly predictable. One would understand and expect that. As I said, my stay in Panama was simply an overnight stay. I conducted no business in Panama then or at any other time. I reject the attempt by Senator Walsh to link me with Christo Moll in the way he sought to do yesterday. There have been allegations of donations by Moll to the Western Australian Division of the Liberal Party. I have at no time had any knowledge of any contribution made to the Liberal Party by Christo Moll, either direct or indirect. Since the question has been raised, I have made inquiries of the Western Australian Division of the Liberal Party and have been assured that after careful research of its books, it has no record of any donation to the party from Christo Moll, either directly or through any other company known to be associated with Christo Moll. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has tabled documents which appear to be copies of cheques drawn on the National Bank of Australasia Ltd and certain papers relating to those cheques. As I understand it , he has not vouched for the documents; he has simply tabled them in the Parliament for whatever reason he might have, and I think we all know the reason . Apparently, on the back of at least one of the cheques there are some words which include the following: 'Northmore Hale donation to the Liberal Party'. ' Northmore Hale' is presumably short for Northmore Hale Davy and Leake, my old law firm, and I have made statements about that previously in this place. It is also the old law firm of Mr Ian Douglas Temby, who is the Director of Public Prosecutions appointed by this Government recently and, may I say, appointed since these allegations were originally made in this place by Senator Walsh. I repeat the assurances that I gave the Senate on an earlier occasion about my non -involvement in anything relating to tax evasion. I also say that I have been in touch with the firm of Northmore Hale, which told me that it has not been a party to making any donations to the Liberal Party through, for, or on behalf of Mr Christo Moll or, indeed, on its own behalf. The politics of smear are being used. These documents refer to various people and they were obviously tabled by the Minister for that purpose. I say to the Government with very great seriousness that if it is being suggested that there is some impropriety on the part of Northmore Hale or of its past or present members, who include Mr Temby and me, I think the Government has a duty to do something about it. It has a duty either to dispose of Mr Temby or to give him a clearance. I suggest that it will find it difficult to clear Mr Temby without giving me the same bill of health. I regard the Minister for Resources and Energy as a man who is prepared to stoop to any lengths in this place to smear his opponents. I know that a good many rough things are done and said in politics, but I believe that in this area there is no propriety in what is being done. I simply say to the Government that if in tabling these documents it is suggesting impropriety on my behalf or on behalf of my firm, it has a clear and obvious public duty to do something about it. Senator Harradine —I seek leave to make a statement about an answer given by Senator Walsh yesterday, 11 September 1984. Senator Georges —What about? Is it a personal explanation? Senator Harradine —No, it is not a personal explanation. Leave not granted. Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Harradine from making a statement in relation to an answer given by Senator Walsh on 11 September 1984. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.15) —Yesterday while I was absent in my electorate the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, used parliamentary privilege during Question Time to make a baseless insinuation that I support bottom of the harbour tax dodging schemes. The facts are that I have been a consistent opponent of such schemes and have voted in the Senate to outlaw them and for measures to prosecute those who have broken the law. Consistent with my support for the rule of law, I have refused to vote for legislation creating new tax liabilities, which never previously existed, to be imposed retrospectively on the innocent and guilty alike. My concern, and the major reason for making the statement, is really for those ordinary members of the public who may believe and imprudently repeat the irrational tirades of Senator Walsh which he makes in his coward's castle. I have taken legal action against three such imprudent people. Senator Walsh, however, continues to make his entirely untruthful McCarthyist and unfair attacks on my integrity. I believe he should now be given the opportunity to put up or shut up and he has given me that opportunity by what he did yesterday in the Parliament. On page 771 of Hansard, in answer to a question from Senator Crowley, he stated: 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. He continued: If I may, however, be pardoned for making one small criticism of that pamphlet . . . it does not mention that Senator Harradine is equally culpable. He stated that the Opposition was culpable and three of the Australian Democrats were culpable. He also stated that although it was an excellent pamphlet, he had one small criticism of it; that is, 'it does not mention Senator Harradine'. He then tabled the document and I obtained a copy of that document from the Senate Records and Table Office. I have read the document and I am most interested in it. I now invite Senator Walsh-since he says this is an excellent document and since he has apparently adopted its contents, with the exception of my name being absent from it-at half past three this afternoon to go out onto the steps of Parliament House and include my name with the names of the Democrats, to authorise this document and to publish it. This is an opportunity for him either to put up or shut up. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I seek leave to make a very brief explanation. Leave granted. Senator WALSH —The basketful of red herrings which Senator Harradine has attempted to draw across this issue ignores the central point of the comment which I made yesterday, which was that Senator Harradine, when the previous Government was in office, voted for retrospective tax legislation or, as he puts it, legislation aimed at creating tax liabilities where no liabilities previously existed. On every occasion that this Government has presented Bills which seek to impose the same sort of obligation-that is, a retrospective obligation to pay tax-Senator Harradine has voted against that legislation. The other point of my criticism yesterday was that when the previous Government was in office Senator Harradine's vote was not critical to the passage of those Bills. Since the Government has been in office Senator Harradine's vote has been critical. I leave to him to explain that inconsistency and contradiction. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I join Senator Harradine in inviting or challenging Senator Walsh to stand up and be counted by appearing on the steps of Parliament House at 3.30 p.m. to report the statements contained in this document. He knows that they are defamatory. I ask him why he does not stand up outside this chamber for statements that he makes in it. If he does not, it will portray him to be the man that he really is. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-Senator Walsh has again misrepresented my situation in relation to these matters. Either he has done so deliberately or he does not know the difference between the 1982 Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act which related to Division 7 and primary company tax which was accruing and which was liable to be paid and the other measures which this Government has been proposing, which measures create new tax liabilities which never previously existed and which require them to be imposed retrospectively on the innocent and guilty alike. I remind Senator Walsh that he should be very careful about accusing me of these matters. I remind him also that on 14 December and 16 December last year, when there was a difference of opinion between us as to the legal implications of the Government's attempted repeal of the 'innocence clause'-sub-section 3 (12) of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act-he was proven wrong. I want to nail it now and nail it clear so that those people outside who may wish to believe him understand that I have the legal backing for what I am saying. A Queen's Counsel's opinion which will be presented as part of my evidence in one of my legal actions states: Two competing views have been advocated in the Senate upon the subject. That is the subject about which Senator Walsh and I had a difference of opinion. The final page of the QC's opinion states: I have therefore not been able to distil any viable legal basis for support of the advice apparently furnished by the Australian Taxation Office to Senator Walsh in the course of the Senate debate, and as earlier pointed out . . . It follows that the substance of the view espoused in the Senate by Senator Harradine concerning the legal effect of the proposed repeal was sound. I again repeat to Senator Walsh that if he wants to continue in the coward's castle he will not be out on the front steps at half past three, and I challenge him to be there to put up or shut up. Senator Cook —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. For the second time Senator Harradine has used the phrase 'coward's castle' in obvious reference to this place. I suggest it offends the dignity of the Senate to call it a coward's castle and that Senator Harradine should withdraw that expression. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Some personal reflections are out of order but a general reflection such as 'coward's castle' is not. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-I will be as brief and simple as possible. The public record reveals that in 1982 Senator Harradine voted for a then Opposition's amendment to remove, sub-section 3 (12), I believe it was, from the previous Government's original legislation on retrospective recovery of tax evaded. At the end of last year, on a vote on that identical provision, Senator Harradine voted against the removal or deletion of sub-section 3 (12) from what was then the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act. In relation to the Queen's Counsel opinion, the critical point in the dispute that arose in the Senate in December last year was whether assessments had been despatched to which sub-section 3 (12) would have had some relevance. The QC could not know from the public record, other than what I was recorded as having said in Hansard, whether or not such assessments had been sent out. I was advised by the Taxation Office that assessments had not been sent out to which sub-section 3 (12) would have any relevance, as was Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented again by the ignorant Senator Walsh. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! You will withdraw that remark. Senator HARRADINE —I withdraw the word 'ignorant' and substitute the untruthful Senator Walsh. I seek leave to make a further statement. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —The position in respect of sub-section 3 (12) last December was entirely different from what it was in 1982 because the 'innocence clause' was not in the legislation in 1982. At that time I considered that sub-section 3 (12) was not necessary, but once it went in it provided an expectation for taxpayers, if we like, to have their assessments made accordingly. Therefore to take that out and remove that right was an entirely different matter altogether, and that is why I voted that way. It is now two minutes to the time when the truth will be known. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) has shot through, but I hope to see him on the steps of Parliament House. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator CHANEY —by leave-I do not wish to speak at any length because I, like other senators, would like to get out on to the front steps of Parliament House and not hear Senator Walsh honour his brave words in here. The reason I moved to take note of this report is that it is quite clear that Australia faces substantial issues in the area of its trade. I think it is well understood by all honourable senators that, as we are a trading nation, a very substantial part of our gross domestic product goes through the external trade sector. It is of great significance to Australia that there are so many difficulties in our way at the moment in the trade area. I will pick up some of the points which were made in the consideration of the Estimates committees during the last few days. There has been a reduction in our share of the Japanese beef market from 83 per cent in 1976 to 67 per cent in 1983. This is mainly because the United States has increased its market share. We find that we are being told by the Government's officials that the market share is likely to continue to fall and that the reason is that 'it is politics rather than meat quality'. That is but one example of our serious situation. Meat exports generally have been down from 630,000 tonnes in recent years to 470 ,000 tonnes this year. As far as grains are concerned, we have the lowest real prices for wheat since World War II. We are holding excess stocks and there are very serious difficulties in our market for coarse grains. There are many other doleful statistics that can be quoted. Sugar prices are at 4c per pound which in real terms are the lowest ever. (Quorum formed) There is no shortage of indications that we have continuing problems with international trade, ranging from market share to commodity prices. This report, which suggests that a determined national effort is required on the part of the Government, the unions and business, is a warning which badly needs to be heeded . The Opposition looks with dismay upon the trade performance of this Government , at the lack lustre performance of the Minister for Trade, Mr Lionel Bowen, and at the fact that, with respect to our trade in uranium, the latest announcement from the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, is that, yes, we are still selling our uranium. We are selling it to the Government now. The first shipment due to France since the Government introduced its new policy is actually being purchased by the taxpayers of Australia. That will not lead to a lift in either our economy or our trade performance. Senator Peter Rae —A new theory of trade. Senator CHANEY —It is perhaps a new theory of trade, as Senator Rae said. Perhaps, having set that precedent, the Government will be able to go into the trade business in a very big way and buy up commodities that the rest of the world will not want under current circumstances. Senator Peter Rae —If they can make our trade as big as the deficit we will be so successful that it will be incredible. Senator CHANEY —There is no end to the possibilities under this sort of Alice in Wonderland approach which is being adopted by the present Government. This is a very serious matter and I hope we will have an opportunity to debate it at greater length at some other time. But in the few minutes which are allowed under the sessional order, I just wish to say that the Opposition views with very considerable concern our overall trade performance, and views with even greater concern those disabilities in our performance which are self-inflicted either through the inertia or inadequacy of the present Minister for Trade or through a more obstructionist approach of some trade unions. We believe it is a matter which requires early and very high quality attention from the Government. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.34) —I was in Japan when this trade mission began its work and I note its report with interest. The members of the mission were no doubt struck, as indeed I was, with the difficulties of the Japanese market. The simple fact is that the Japanese people are provided by their own manufacturers with an immense range of commodities on which they can spend their money. I have never before seen a place where there is such a range of novelties , of clothing and of inducements to people to spend money. Of course, Japan is basically not an importing nation except where it is absolutely compelled to import. This adds to our problem. Even in the food area, local growers are heavily protected. The very high price of commodities like fruit and meat is accelerated in order to maintain a viable primary industry. In a market so heavily provided with such a variety of tempting goods and in an area of manufacturing so efficient and so broad that we can scarcely compete with it, the only way into the Japanese trade field is through flexibility and cunning. For instance, when I was in Japan the Australian commodity of the greatest interest was the frill-necked lizard. Children in the streets in every city could be seen pushing and handling soft and hard toys in the form of frill- necked lizards. I found that by far the most popular gifts I offered people were bright new Australian 2c pieces which at that time were selling in Tokyo shops for about $4 each. The point of this story is that the Japanese market is a pampered one-very fickle and very much influenced by fashion and novelty. This ought to offer us a guide to the way we market distinctive products. They should be packaged in an attractive and novel fashion to attract attention, with an eye to what is fashionable in Japan at the time. I feel that the mission's recommendation in its foreword that Australia should adopt a theme of persistence and quality in our approach to the Japanese market is unexceptionable. One can hardly take exception to either of those propositions but, while worthy enough, that might regrettably achieve a lesser effect than being trendy and opportunistic. I do not mean by this that we should forget persistence and quality, although I will add the caution here that the Japanese people have the tendency to keep their possessions for only a short time and to like them shiny, new and in the latest fashion. If we are in any doubt about that we should go to the Japanese domestic car industry, which is a very striking example. People are even influenced to sell their cars because the colour is not fashionable at the time. It has actually reached that stage in Japan. However, I could not agree more with the proposition on page 2 of the foreword- I think it is the eighth of the recommendations-that Japan Air Lines and Qantas Airways Ltd should be encouraged to provide expanded capacity for tourist traffic between Japan and Australia. The comment is made that this would produce both short term economic advantages and long term export development benefits. I find it quite extraordinary that in a world in which most airlines are assiduously chasing a weak tourist industry, there are often waiting lists to get on aircraft in the Japan-Australia trade and that the aircraft are very nearly always full. Why JAL and Qantas cannot get together and supply this market properly I cannot understand. We are destroying a profitable trade and one which would be very much more profitable as a result of that simple procedure alone. I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) who is in the Senate at the moment to take that point on board because it is a point of very great importance to Australia and one which for some reason or another appears to have been overlooked. The second recommendation also in the foreword at the beginning of the report identifies some specific areas in which we can export to Japan. It lists computer software, medical equipment, scientific and measuring equipment, aluminium products, wine, cheese, pulp and paper, confectionery, bedding, gems and sporting goods. Of course, none of these are large manufacturing areas, nor could we expect any kind of large market there. These are markets in which we would expect to have to fight our way against a good deal of competition. In fact, it can only be done by innovative, forward-looking, high technology marketing methods, thoroughly oriented to the Japanese market. I regret that our effort here, as in so many areas, has been severely blunted and will be severely blunted by the Government's action in the Budget of turning its back on innovative research and development. I ask the Government to start thinking about this and correct as soon as possible the damage it has done. The report notes a salutary point, that our share of the huge and remunerative Japanese market has fallen from more than 8 per cent in the mid 1970s to barely 5 per cent now. This presents an important challenge to the Government which it must take up seriously and urgently. Finally, I take the point that with regard to pulp and paper, the report makes the point that new hardwood chipping pulping capacity will come on stream in Japan in the next two or three years, ensuring a strong, continuous and increasing demand for hardwood chips. I merely make the point that Japanese hills are covered with trees, many of which are suitable for wood chipping, being quite small. They are certainly not timber trees. The Japanese do not cut them down. They use our trees. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.40) —The report of the high-level trade mission to Japan underlines the critical situation for Australia not only with regard to trade with Japan but also with regard to our trade generally with other countries. It stresses, as the Australian Financial Review has emphasised today, that there is a serious decline. Evidence from the Estimates Committee C examination of the Department of Trade shows that the decline is not some episodic thing that can be corrected. In a whole range of commodities, virtually all the main commodities, the decline is severe and not likely to be rectified either in the short term or the long term. The picture that Australia faces with regard to overseas trade is that under this Government we are losing our overseas markets. I have repeatedly said in this place that unless we can get our commodities at a favourable price and volume on to the world market, particularly primary industry commodities and minerals, we will fall into a very serious state of recession. A virtual collapse of manufacturing industry has steadily been going on. There is a lack of investment in both manufacturing and mining. Now, step by step, what is happening in regard to our biggest partner is revealed. Until the war years 28 per cent of our export trade went to the United Kingdom. Subsequently, by the 1960's and 1970's 28 per cent of our export trade went to Japan and 34 per cent of Japan's trade was with America. That percentage is being worn down. We have failed to diversify our markets. Indeed, we are losing markets. The Hawke Government has failed to do anything to overcome the loss of our share of the beef market. Clearly, the head of the Department of Trade said that the matter was not one of taste or preference on the part of the Japanese for marbled or grain-fed beef but, in his own words, it was a political matter. Therefore the fall off in the percentage of our beef and meat exports is a political matter which this Government has failed to rectify. Wherever we turned such evidence was given. Regarding the markets in South East Asia, the Singapore market is now changing because of the lowering of quarantine standards. Efforts in the Korean market have failed. The price of wheat and the surplus have created a crisis. The price of wheat is the lowest since World War II. The volume of surpluses of meat and wheat around the world is critical. There is a grave danger to our markets, particularly in Asia, that the European Economic Community, with a huge surplus of something like 480,000 tonnes of meat , may put subsidised meat on the market. To illustrate what is happening with regard to beef, let me cite the figures from the Estimates Committee. Whereas in normal years in the past Australia has exported more than 600,000 tonnes of meat, it is expected this year to export 420,000 tonnes. There is no indication of any future expansion in Japan or of any recovery in Korea or Singapore. Wherever we turn there is danger for us. This matter is the responsibility of the government of the day. The Government, through the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), said that it would achieve favourable trade with Japan in commodities. But in regard to virtually every commodity in which we trade with Japan and with other countries at the moment there is a growing crisis. There is a fall in our market share and a decline in price. We now face very severe competition in iron ore, for example, because of Brazil's higher quality product. No one from the Hawke Government can answer me when I repeat this question: 'With all these declines, where are the future jobs going to come from?'. If we are going to earn less money in primary industry and in the mining industry, were will- Senator Peter Rae —And more wage-on costs all this time as a result of it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is right and we have had a fall in manufacturing. The illusion is that unemployment will fall. The reality is that the Government wants a quick election so that it can be returned to government before people realise that there will be nothing to provide more jobs. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator JONES(Queensland)(3.45) —I rise to make one or two remarks on the report of the high-level trade mission that went to Japan in July 1984. I do so because I was in Japan earlier this year. My visit showed me very clearly that there was a market in Japan for Australian goods. One of the problems facing the Australian traders in Japan was that the Australian community did not have a good record in industrial matters. Because of the problems relating to supply of goods from the Australian nation to Japan most Japanese traders were reluctant to enter into agreement with Australia. They were afraid that industrial relations in Australia were not good enough and that there would not be a continuation of supply to Japan. One point that I would like to make before I turn to some of the points raised in the report is that in discussions with various people involved with raw materials from Australia they raised the question of industrial relations but made the point that because of the change of government in Australia there certainly appeared to be a change in industrial relations and in a number of industrial conflicts in this country. They thought there was a future for Australian goods in Japan and for trading between Australia and Japan because they felt that there was now a government in power in Australia that was taking some steps to improve industrial relations and to cut down on the number of industrial disputes that had taken place during the period of the Fraser Government. The mission that went to Japan to discuss high-level trading with the Japanese should be congratulated particularly for the fact that in its report it made very clear that the Japanese-not only at the time that I went to Japan but also as late as July 1984-recognised that because of the change of government in Australia, the Hawke Labor Government, there has been an improvement in industrial relations and a decrease in the number of industrial conflicts that have taken place in this country. There is a real chance for some development of large trade with Australia. I will quote from the report. It very clearly outlines the findings of the mission that went to Japan and also clearly shows what a difference the Hawke Labor Government is making to the relationship, particularly in trade, between Japan and Australia. Senator Chaney —You lost all our beef market. Senator JONES —The Leader of the Opposition interjects. I am talking about industrial matters. Under the heading 'Industrial relations' the report said: Japanese business and government were advised that industrial relations in Australia had improved significantly since the election of the Hawke Labor Government. We know what the result was when Senator Chaney's Party was in government. The report continues: Although apprehension about Australia's capacity to ship manufactured goods promptly was expressed there was a widespread acknowledgment in Japan of this improvement. The mission attested that industrial disputes have decreased by 36 per cent during the two years ending March 1984, consultative arrangements have been established to bring about a consensus approach to Australia's international competitiveness and continued improvement is expected as the benefits of the Prices and Incomes Accord flow through. In other words, two points come out of this report. First is the improved industrial relations in Australia; there are not as many industrial conflicts as there were under the previous Government. Secondly, because of the accord we now find Australia is in a better position to compete in overseas markets. I believe that in the future, because of the work of this mission and its report and because of the information given to the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), there will be an improvement in trade between Australia and Japan. Much of that improvement will be due to the Hawke Labor Government's policies on industrial relations in Australia and also its policies which have created a situation whereby Australia is regarded in Japan as being much better able to deliver on time the goods that it says it will deliver to its Japanese trading partners. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Jessop) proposed: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator JONES(Queensland)(3.52) —I have not had time to read the paper but I think the way in which it was written is worth noting. I think congratulations should go to the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and to his Department. Honourable senators should also note that a questionnaire in front of the report asks very specifically that members fill it out and say whether, after reading the report, they believe it is written in language which most members should be able to understand and whether they got some understanding of what the Department of Science and Technology is doing. The report is very clear. I have not had time to read it but I have looked through it. If one looks through the report very quickly one can pick up the particular areas in which the Department is involved: The National Technology Conference, defence, agriculture, mining, manufacturing, fisheries, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, development, economic services, the environment, and so it goes on. It is easy to pick out the facts in areas in which one is interested. A great deal of praise should be given to the Department and to the Minister for producing such a report in such a way. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.53) —I wish briefly to speak to this report but by no means in as complimentary terms as the previous speaker. The point I made previously when speaking about a trade mission to Japan cannot be given sufficient emphasis. The Government has done science and technology and any future development in high technology in this nation the gravest possible disservice by arranging in the last Budget to have the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation allocation slashed by an effective 8 per cent, thereby ensuring that new, innovative, important or forward-looking scientific programs will go. It is a fact that in organisations that carry out research and which have an infrastructure of a certain size which has to be carried no matter what other funding is available, the level of cutting at the area of action is greater than it would appear to be overall. In other words, an 8 per cent cut in overall funding probably means a 20 per cent or 30 per cent cut in actual programs. It is also a fact that when it is necessary for organisations to cut that kind of research it is always the innovative, forward-looking, useful programs for the future that go first. By some bizarre set of priorities, the Government has given the Australian Atomic Energy Commission an 8 per cent increase in its funding. I speak on the science and technology statement on this matter because it concerns the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). I think it is greatly to be regretted that his views were overturned, put down and overruled by some of his less intelligent and less forward-looking colleagues in the Cabinet. I am absolutely sure that must have happened. The Government is fortunate in having a Minister who has a reputation in the community for being a forward-looking, intelligent person. His reputation is little use to him and to it, because he is the person whose ideas have been ignored. I hope that neither the Government nor any member of it will come to us in future and bring forward any cant about the Government's dedication to the future of this country, and about how we will go into high technology and advance into the twentieth century in our manufacturing and the like, after committing such a signal crime against the Australian people. I call on the Government to think carefully about its actions and their consequences and to repair the damage as quickly as it can. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.55) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In the very few moments that remain for consideration of papers today I wish simply to say that although I have had limited opportunity to look at the report -it was not available prior to tabling-I suppose that the most stark change which was introduced by this new policy is that the Government had moved to a system of loans as against the old system of grants which applied in previous water resources programs. Quite clearly that will impact fairly considerably on the States and local authorities affected. I wanted to draw the Senate's attention to this very substantial change of direction. There has been a great deal of concern in the water resources area because of the Government's cessation of the bicentennial water resources program upon its assumption of office. Some of the projects which were to be funded under that proposal have been picked up under alternative methods of funding, but there remain many concerns about the extent to which funding will be available for water resources programs in future. I acknowledge that there are positive aspects in the report and in the policy and that elements of it which reflect some of the recommendations of the 'Water 2000' report are important to this, the driest continent. The emphasis on increasing the efficiency of use of existing water supply is appropriate. It is a policy which will repay careful consideration and on which the Opposition will wish to express views in due course. I think that time has expired for dealing with these matters, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! Pursuant to section 9 (b) (2) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present to the Senate the annual report on the operation of the Department of the Senate for the year ended 30 June 1984. The document also contains the annual report of the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing for the year ended 1983-84 which I present in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 25 March 1982. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to section 9 (b) (2) of the Public Service Act 1922, I also present a report on the operations of the Department of the Parliamentary Library for the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1984. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) — On behalf of Senator Tate, I present the ninth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill 1984, Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1984 and Social Security and Repatriation ( Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator McINTOSH —I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 11, dated 12 September 1984. Consideration resumed from 11 September, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the report. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 6 September, on motion by Senator Coates: That the Senate take note of the report. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 6 September, on motion by Senator Missen: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Debate resumed from 4 September, on motion by Senator Coates: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.03) —This is a matter of considerable public interest, but I think we should probably look at it in the context of taxation debates generally. Therefore, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.04) —In the light of the situation we have reached in respect of the further Senate action proposed in this matter and, indeed, of the establishment of a fresh Committee and the appointment of Commissioners, it is probably a good thing if we do not prolong debate on this item at this stage. The matter is being dealt with by a Senate Committee, there is further public evidence to be taken and at this stage I cannot see that the position would be advanced by indulging in debate on the first report, which has had a great deal of consideration from the Senate. Indeed, I think that this matter has had more of the attention of the Senate, in terms of consideration of the appropriate course of action, than any other item during the Budget session. In all the circumstances, I think the appropriate course would be to adjourn this matter. I think that the matter should remain on the Notice Paper because it is a significant matter for the Senate and the Parliament. I believe that at a later time the totality of the Senate's examination of this matter may wish to be debated. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.06) —Once again I think that this is not the time to debate this matter. It is an important matter and one of very great interest to all members of parliament, if not to the broad public, although members of the public are concerned with the shape of our electoral system. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. 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 the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.08) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BILL 1984 I am pleased to be able to move the introduction of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, which the Government regards as a significant legislative reform and an important part of its human rights program. The Bill will establish a new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to replace the existing Human Rights Commission. The new Commission will be the basic machinery through which the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 are administered, and through which the proposed Australian Bill of Rights and any future legislation in the human rights area will be administered. It will also be the vehicle under which Australia's obligations under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention of 1958-that is the International Labour Organisation Convention 111-will be imple- mented. The Government is concerned to ensure that the new Commission will have an effective and cohesive leadership. In order to achieve this, the membership of the Commission will be relatively small and it is expected that appointments will be made on a full time basis, although the Bill provides a measure of flexibility by making part time appointments possible where such appointments are seen as necessary or desirable in a particular case. The Commission will comprise a President, the Race Discrimination Commissioner-formerly the Commissioner for Community Relations-appointed under the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner appointed under the Sex Discrimination Act, and at least one but not more than three other Commissioners, one of whom could have responsibilities in research, education and promotion areas. The question of staff and administrative structure of the new Commission will be considered in order to ensure maximum efficiency and the most effective use of scarce resources. The name of the new Commission, together with the inclusion of the specialist Commissioners among its members, will properly emphasise the significant role of the Commission in the areas of equal opportunity and anti-discrimination and the new name-the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission-will enhance the possibility of ultimately achieving complete 'one-stop shopping' arrangements with those States presently having human rights and equal opportunity agencies with similar names. The functions of the Commission in the human rights area will be similar to the functions presently carried out by the Human Rights Commission. The human rights concerned are those recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. These international instruments are attached to the Bill which contains provisions enabling the Minister, after consultations with the States, to declare other relevant international instruments for the purposes of the legislation. The Commission will have investigation, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to complaints of infringement of human rights; it will examine international instruments, Commonwealth enactments and, if requested by the Minister, proposed Commonwealth enactments, to ensure they contain nothing inconsistent with or contrary to any human rights; it will report to the Minister in relation to any laws that should be made, or action that should be taken, by the Commonwealth to comply with Australia's international obligations under the international instruments attached to the legislation and any declared relevant international instruments; and it will undertake research, education and promotion activities and will perform functions conferred by any other Commonwealth or State legislation or under Commonwealth/State arrangements. In addition, the Commission will formulate and publish guidelines in relation to matters, including the avoidance of discriminatory acts or practices, that fall within its functions and it will be able, with the consent of the court, to act as amicus curiae in cases where human rights or anti-discrimination issues are raised in legal proceedings under Commonwealth or State law. I have mentioned the intended role of the Commission in implenting Australia's obligations under ILO Convention III. That Convention, which Australia ratified in 1973, is included among the international instruments attached to the Bill. It requires, among other obligations, that each member state undertake 'to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination in respect thereof'. Australia's national policy under the Convention was announced by the then Minister for Labour on 22 May 1973. The policy includes the development of educational and conciliation processes and the establishment of national and State employment discrimination committees on a tri-partite basis. It seeks to achieve the co-operation of State and Commonwealth governments, employer and worker organisations and other appropriate bodies. The National Employment Discrimination Committee comprises representatives of the Commonwealth government, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the Confederation of Australian Industry, women, migrants and Aborigines and has an independent chairperson. Its functions include advising the Government on the implementation of the Convention, considering complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation having national significance and complaints referred to it by the State committees, promoting equality of opportunity in employment and co-ordinating a national education program. The various State committees, which include representatives of Commonwealth and State governments, employers and unions, together with an independent chairperson, consider complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation and implement a nationally developed education program. The national policy has undergone de facto changes since it was announced. It encouraged the development of administrative processes rather than the enactment of legislation enacting enforceable rights. Special anti-discrimination legislation having an impact in the employment area has since been enacted by the Commonwealth Government and by some of the State governments. It has for some time been clear that the policy needs to be reconsidered and, in particular , the integration of the State committees within the framework of a new human rights commission in order to facilitate what I have described as 'one-stop shopping' by complainants has been publicly forecast. To this end, the Bill will give the new Commission important functions in the field of employment and occupation. It will have investigation, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to acts and practices in the Commonwealth sphere that are discriminatory on the grounds specified in the Convention-race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin-and on such of the grounds developed over the years by the State committees as may be declared by the Minister-age, criminal record, marital status, medical record, nationality, personal attributes, physical disability, sexual preference and trade union activities. The Commission will also be given investigation, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to discriminatory acts and practices engaged in within the States and the Northern Territory. It will not, however, have any coercive powers for obtaining information or evidence in this area. Unless it acquires additional powers in relation to acts or practices engaged in within the States pursuant to Commonwealth/State arrangements, the Commission's functions in the State area will be limited to functions of the kind exercised by the State committees. In considering these new functions, the Government has borne in mind the need to preserve the existing State specialist legislation and to ensure that complaints of discrimination that are covered by that legislation or by other Commonwealth legislation continue to be dealt with under that legislation. Under the Bill, a complaint that is covered by the Racial Discrimination Act or the Sex Discrimination Act will be dealt with under that Act rather than under the proposed new provisions. Similarly, a complaint of a discriminatory act or practice occurring within a State and covered by anti-discrimination legislation in that State will be referred to the State authorities to be dealt with under that legislation. The Bill provides for the appointment of advisory committees. It is proposed to appoint a new National Advisory Committee including representatives of State governments, the ACTU and CAI and certain client groups, such as women, migrants and Aborigines. This Committee will advise the Commission in the performance of its functions and will have, in addition, the special function of advising the Minister on the development of a new national policy to meet the requirements of ILO Convention 111. It is also proposed to establish an advisory committee of heads of State equal opportunity and anti-discrimination agencies to advise on matters including the co-ordination of procedures under Commonwealth/State co-operative enforcement arrangements. In addition, regional advisory committees may be established to keep the Commission in touch with community opinion and to utilise the expertise and goodwill which exists in relevant organisations and individuals in the community. The present part-time members of the existing Human Rights Commission and former members of State employment discrimination committees could be included as members of the regional committees, together with representatives of relevant interest groups, including the disabled and civil liberties organisations, women, Aborigines and migrants. The functions of the Commission in the employment and occupation area will enable the functions of the State employment committees to be gradually subsumed within the new Commission. At the same time, the establishment of the advisory committee system should ensure that the valuable expertise developed by the State committees during the past 10 years will not be wasted but will be put to an important and constructive use. The proposals to which the Bill gives effect, and in particular the implementation of ILO Convention 111 through the new Commission, have been the subject of consultations with State governments, the ACTU and the CAI. The Bill will establish a strengthened Commission with significantly widened functions. Its role in ensuring the effective compliance by Australia with its international obligations under ILO Convention 111 will increase Australia's international standing in the human rights area. Honourable senators will be aware of the emphasis which the Government has placed on the need to preserve and promote State initiatives in the human rights and equal opportunity field and to co-operate with the States in an effort to make the best possible use of the limited expertise and government resources available in this area. There is little sense or efficiency in the Commonwealth and State governments acting independently in this field without proper regard for the need for uniformity. This Government has made significant progress in co-ordinating the efforts of all governments concerned about equality of opportunity. Co-operative arrangements for the rational use of existing resources have been in operation for more than a year with Victoria and have just commenced with New South Wales and South Australia. I hope that similar arrangements will follow with Western Australia as soon as possible after the enactment of the legislation which I understand is planned for that State. Furthermore, I am, in conjunction with the State Ministers with responsibility in the human rights area, taking a new look at the whole field of Federal and State human rights and equal opportunity protection and the possible development of more wide-ranging co-operative arrangements with the States than had previously been considered, covering determination of complaints as well as their investigation and attempted conciliation. In this context. I hope that it will eventually be possible to remove determination functions from the Commission and to establish a joint Commonwealth/State tribunal to deal with the determination of complaints under anti-discrimination legislation in both the Commonwealth and State spheres. I hope that it will also be possible at the same time to remove the present system of overlapping legislative jurisdictions, thereby preventing the confusion, delay and double tracking for complainants that can result from that system and furthering the development of a system of ' one-stop shopping'. The Bill represents a necessary step toward achieving an effective human rights and equal opportunity system in Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 is also the subject of introduction into this place today. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in relation to it into Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984 As its title suggests, this Bill deals largely with technical matters. It contains transitional provisions necessitated by the abolition of the Human Rights Commission and the establishment, by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation, of the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It also contains consequential and other amendments of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Part II of the Bill repeals the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. It contains transitional and savings provisions designed to ensure that complaints made to, and examinations and inquiries commenced by, the Human Rights Commission but not dealt with before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation comes into operation can be dealt with by the new Commission. Commonwealth/State co-operative arrangements entered into under the repealed legislation will be preserved as will agreements entered into by the former Commission. Officers of the former Commission will continue to be bound by the confidentiality requirements in the former Act, and monies appropriated for the former Commission will be available to the new Commission. Part III of the Bill contains amendments of the Racial Discrimination Act. The office of Commissioner for Community Relations is to be replaced by a new office of Race Discrimination Commissioner. This change will bring a measure of uniformity into the Commonwealth's anti-discrimination legislation. Further changes to the Racial Discrimination Act are at present under consideration by the Task Force on Human Rights in my Department. The Bill contains savings provisions necessitated by the change of office of Commissioner and by the establishment of the new Commission. In the enforcement area, certificates signed by a member of the former Commission or by the former Commissioner may be used as the basis for instituting civil proceedings after the new legislation comes into operation. The Race Discrimination Commissioner will be a member of the new Commission and will not be subject to the directions of the Commission in the performance of functions under the Racial Discrimination Act. Certain penalties under the Act have been up-dated and its language rendered gender neutral. Part IV of the Bill amends the Sex Discrimination Act. Here again, savings provisions are necessary as a result of the establishment of the new Commission. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner will be a member of the new Commission and will not be subject to the directions of the Commission in the performance of functions under the Sex Discrimination Act. The Bill contains new interim provisions in relation to the determination functions. As I mentioned in my Second Reading Speech relating to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill 1984, negotiations are being conducted with the States with a view to establishing a joint Commonwealth/State Tribunal to exercise determination functions. Under the interim provisions the Minister will be empowered to appoint persons on a part-time basis to assist the new Commission in the performance of its determination functions under the Sex Discrimination Act. Persons so appointed will be deemed to be members of the Commission when they are called upon to take part in determination proceedings. It is hoped that the persons appointed for this purpose could include members of those State bodies which are already performing similar functions under existing State human rights and equal opportunity legislation. In this way, the Commonwealth will be able to utilise the expertise and experience which already exists in certain States. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- On 16 July the Remuneration Tribunal released its 1984 review of all offices within its jurisdiction. Apart from reports and determinations passing on increases handed down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the September 1983 and April 1984 national wage cases, this is the first general review by the Tribunal since 6 August 1982. Honourable senators will be aware that the Tribunal on this occasion considered the question of increases to establish salary levels at a firm and equitable base for the operation of the wage fixing principles. It recommended and determined salary increases of 11.7 per cent for judges, secretaries of departments, senior full-time public officeholders, and part-time public officeholders. No salary increases were determined for Ministers, parliamentary officeholders, or for senators and members. The Tribunal considered the question of an appropriate increase in accordance with the wage fixing principles. The salary it has recommended and determined consequently conforms with the principles. The Tribunal also determined and recommended that the increases be phased-in, with 6 per cent effective from 1 July 1984 and 5.7 per cent from 1 January 1985. The findings of the Tribunal were in accordance with the Government's submission in respect of adherence to the wage fixing principles and the phasing-in of any increases in the interests of wage restraint. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Tribunal's recommendations in respect of holders of judicial office and the president and members of the Inter -State Commission. The constitution provides that remuneration for these offices shall be such as the Parliament may fix. Clause 3 of the Bill provides, in the Schedule, rates of salary increased by 6 per cent on and from 1 July 1984, and increased by a further 5.7 per cent on and from 1 January 1985. Each rate of salary in the schedule is to be adjusted automatically in accordance with national wage increases after 1 July 1984. The rates of expenses of office allowance set down in the Schedule are those agreed to by the Government following the Tribunal's April reports and determinations. The remuneration of members of the Inter-State Commission is not dealt with in the Schedule as their salaries are to be linked with the rate of salary payable to the holder of a level 6 office in the Australian Public Service. This is set out in sub-clause 3 (8), together with the rate of expenses of office allowance agreed to by the Government in April. Other parts of clause 3 repeat provisions which were formerly embodied in section 13 of the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973. Section 13, 13A, 13B, 13C and 17 of that Act are all repealed by clause 8 and replaced by similar provisions in this Bill. Clause 4 deals with rates of travelling allowance payable to justices of the High Court. The Tribunal recommended increases in travelling allowance to reflect increases in costs. Clause 5 fixes the rate of an additional allowance payable to justices of the High Court who are not resident in Canberra. The allowance has been increased by an amount equivalent to the national wage increases of October 1983 and of April 1984. Clause 6 deals with rates of travelling allowances payable to other judicial officeholders. Clause 7 picks up provisions formerly embodied in section 17 of the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973, and clause 8 saves any regulations made under that section. The cost of implementing the Tribunal's recommendations in respect of judges and the Inter-State Commission will be of the order of $0.9 million in 1984-85. Further information on the clauses of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which is being circulated to honourable senators I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the status and entitlements of Mr Justice Stewart as Chairman of the National Crime Authority when he resigns from the New South Wales Supreme Court. Mr Justice Stewart was appointed on 25 June 1984 as Chairman of the National Crime Authority with the agreement of the States. The intention when he was appointed was that he would remain a Judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court during his term of office on the National Crime Authority and that he would return to that Court when that term of office came to an end. It might be noted that, under the National Crime Authority Act, his term as Chairman is a 4 year term and he is not eligible for re-appointment as Chairman. Although it was commonly understood, during the debate that led up to the enactment of the National Crime Authority Act, that the Chairman of the Authority would a Judge-and the Bill made specific provision for this-it was not until after his appointment that a public controversy erupted about the compatibility of a serving Supreme Court Judge also holding office as Chairman of the National Crime Authority. That public controversy included a publicly expressed difference of opinion amongst the Judges of the New South Wales Supreme Court. As a result of that controversy, Mr Justice Stewart announced his intention to resign from the New South Wales Supreme Court following his completion of the Nugan Hand Royal Commission, which was due to finish by 31 December 1984, but which may now run on a little longer. Mr Justice Stewart was offered the appointed as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, and he accepted that office, on the basis that he would remain a Judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court, retaining his salary and all other entitlements, including his right to pension and to long leave under the scheme applying to Judges of the New South Wales Supreme Court. The Government believes that the Commonwealth now has an obligation to ensure that he is not unduly disadvantaged because of the controversy after his appointment has caused him to indicate his intention to resign as Judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court. The provisions in the Bill now before the House are contingent upon that resignation taking effect. The Bill provides that Mr Justice Stewart will continue to enjoy judicial status during the term of his appointment as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, although he will not in fact hold office as a Judge of a Court. To this extent, the Bill follows the precedent set on the appointment of Mr Justice Rae Else-Mitchell as Chairman of the Commonwealth Grants Commission following his retirement as a Judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court. The judicial status which would be conferred upon Mr Justice Stewart by the Bill may be continued at the discretion of the Governor-General if he continues to hold a full-time office under the Commonwealth after completing his term as Chairman of the National Crime Authority. The Bill provides that he will continue, as Chairman of the National Crime Authority, to receive the salary payable from time to time to a Judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court. In respect of other conditions of service during that time he will be entitled to the conditions of service, including as to leave, enjoyed by a Judge of the A.C.T. Supreme Court. His service as Chairman will be recognised for the purposes of the Judges Pensions Act and the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act. When his term of office as Chairman comes to an end, Mr Justice Stewart will have completed more than 10 years of judicial service since his first appointment as a Judge of the New South Wales District Court in 1977. He will then, however, be a few months short of 60 years of age, which is the minimum retiring age under both the Commonwealth and New South Wales Judges' Pensions Acts. Notwithstanding that he will have not quite reached that minimum retiring age, the Bill provides that he may then retire on pension as if he had reached that age if he so wishes. His pension, whenever he retires, will be based on the salary payable to a New South Wales Supreme Court Judge. Mr Justice Stewart has, however, said that he would hope to continue in full- time employment of some kind after his term of Chairman comes to an end. The Government therefore proposes to recommend to the Executive Council that, after he leaves the New South Wales Court, Mr Justice Stewart be appointed as a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with the intention that he actively take up that role following the completion of his term as National Crime Authority Chairman. The Bill accordingly enables that appointment to be made and contains consequential provisions to avoid the payment of double salary and the accrual of double pension entitlements. The Bill also provides for him to take long leave on the same conditions as apply to Federal Judges in respect of his judicial service, including his service as Chairman of the Authority and to receive payment in lieu of leave not taken when he retires. This would give him substantially the same benefits as if he had remained a New South Wales Judge. The Government regrets that Mr Justice Stewart was put in the position where this legislation has become necessary. But the Government believes, nevertheless , that the Parliament, having enacted the National Crime Authority Act on the basis that the Authority might be headed by a Judge, has an obligation to Mr Justice Stewart to ensure that his rights are safeguarded. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(4.22) —Mr President- A quorum having been called and the bells being rung- Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Harradine, what are you calling a quorum for? I am here. Senator Harradine —I want people to listen to you, and I will keep calling quorums until Walsh stops welching. Senator Walsh —Senator Harradine, you are an odious rodent. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, you will withdraw that remark. Senator Walsh —Very well, Mr Deputy President, I withdraw. He is not odious. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You must withdraw completely. Senator Walsh —I withdraw without reservation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! A quorum is now present. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Deputy President, when the debate on the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill was interrupted I had been outlining the different strands in the Government's policy to visits to Australian waters and ports of nuclear powered ships and ships which may or may not be nuclear armed. I indicated that the first strand was the proposition that the Australian Government would not under any circumstances allow nuclear arms on Australian soil. The second strand was that so far as visits of nuclear powered vessels are concerned, they would be allowed to visit Australia subject to certain guidelines. The third was that so far as nuclear armed ships or ships which may be nuclear armed were concerned the Government, in accordance with long-standing bipartisan policy, would not ask its allies either to confirm or deny whether nuclear weapons are being carried. The fourth strand concerned the use of dry docking facilities by such ships and I said that it was the Government's position that such matters should be dealt with essentially on a case by case basis, taking into account particularly technical safety and the strategic and operational factors applying at the time. I go on from there to say that the Government's support for all these various arrangements is consistent with points established and agreed to at recent ANZUS Council meetings. In the Communique of the 1982 Council meeting in Canberra, the ANZUS partners: . . . confirmed the high priority each partner placed upon a regular and comprehensive programme of naval visits to each other's ports, as well as to friendly ports in the Asia/Pacific region generally. They recognised the importance of access by United States naval ships to the ports of its Treaty partners as a critical factor in its efforts to maintain strategic deterrence and in order to carry out its responsibilities under the terms of the Treaty. In this regard the Australian and New Zealand members declared their continued willingness to accept visits to their ports by United States naval vessels whether conventional or nuclear-powered. They noted and accepted that it is not the policy of the United States navy to reveal whether or not its vessels are armed with nuclear weapons. That was the 1982 communique. More recently, at the 1984 Council meeting in Wellington, the ANZUS partners agreed that: 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 do not believe that the Government's contribution to the debate on Senator Chipp's Bill should conclude without my reminding the Senate briefly of the variety of initiatives which have been taken by the Government in relation to the disarmament issue. I do not think the Government's continued adherence to a policy of allowing visits to Australian waters of ships which are nuclear powered and which may be nuclear armed should be construed as in any way undermining the strength or force of our commitment to achieve disarmament by every means within our potential or at least to continue our moves in that direction. Since assuming office the Hawke Labor Government has taken a very high profile- a much higher profile than its predecessors-on disarmament issues. Within the framework of the need to protect national security interests and to maintain deterrence in the present international situation, it has done the following things: First, it has affirmed Australia's readiness to join a consensus to hold an international conference on the question of the Indian Ocean zone of peace. Secondly, it has vigorously condemned the continued underground nuclear testing by France in the South Pacific region. Thirdly, the Government has reaffirmed its commitment to work for an end to all forms of nuclear testing by all states through a balanced and verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty. Australia is actively promoting an early commencement of negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty in the United Nations Conference on Disarmament and has provided an expert for ongoing work on a CTB seismic verification system. Australia is also looking to bolster its own seismic detection capabilities in that respect. Fourthly, and particularly important in the light of recent developments, consistent with our regional security interests and our ANZUS Treaty commitments , Australia has promoted the concept of a South Pacific nuclear free zone in the South Pacific Forum and in consultations with South Pacific countries. At the recently concluded South Pacific Forum in Tuvalu we proposed the establishment at the earliest possible time of a South Pacific nuclear free zone and that Forum agreed to the desirability of establishing such a zone. The South Pacific Forum also agreed that a working group of officials chaired by Australia prepare a draft on a South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty for consideration at the 1985 meeting. The essential elements of the proposal endorsed by the Forum are a ban on the use, testing and stationing of nuclear weapons and on the dumping of nuclear waste material in the region. The proposal would not affect the sovereign rights of countries in the region to decide for themselves such questions as security arrangements and access to ports and airfields by vessels and aircraft of other countries. Of course, contrary to some reports in the Press I should mention that this last point was raised by Australia at the 1983 Forum meeting in Canberra. It was endorsed by that meeting and formed an essential part of the proposal submitted by Australia to the 1984 Forum. The Government's view is that the move towards a South Pacific nuclear free zone would be an important contribution towards disarmament and arms control objectives, and would help preserve the peace and stability of the South Pacific region. Fifthly, this Government has secured membership of a United Nations review of a study on nuclear weapon free zones and of a United Nations study on concepts of security. Sixthly, we have demonstrated our support for the United Nations Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its system of verification including International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Seventhly, we have recognised that outer space is a coming area of arms competition between the super-powers, and have called for agreement to avoid an arms race in space. Eighthly, we have appointed Australia's first Ambassador for Disarmament, who has since been an active delegation leader and advocate for the Government's policies in international bodies. Ninthly, we have bolstered our institutional capacity to analyse and contribute to the international considerations of arms control and disarmament issues. Tenthly, we have taken steps to establish a peace research body in Australia. Eleventhly, we have made voluntary contributions to the world disarmament campaign and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. Twelfthly, we have indicated our willingness to participate in United Nations exercises connected with the examination of the reduction of military budgets. Finally, we have given our strong support to efforts to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race through a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapon states, including the resumption of bilateral Strategic Arms Reduction Talks and intermediate range nuclear force talks between the super-powers. Australia is not a party to the bilateral negotiations between the super-powers on the reduction of their strategic and theatre nuclear arsenals. We have, however, on numerous occasions supported the process of negotiation between the super-powers and urged them to negotiate in good faith to bring about substantial reductions in their nuclear arsenals. We expressed our disappointment at the Soviet walkout of the INF talks and have urged and have continued to urge, that both sets of negotiations be resumed as quickly as possible. This Government in pursuing its approach to disarmament and arms control, looks toward measures which provide basically three things: Promotion of stability in the strategic balance; adequate verification that international obligations and commitments are being complied with-that is, checks against cheating-and improved what has been described as transparency; that is, ready availability of understandable information about the range of defence and military activities throughout the world. With this approach and against this background of activity and achievement it can hardly be complained and can hardly even be suggested that this Government's efforts on behalf of the cause of disarmament and world peace amount to anything less than total commitment-total commitment of the kind that, quite properly, has been called for by the Australian Democrats in their public statements on this issue, total commitment of the kind that underlies Senator Chipp's Bill which we are now debating-but a commitment which it is simply unrealistic to expect to work itself out in the form of a rejection of nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships ever visiting Australian waters. We cannot go as far as the Democrats' Bill would want us to go in that respect, but we do sympathise with and understand the policy commitments which lie behind it. I hope that in the light of the account I have given of the nature of the Government's policy on the nuclear ships question and putting that policy, as I have done, in the context of our larger commitment to disarmament, those points will be perhaps better appreciated than they have been in the past and the Government will be given, by the Democrats in particular, a little more credit for common sense and commitment in principle than it has been given in the past. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.33) —The Opposition is opposed to the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions) Bill which has been introduced by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The purpose of the Bill is to prohibit the entry into Australian waters, or the air space above Australian waters, of nuclear powered ships or nuclear armed aircraft. The reason for the Opposition's rejection of this proposal is twofold: Firstly, this proposition turns its back on the reality of the world and the nuclear age in which we live. Secondly, we know that the proposition, if it were accepted, would pose a major threat to our ANZUS alliance and, I think, would almost certainly spell the end of that alliance. I propose to say a few words in respect of both those reasons why the Opposition will vote against the Bill. It may well be tempting for inhabitants of an island continent which is so geographically isolated as Australia to indulge in fantasies of being aloof from the currents of world politics and from the nuclear age in which we live, but that will not make the reality of the world in which we live go away. It will not make the reality of the increasing Soviet presence in our region go away; nor will it do anything to help reduce the tensions in the world, which in some parts are at flashpoint. This proposal is really part and parcel of the peace movement that has been so prominent in Europe in recent years, whose members protested against the deployment of the United States Pershing and Cruise missiles. That peace movement has now run out of steam. It had no effect on the deployment, which began in 1978, of the Soviet SS20 intermediate range missiles in eastern Europe- that deployment, of course, was the one which initiated the United States response-and we know that it did not prevent the deployment of the United States Pershing and Cruise missiles also. We know that peace movements do not thrive in the Soviet Union or its satellites. Those few Soviet activists about whom we do know are now contemplating their actions while they are in exile or in prison camps. It seems that what the Age newspaper some time ago called the 'chain of protest' has spread finally to Australia and is now manifesting itself in the form of this Bill introduced by the Democrats. I believe the essential fallacy of peace movement action is expressed in this legislation. Many well-meaning and sincere people have called for disarmament, which generally seems to be unilateral disarmament on the part of the West rather than on the part of the Soviet Union. Despite the impassioned citation of statistics which appears in Senator Chipp's explanatory memorandum about the size, quantity and so on of nuclear weapons, the problem really is not so much the number of weapons but the point that they exist at all. Given their existence one would have to live in cloud-cuckoo-land to expect that they would all be destroyed and the technology for their creation would be forgotten. How do we control the situation? What do we have to do to create a climate in which nations can co-exist peacefully and in which stability in the world can be created and preserved? As I have said, we see the real question of the age in which we live as being how to come to terms with the reality of it, how to come to terms with the nuclear industry in its many manifestations-not only in weaponry but also in energy and so on. Bills such as the one which has been introduced on behalf of the Democrats by Senator Chipp are really luxuries which divert attention away from the increasingly urgent questions. As I have said, those questions are: How do we handle the nuclear waste and the by-products? How do we work to create as stable a world as possible? How do we work for the limitation in the first place of these horrific weapons and armaments and how, for instance, do we even achieve a test ban treaty? The efforts which the Government has been making in this direction, which were detailed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), represent clearly the approach which the Opposition would take. We support that approach because we see it as being a realistic approach. The one taken in this Bill, as I have said, simply turns our back on the world in which we live. Regretfully, the New Zealand Government itself-not just the New Zealand Labour Party-seems to believe it can turn its back on the world in which we live . The reality of that world is that defence and security of Australia have to be achieved. It can be achieved only through the ANZUS alliance. The second reason why we will oppose this legislation is that if it were passed we believe it would be destructive of the ANZUS alliance. In the Senate yesterday I successfully promoted a matter of urgency 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 am pleased to say that when the Senate voted yesterday on whether we should clearly state our commitment as parliamentarians to that proposition, the vote was 50 to 5 in favour of it. I sincerely hope that the same overwhelming rejection will be made by this chamber of this Bill which was introduced by the Democrats and which is being debated today. I will briefly refer again to the importance of that matter, although I developed it at some length yesterday. There has been in recent years the frightening reality of the Soviet expansion of its world role. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan only a few years ago. As a result of that the United States has been forced to forward deploy its forces in the Indian Ocean as well as in the Pacific Ocean. It has now been forced to adopt what is called the 'two oceans policy'. The Soviet Union has now developed bases in Vietnam, which is a central point of its strategy. Ever since the Cuban crisis over 20 years ago the Soviet Navy has been built up as a result of a conscious decision that it will never again be humiliated as it was during that crisis. That development initially took place in the northern hemisphere, in the Black Sea. But for the last 10 years the Soviet Pacific Fleet has received increasing numbers of ships and men. The Soviet Union has also developed its far eastern air capability. Now the Soviet Union has forward bases in Cam Ranh Bay and Da Nang which relieve it of the necessity of relying on Vladivostok and facilities on the Kamchatka Peninsula. These developments have very serious consequences for Australia, the details of which I gave to the Senate yesterday. The Soviet Union is now capable of making a direct strike on Australia with its squadron of TU16 Badger aircraft and long-range Bears, as they are known, based in Vietnam. As I said yesterday-and I repeat it again today, because it cannot be repeated too often-we are more dependent upon the ANZUS alliance today than at any time since it was entered into 30 years ago. It is perfectly clear that if we were to deny access to Australian waters and ports by allied warships or aircraft simply because they were nuclear powered or might be carrying nuclear weapons-of course, the policy of the United States, which we accept and which the Government accepts, is never to disclose that point-in the very firm manner of this legislation-it absolutely prohibits their entry-the alliance could not operate and there would be an even deeper crisis than is occurring at the moment because of the attitudes and actions of the New Zealand Government. That has been made clear over and over again. I mention in particular what has been said by two very senior American officials. The Senate will remember that two years ago the then Leader of the Opposition and present Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, expressed the view that allied vessels which might be carrying nuclear arms should not enter Australia and there should be disclosure of whether such vessels were carrying nuclear weapons. At about that time, in June 1982, there was a meeting of the ANZUS Council in Australia which was attended by the then Deputy Secretary of State, Mr Walter Stoessel. Mr Hayden had a very significant meeting with Mr Stoessel on that occasion. Mr Stoessel straightened out Mr Hayden in no uncertain terms. Mr Hayden had to eat his words and change the policy that he had announced on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. We should all be thankful that that occurred and that the Government today can express the views which have been expressed by the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, who spoke before me in this debate. The important point I want to make is that Mr Stoessel pointed out, as did the communique issued after that ANZUS Council meeting, that: . . . the partners recognised American access to ports as a 'critical factor' in its efforts to 'carry out its responsibilities under the terms of the treaty' . The other quotation to which I refer in order to emphasise this point comes from Secretary of State Shultz who, as we all know, was in Australia in July this year, less than two months ago, on his way to attend the ANZUS Council meeting in New Zealand. In an interview that took place on 17 July, and which was televised on a Four Corners program on 2 September, Mr Shultz said: What kind of an alliance is it if the military forces of the countries involved are not able to be in contact with each other? At another point he said: If you are going to have a military alliance then the military forces of the countries involved have to interact. They have to talk to each other, they have to know the equipment that's involved, they have to plan, they have to exercise . . . Those two quotations by such senior United States officials, made on two separate occasions, make it perfectly clear-and there are many other indications -that the ANZUS alliance simply could not survive the passage of a prohibition Bill of this kind. It is really a cloud-cuckoo-land Bill. It is only in cloud- cuckoo-land that one could conceive of prohibitions of this kind. Although it is recognised that there are many well meaning people in this country who fervently hold those views-we know that the Democrats sincerely hold those views-clearly, that approach will not solve the problems of our age. The realities of the world in which we live are not going to go away just because we turn our back on them or because we put our heads in the clouds. That sort of approach is not going to solve the problems we face and with which we have to live. It will also destroy the keystone of Australia's defence, namely, the ANZUS alliance. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.51) —The Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984 is a private member's Bill brought forward by Senator Don Chipp on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The Bill proposes that we should follow New Zealand's position of not permitting nuclear powered or armed warships or military aircraft in our waters or air space. I was interested in what was said in the first part of the debate. Senator Gareth Evans, speaking on behalf of the Government, showed the degree of self-deception which is possible in this matter when he spoke about the Government's contribution to what he called a nuclear free zone in the Pacific region. The achievement at the recent conference was by no means for a nuclear free zone because one cannot without self-deception say that one has a nuclear free zone when ships armed with nuclear weapons can travel freely through it. That is an absolute and complete contradiction in terms. I suggest to the Government initially that if it wants to say that it is dedicated to the cause of world peace and it wishes to make the total commitment that Senator Gareth Evans mentioned, it is very poor for it to come in here and claim that commitment and claim that those things are being done in circumstances in which ships which are nuclear powered-Senator Evans himself said that 40 per cent of the major American warships are nuclear powered-are travelling in the Pacific. We know that a large proportion of them are carrying nuclear weapons of one kind or another but we are not told whether they are carrying them. If that is the best the world and the Australian Government can achieve as a nuclear free zone, I suggest they had better go back to square one and start all over again. Senator Evans did not have a great deal more to say. His speech, perhaps necessarily because of the Government's policy, was severely limited by a lack of any ability to cope with the real issues behind the matter we are discussing. Senator Durack's comments were in a sense more substantial, although I do not agree with most of what he said. The point I particularly want to look at is his statement that this Bill is part and parcel of the peace movement in Europe. I disagree with him there. This Bill is an expression of the disquiet and anxiety of probably the majority of Australian people about the drift of the world towards nuclear destruction. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The march of hundreds of thousands of people in this country on Palm Sunday evidenced that . I think it was a bit strange of people in Government to say: 'What about the ones who did not march?' Obviously not everybody gets up and marches, but we can get a fair indication from those numbers that the degree of concern is much greater than it used to be. That merely followed the situation in the United States of America. Two years ago I was present in the march to Central Park in which nearly a million people took part. The New York Times, which is far from being a left wing newspaper, remarked in an editorial the following morning that that was the greatest single expression of grass roots opinion in the United States since the Declaration of Independence. This feeling against nuclear weapons, this feeling that something has to be done and that even countries such as Australia must give some kind of lead, goes very deeply into the conscience of every intelligent and aware human being. It will become more so as time goes on, and necessarily so because it is part of a healthy self-protective instinct on the part of human beings to see that that is the case. I implore members of the Government and the Opposition to take that feeling among Australians seriously because there was nothing in Senator Evans's speech which indicated for one moment that the Government takes it seriously, otherwise it would have indicated some course of action. I agree with Senator Durack absolutely, as would the other Australian Democrats, that peace movements everywhere ought to attack Soviet missile deployment with the same fury and energy as they attack American ones. That has been a notable failure on the part of many peace movements and it is to be regretted. I assure Senator Durack that it does not include the Australian Democrats. We believe that all five nuclear powers are equally culpable in the eyes of the world. In effect the actions of the five nuclear powers are criminal and in an ordinary, decent, law abiding society would be perceived as criminal. Would it not be perceived as criminal if a group of five people came into the Senate and said: 'We have a weapon that can intimidate the rest of you and we will proliferate the number of weapons and bring the world to the brink of destruction'? Would not that be seen as criminal ? Of course it would. One must not quibble with that. All five nuclear powers are clearly indicted-France, China, the United Kingdom, Russia and the United States. They should share the opprobrium and contempt of the rest of the world for bringing to us the greatest single problem the human race has ever faced. All the talk about the balance of terror and deterrence and so on is so much nonsense and is perceived as such by most intelligent and sensible human beings. I noted Senator Durack's point that peace activists did not get a very good run in the Soviet Union. I agree with him but I ask the Opposition not to try in any part of this debate to parallel the situation between Australia and the United States with that between the Soviet Union and its satellites. We know that the Soviet Union enforces its will on its satellites as a matter of course. I will not be told by the Opposition in this place that the United States has any such intention or desire. We are not subservient to the United States. I do not believe that country wishes us to feel that we are. I do not believe the United States feels that the cause of peace, friendship, reliance or strength can be served by that view. That is something we have to be very careful about. Senator Durack said that peace activists have not succeeded. They have not succeeded yet, but from what I heard on the radio this morning one of the main peace activists in the world over the last 24 hours has been President Reagan, who said publicly in his own voice that he will go to the Soviet Union. He has said publicly that the greatest threat facing this world is the nuclear threat and somehow we have to come to grips with it and it has to be got rid of. I respect him for that point of view. I do not agree with every policy of the United States or with everything he has said, but I do respect his intention to do that. I do not see it reflected here. Senator Durack also expressed the view that it would be destructive to the ANZUS alliance if we were not to allow American ships here for rest and recreation. That is one of the most puerile and extraordinary statements that anybody can make. How is it going to affect the strategy of the global balance of power whether an American ship comes into Sydney, Perth, Auckland or Wellington? Of course it has nothing to do with it. That is a matter I will discuss further because I do not think Senator Durack was as honest as he might have been in telling the Australian people just what the ANZUS Treaty is. There again, if the Opposition is going to take the view of saying to the Australian people that ANZUS is a piece of machinery by which the Americans automatically help us no matter what happens, they are doing a great and dangerous disservice to the people of this nation. They will have to be recognised and indicted for doing so. I disagree completely with Senator Durack on that point, and I will deal further with that later. Senator Durack mentioned Soviet aircraft based in Cam Ranh Bay being able to attack Australia and waved that as some sort of inducement in support of his view of our Bill. It is a fact that the Soviets have long had the potential, with their nuclear submarines, to attack any part of Australia and there is no way that we can defend ourselves against that, nor can ANZUS defend us from such an attack by a submarine. There is no way that the United States can do it, although I do not question its will to do so. I have no doubt it would help us if it could. But the United States knows as well as I do and the Opposition knows, including Senator Durack, that that is the case, that there is no vague nuclear umbrella. There is no way that we can stop a nuclear submarine from launching missiles, submerged and concealed as it is in millions of square kilometres of sea. To begin with, the submarine could not be found. We do not have the means here to stop those missiles arriving. We have to think of a situation short of that, and that of course is what this Bill is about. This Bill proposes that Australia adopt basically the sort of position that New Zealand has adopted of not permitting nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed warships or military aircraft into our waters or air space. I support without reservation this Bill proposed by Senator Chipp for the Australian Democrats. I see it, as I believe many hundreds of thousands of Australians will see it, as the beginning of the road back towards a sane world in which the continued survival of the human race can be reasonably guaranteed. At present the continued survival of the human race cannot be guaranteed. As we have heard so eloquently from the representatives here of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia, there is not much in a practical way that they are prepared to do about that. They are prepared to let matters drift. But in this matter, as in so many others, it has been left to the Australian Democrats to make the running in a matter which I agree is controversial-not everyone will agree with us, of course-but which I am sure every Australian will agree is of basic and enormous importance to every human being. It is a cause of anxiety to every human being who has any brain and even a reasonably developed sense of responsibility towards his survival and that of his family. This Bill is important. It raises serious matters-far more serious issues than the threadbare, outworn and morally unsound positions we have heard expounded by Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Durack would indicate. That too is important. The two old political parties-or perhaps we can say three old political parties because I gather the National Party of Australia shares the Liberal view here- are pretty much in accord on this matter. They have again taken up the position which the Democrats call the 'laborials'; in other words, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party all cuddle up together in the bosom of what they see as the Establishment view. They are not prepared to move out of that view or even to speculate outside it because they are afraid to do so. It is a matter on which they want to duck out, to shuffle off their basic responsibility to do something practical that might give pause to the madness of the nuclear arms race with all its dire implications for this planet. The Labor, Liberal and National Party senators here today have an even greater responsibility than they imagine-or perhaps in their hearts they understand that they have that responsibility. If they vote against this Bill they will vote for the proposition that Australia is to become a nuclear target. They will vote to expose every man, woman and child in this country, from the oldest of the old to the smallest baby, to the horrors of a nuclear attack, with the megadeaths, the hideous injuries and vast damage this would cause. I state that quite plainly because I want them to understand their responsibility. There is no compromise on that point in my mind and intellectually I do not think there can be. If they continue to accept that view, that position, that risk on behalf of all of us, can their action be justified? They say that it is justified; that is an area that we need to look at next. Will the global balance of power be fundamentally disturbed because United States warships cannot pop into Perth or Sydney? When we see this appalling scale of risk to our own community, we see that of course it will not be that kind of situation. How could it be? In terms of the world balance of power, what happens in Australia and New Zealand will not matter. It there is a global war, whether or not there are ships here will not matter to the general balance of what happens to the world. But it will matter in what happens here. In other words, there is that one additional important thing: If those ships were here at a time of war-and we know we will not have warning of that war; it will come suddenly-not only would the United States bases in relatively remote locations in Australia become nuclear targets, which is bad enough, but also out major cities would become nuclear targets. That should be a matter of very deep concern to all Australians. It is a matter of the greatest concern to the Australian Democrats. That is why, as the citizen party in this country, Senator Chipp introduced this Bill. Two major factors contribute to this situation. The first is the continued idiocy of having major naval bases in the heart of our cities. I will deal with that later. But I want to raise it for the people in my constituency of New South Wales and particularly in Sydney. It is a tragedy that we allow Garden Island to continue to exist in the heart of Sydney when we know that it is dangerous. It is even being extended with the approval of the Labor Government. I understand that when it came to office it okayed the idea that extra money should be put in to perpetuate that naval base. Of course, the second factor is that United States warships of any size are now being fitted with sea cruise missiles. Sea cruise missiles are the sea version of the cruise missile-the things which streak across the surface of the air or water and which cannot be intercepted; it is a first strike weapon. Hence in the event of war any major United States ship, wherever it might be at the time, must become an immediate nuclear target. It would be essential for the other side to destroy those ships in a matter of minutes wherever they are. That is a very heavy risk to call on Australians to take in cities like Sydney and Perth. We can ask: Does the American Government call on its major eastern seaboard cities to share that same risk? Perhaps it does; But in fact it does not. I repeat: The American Government does not call on its major eastern seaboard cities to share the risk that it wants us to take. No nuclear-powered warships of the United States Navy, or any other navy for that matter, are ever allowed into New York or Boston. They will never be allowed into New York or Boston because that is regarded as too dangerous. The Australian Democrats say that what is good enough for New York and Boston ought to be good enough for Sydney and Perth and that the United States has no right to ask our people to take risks it wishes to avoid for its own people. I dispute and renounce totally any suggestion that this Bill is anti-American. That is absolute rubbish. As the Australian Democrats, even our party name follows that of a great party in the United States. We constantly look to America for innovative- Senator Messner —Copycats, are we? Senator MASON —Yes, I think it is worth while to look at what other countries are doing. Both the Liberal and Labor parties should do it more often rather than thinking that we know everything here. It is absolute rubbish to even contemplate this as anti-American. We want our friendship to be a reasonable, rational and equal one. In order to show how stupid such a view is, I will pose a hypothetical case. Let us postulate at some stage a nuclear-powered Australian naval ship. Maybe that will come to pass if there is a Liberal government or another Labor government. Would we dispute in any way the perfect right of the United States authorities not to allow that ship into Boston or New York, and to use force to prevent that if need be? Of course we would not. What then is the difference when it is the other way round? If honourable senators do not accept that, what do they accept? Do the Liberals and Nationals, and the Government for that matter, assume that the relationship between the United States and Australia is in fact rather like the relationship between the Soviets and one of its satellites, for example, Poland? Will the opponents of this Bill say that we must concede everything that the United States requires of us without argument or demur, or will they concede that the relationship between us is one of an association of free nations which have the right to decide what goes on in their own countries? There is no middle ground on this one. I hope that later in this debate we do not have people from either side getting up and fulminating that this is anti-American and that we must automatically do what the Americans want. Is not that free relationship a much healthier and better one in every respect? Of course it is and it is what most Australians want. We want to stand upright, to retain our self-respect as a free and self- governing people and to decide for ourselves what is in our best interests. I am absolutely confident that the United States Government would want that too. I am absolutely confident that Washington does not want to be another Soviet Russia prepared to force its will on the nations around it, suppressing any dissenting view from what it says. I cannot possibly accept such a ridiculous and cynical view of the world. Of course the United States is not like that. It has shown that in its attitude towards the courageous New Zealand decision not to accept nuclear ships in its waters for exactly the reasons I have dealt with so far in this speech. It is perceived by the United States that while it would like to send its ships into New Zealand ports, it is the right of New Zealanders to decide whether those ships should be there and it is not really an aspect that anyone outside their country has any right to contribute to. When the HMS Invincible was here in Sydney, in my own constituency, we were not told whether it carried nuclear weapons. I sent a telegram to Mrs Thatcher. I asked her whether she would remove her ship as fast as possible until she could assure us and not place our city at risk. Senator Peter Baume —That must have frightened her! She was terrified! Senator MASON —Unlike Senator Baume and the cackling Liberals around me at the moment, I got a very civil, polite and pleasant reply from Mrs Thatcher. She said quite plainly: 'Senator, I agree with you. This is a matter for your own country to decide'. I was pleased enough to get that reply. It was what I would have expected from a civilised politician from another country. The response I got shows the attitude that we must take. People are anxious because there is continual misrepresentation about ANZUS. Senator Durack has again told the Australian people that to deny United States nuclear ships entry to our ports would destroy ANZUS. That is absolute rubbish and I suggest it is mischievous rubbish. I think we should look at the facts on ANZUS. It is wrong and totally irresponsible to misinform the Australian people about what ANZUS actually means to Australia. It is a matter that is far too important for misinformation. I must take the Liberal and National parties to task for that. If they are touting ANZUS as the mechanism which will, without fail and without exception, bring the United States hurrying to our help if we are attacked, they are perpetuating a quite wicked and dangerous lie for political purposes. I urge them away from that tempting course of action. ANZUS merely obliges Australia, New Zealand and the United States to consult together when faced with a common danger. Those words 'common danger' are very important. They mean that the United States would become involved in consultation with us-not fight on our behalf, let us make that quite plain-only if and when it felt its own interests were involved. Simply for the sake of argument, and no more than that because I do not want to say we will ever become involved in wars with our neighbours, if Australia became involved in war with Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, all countries which as it happens the United States regards as friendly nations, the United States would without doubt not come to our assistance in what it saw as a local squabble. There is no doubt about that at all. The United States has made that plain to us over and over again. This aspect has been made plain by senior American politicians and servicemen. Indeed, that point was made to the last Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, as recently as 1982. We have been told in no uncertain terms that we should learn to rely on ourselves and not seek the United States assistance automatically, like some weak-kneed child seeking the assistance of an avuncular figure on its behalf. It behoves us as a civilised society and a modern nation to see that we do so, and the means are there for that. Purchasing the FA18 aircraft is a good step in that direction. The Democrats have approved the enormous expense because we see their importance to Australia as a deterrent weapon against invasion of this country. We believe that fast missile platforms, hydrofoils, short range vehicles with a high speed-low cost items-could mount a presence in Australia as they have done elsewhere which would make it virtually impossible for this country to be invaded at small cost. We have the power to do it for ourselves. We do not have to be subservient to other people. While we are on this matter, I come to a very important point. One case in which the United States would obviously see its interests involved-let us go back to the point of ANZUS and the common interest-would be an attack on us in global nuclear war. I have no doubt that the United States would like to help us if it could in such a contingency. The real point is: Could it? The fact is that there is no way in which the United States could prevent nuclear warheads launched against US bases in Australia and perhaps even against Australian defence establishments in our cities from reaching their target. Those missiles could be fired from a stationary submerged submarine hidden anywhere within literally millions of square kilometres of sea. That submarine could be stationary, with its engines stopped. No sonar could find it. Nothing could prevent it launching its missiles. That submarine could not be traced or located by even the most massive search endeavours. It could easily be positioned well in advance of any hostilities. It is known that like American nuclear submarines, a single Soviet submarine of a certain size carries enough warheads to destroy every major Australian city. These submarines are at sea constantly and nobody knows where all of them are at any given time. A few can be traced but on the whole they operate in secrecy. I have said that Australian military establishments are without doubt on the target list. These include Garden Island in Perth and Garden Island in Sydney- major naval bases. In the case of Sydney its naval base is in the very heart of the city-on the harbourfront between the business centre and the nearby eastern suburbs, Australia's area of highest population density. It is madness, absolute blind insanity, to perpetuate such a situation. As it happens, the United States bases have nothing to do with ANZUS. That is another point we have to nail down. They are negotiated under separate agreements. The key point about them, and the ironic one, is that they are reasonably assumed to be on the target list for nuclear attack in the case of major war. So we have the deeply ironic situation in which these bases could attract a nuclear attack on us which the United States is powerless to prevent or avert. This then is the basic truth of the situation. This is why the US attitude towards nuclear war is so vitally significant and why last weekend's statement by Mr Chapman Cox that the US would use its nuclear weapons against a conventional attack mounted by the communist bloc countries in Europe, if it felt the necessity, is so important. It is necessary to study what the likely results of that attack on Europe would be. By far the largest volume of world opinion is that the Russians could not just let that pass. If the United States used nuclear weapons the Russians would use them as an automatic response. This would no doubt happen first in Europe, and I happen to know that that is the view of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) because I discussed it with him. The rate of escalation could be expected to be very rapid so that we could have missiles arriving in Australia within hours of their first use. When I put that view to Mr Scholes he merely threw up his hands and had no further contributions to offer. For this reason the Australian Democrats have tried to get the Government to clarify with the US the situation regarding the meaning of the Cox statement. It is deeply disquieting for us that so far it has refused to do so. We implore it again to go into this matter further. The whole area of risk to Australia is intimately involved with the use of our major cities, mostly Sydney and Perth, as ports of call for nuclear powered and possibly nuclear armed warships. The facts are that a nuclear attack on one of our cities would be bad enough but an attack while any ship in port has other nuclear weapons or nuclear reactors on board would increase the damage, according to a range of opinions, from five to 20 times what it would have been if such ships were not there. So the ships not only would attract the attack in the first place but also would extend the consequences to a horrifying extent. In the case of Sydney it would mean the difference between perhaps 500,000 people killed and three million killed. The other aspect is that, because of the wide range of fission products in ship propulsion reactors the city concerned would be rendered uninhabitable for much longer ranges of time, in the estimate of some people for as long as 90 years. Our governments are of course very neglectful of the interests of the people of Sydney and Perth by continuing to have these major naval bases in those cities. I cannot say that often enough. But if the Government also allows nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships into those bases it carries the situation to the stage where it has become criminally stupid. There is no excuse whatsoever for such a negligent, supine and dangerous state of affairs, and the people of Sydney and Perth in particular have every reason to have something done about it . This Bill can do that. It says that unless foreign governments tell us that their shipping entering our ports is not nuclear powered and does not have nuclear weapons on board, we do not want them here and we are prepared to assert that and force it as a matter of our sovereignty. That is the key bottom line on this Bill. It has been brought forward to protect the Australian people from a no-win situation which has made us a nuclear target without, in effect, giving us anything essential in return. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.19) —The Senate is discussing a private member's Bill introduced by Senator Chipp, the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill, which is designed to prevent any nuclear powered ships or ships or aircraft which might be carrying nuclear weapons from visiting Australia. I must say that the position of the Australian Democrats in this area is clear and consistent. I think it is totally wrong-headed and extremely ill-informed, but nevertheless it is a credible position to take. What is not credible is the position of the Government on this. The Australian Labor Party is muddled and divided on the issue. Twenty-eight members of the Parliamentary Labor Party have publicly criticised the attitude of their Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) towards defence relations with the United States. Eleven of the 25 senators have publicly criticised the Prime Minister on that issue. The Senators are: Senators Childs, McIntosh, Coates, Giles, Coleman, Georges, Hearn, Primmer, Zakharov, Reynolds and Bolkus. In this debate, no less than 17 senators are listed to speak, but I note that of those eleven rebels-the 'rebel eleven'- only one, Senator Georges, has been listed to speak. I think the Government probably has severe trepidation about what Senator Georges will say because, as I said, the Government is confused and divided on this issue. Its confusion can been seen most clearly in the very poor handling by the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, of the visit of HMS Invincible and the request by that ship to be permitted to dock just before Christmas last year. The basis of the confusion of the Minister is almost impossible to understand in retrospect, but certainly he caused a great deal of alarm and concern both in Britain and the United States about the integrity, the honesty and the common sense of our actions. As a result of that fiasco, the Defence Minister has revised his policy, which really took it back to what everyone understood it was at the time the Invincible arrived and asked to dock. When I asked the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans), the Minister representing Mr Scholes, whether, in view of the new, revised, enlightened policy, the Invincible would be permitted to dock if it arrived in exactly the state it had in 1983 and asked to dock, the Attorney-General said he would not answer hypothetical questions. What the Government has done is sew confusion, doubt and a certainty that the present Australian Government does not know what it is doing. The purposes of the Democrats' Bill are admirable. The purposes of the hundreds of thousands of people who demonstrate against nuclear war are admirable. No rational person could conceivably want to have a nuclear war. There is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war. I do not believe there is any such thing as a limited nuclear war because any such war would inevitably escalate into a global nuclear war. The consequences of such a war would be destruction of world civilisation; whether a total ecological wipeout or something slightly less does not seem to be relevant. It would be the end of civilisation on earth and it does not really matter whether we are an immediate target or not. If such a war breaks out it will be the end of present civilisation. Therefore, we must do everything we can to deter the outbreak of such a war. It is no use wringing our hands and saying that we hope it will go away. The ability to wipe out civilisation is here now. If we fail to make the contribution we could and should make to prevent such a war we would be failing in our duty to the human race. What would Senator Chipp's Bill do? The first thing it would do, without the slightest doubt, is destroy the ANZUS alliance. I totally disagree with what Senator Mason said on that issue. The action by New Zealand has not totally destroyed the alliance; New Zealand is essentially trivial both in the size of its defence force and in its strategic location. Senator Jack Evans —So is Australia. Senator HAMER —No, Australia is very much more important than New Zealand. Australia, both in the larger size of its Defence Force and, far more importantly, in its strategic location, is a key element in the maritime strategy of the Western alliance. We must remember that 40 per cent of the combatant ships in the United States Navy are now nuclear armed. Senator Macklin —Fifty-one per cent. Senator HAMER —In the Seventh Fleet the figure is about 70 per cent. It depends how Senator Macklin defines a combatant ship. I will not get into that argument. But 40 per cent and 70 per cent are realistic figures. All or most, I have little doubt, carry nuclear weapons. The policy which is accepted by the present Government was introduced by the previous Government. It ensures that if nuclear powered ships come into Australia, precautions and arrangements are made so that there is no risk to the community. That policy has been continued by the present Government and I accept that. Nuclear weapons in their stored condition are the only truly safe explosives. There is no way they can be exploded by fire or a bomb or anything like that. They cannot be exploded. They are the only completely safe weapon available in the world. But if the Democrats Bill were enacted, it would mean that no warships of the United States would ever be able to come here because they will never, as a matter of policy, declare whether or not they are carrying nuclear weapons. The Democrats are therefore saying that no United States, British or French combatant warships should ever come to Australia. That seems to me to put Australia in a state of pathetic isolationism. It would seriously damage the ability of the United States and its Western allies to deploy their sea power around the world-in particular, in the Indian Ocean and also north into the area between Australia and Asia. Much more, it would call into question all the Western alliances. If a country such as New Zealand-and, much more so, Australia -can opt out of the responsibilities in the alliance and still expect to have the benefits of it, it would call into question the validity of all the alliances with which the Western world is presently protected. That is an absurd proposition. Such an action would be very damaging to the stability of the Western alliance and, therefore, to the prospects of world peace. It would be totally counter-productive to what the Democrats claim to be seeking. Senator Chipp and Senator Mason seem to accept with equanimity the certainty of the destruction of the ANZUS alliance if their proposals were adopted. We must then ask what the value of the ANZUS alliance is. What contribution does it make to our security and to world peace? The origin of the ANZUS alliance goes back to 1951. It was designed to quell Australian and New Zealand fears about a resurgent Japan and was an inducement to those two countries to sign the Japanese peace treaty. Despite the remarks of Senator Mason, no one on this side of the House pretends that the treaty is an automatic guarantee of support. We do not have such a guarantee, nor do we have any rights to expect it. The United States will come to our support if it considers it is in its strategic interest to do so. If we think about it, it would be quite improper for it to come to our aid on any other basis. I am not saying that it is not important, but that it is not a guarantee of support. No one in the Liberal Party has ever pretended that it was. Senator Jack Evans —So it is a one way deal. Senator HAMER —No, it is not. I will come to the value of it both to us and to the United States in a moment. We may need the United States. The ones who most kick the Americans in the teeth will be the ones most abjectly pleading for their assistance if the going ever were to get really tough. I ask honourable senators to remember that it was a Labor Prime Minister, Mr John Curtin, who on 27 November 1941 said: Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America. That statement was made when we were threatened; we may be threatened again. If we were so threatened we would be very glad of the assistance that the United States is able to give us. The ANZUS treaty is important in this respect and valuable for reasons other than that it is a guarantee of support, which it is not. What ANZUS does for us is enable us to have joint defence exercises with the United States, New Zealand and other countries. These exercises are of very great importance to the efficiency of our Defence Force. Without those kinds of exercises in sophisticated techniques, the efficiency of our Defence Force would have been at a much lower level. Moreover, if we did not have those sorts of exercises we would have the situation we had in 1943 when America came to our assistance. The level of support and integration was then very much less effective, because there was no common doctrine, no common system of communications and no common tactical or command arrangements. These problems are corrected and avoided by the possibility of joint exercises. That is the first advantage. The second advantage of ANZUS to Australia is that it enables an exchange of intelligence, and a very great deal of intelligence goes both ways. This is a very great advantage to Australia. The third advantage of ANZUS is that it enables us to send servicemen, officers and other ranks, to serve in specialised United States units to keep up with changing techniques. Again, this is a great advantage to our Defence Force. Fourthly-and this is perhaps the most important advantage-it enables us to link in to the United States logistic network. This is an enormous saving to our Defence Force and without it the cost of our defence effort would be much higher, or alternatively, if we tried to provide a logistic network ourselves at the current level of expenditure, our Defence Force would be much smaller and much less effective. These are very substantial advantages that the Australian Defence Force and the Australian community which it serves get through the ANZUS Treaty. But there are also benefits to both Australia and the United States. I said earlier, and I repeat with all the emphasis I can muster, that it is our duty to ourselves and to the rest of the world to do anything we can to deter the outbreak of a nuclear war. All the American stations in this country are here under the ANZUS Treaty. The North West Cape communications station is primarily designed to communicate with submerged missile firing submarines which are second strike weapons designed by their invulnerability to survive a surprise first strike and be able to counter-strike from an invulnerable position. By their existence they are very strong deterrents to a surprise assault and the outbreak of a nuclear war. We, by providing a communications station at North West Cape, contribute the deterrent to the outbreak of a nuclear war. The other two American stations are Pine Gap, which provides electronic intelligence, and Nurrungar, which provides early warning of such things as surprise missile launches from the Soviet Union or anywhere else. These are also great deterrents to the outbreak of a nuclear war. To refuse to have them would be to admit that we would be increasing the likelihood of the very thing that we are trying to avoid-a global nuclear war. All these advantages to the Australian Defence Force and to world civilisation through deterring the outbreak of a nuclear war would be destroyed by the Australian Democrats' Bill. They would destroy ANZUS and, in the process, destroy all this. In this matter New Zealand is unimportant. New Zealand has a relatively small defence force and strategically it is not very significantly placed. Any benefits that it could get from ANZUS could almost as well be provided by bilateral defence arrangements with Australia. But if we wish to retain the very great advantages to us and the United States of the ANZUS Treaty , I believe we should renegotiate a bilateral treaty with the United States to replace ANZUS-a treaty which New Zealand could join when and if it was prepared to undertake the responsibilities of such an alliance. I have not listed all the advantages of the ANZUS Treaty and the United States facilities in this country which are the result of that treaty. I agree with the apocalyptic remarks of the Democrats about what would happen in a global nuclear war and about the enormous dangers and the balance of terror resulting from 50,000 nuclear weapons being available. These weapons may be set off by accident or madness. There may be proliferation to other countries. As responsible citizens of the world, we must do all we can to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That is what we must do if we can. We must also try to reduce the level of armaments-the 50,000 nuclear weapons. We must be very careful what we do here. For example, if the level were reduced and one side had none and the other side had 100-and that would be an enormous reduction -the country with 100 weapons would dominate the world. We must ensure that any reductions are balanced and verifiable. To both these concepts we can contribute . We can do something about proliferation. We have the ability, if we continue to be a responsible uranium exporter, to influence in a modest way the prospect of proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have a chance to do something about the reduction in the level of nuclear weapons, both in numbers and in branching out into new areas, because there is no way that such reductions will be achieved unless the results are verified. It is just not practical to conceive that any country would accept the risk of these sorts of reductions unless it was sure there would be some verification of them. The United States is a very open society and it cannot take any secret measures for any length of time. The Soviet Union is a very closed society, so there must be some method of verification. We can contribute significantly there . Through the American stations at Pine Gap and Nurrungar we can provide a verification, which could not be provided from anywhere else, that any agreement on nuclear arms reduction is being implemented and not being broken. That is a very significant contribution to the prospect of a diminution of the threat of a nuclear war which is, of course, a matter of overwhelming concern to all of us. I hope that those who long for a future free of nuclear war will open their minds to the facts and realise that for us to fail to make the contribution that we can make to the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons and to the deterrence of global nuclear war, to fail to take the steps that are within our power, would be a crime not only against Australia but against the rest of humanity. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-The Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge has met and elected me chairman, and I make this statement on behalf of the Committee. The Committee has considered the letter of 10 September 1984 from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby Q.C, which was referred to the Committee by the Senate on that day. It is the view of the Committee that the Committee should conduct its inquiry and make its report to the Senate, and that the Senate should then consider whether any of the evidence or documents of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge or of this Committee should be referred to Mr Temby for examination, and accordingly the material referred to in the Senate's resolution of 6 September 1984 should not be forwarded to Mr Temby in accordance with that resolution. The Committee recommends that the resolution of 6 September 1984 be appropriately treated to conform with the course of action which the Committee suggests. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I take it from the statement that some action will be taken in the Senate without delay to effect the result that the Committee is recommending. I give an early indication that the Opposition will support the course of action which the Committee has suggested. I would like to express the Opposition's appreciation of the decision which the Committee has taken. It is, of course, in line with the view which the Opposition has put forward. We feel that this matter will be better and more expeditiously dealt with if the Senate Committee gets on with its job. We are delighted that it has seen fit to accept the advice which was very clearly tendered by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby. This matter has contained very considerable difficulties and there has been a good deal of heated argument. That is not surprising, but I think that the course which is recommended by the Committee will enable it to be dealt with in a more straightforward manner. I welcome the decision that has been announced by the Chairman of the Committee and I undertake that the Opposition will co- operate with the necessary procedural resolutions which will need to be passed to bring a rescission motion before us before we get up tomorrow. Debate resumed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.40) —The Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984 creates for Australia a possibility that has already been grasped by New Zealand and that is the opportunity not simply to talk but actually to affect the state of the world in terms of nuclear weapons. The history of nuclear warfare has been very brief. I think that people throughout the world know about what happened in Hiroshima. It still stands as a symbol. But at the time the atomic bomb was being dropped in Hiroshima, allied forces in another part of the world were uncovering devastating evidence at Auschwitz. They uncovered appalling evidence of people acting irresponsibly in allowing the most revolting of crimes to be carried out under the cover of obedience and for the sake of a good cause. The tragedy of our times is not so much the criminal but rather the crimes of ordinary people. Australians recoiled in horror at the butchering of innocent people in Auschwitz, yet applauded the vaporisation of innocent people at Hiroshima. Nuclear war is purely and simply massive and indiscriminate destruction of targets chosen not for their military significance but for their importance in creating calculated terror and annihilation. Russia and America are committed not only to the use of nuclear weapons for self-defence but also to their use in a first strike if that should be useful. Only the naive believe otherwise. This means that the super-powers have built their policy on the assumption that each is able, willing and ready to destroy the other at a moment's notice and the one destroyed is capable of post-mortem retaliation to annihilate not only the attacker but also all of its allies. Terrorism is said to be necessary. It is said that it is our duty in Australia to support a nuclear weapons capacity capable of global genocide. It seems that somehow or other the genocide of Auschwitz is wrong but the genocide of the entire human race has now become a duty and has now become part of our necessary alliances. This is, according to the Australian Labor Party Government, an acceptable risk for any reasonable person. My Party and I find it unacceptable. I know of no political cause for which it is worth while risking the entire human race. Are we to be upset at a guard smashing the brains of a child against a brick wall but to agree with our Government planning with the United States to enter into alliances which could result in the instant murder of millions of Russian children because we disagree with the political ideology of their country? I ask people not to talk about the sanitisation of strategic weapons but to talk about what we are actually on about, what use these weapons will be put to if they are to be used. It is remarkable how easily we agree to become war criminals. But let us be clear that no one can escape from the obligation to refuse obedience to criminal orders and global genocide is the ultimate crime for which there is no justification. The essence of current United States policy as publicly stated is that visits of warships to Australian and New Zealand ports help maintain strategic deterrence and, according to the ANZUS communiques, help the United States carry out its responsibility under ANZUS. The possible launch of strategic nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union would lead almost certainly to a response in kind which would inflict unacceptable damage on Europe, the United States, Australia and our allies. It would, indeed, be an act of suicide. Yet we support an alliance, the only result of which can be an act of suicide. The threat, then , of such an action loses all credibility as a deterrent. It certainly loses credibility as a deterrent to the Soviet Union's agression because one cannot build a deterrent on an incredible action. Strategic nuclear attack, against which there is no defence, involves, amongst other things, if one believes in deterrence, the extraordinarily paradoxical operation that each side be rational enough to be deterred by the threat of mutual annihilation yet one side must also appear to the other side to be irrational enough to carry out such a threat. That is what deterrence means. The nuclear arms race is the strangest military competition in history. Before the nuclear age a nation could calculate its killing power, measure it against that of the enemy and make a rational judgment as to whether to go to war or not. Hence, nazi Germany made an estimation that so many thousand German soldiers would be killed if it were to conquer Alsace-Lorraine. Operations of this kind were carried out if the risks were acceptable. But such a judgment is now impossible in a world of nuclear weapons because there is no objective that is worth the destruction of one's own society. I would like other people in this debate actually to talk about the realities and state whether they believe it is worth while having Australia totally destroyed. What is the use of having military, social and political objectives if the entire country is to be destroyed and that will be the result if a nuclear war takes place. We know that we are a nuclear nation. It is no good this Government wringing its hands in international forums and saying that we are not. We are. We are part of the entire structure of nuclear warfare. Indeed, we are the eyes of the United States and, as any military strategist will tell us, the first things to be taken out are the eyes. The phrase 'nuclear winter' has already become part of our language. However, I do not believe that the completely new strategic implications of the nuclear winter scenario have received sufficient attention. The prospect of a nuclear winter seems to be another chapter in the Armageddon about which we are told so often. We believe it but it never moves us. What is new is that the nuclear winter scenario replaces the prospect of mutual destruction through the failure of mutual deterrence. Yet this Government says that it supports deterrence. It does that simply because any nation making a major nuclear attack will itself be destroyed. So the plausibility of the current doctrine of mutual deterrance by arming to the teeth, which is what our support of a nuclear ANZUS is supposed to be about, has been eroded simply by understanding what the effects of nuclear war will be. As the payload of each power increases, so the demands of its opponent increase . As warning time decreases to vanishing point, not only does reprisal against an aggressor become less certain but also Strangelove mentalities become fascinated again by the possibility of strategic and surgical nuclear strike. But of course the possibilities of all kinds of unintended triggerings multiply, and when one takes this all into account surely deterrence must be seen as a bankrupt policy. If nuclear weapons are suicidal, guaranteed to cripple or destroy the user even without a response from the targeted victim, the futility of deterrence is complete. A second strike is no more appetising than the first, and a pre-emptive strike loses any gambling appeal that it might have had. Both powers have supplied themselves with mountains of suicidal weapons for which there is no discernible use, for deterrence or aggression. Yet this Government says, through its Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), that the advantages outweigh the risks. I do not see any advantages either for Australia or for the world in supporting nuclear weapons, which is what we are doing when we support a nuclear ANZUS alliance. The Australian Democrats strongly support ANZUS but we believe it can be a non-nuclear arrangement. We believe that is what we should be working towards. From a military point of view, there are no advantages in a nuclear treaty. America has a one-ocean Navy, and that ocean is certainly not the Pacific because America gets its oil from the East. In this nuclear missile age, at the moment Australia has but eight minutes from launch until the first Soviet warhead would impact on our soil. No alliance, no treaty partner and no deterrence or star wars strategy would have a chance to stop millions of tonnes of irradiated TNT exploding on our soil. ANZUS is no deterrent; it is no protection. Yet, we find that we have tied ourselves to one of the superpowers in a race in which both superpowers are sending themselves broke over nuclear war-a nuclear war that neither dares to fight, but fight one day they will if we continue in this fashion, be it through an accident, a miscalculation or the act of a madman. The Pacific peoples have been struggling for a nuclear-free Pacific for too long to be satisfied with the kind of nuclear-free zone this Government has when it is not having a nuclear free zone. It is a tokenistic zone that would offer no security against the threat of a nuclear attack. It would have no credibility in international forums and little chance of winning guarantees from any nuclear power. The Australian Democrats believe there needs to be a real commitment on the part of all governments in the South Pacific to resist the increasing pressure on this region to become a staging ground and command post for unleashing nuclear war. That is what the Pacific has turned into-a command post for a first strike capacity. The choice is clear-either a nuclear battlefield or a nuclear-free zone. Too many thousands have already died in the Pacific for us to go on like this. We need this nuclear free zone before it is too late. In 1953 the President of the United States, Dwight Eisenhower-this is important to remember when talking about ANZUS as our support in the world-said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of it scientists, the hopes of its children. The money required to provide adequate food, water, education, health and housing for everybody in the world is estimated to be $17 billion a year. Yes, that is a huge sum-as much as the world spends on arms every two weeks. Yet we say: 'We must stay in a nuclear ANZUS; we must promote the arms race'. I would rather feed a hungry child than over-stuff another Pentagon war bum. Throughout the world people are going hungry, and we need so many schools and hospitals, yet we see so much public squandering on arms. This Government was elected to take this country to the forefront in the world's thirst for peace. It was elected on the same type of platform as that on which the New Zealand Labor Government was elected-to show to the world that small countries can stand up and be counted. I am not saying that we have not suffered already, but the world will suffer and I believe that this Government has given away the moral stance that it took in opposition. It has done that for a mess of potage, and has not had the courage of its New Zealand counterpart. Albert Einstein, whose genius was ultimately responsible for today's proliferation of nuclear weapons, warned the people of the world of: . . . unprecedented disaster which they are absolutely certain to bring on themselves unless there is a fundamental change in their attitudes toward one another. This country has made a quantum leap scientifically, but unless we make a quantum leap politically we will not be contributing to the world what it needs. If we do not make that quantum leap politically, we have had it as a species. The dinosaurs were powerful but because they did not adjust to change they disappeared. We may be powerful as a result of joining with the most powerful country on earth but unless we change we too will disappear. The Democrats call on the intelligence of the Australian people so that they may look again at what we are talking about and see that this country can stand up in international forums as a symbol to the world. The Australian Democrats believe very strongly in the words of Martin Luther King, who said: We can live together as people or die together as fools. The choice is ours. I believe that the Australian people will choose wisely if the Government gives that leadership. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.58) —I speak in opposition to the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill. My opposition is based on two broad grounds: First of all, it destroys the ANZUS Treaty and thereby diminishes Australia's security; and, secondly, the argument on which this Bill is based is both fallacious and untenable. The United States has made it clear that it cannot accept a nuclear free zone concept in Australia and still maintain the ANZUS alliance as it now exists. ANZUS is our principal defence treaty. It is the most important treaty that this country has. As we on this side of the House made clear yesterday, ANZUS is certainly not an absolute guarantee in all circumstances of our security. The difficulties would arise principally in low level contingencies, when quite certainly Australia would have to look after itself. There is also the possibility of a genuine conflict of interest in the United States. If we were to take a very hypothetical and very unlikely case of a conflict between the Philippines and Australia, the United States would be in a very difficult position in aiding either partner against the other. The fact remains that the Treaty is very valuable not only for Australia but also for the whole South East Asian region, as the countries of Association of South East Asian Nations have affirmed. Quite apart from the benefits that would derive to Australia in a direct conflict, ANZUS has many peacetime benefits. Mr Deputy President, you went through those with great lucidity a few minutes ago. I mention them because it is not generally appreciated that in peacetime ANZUS provides very considerable benefits for the Australian defence forces and the Australian community. The benefit of joint exercises, the intelligence sharing capability and the equipment and logistic support which we receive from the United States-all contribute by making the ADF more effective and thereby bring greater stability in this part of the world. Over and above everything in a military sense, the politics of the situation are very simple. The majority of Australians do want ANZUS maintained and they want the United States alliance maintained. There is no argument about that. The United States is moving into a situation in which most of its naval ships are nuclear powered. In fact 67 per cent of the United States Seventh Fleet is now nuclear powered and that figure will certainly go up in the future. Probably a number of those are nuclear armed. If this Bill were passed, the United States would find that it had no harbour facilities and no havens south of the equator in the Pacific region because many island states now embrace the nuclear free concept in the South Pacific. New Zealand has gone down that path. It would be an absolute tragedy if a government in Australia accepted the doctrine that Australia should be a nuclear free zone, because Australia's ports would then be denied to the United States. It is a simple fact of life that if we are not prepared to help ourselves and give support to our ally, why should that ally help us? Yesterday Senator Chipp argued that the ANZUS agreement was irrelevant and that the United States, out of the self-interest, would always be driven to help Australia in a conflict. Quite apart from the cold-blooded mercenary approach to foreign affairs that is involved here it is also very wrong. On many occasions, the United States would just write us off and would not be bothered to come to our aid. Treaties have a very human side. One cannot treat the United States like a dog. One cannot kick it in the ribs, tell it to get out of the house and then expect it to savage a burglar. The Liberal Party accepts that ANZUS places obligations on Australia-the Australian Labor Party does too-and that some risk is inevitable for Australia in honouring that agreement. The presence of the joint defence facilities has certainly come to our attention. Many people say that those facilities may bring some risk to Australia. The important word there is 'may'. They certainly contribute to the maintenance of peace, but in a war, a major conflict, Australia inevitably will be involved, either directly or indirectly, and the presence of those joint facilities will not affect one iota the amount of damage we suffer. We are mature adults. We accept the obligation that ANZUS places upon us. We are prepared to pay our dues and we will honour that treaty. The second point I come to regarding the Bill is that it is based on an incorrect argument. With the greatest respect to the Democrats, it is an intellectually barren argument. The Democrats simply do not understand the complexity of the present nuclear state. They have never thought through what the policies they are proposing would mean to this complex situation. I respect completely their sincerity, but they are being totally naive in this matter. Everyone in this chamber recognises the profound dangers of nuclear armaments as clearly as the Democrats do. We all recognise the instability in the world and the way in which those nuclear armaments, combined with instability, can lead to a sudden extinction of the whole human race. Furthermore, we recognise that mankind is going to be forever frightened by nuclear weapons. Whatever we do in the future, whatever achievements we make with respect to disarmament, those fears of a nuclear holocaust will live with mankind forever. When we develop those systems and practices which will lead to a safer world we are faced with the endless task of maintaining those systems because of the eternal presence of nuclear weapons. Where I and most of those who have spoken to the Bill differ from the Democrats is that we do not believe extinction of the human race is inevitable. None of us has any illusions about the difficulties that face us in avoiding that fate, but we do believe it is possible to avoid that annihilation. Since 1945 we have lived in a nuclear age. All of us stand in fear at both the number and the power of nuclear weapons and the consequences that the possession of those weapons entail. No one believes in a limited nuclear war. Certainly, none of us believes any of us would survive a total nuclear war. We all seek security. None of us wants to end our days in a pointless blinding flash. The argument is not as the Democrats put it-the nuclear race or the human race. However appealingly that glib, trite statement runs off the tongue, it is just not relevant to the great problems that face us today. It is a variant of the old nuclear escapism argument. The nuclear escapism argument is one that is absolutely intellectually bankrupt. It comes in many forms. It ranges from the belief that knowledge once gained can be lost, that somehow or other nuclear physics can be unlearned, right through to the belief that small nations can cause two hostile insecure super- powers to embark on a path of total nuclear disarmament. Let us be realistic. Let us take stock of our position. Let us not take counsel of our fears. Let us learn from our successful survival over the last 40 years. In the last 40 years, we have had no nuclear war. We have had no major conventional war because of the existence of the nuclear strike capability of the super-powers. Nor have many of the gloomy predictions of many of the seers on the world stage in the last 40 years been fulfilled. I remember in 1963 the President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, saying that in the 1970s there would be between 15 and 25 nuclear armed nations in the world. The period that he designated, the 1970s, was the last decade. In fact there are only two confirmed additions to the original nuclear powers, which were the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Great Britain and France . In 1964 China joined the nuclear club and in 1974 India joined. One has to include Israel in that because it is widely accepted in military circles that the possibility is high that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. There has not been the dramatic explosion of nuclear weapons to other powers that was foretold by many of the prophets in the earlier years. Quite certainly, change can occur rapidly. In 10 years time we might find that there has been an explosion of another 15 or 20 nuclear powers. But it has not happened in the last 40 years and we can be reasonably hopeful that with prudent policies we can avoid that fate. Undeniably, there have been very tense times in the last 40 years. I was living in London at the time of the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962. When I woke up each morning I used to look out the window to see whether it was a foggy day in the hope that if there was going to be a nuclear holocaust the blast would be attenuated a little by the fog. Very many people in Europe at the time were very worried because they saw themselves as being in the cockpit of any nuclear outbreak if the crisis did not go the way that it ultimately did. Many people had a lot of courage after the event that they did not have at the time. On a more serious note, we have had many tense times. Undeniably we will have those in the future. The important thing is that we have survived. We have survived because of the intelligence of the men and women who have been making the decisions around the world that have affected the peace. What we must do is develop what we have learnt in the last 40 years with the clear intention of keeping us all alive for the term of our natural lives. During the last 40 years we have lived with not only nuclear weapons but also nuclear deterrence. While the concept of deterrence is a very old part of foreign affairs, nuclear deterrence is quite different. The hundred year peace that existed in Europe after Napoleon was defeated is quite different from the 40 year peace we have had in the nuclear age. In Europe we had a balance of power structure with shifting coalitions among six or eight major powers. But there is no parallel between that and the peace that we have through nuclear deterrence. The three characteristics of nuclear deterrence are much the same as those of nuclear war. There is the great destructive power of the explosive material, with no defence against a direct hit. There is a multiple variety of delivery means, and there is no guarantee that all of them can be stopped. Those two characteristics mean that there is no effective defence against a major nuclear attack. Finally, of course, we are dealing with a time span which is incredibly short. We are dealing with minutes or hours of battle instead of the years involved in previous wars. I will not dwell on the problems that that entails in regard to military intelligence, threat assessment and command and control. The other significant point about nuclear deterrence is that psychology plays a major part .Psychology cannot be quantified and measured like military orders of battle. The whole doctrine of deterrence is truly a balance of terror in the world. It is a highly dangerous way to live and our objectives must be to reduce the dangers inherent in the system. Maybe in the next 30 or 40 years we can develop a different and safer system. My remarks are leading into a speech on disarmament. It is one of my regrets that the Senate has not dealt with disarmament, but there is not time for us to go down that path tonight. There are many dilemmas in the nuclear age and they are far more complex than the Democrats even perceive or understand. The point is that nuclear weapons do exist and, most importantly, they will not go away. There is no point in pretending that we can ignore them and they will disappear. As John Donne said: 'No man is an island entire of it-self'. I might paraphrase that to say that while any nuclear weapons exist, no man on earth is safe from them. We must learn to live with nuclear weapons. There is a totally new experience for mankind because they are not like any other military weapons system that we have seen in any period of history. We must live carefully and vigilantly. We must be aware of other nations' fears and desires. Above all, we must live with the utmost caution in concert with the nations of the world. The policies we follow, of course, must include arms control leading to arms reduction. Despite the goals of the Australian Labor Party, as stated by Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, of total nuclear disarmament, we will never attain that goal in regard to nuclear weapons. But there is no reason why we cannot work conscientiously and as hard as we can towards it. Any system of arms reduction-or arms control, which precedes arms reduction- turns on having an adequate system of verification and that does not exist at present. Without certain verification there can be no real progress in arms negotiations which take place around the world. But the quest for safety is not as simple as a reduction in numbers of arms. Given the present circumstances, we must preserve deterrence because if the deterrent credibility fails one side may be emboldened to move against the other. Above all, we must improve our crisis management capabilities. Whatever happens, there will be crises in international relations. There will be competing national interests, opposing ideologies, and alternative visions of mankind's destiny. Above everything else, we must add the fallibility of the human race. We must have more restraint and more co-operation in international affairs because in this matter we are playing for keeps. Our lives are on the line. This Bill does nothing to improve the security we all seek. Its nuclear escapism provides nothing but a dead end in international relations. In so doing , it puts the ultimate resolution of our security further away. From the dawn of time man has sought security. He has never had it and he never will. But we certainly can be far more secure than we are at present. We can achieve that by reducing the likelihood of war. It is the most difficult task that faces us, a task that will never end. I reject the assertion that we will all have to perish in a nuclear holocaust. There are many small, practical steps open to us which take time to achieve, but which cumulatively will take us out of the torrid, dangerous circumstance that we are in. This Bill is not one of those steps. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(6.16) —We have just heard from Senator MacGibbon, who is one of the Liberal Party's cold war warriors on foreign affairs and defence issues. But this afternoon I am on his side in opposing the Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill. I must say that at times he scares me because of his attitude of unthinking support for the United States of America, and that is the sort of thinking that involved Australia in the Vietnam war. I do not believe one is a good ally if one never questions one's ally's motives. What is good for the United States might not always be good for Australia. If one wants to be taken for granted and not kept advised, one should follow the line that Senator MacGibbon often puts in the Senate. We also heard from Senator Mason this afternoon. Besides entering the tautology stakes when he said 'President Reagan said publicly in his own voice', he also posed a preposterous situation. He said that Australian cities would be a nuclear target because we host United States bases and facilities and allow US warships to visit Australia, yet somehow New York and Boston would be safer because they stop nuclear powered ships entering their harbours. Maybe he did not mean it to sound that way, but that is certainly the way I heard it this afternoon. Senator Hamer said that the Australian Labor Party is divided in regard to this Bill. Members of the Labor Party, like members of all parties in the Senate, have different points of view. They argue on the matters, vote on them at Party conferences and adopt the Party conference decision. Of course, that is what we have done on issues similar to this. But the reason that this Bill is before the Senate this afternoon is that it is another link in the Australian Democrats' coalition to win additional seats at the next election. I am not saying that Senator Chipp is not genuine in his abhorrence of nuclear war and the dangers that are involved in the use of nuclear power. I remind him that I and all of my colleagues are similarly concerned. I dealt with this issue and put our position in a debate yesterday. I think Senator Chipp is misguided and naive about the chances of complete nuclear disarmament and the role that the US-Australian joint facilities in Australia play in avoiding nuclear war. I fully support the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of 6 June when he said, in effect, that the general purpose and function of the facilities were to provide information which contributes, 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. The second function is 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 Democrats are aware that the Australian people overwhelmingly support the US alliance and overwhelmingly support the visits of foreign warships, whether or not they are nuclear powered, to Australian ports. They know that the major parties' research supports that view. They therefore know that neither of the major parties will support the proposal that Senator Chipp is putting forward today. The Democrats do not have to worry about getting 50 percent of the vote; they are attempting to appeal to those genuine people in the Australian community who are opposed to the visit of nuclear powered ships and also to those people who are opposed to the US alliance. They hope that these people, together with some conservationists, anti-uranium groups and a number of other single issue groups in the community, will provide them with the percentage of votes that they require to obtain a Senate seat in every State. One has only to listen to the number of single issue causes that are being embraced by the Australian Democrats at the moment, including the Lindy Chamberlain case, to realise what their tactics are. If one is looking for a first-class example of the Democrats' woolly headed thinking on the subject of nuclear warfare, one need only to turn to the question asked yesterday by Senator Mason during Question Time and addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. Senator Mason asked: 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? Senator Chipp —What is wrong with that? Senator SIBRAA —I am getting to that, Senator Chipp. Quite correctly Senator Gareth Evans, in answering the question, said: NATO's deterrence policy is based on the doctrine . . . of a flexible response which leaves open the possibility of the first use, if required, of nuclear weapons in response to an overwhelming . . . 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. Senator Chipp —Do you agree with it? Senator SIBRAA —Of course I do. Just let me finish. Regardless of whether they have had socialist, Labour, Social Democratic or Conservative government, all of them have agreed. He continued: . . . 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. Senator Mason, and Senator Chipp, by his interjection this afternoon, are asking NATO to say to the Soviets that NATO will remove the one deterrent that it has at its disposal. Nothing could be more calculated to increase the risk of nuclear war than that proposal put forward by Senator Mason. The Australian Labor Party platform is quite clear on the issue that this Bill covers. Senator Chipp —I cannot believe that I would ever hear a member of the Labor Party say what you have just said. I cannot believe it. Senator SIBRAA —Senator Chipp, I have said exactly what Senator Evans said yesterday in reply to a question. Senator Chipp —You are right. Senator SIBRAA —Well, do not question my motives. In 1966, when the Labor Party was getting hammered from pillar to post about the Vietnam War, and I was a candidate opposing that war, where were Senator Chipp and his colleagues? If I remember correctly he was a Minister in a Liberal Party government that was sending Australians to fight over there. The Labor Party platform is quite clear on the issue of this Bill. We say 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. Whilst we oppose the home porting of foreign warships we do not oppose their visits to Australian ports. Our attitude can be summed up by the following six points: First, visits will be for purposes such as crew rest and recreation and not for fuel handling or repair to reactor plant necessitating breach of reactor containment. Secondly, visits will be subject to satisfactory arrangements concerning liability and indemnity to provision of adequate assurances relating to the operation and safety of the warships while they are in Australian waters. Thirdly, movement of vessels must take place during daylight hours under conditions where visibility is not less than three quarters of a mile. Fourthly, navigational controls on other shipping will be applied during the time that nuclear powered ships are entering or leaving ports. Fifthly, there must be a capability to remove the vessel either under its own power or under tow to a designated safe anchorage or to a designated distance to sea within the time frame specified for the particular berth or anchorage and in any case within 24 hours, if an accident should occur; and finally, an operating safety organisation competent to carry out a suitable radiation monitoring program and able to initiate actions and provide services necessary to safeguard the public in the event of a release of radioactivity following an accident must exist for the port being visited. There is also a long standing bipartisan policy initiated by the previous Government And continued by the present Labor Government that we do not ask our allies either to conform or deny whether nuclear weapons are being carried. One of the things that concern me with Senator Chipp's Bill is that I believe the North West Cape communications station would have to be closed down if this Bill were passed, because there is no doubt that it can be used for communication between surface ships, civil and military, besides its underwater role. On the subject of the North West Cape, considerable concern has been expressed-- Senator Chipp —Is it a nuclear target? Senator SIBRAA —Yes, I think it probably is. Senator Chipp —Your Foreign Minister says it is. Senator SIBRAA —Well, I do not think it is in the same priority as Pine Gap and Nurrungar, but I really do not think it is worth arguing about the difference. I believe that considerable concern has been expressed that orders could be transmitted without Australian knowledge through the North West Cape centre to American fleet ballistic submarines carrying nuclear weapons and that these orders could be contrary to Australian interests and Australian government policy. There are two responses to this. One is that agreement has been reached between the United States and the Australian government on new arrangements to ensure that the Australian Government is able to make timely judgments about the significance, for our national interests, of developments involving the North West Cape. These arrangements are now in force. The second response is a technical one. The submarine launched ballistic missiles on American vessels are not sufficiently accurate to be used for the purpose of a pre-emptive first strike designed to disarm the Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile force. Even if they were, they would still leave open the prospect that Soviet submarines would inflict enormous retaliatory damage on the United States. Furthermore, North West Cape is not a command and control centre. It is only a communication relay station. This means that its functions are essentially limited to defensive and deterrent purposes and therefore I believe it should not be closed down. I now wish to deal with one of the main points which the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia are concerned about-they raised the matter yesterday and Senator Durack raised it again today-and that is that according to a recent New Zealand Labour Party conference decision New Zealand will withdraw from ANZUS. As I said yesterday, a New Zealand conference decision is not a government decision. The procedures of the New Zealand Labour Party conference mean that resolutions that are passed go firstly before a policy review committee and then, if they are approved, to the Parliamentary Labour Party, which has veto over the conference decision, and then finally to the Party's national council. Therefore the recent decision of the New Zealand conference may never see the light of day. Again, as I said yesterday, let us examine what a leading New Zealand Labour Party member of parliament said in Australia two days ago. That member of Parliament is regarded as being strongly anti-nuclear. Ms Helen Clark was reported as follows: 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. Further on the article states: 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. . . . . She said New Zealand had sought to renegotiate ANZUS. It is interesting to note that David Lange, the present Prime Minister of New Zealand, at the New Zealand Labour Party Conference in 1983, strongly supported a motion that allowed nuclear powered warships to visit New Zealand. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —He has changed his view though, has he not, Senator? Senator SIBRAA —I do not know whether he has changed his view. I think we will find out when we see if the parliamentary party vetoes the decision of the conference. Senator Chipp stated this morning in his speech, when giving the reasons why this Bill must be debated today, that every Australian is now a nuclear target. He also said that the Labor Government had no policy on nuclear disarmament. This is nonsense. I am not going to repeat all that I said in yesterday's debate on nuclear disarmament. It is recorded in Hansard. If anybody wants to read the Labor Party's policy on disarmament, I suggest that he read what I said yesterday. Senator Chipp —Part of it is to export more and more uranium. Terrific! Senator SIBRAA —The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has put out a very good booklet on nuclear disarmament, uranium and peace. I suggest to Senator Chipp that he get a copy of it and read it if he has any doubts about the Labor Party's platform on the three issues that I have just mentioned. The Labor Government has been in office only since March 1983. In the time since then it has given energy, commitment and priority to the pursuit of arms control, disarmament and peace which no previous Australian government has done. The Government recognises that the only outcome which is ultimately acceptable is total nuclear disarmament. But it equally recognises that on the road to that ultimate goal it must support the most suitable available options which give the best prospects of contributing to the avoidance of nuclear war. For these reasons the Labor Government argues the principal position that until the goal of total nuclear disarmament is achieved, the presence of the joint facilities and the visits by nuclear powered ships to Australian ports will have a real and practical effect in contributing to arms control, disarmament and peace. A decision to abolish the joint facilities and to deny the passage of nuclear powered warships through Australian waters will not be neutral in its effect. Rather, such a decision would paradoxically have the effect of harming the very cause that all of us are trying to promote. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Grimes moving a motion forthwith for the rescission of the resolution of the Senate of 6 September 1984 for the reference of material to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Rescission of Resolution Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.32) —I move: That the resolution of the Senate of 6 September 1984 for the reference of material to the Director of Public Prosecutions be rescinded. I do not believe that I need to debate this. I understand from statements by Senator Chaney earlier that the Opposition agrees to it. The reasons for it were clearly given by Senator Tate earlier this afternoon. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.33) —I must say that it is by pure chance that I came wandering into the Senate chamber and found out that this was happening. Although I indicated that we were very happy for it to be done, there was no indication to me that it was being done now. Certainly, the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, was also not aware of it . We were incidentally just discussing this matter in his office, so I know that he also is not aware of it. There are many slips in this place and I- Senator Chipp —Nor were we. Senator CHANEY —From the response of the Minister at the table I assume that he believes some message has been sent to me and that I have not received it. Certainly no one told me that this was coming on. Senator Harradine —That what was coming on? Senator CHANEY —That this rescission motion was coming on. Senator Grimes —I am sorry about that, Senator Chaney, but there were plenty of people on your side who did know, including your Whip, who was in the chamber. You knew too. Senator CHANEY —It is now being said that I knew. In fact I did not know and no indication was given when Senator Tate made his statement earlier this afternoon , which I welcomed. In view of that fact, I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement on the same subject. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —The sequence of events was simply this: On two occasions, before and I believe during the time that Senator Tate gave his report this afternoon, I clearly indicated to Senator Chaney, who was sitting at the table, that we would move this rescission motion tonight. That is the first point. The second point is that Senator Chaney spoke after Senator Tate had made his statement and said-Hansard will show this-that the Opposition was aware that this would happen and that it would facilitate the passage of the procedural motion which would be necessary to do this. That is the second point. The third point is that I spoke to the Whip, the Deputy Whip, one shadow Minister and the Whip of the Australian Democrats to say that this motion was coming on tonight after Senator Sibraa had spoken. I even said that, if we got this business out of the way quickly, got Senator Chipp's notice of motion out of the way and got the tabling by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) of the Redlich report out of the way, Senator Sir John Carrick would have his full 20 minutes to speak tonight. I am sorry that Senator Chaney did not know. I am sorry now, in view of the turn-which is the only way I can describe it-that he is putting on at the moment , that I did not walk around and personally tell him and Senator Durack. But I am not responsible, with due respect, for going around and telling each person in the Opposition who may be interested in this just what is going to happen. We have had plenty of this from Senator Chaney in this place. I remember when he was in government. I remember when he was a Minister. I do not remember his ever running around like a messenger boy and I think it is outrageous that he should put on this sanctimonious turn that he has put on tonight. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-When I tabled the 1983 -84 and final report of former Special Prosecutor Redlich on 7 September 1984, I said that I would make a more detailed statement responding to the report generally this week. I shall begin by stating the background. Mr Redlich was appointed by the previous Government on 21 October 1982 to deal with illegal activities identified by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, other than those assigned to Special Prosecutor Gyles. On our Government assuming office, I made it clear that I saw the establishment of an Office of Director of Public Prosecutions as the longer term solution but, pending the establishment and the coming into full operation of that Office, I saw that it would be necessary and appropriate that the two Special Prosecutors continue. Thus, Mr Redlich's appointment was extended on several occasions until it terminated on 5 June 1984 when his office was taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who now has an office located in Melbourne. During this period, the scope of Mr Redlich's responsibilities was twice extended: First, on 16 May 1983 to the activities of the Terrence Clark organisation identified in a particular report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and; second, at the suggestion of Mr Redlich it was, on 25 November 1983, extended to enable him to exercise civil remedies under the Customs Act 1901 and under Commonwealth taxation laws in respect of illegal activities of persons identified by reports of the Stewart Royal Commission under Commonwealth and State references relating to the Terrence Clark organisation. Mr Redlich has carried out his responsibilities under these authorities in an effective and energetic manner. This is borne out by the detailed account of his activities in Chapter 1 of the present report. The transition to Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was effected smoothly, thanks in no small part to the efforts of Mr Redlich. In succeeding chapters of the report Mr Redlich makes many observations as to the administration of the laws of the Commonwealth and also a considerable number of recommendations for changes in the law and administration. Before considering these observations and recommendations, it is necessary to put the matter in a proper perspective. Mr Redlich was not appointed a Royal Commissioner to inquire into, and report to the Government, on particular matters. Nevertheless, insofar as his observations and recommendations are based on his experience as a Special Prosecutor, they call for careful examination and due consideration by the Government. I can assure the Senate that they have been , and will continue to be, given that examination and consideration. I now proceed to deal with the various matters raised by Mr Redlich. Since they are matters of considerable detail and length, I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CHAPTER 2-CIVIL REMEDIES, COMPLEMENTARY TO PROSECUTION, FORFEITURE OF ASSETS AND IMPOSITION OF PECUNIARY PENALTIES (a) Civil Remedies and Pecuniary Penalties When the Director of Public Prosecutions Act was drafted, the question arose what functions should be given to the Director in relation to: (a) civil remedies; and (b) recovery of pecuniary penalties. In explanation of the term 'pecuniary penalties', I mention that a number of Commonwealth Acts, for example, the Customs Act 1901 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 provide for recovery by the Government of pecuniary penalties by procedures standing some way between criminal prosecutions and civil actions. A civil remedy is any remedy which a person may take by civil action, as opposed to prosecution action, to enforce his legal rights. It may first be noted that neither the English DPP nor the Victorian DPP had been given either such function. While under the common law system which we have inherited from the United Kingdom, Attorneys-General have long been recognised as possessing special responsibilities and functions in relation to the enforcement of the criminal law to the exclusion of other Ministers, neither he nor officers answerable to him have been regarded as having equivalent responsibilities and functions in relation to exercise of civil remedies available to the Government. The exercise of such remedies has been regarded as matter for decision by the Minister responsible for the legislation in question, the Department which he administers or the relevant statutory officer such as the Commissioner of Taxation. The Minister is, of course, answerable to Parliament for such decisions. Against this, the experience of the 2 Special Prosecutors, Mr Gyles QC and Mr Redlich indicated that, in the special limited areas in which they operated, there was value in a Prosecutor being able, in conjunction with prosecution action, to exercise civil remedies. At the same time it was noted that the Director stood in a different position to the Special Prosecutor in that the Director's jurisdiction extended to the prosecution of all Commonwealth offences whereas that of a Special Prosecutor was limited to matters designated by the Attorney-General. It was therefore considered appropriate to provide for the Director of Public Prosecutions to be able to exercise such remedies in respect of matters designated by the Attorney-General 'in connexion with, or arising out of, prosecutions instituted or carried on by the Director'. Further he was authorised to co-ordinate or supervise the taking of civil remedies by other agencies (para. 6 (1) (h)). At the same time, the Director was authorised, in respect of matters designated by the Attorney-General, to recover pecuniary penalties and to co-ordinate or supervise the recovery of such penalties by other agencies (para. 6 (1) (g)). I observe that the legislation was supported by the Opposition in both Houses. On 3 June 1984, by an instrument under paras 6 (1) (g) and (h), I, in effect, gave the Director the power to exercise civil remedies in respect of the same matters as had been given to Mr Redlich as Special Prosecutor. Mr Redlich now urges that the Act be amended: (a) to remove the requirement that the civil remedy be connected to a prosecution which is instituted; and (b) to remove the need for an instrument by the Attorney-General designating matters in respect of which civil remedies be exercised or pecuniary penalties recovered. Alternatively Mr Redlich suggests that an instrument in general terms be signed by the Attorney-General to enable the Director in urgent cases exercise civil remedies in relation to matters complementary to prosecutions or investigations under his consideration. In support of (a) Mr Redlich asserts that less than 30% of the civil remedies exercised by his office would satisfy this requirement. This information had not previously been given to the Government. Mr Redlich is supported in these recommendations by Mr Ian Temby QC, the present Director of Public Prosecutions, in a letter to me dated 10 September 1984, a copy of which I now table. Proposal (b) (removal of the need for an instrument designating matters in respect of which civil remedies might be taken by the DPP) raises very significant and important issues. It would vest in a statutory officer unparalleled powers and discretions affecting the functions and responsibilities of other Ministers and obviously requires the most careful consideration. Proposal (a) while requiring full consideration involves less serious issues. Great weight must be given to the views of Mr Temby and Mr Redlich. Nevertheless, different views are open and these issues must be most carefully considered and decided. I shall accordingly be taking to Cabinet at the earliest opportunity the question whether these recommendations should be implemented. I emphasize that it is the firm concern of the Government that the Director should have all appropriate powers to enable him to carry out his very responsible role effectively and to the greatest benefit to the community generally. (b) Facilitation of the attribution of assets and income to the criminal respondent My colleague, the Treasurer, has supplied the following information. ''Mr Redlich has made some recommendations in relation to taxation matters in Chapter 2 of his report. In paragraph 2.37 he makes the point that where a criminal does not lodge a taxation return the Commissioner has the choice of raising a default assessment against that person and imposing additional tax of an amount up to 100 per cent of the tax assessed or of prosecuting the taxpayer under section 223 of the income tax law where the maximum penalty is $200. If the Commissioner decides to prosecute he is required to remit the additional tax. In this situation Mr Redlich recommends a substantial increase in the penalty for prosecution and, in addition, recommends the repeal of the provision that requires the Commissioner to remit any additional tax if he decides to prosecute . The 1984-85 Budget Statements note that I will be introducing a Bill in the very near future proposing significant increases in the penalties presently contained in the taxation laws. This will answer the first of Mr Redlich's recommendations and will have a significant impact on the comparison drawn by Mr Redlich between the maximum penalty under a prosecution action and the maximum amount of additional tax under a default assessment action. As to the proposal that the Commissioner should not be required to fully remit any additional tax where he takes prosecution action, one must question whether this would not subject a taxpayer to a form of double jeopardy. Under the present law the Commissioner has tended to default assess and seek additional tax because, in the great majority of cases, this will result in a far greater financial penalty on the taxpayer concerned. At the same time, some prosecutions are taken in the expectation that they will provide a deterrent effect. The present law has for many years provided that a taxpayer should not be subject to additional tax and to prosecution action and it may be argued that this overcomes any suggestion of double jeopardy. The effect of this double jeopardy will be very much more significant under the increases in penalties that I will be proposing shortly. In any event it should be noted that the present requirement to remit additional tax applies in respect of any prosecution action taken by the Commissioner and prosecution action taken under sections other than section 223 gives the court the authority to order the person to pay to the Commissioner an amount up to double the amount of tax that has been avoided. The effect of Mr Redlich's suggestion would be that a court would be able to impose this maximum penalty in a case where the additional tax of up to 100 per cent of the tax assessed had already been levied by the Commissioner. In paragraphs 2.38 to 2.44 Mr Redlich notes that it is not uncommon for criminals to take action to divest themselves of assets by the creation of family trusts and companies in an attempt to place their income and assets beyond the reach of the taxation law. He recognises that this is a difficult area of the law but suggests that a comprehensive and urgent review be set up to examine the matter. Mr Redlich suggests two possible reforms that could be made to overcome this difficulty. One would be for the various family trusts and companies being regarded as having no legal efficacy for income tax purposes unless those entities are registered with the Taxation Office within a certain period. Alternatively, he suggests amendments that would enable the Commissioner to satisfy any judgment against the taxpayer by executing that judgment against the assets owned by the family company or trust under the taxpayer's control. As Mr Redlich admits, this is a difficult area of the law but it is one which is concerned more with the recovery of tax rather than the assessment of income tax to a particular person. The Taxation Office has been well aware of this problem for some time and has recognised the need to obtain expert advice on whether these complex arrangements could be defeated in terms of the existing law. An arrangement has been made between the Taxation Office and the Attorney- General's Department under which the more complex recovery cases are referred for advice by the Attorney-General's Department and, if necessary, by counsel as to whether any challenge could be mounted under the existing law to various arrangements made by taxpayers for the divesting of assets. In the light of the outcome of these challenges consideration may need to be given to possible amendments of the bankruptcy law and the companies' code.'' (c) Forfeiture of assets The Australian Police Ministers' Council at its May 1984 meeting affirmed support for reciprocal legislation regarding forfeiture of assets accumulated as a result of organised criminal activities and I propose to take up the question in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General at its next meeting. This is a difficult area for law reform for, while a strong case can be made out for forfeiting assets clearly accumulated as a result of serious illegal activities, in drawing up a new law to this effect, the greatest care will need to be taken to ensure that the rights of innocent persons and the safeguards generally applying in civil litigation are not abridged or destroyed. I am sure that the Standing Committee in its consideration of this matter will give due consideration to Mr Redlich's observations. CHAPTER 3-DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Mr Redlich accepts that, except in one respect (as to civil remedies which I have discussed above), the Director of Public Prosecutions Act meets the major considerations identified by him. After discussing the establishment of the Office of the Director and the satisfactory transition from Mr Redlich's office to establishment of the Melbourne Office of the Director, Mr Redlich recommends- (a) the Director be given more flexibility in connexion with staff employment terms and remuneration; (b) adequate resources should be committed by the Commonwealth to deal with the Director's investigations and prosecutions; (c) the Director should address the question of guidelines directed to Commonwealth Departments as provided under section 11; and (d) finally Mr Redlich repeats his recommendation as to the amendment of the Act to deal with civil remedies which I have discussed above. I am awaiting the Director's comments on recommendations (a) and (c). In addition, the views of the Public Service Board have been sought on recommendation (a). As to recommendation (b), the Government is very conscious of the importance of the role of the DPP and has allocated $8,694,000 for the year 1984-85 to his Office. The Government has done all in its power to ensure that the Director has appropriate resources to enable him to carry out his very significant responsibilities. I am sure that, if the Director considers that he has need for further resources, he will approach the Government in the usual way. CHAPTER 4-THE NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY The Special Minister of State and I are pleased to note Mr Redlich's general commendation of the National Crime Authority Act. See particularly his conclusion in paragraph 4.4 that the Act gives proper emphasis to the 3 factors- The optimum means of detecting and investigating organised criminal activity The protection of civil liberties The integrity of the States and their law enforcement agencies. He further concludes that there are substantial safeguards within the Act to protect the rights of witnesses and those under investigation, and the States and their investigative agencies are given a voice in the operation of the Authority. We particularly commend his closing exhortation that the Authority must now be given an opportunity to work. At pages 49-51 Redlich discusses the need for the Authority to be able to make arrangements to facilitate the protection of witnesses. However, section 34 does specifically authorise the Authority to make arrangements for the protection of witnesses. CHAPTER 5-DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY My colleague the Minister for Social Security has advised me that he is examining Mr Redlich's comments on matters relating to his Department and the report's recommendations for remedial action. He has forwarded the following immediate comments. 'As Mr Redlich points out in his report, much of the information contained in the report was furnished by the Department of Social Security. As Mr Redlich also points out, the social security system is being abused by a proportionately small but numerically large group of persons receiving benefits or pensions from the Department. He goes on to say ''fortunately the vast majority of those in need in our community seek only those benefits from the Department to which they are lawfully entitled''. In considering Mr Redlich's comments the Minister for Social Security will take particular care that any additional action that may be needed to counter abuses of the social security system does not infringe the privacy and the rights of honest pensioners and beneficiaries, who comprise the vast majority, nor harass them. 'Action to implement some of the recommendations was already in train prior to Mr Redlich's report being delivered. The Minister for Social Security announced on 6 September 1984 that the main method of social security payments will be through direct credit from January 1985; in other words, most social security beneficiaries would receive payment through their bank or other chosen financial institution. This change will assist social security clients and help eliminate social security fraud. The Minister for Social Security has set up a task force within his Department to report to him on follow-up action required after studying the relevant chapter of the Redlich Report.' CHAPTER 6-COST OF PROSECUTING FEDERAL CRIME Under this heading Mr Redlich first propounds the view that there should be an increase in the scale and scope of resources available to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Australian Federal Police as well as the investigative units of the Federal Department of Social Security and the Australian Taxation Office. As to this, the Government has already seen the need to increase such resources . As I have said above the Budget allocation to the Director of Public Prosecutions for 1984-85 totals $8,694,000 and the Government firmly accepts that the Director must have adequate resources to carry out his tasks. As to the AFP the following information has been provided by my colleague the Special Minister of State. 'The Government has provided significant increases to the AFP material and human resources. In 1983-84 funds appropriated for the AFP increased by nearly $ 9m (over 8%). 256 extra officers were employed of which 56% are engaged on investigative duties. In 1984-85 funds to be appropriated for the AFP are to increase by $12m (over 10 per cent). 165 extra officers are to be employed. With the removal of the Protective Service component during October 1984, the staffing level of the AFP will be 2857. Of the 2409 police, 65 per cent will be engaged on investigative duties. In both years, overseas postings for AFP increased very significantly. As an example of the increasing resources being used co-operatively with the States, the police seconded to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence for all Australian police forces have increased from 13 to 23 under the present Government. The Commonwealth has provided 5 ADP staff-there were none previously .'' As to the Taxation Office, the Treasurer has provided the following information - ''This Government has already decided to provide substantial increases for the Taxation Office. In my Press Statement of 22 August I made it clear that in the current year the Taxation Office will be given, in addition to a staff increase of 313 to cope with greater workloads, a specific allocation of another 392 people for increased audit and information checking activities. My statement also acknowledged that the Government has agreed to planned additional staff increases in 1985-86 and 1986-87 to bring the annual audit coverage up to a figure of 1 per cent of business taxpayers by the end of that period. The aim of the Government is to provide sufficient resources to the Taxation Office to reach a 2 per cent audit coverage objective by 30 June 1992. It can be said that this planned increase in staff over a number of years has the full support of the Commissioner of Taxation who fully recognises the resource difficulties that would obtain if far greater increases were given in a much shorter period. It should be well recognised that a planned approach of this nature takes into account the need for all the recruitment and training that must be undertaken to produce an effective taxation auditor.'' Mr Redlich next urges that State courts exercising Federal jurisdiction should be materially and directly assisted by the Commonwealth. There is no question that State courts exercising Federal jurisdiction play a substantial part in the Federal criminal justice system and Federal criminal cases take up a significant portion of their time. What Mr Redlich does not refer to however is that, since Federation, the States ' responsibility for their courts exercising Federal jurisdiction has been recompensed not by specific purpose payments but by general revenue assistance. The Treasury has pointed out that relative costs and disability factors influencing the costs of court administration, including the relative burden of Commonwealth prosecutions are taken into account by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its reviews of State relativities. In the Treasury's view, if specific purposes assistance were provided in this area, this would clearly have consequences for the provision of general purpose funds to the States. Nevertheless, I have made it clear that I am prepared to discuss these issues with my State counterparts and indeed I have already had discussions in this regard with the New South Wales Attorney-General. As to Mr Redlich's reference to a recent Internal Management Review of the AFP and associated matters, my colleague, the Special Minister of State, has supplied the following information- ''following the Minister's approval the Commissioner established a Joint Management Review into the Australian Federal Police to review the use of resources and to make recommendations on ways in which resources could be optimised. the review commenced on 9 January 1984 and was completed in April-it was the first such detailed and complete review done of the organisation since it was created in 1979. the review produced two reports and made 124 substantial recommendations the majority of which have been accepted and are being implemented. implementation is programmed for completion by 1 January 1985. the recommendations are essentially a watershed in the development of the AFP and depart from the ''traditional police'' approach in the recruitment, selection, training, deployment and promotion of members. Their implementation will provide for the AFP to develop skilled police resources more quickly than in the past, optimise the use of other human resource skills (e.g. consultants, specialist staff) and enhance the ability of the AFP to respond to the requirements of Government. the AFP's ability to recruit and absorb large staff increases will be greatly enhanced as a result of the implementation of the JMR's recommendations. removal of the protective service functions will enhance management's capacity to make the most efficient use of resources. specialised training in accountancy and corporate fraud is being provided.'' The Minister of State has also made the following general comments: ''the effect of increased resources and enhanced structures (NCA, DPP, review of criminal law, positive duty on all agencies to assist law enforcement) will not be felt overnight. time is needed for the new agencies and structures to consolidate, establish their co-operative working arrangements and complete the long training lead- times. the improved AFP career structure being implemented as a result of the JMR will reduce ''poaching'' by departmental investigative units. This is not considered a great problem at present in any case. The AFP is working closely with other Commonwealth agencies such as Health, Social Security and Telecom to produce a rational and cost-effective approach to law enforcement. on the question of co-ordination with other regulatory bodies, the Government considers that there may often be advantages in having specialised or technical staff from a Department investigate certain regulatory offences up to a specified level, rather than involving expensive police resources early on. As to statistics on criminal offences, these are being improved by joint efforts with the States through the Police Commissioners' Conference.'' CHAPTER 7-THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION My colleague the Minister for Communications has supplied the following information. ''Mr Redlich's observations regarding the Australian Telecommunications Commission (Telecom) are in the main a recapitulation of a chain of events which commenced shortly after he put before the Minister of Communications, Mr Duffy, information relating to alleged illegal activities by certain employees of Telecom. This information formed the basis of a Review undertaken by Mr F. H. R. Vincent QC, in March this year. The report resulting from this Review was tabled in the House of Representatives on 7 September 1984. The specific matters raised by Mr Redlich were rigorously examined by Mr Vincent who during the course of his review consulted among others, with Mr Redlich himself, the Chairman and senior management of Telecom, Federal and State representatives of various law enforcement agencies and persons who had been involved in investigations of organised crime and who had expressed views in relation to Telecom and organised crime. I note that Mr Redlich (at paragraph 7.12 of his report) confirms that he has never had any evidence of the existence of widespread corruption within Telecom. Mr Redlich's observation in this regard certainly supports Mr Vincent's findings that perceptions of substantial corruption within Telecom were not supported by the evidence. As to the alleged illegal activities of individual Telecom employees, Mr Vincent concluded that only a very small proportion of the cases involved substantial amounts of money or valuable property. This was not to suggest that the total cost to the organization may not be substantial, that the incidence of misappropriation or theft of a relatively minor nature is not more widespread or that there have not been major incidents which have gone undetected. Given all this, however, Mr Vincent said that there is nothing to suggest that there is in Telecom other than the level of criminal behaviour which must be anticipated in any large organisation with considerable stock and equipment and numerous outlets. A statement detailing the Government's response to the Vincent Review has been made today in the House of Representatives by the Special Minister of State, Mr Young. That statement sets out several positive steps taken by the Government to address the recommendations in the Vincent report, which are, of course, directly relevant to Mr Redlich's observations. It is unnecessary to re-state the action outlined by Mr Young in relation to the Vincent report. It can usefully be pointed out, however, that the Government has accepted the broad thrust of Mr Vincent's recommendations subject to further examination of particular recommendations. Mr Vincent's findings in respect of the use to which subscriber call record printing (SCRP) machines should or could be put are somewhat at variance with Mr Redlich's recommendation that SCRP machines should be made lawfully available to police forces to help them detect the operational headquarters of various crime rings. Mr Vincent viewed the unfettered use of SCRP machines as quite unacceptable. He felt that a proper balance could be struck between the competing claims to privacy and the need for effective and efficient police investigation if the use of the machines was limited to the investigation of serious crimes and was strictly controlled. This included the requirement that such operations come within the warrant procedures under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 and the need for reports to Parliament by the Attorney- General. Mr Vincent was also of the opinion that Police should have access only to the information produced by the machines and not to the machines themselves. In addition to the views of Mr Vincent and Mr Redlich on the use of SCRP machines, the Government must also take into account the views of the Australian Law Reform Commission on the SCRP issue, contained in its recent report on privacy. The Government is considering the several recommendations on the use of SCRP machines now before it, and will respond to this matter when dealing with the Australian Law Reform Commission Report on Privacy. In relation to co-operation between the Australian Federal Police and Telecom, there has already been an extensive revision of the working arrangements between these two bodies, in accordance with Mr Vincent's recommendations, which will enable a greater involvement of the Australian Federal Police either independently or in conjunction with Telecom officers, in investigations of alleged illegal activity. Telecom has also commenced a major review of its administrative procedures in line with Mr Vincent's recommendations. The Government is confident that the several steps outlined above will contribute significantly to the resolution of the matters Mr Redlich has raised.' CHAPTER 8-BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS My colleague, the Treasurer has provided the following comments on the matters contained in this chapter. 'Most of the Special Prosecutor's recommendations in relation to banking and financial institutions are broadly similar to those made previously by Mr Costigan in his 5th Interim Report into the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. These recommendations are under careful study by the Government. They raise significant issues for consideration in an area of the economy that has been the subject of far-reaching review in the context of the Report of the Australian Financial System Review Group (Martin Report) and is currently undergoing quite significant structural changes. The recommendations by Mr Redlich concerning the regulation of merchant banks and authorised foreign exchange dealers will also be carefully examined by the Government.' In paragraphs 8.15 to 8.27, Mr Redlich illustrated difficulties he had encountered in obtaining evidence as to overseas banking records under the letter of request procedure. He recommends that the Government should seek to negotiate adequate treaties with countries to ensure access by Australian law enforcement authorities to records of overseas banking institutions. The Government recognises the desirability of having such access but notes that there is likely to be special difficulty in negotiating arrangements that would enable access for the purpose of currency or revenue prosecutions. I shall take the matter up with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. CHAPTER 9-COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION My colleague the Treasurer has supplied the following information in relation to the chapter. 'Mr Redlich has made a number of recommendations in relation to taxation matters. He has suggested that there should be a review of the methods of ensuring compliance with the taxation system to overcome the wilful non-disclosure of income by criminals. The view of the Taxation Office has been that it is not so much a review of methods that is required as resources that would enable it to carry out this work. It notes that Mr Redlich acknowledges the difficulties in identifying the existence of some of these entities. It also notes that the increased resources that are to be provided to the Taxation Office in this and in future years will be of considerable assistance in this area.' Mr Redlich has also recommended that there be a closer association between the Australian Taxation Office and police investigators. As to this, the Taxation Office has advised that it is well aware of the need to maintain a close liaison with the Federal Police during an investigation that is directed at prosecution action as well as civil remedies. At the present time, there are a number of cases involving both the income tax law and the sales tax law where there is close liaison between Taxation officers and Federal Police officers. In all these cases any taxation information relevant to the matter is made available to the Federal Police. Mr Redlich has suggested that the secrecy provisions of the income tax law should be interpreted to ensure the free-flow of relevant information between members of the law enforcement agencies who are conducting investigations. The Taxation Office has advised that it does not see the secrecy provisions of the law as in any way inhibiting it from providing taxation information to the Federal Police or to the Director of Public Prosecutions where the Taxation Office has a reasonable suspicion that a taxpayer has committed any taxation offences or criminal offences associated with the administration of the taxation laws. In fact, it has already entered into working arrangements with the Director of Public Prosecutions along these lines. Mr Redlich has suggested that the Taxation Office should take positive action to raise default assessments against criminals rather than go through the lengthy procedure of attempting to carry out a full investigation to determine the level of omitted income. There have been many occasions where the Taxation Office has been forced to raise default assessments against taxpayers who are not prepared to disclose income and this has been done in the criminal area and in other areas. At the same time, the Taxation Office must be always aware of the need to defend any assessment that it raises and it is certainly not an answer to say that the law puts the burden on the taxpayer of proving the assessment to be excessive. In addition, the Taxation Office does not want to act in a way that could be seen as an abuse of power. As to the recommendation that the Taxation Office should direct its investigative resources towards the location of assets and towards adopting timely assessment procedures, the Taxation Office has indicated that it is well aware of the need to do these things. This is a normal part of the procedures taken in any of these cases. Mr Redlich has also made a number of recommendations relating to Taxation Boards of Review. These recommendations have as their aim the more expeditious hearing of references to the Boards, increased flexibility in the operation of the Boards and the discouragement of taxpayers seeking references to a Board in order to delay the final resolution of their dispute or to generally inconvenience the Taxation Office. Of the six recommendations made in this area, four would require, either in whole or in part, amendments to the present law and, as to this, the Government already has under consideration a substantial report by the Administrative Review Council in respect of Taxation Boards of Review. This report was tabled in Parliament last year and most of the recommendations made by Mr Redlich would come within the compass of the examination of that report that is presently taking place. Of the two recommendations that do not require any amendment to the existing law, one is that the boards of review adopt call-over procedures to encourage taxpayers to agree to an early hearing of their dispute or to abandon that dispute. As to this, the boards of review have already adopted this practice and it is achieving worthwhile results. The other recommendation that does not require an amendment, notwithstanding Mr Redlich's view that an amendment is required, concerns the power of a board of review to give priority to the hearing of demonstrably urgent cases. Income tax regulation 37 provides that references to a board of review shall be dealt with by a board in the order in which they are received unless the Chairman otherwise directs. Accordingly, it is within the power of a chairman to achieve the result sought by Mr Redlich and there have been occasions where the Chairman has exercised this power. Mr Redlich has also recommended that the Income Tax Assessment Act be amended to provide for increased penalties for breaches of the taxation law. Notwithstanding this recommendation, it is noted that Mr Redlich acknowledges that he is aware that legislation is being drafted to do just this and assumes that these amendments are a response to recommendations that he made in his 1982 -83 report. The facts are that following an extensive review of taxation penalties by the Taxation Office, in association with the Attorney-General's Department, amendments to the penalty provisions of the taxation laws were agreed to by the Government some time ago and certainly this process was well in train before Mr Redlich presented his 1982-83 report. This matter was referred to in the 1984-85 Budget Statements and I will be introducing a Bill proposing significant increases in the penalty provisions of the taxation laws in the very near future. While on this subject, reference should also be made to another recommendation of Mr Redlich that section 221YHD of the income tax law be amended to provide for the summary hearing of prosecutions in appropriate cases. This section provides for certain penalties where persons do not comply with certain requirements of the new prescribed payments system. Mr Redlich makes the point that under the present law offences under this section are indictable and accordingly must be prosecuted by way of a committal hearing and subsequent trial, thus imposing a significant workload on investigating police, prosecutors and the court. He suggests that there should be flexibility to allow for summary disposition of the majority of offences under the prescribed payments system. As already indicated, the penalty provisions of the income tax law have been extensively reviewed and, while the results of that review will have to await the introduction of legislation by me, it can be said that the question of whether certain offences should be dealt with as indictable or summary offences has been addressed as part of this review.'' CHAPTER 10-TAPED CONVERSATIONS OF ROBERT TRIMBOLE I discussed this portion of the report very fully in my answer to Senator Robert Ray in the Senate on 7 September 1984, see Hansard pages 670-671. CHAPTER 11-INFORMATION MANAGEMENT BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR As this chapter indicates, with my approval and the assistance of my Department , an effective information processing system was established in the Office of the Special Prosecutor and this system is now being used by the Director of Public Prosecutions. To this end, funds totalling $388,643 were made available by the Government. CHAPTER 12-ADVISORY WORK AND LAW REFORM In this chapter Mr Redlich described advisory work conducted by his office and makes a number of recommendations for changes in the law. I should briefly comment on those recommendations. Proposal to amend section 212 of the Customs Act 1901 to permit an arrested person to be held for a limited period for questioning before he is charged. This raises one of the central issues that will be dealt with in my forthcoming review of the Criminal Investigation Bill. Proposal to introduce legislation of general application to ensure that a prisoner serving a sentence in an overseas country can be brought to give evidence in a criminal trial and then be returned to that overseas country to complete their sentence Mr Redlich's account of this matter does not disclose that, following his representations, urgent action was put in train to obtain the necessary legislation but the immediate need disappeared when the prospective witness withheld his consent to the arrangements for travel and giving evidence. The proposal for future general legislation appears to have merit but, because the States have a marked interest in the matter (a prospective witness is at least as likely to be required for trial of a State offence as for trial of a Commonwealth offence and would, in any event, need to be held in a State prison) , I propose to raise the matter in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Clearly this proposal will require arrangements with other countries and I, therefore, propose to raise the desirability of treaty arrangements to this effect in the next Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting in 1985. I shall ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to raise the matter on appropriate occasions with other countries. Proposal that the requirement of 'materiality' be removed from the perjury offences created under the Crimes Act 1914 and the Royal Commissions Act 1902. On Mr Redlich's own account, deletion of the requirement of 'materiality' will not significantly affect the operation of these Acts. I shall ask Mr Justice Watson to give his attention to this suggestion in the course of his review of the Commonwealth Criminal Law. Proposal that legislation be introduced at both State and Federal levels to provide for State courts to exercise simultaneously Federal and State jurisdiction. Mr Redlich's concern, as I understand it, is that a court should be able to deal with Commonwealth and State criminal charges on the one indictment. I understand that in some States this is already possible but there are difficulties in other States by reason of the terms of State law. However, I have asked my Department to report to me urgently on this suggestion. Proposal that the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 be amended to permit a record of a lawfully intercepted conversation to be introduced in evidence by means of a certificate. My Department has under consideration a similar proposal and I shall shortly be making a submission to Cabinet on the matter. Proposal that the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 be amended to permit the release of intercepted information to persons concerned with a prosecution of an offence of which the Commissioner has previously released the information. Apparently, Mr Redlich's proposal is that, to remove any doubt, the Act should explicitly state that a prosecutor, in preparing for a particular case, should have access to intercepted information that the Commissioner of the AFP. has communicated under paragraph 7 (5) (b) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to a police officer for the purpose of investigating the offence involved in that case. My Department has already advised that, by necessary implication, communication to the prosecutor is lawful. However, Mr Redlich's suggestion can be implemented when the Act is next amended. Proposal that Section 10 of the Crimes Act be amended to provide a procedure to deal with disputed claims for legal professional privilege. This matter will be dealt with in my coming review of the Criminal Investigation Bill. Proposal that interpreters properly trained and familiar with police procedures be available to assist the AFP in the conduct of interviews. My colleague the Special Minister of State has supplied the following information. 'The AFP presently uses the services of interpreters supplied by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and other officially recognised agencies. The new recruitment opportunities and structural flexibility being opened up as the JMR's recommendations are implemented will make available to the AFP full-time interpreters, along with many other specialists.' The Criminal Investigation Bill will regulate the provision of interpreters when persons not fluent in the English language are interviewed by the police. Proposal that the Attorney-General determine whether the due administration of criminal justice requires that a committal proceedings or a decision by a Minister to consent to the institution of a prosecution should be reviewable under the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The Administrative Review Council is, at my request, undertaking a complete review of the operation of the AD (JR) Act 1977. The Council has been asked to pay particular attention to the question whether committal proceedings and decisions to consent to the institution of prosecutions should be reviewable under the Act. It is noted that the exclusion from that Act of decisions in the course of committal proceedings in State courts may have the effect of reviving the review jurisdiction of State Supreme Courts now excluded by section 9 of the Act. Proposal that the Evidence Act be amended to allow for certification of transcripts of evidence before Federal courts or tribunals and their admission into evidence of such transcripts as prima facie evidence of their contents. I have asked my Department to provide a report on Mr Redlich's proposal and on alternative procedures to achieve the same general result. Care will need to be taken to ensure that an unreasonable burden of proof is not imposed on defendants in criminal proceedings. Proposal that a standard letter of request procedure be introduced applicable to all Commonwealth litigation and this should expressly permit applications to be made ex parte by the prosecution. The matter of obtaining evidence from overseas is at present before the Standing Committee. I shall ensure that the review extends to the matters raised by Mr Redlich. CHAPTER 13-ADMINISTRATION It should be noted that the Government provided staff totalling 63 to Mr Redlich and funds to the extent of $2,557,500 were provided for his activities for the year 1983-84. I am particularly pleased to note that Mr Redlich refers to a smooth transition from his Office to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Senator GARETH EVANS —In conclusion, further attention needs to be given to a number of matters raised by Mr Redlich. As regards matters within the responsibility of my Department, I have arranged for the establishment of a task force to report to me at the end of one month on how these remaining matters are dealt with and how Mr Redlich's report has been implemented to the extent appropriate. Matters within the responsibility of other Ministers have been drawn to their attention and I am sure that they will be taking like action. The Government is grateful for the effective and energetic manner in which Mr Redlich carried his responsibilities. I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter dated 10 September 1984 which was sent to me from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, and which is referred to in the body of the statement and in fact forms part of it. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 10 September 1984 Senator The Honourable Gareth Evans, Attorney-General, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Attorney, I refer to your letter dated 7 September 1984 in which you have sought my urgent comments on those recommendations in Mr Redlich's Report which concern the Director of Public Prosecutions. I note that the Report was tabled in Parliament on Friday 7 September 1984 and I understand that the Government proposes to provide its immediate response to the Report in the near future. You will appreciate that, having regard to the short period of time I have had to consider the Report, it is not possible for me to provide you at this stage with a detailed response on all the recommendations Mr Redlich has made which concern this Office. There are, however, a number of matters dealt with in the Report which have been under consideration within the Office for some time. On those matters the views Mr Redlich has expressed and the recommendations he has made merely confirm some of the preliminary views I have reached. Civil Remedies Pre-eminent amongst those matters are the restrictions on my function under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 to take civil remedy action. Having regard to the nature of my Office, I consider that we are uniquely placed to take effective civil remedy action in conjunction with prosecution functions in order to deprive ''the criminal of the proceeds of his illegal activity''. However, my effectiveness in this area is, and will continue to be, severely circumscribed so long as my function to take civil remedy action is limited by the requirement that a prosecution has been instituted. In this regard, you may be aware that your Department disagrees with a view we have expressed that paragraph 6 (1) (n) of the Act would enable me to exercise my civil remedy function prior to the actual institution of a prosecution. Whilst I have no firm view on the matter the wording of 6 (1) (h) could be said to be ambiguous. The experience of Special Prosecutor Redlich indicates that the necessity to take civil remedy action must be pursued prior to the actual institution of the relevant prosecution if the action is to be successful. Thus if the present limitation of my function as set out in paragraph 6 (1) (h) is maintained the power will be virtually useless. In my opinion it is no answer to say that the Australian Government Solicitor may take civil remedy action in circumstances where I am precluded from doing so . The A.G.S. has no authority to take such action in the absence of instructions from the authority concerned. Further, for the A.G.S. to take such action would in many instances effectively involve two separate organisations dealing with the same material from the very outset. The experience of the Special Prosecutor 's Office has shown the advantages of the one organisation being in a position to initiate both prosecution action and/or civil remedy action. I accordingly support Mr Redlich's recommendation for the removal of the requirement that my civil remedy function be connected with a prosecution that has been instituted. Further, if the Act were to be amended to provide this Office with the wider civil remedy function recommended, then I consider that the existing requirement that my civil remedy function may be only exercised in respect of those matters which are specified in an instrument under sub-section 6 (3) of the Act should be removed, as has been recommended by Mr Redlich. Whatever was the justification for that requirement in the existing Act, it seems to me that it would be unnecessarily restrictive to retain it in conjunction with the wider civil remedy function recommended. If we have the function sought, it is intended that this Office will in the actual conduct of proceedings work through the A.G.S. Pecuniary Penalties In respect of the function under paragraph 6 (1) (g) of the Act to take action for the recovery of pecuniary penalties, Mr Redlich has recommended that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have the function of instituting pecuniary penalties in respect of all matters complementary to current investigations or prosecutions under his control. That recommendation generally accords with my own view of the matter. As a matter of principle I consider that the role of the DPP should be to administer the enforcement of all provisions of Commonwealth Acts which create offences, however described, irrespective of whether the means of enforcement is by prosecutions or by proceedings to recover a pecuniary penalty. A large number of pecuniary penalties are essentially indistinguishable from provisions of other Acts which create offences. Committal Proceedings etc. In his report Mr Redlich has recommended that you ''determine'' whether the due administration of criminal justice requires that a committal proceeding or a decision by a Minister to consent to the institution of a prosecution should be reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act''. My Office has recently provided a written submission to the Administrative Review Council in which the view has been expressed that the more appropriate forum for the review of decisions of committing magistrates is the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which the offence may be tried and that the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Courts prior to the AD (JR) Act to review such decisions should be returned to them. The view was also expressed that the appropriateness of decisions relating to the administration of criminal justice being reviewable under the AD (JR) Act should be reconsidered. As I have indicated above I hope to provide you with a detailed response on the Report in due course of time. In this regard, while many of the recommendations do not directly concern my powers and functions under the DPP Act, nevertheless they are of interest to this Office. I make particular mention of resources and the power to issue directions and guidelines. As to the former, it is too early to express a concluded view but the strong likelihood is that resources presently available will prove to be somewhat inadequate to perform the present DPP functions, and the position will be exacerbated by the advent of the National Crimes Authority. As to the latter, more extensive powers may well be necessary, but it is again too early to say. The further submission will also deal with recommendations 7, 8 and 9 of Chapter 5; 6 of Chapter 7; 5 and 6 of Chapter 8 and 1, 5, 7 and 11 of Chapter 12. Yours faithfully, IAN TEMBY Senator GARETH EVANS —Since this statement is a response to a report, I formally table it. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (i) Notes the Australian Heritage Commission Report released today, September 12, 1984, recommends that the Wet Tropic Region of North-East Queensland ( including the Daintree Rainforest) be nominated for inclusion in the World Heritage List because it fulfils all the criteria set out in the World Heritage Convention. (ii) Notes that the Queensland Wet Tropic Rainforests include: the most diverse rainforests in Australia a rare association of fringing coral reefs and rainforested coastline in the Cape Tribulation area 13 families of primitive flowering plants which give the area the highest concentration of such families on earth the highest diversity of animal life of any area in Australia and the only habitat for numerous species that are regarded as threatened elements of plant life that relate to the four major stages in the earth's evolutionary history, dating back more than 35 million years important clues to the problem of origin, evolution and migration of the flowering plants a record of the extreme effect of the Pleistocene glacial periods on tropical rainforest vegetation the only remaining recognised Australian Aboriginal rainforest culture and therefore a significant component of the cultural record of Aboriginal society, and many features of outstanding natural beauty. (iii) Notes that the Queensland Government has made it clear that Queensland will not nominate any areas of Queensland for the World Heritage List (iv) Condemns the Federal Government's response to the environmental desecration of Queensland rainforest as pathetic, a blatant political act and an abdication of responsibility for the natural heritage of this nation (v) Calls on the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to resign because of his total abandonment of the Daintree Rainforest. Debate resumed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.43) —The point of misunderstanding is now clear. There is no doubt that the Manager of Government Business advised the Whip on our side that this matter was coming on. I was aware that a motion would be moved but not when the matter would be brought on. That is why the difficulty arose. I would have preferred that the matter be dealt with tomorrow but in the light of the fact that the existing Senate resolution requires the material to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions tomorrow and in view of the undoubted efficiency of the Clerk which would mean that all the material could be sent off at one minute past nine tomorrow, it would be better if we dealt with this matter tonight. The Opposition will support the motion of rescission for the reasons outlined when Senator Tate made his statement earlier today. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.44) —I point out that I was not aware that this matter was to come on at this time. Maybe those who did not advise me appreciated that I would have been wholeheartedly in support of the rescission by reason of the fact that I was the only member of the Senate to vote against the motion in the first place. So I am very happy to support the motion for rescission. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.45) —in reply-I thank the honourable senators for their support and co-operation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That on Thursday 13 September 1984 Question Time take place after the giving of notices. Debate resumed. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.46) —The Senate has before it a private member's Bill introduced by the Australian Democrats. The Bill seeks to ban entry into Australian waters or air space above Australian waters of nuclear powered ships or aircraft or vessels armed with or carrying nuclear weapons. This proposal sounds very attractive indeed. All of us are keen to have peace. All of us abhor the thought of nuclear war. All of us would like to get rid of nuclear weapons. There is also a fear, I think a groundless one, of radiation leaking from nuclear powered vessels. The proposals in the Bill all sound good and sound as though they are the road to peace. When we examine the Bill coldly and dispassionately we see that it is exactly the reverse. There is a danger in Australia of polarising people into peacemakers and warmongers. If one wants to introduce such a Bill, one is a peacemaker. If one opposes it, one is a warmonger. It is just as though some people have a monopoly on peace and others are low in morality and values. That attitude has become dangerous. The Australian Labor Party during its terms in opposition opposed such things as the American installations, the American Exmouth Gulf tracking station, and the visits of nuclear propelled ships to Australia. In government now-and I commend it-it has seen the error of its ways and is supporting what were Fraser Government policies, which policies have been essential for the defence of Australia. I wish to oppose this Bill for sound, practical reasons. Instead of its moving towards the prevention of nuclear war or conventional war, I claim and assert that it will significantly weaken one side, the Western alliance; and potential destabilisation can provoke the danger of war. Were this to happen Australia would be weaker. The area around South East Asia would be weaker. More importantly, a measure such as this which touches only on one side of the equation and would weaken the manoeuvrability and flexibility of the Western alliance while not touching on the Iron Curtain countries at all must be the essence of nonsense. In the end, even Bertrand Russell had to admit that unilateral disarmament for peace was an impossibility and that, if we are to seek peace with dignity and justice, we must have a lowering of arms on both sides. We must have goodwill and understanding so the reduction in armament can occur. It does not make sense to do something that can destroy the flexibility of our alliances, in the case our alliance with the United States of America, while doing nothing at all about nuclear weaponry held by the other side. I hate to call it the other side because the essence of arms control and disarmament must be an aim to reduce and to eliminate permanent enmities or permanent divisiveness. Let us examine the situation. Senator Durack, in his speech, made the point that the Pacific theatre has become just as dangerous a theatre as Europe. During the parliamentary recess for a period of one month I went abroad to some three continents and spent the whole of that time trying to equip myself better for an understanding of what is meant by disarmament and arms control and of what are all the ingredients of a very complex problem. That journey took me to the United States of America to discuss with the top negotiators, the people who are actually doing the negotiations in the strategic arms reduction talks. I spoke with people such as General Rowney and General Scowcroft, and with government and people with opposite views. In London, I talked with governments and academics who held opposite views. I spoke to Russia-watchers and went to Brussels. I spoke to the top people in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I went to the Supreme Headquarters of Allied Powers in Europe and then to Geneva to sit in on the United Nations conference on disarmament. In the latter case, I met many of the 40 ambassadors on disarmament around the conference table. I met them privately as well as publicly and discussed privately with people from both sides of the Iron Curtain how they felt and what their policies were. Therefore, it was an attempt to get a balance without sitting in corners spitting at each other. Indeed, at Geneva I spoke not only to those of the Western Alliance and to those of the non-aligned group of 21, but also to the leaders from the Iron Curtain. Specifically, I spoke to the ambassador for disarmament from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, an impressive fellow by the name of Victor Israellian, to try to get an understanding of what has caused this confrontation, what can get a lowering of it and a cooling off. I started with some knowledge because as a previous Minister for National Development and Energy I had had a responsibility for nuclear non-proliferation, monitoring, surveillance and verification. In a peaceful way I had worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I tried to equip myself with an understanding so that I would not simply take a one-eyed view. What became perfectly clear everywhere in discussions was a fundamental admission that the first step towards any kind of disarmament or arms control must be to remove destabilising elements, to get an equivalence-I think the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) mentioned it in his speech-rather than an equality of armaments, with effective verification, monitoring and surveillance. Everyone on both sides of the Iron Curtain accepts that this is fundamental. It is accepted, for example, that it is fundamental to that that satellites doing surveillance across this earth should be protected against weapons to destroy them. Thus we have what is called the ASAT argument, the anti-satellite weaponry argument, and a growing understanding between nations that there should be a treaty prohibiting the use of missiles to destroy satellites. Why was that the commonly held belief? The answer to that is because the best peacekeeper that we could have is accurate surveillance. The satellite does surveillance so well that it will destroy the attempts of people who might want to pre-empt. The fascinating thing about that is that there is now almost a worldwide understanding on this. But as I said before, we cannot bring down a treaty to protect surveillance satellites if we do not also say that the base stations which receive and interpret their signals and pass them on should not be equally protected. If, indeed, as the world says, satellites are the best peacekeepers, surely the stations that receive their messages and intercept them are the strong peacekeepers. Why do we look at Pine Gap and Nurrungar in a negative way? Our main target is to ensure that peace is kept in this world. Is is nonsense to say that Australia would be more safe if, in fact, those satellite installations went. Unless those installations do there job, there is an increased danger of nuclear war. Let us say the ten commandments on this. There is no winner in nuclear war; no one escapes it. There can be no nuclear free zones in a nuclear war. If a nuclear war starts, the world would become irradiated and would be set upon destruction. There can be no small wars. Indeed , one of the ugliest things-it has preoccupied my mind enormously in recent years and months-is the knowledge that in future there can be no significant conventional wars that in any way contain the significant interests of the major powers, because the loser or the winner in a conventional war is likely to use theatre nuclear armaments and so the situation would escalate. That is the dilemma of NATO. The Attorney-General acknowledged this and I agree with him. I was in Brussels and Mons, in the actual cradle of war in the past, looking at this problem. We have to stop all significant wars, conventional and nuclear. Therefore, we must have our surveillance right. We must have installations to receive satellite messages. That is very important indeed. Equally, if there is to be stability, it must be achieved by removing destabilising elements, such as can be seen in the reduction of the hard silos of the Russians at this moment, and by getting an equivalence. We can talk downwards from there. If we have destabilisation there is a danger in this ugly situation of one side attempting pre-emption. If there is pre-emption, we will have war. Those are the key things and they are universally accepted. By this Bill, the Democrats, however inadvertently, are taking a measure of destabilisation. They are altering the flexibility of the Americans and their capacity to move in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. They are restricting them and by that restriction they are adding to the total destabilisation, the instability, of a dangerous and perilous world. It being two minutes to 7 o' clock, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being near the hour of 7 p.m., in accordance with sessional orders, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.58) —It is coincidental that my comments this evening, which are on taxation, follow shortly after a major announcement on taxation by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I had planned to raise the matter of a particular tax avoidance proposal before I knew that the Treasurer's announcement was imminent. I have no objection to citizens arranging their financial affairs so that, within the law, they minimise the tax which they are obliged to pay. When the tax law is complex, however, there will inevitably be those who will arrange their affairs in such a way that the intent of the law is undermined. In this case, the Parliament should strengthen the law to close off any unintentional loophole which may have appeared in the legislation it has previously passed. This evening I wish to speak about an arrangement which can be described only as a tax avoidance measure and which, if allowed to flourish, could undermine a greater part of our tax law. I consider that the Government will have to consider fresh legislation to close what I believe is a tax loophole. Since becoming aware of the intentions of one particular company to allow its shareholders to avoid tax, I have been informed that the scheme is not a new one and had, in fact, been used by companies prior to this date. If this is so, the Commonwealth has already suffered a loss of revenue from this scheme. What that means, of course, is that either other taxpayers have to make up the shortfall or the Government is unable to provide the level of services which it believes is necessary for the Australian people. This evening, I shall be referring to a plan by a Queensland based company, Defiance Mills Limited, to alter its articles of association to allow the company to facilitate tax avoidance by its shareholders. The company will have an extraordinary meeting in Toowoomba tomorrow to decide whether its articles should be amended. I am using Defiance Mills as an example of what could be occurring in other companies and what may be an ever-increasing practice if the Commonwealth holds that the scheme should be allowed to continue. As I shall be referring principally to Defiance, I declare that I have a small financial interest in the company. Together with my spouse, I jointly own a small parcel of ordinary shares in the company and a slightly larger number but still relatively small number, of the company's convertible notes. The company is a sound one and well respected. Its respect may, however, be tarnished if it goes ahead with its plans to alter its articles of association and use the revised articles in the way which it has intended. Basically, the plan is to allow shareholders to have the option of taking shares in the company in lieu of a cash dividend. On the face of it, such a proposal would seem to be harmless enough. However, it is only a thinly disguised tax avoidance measure, because the Chairman of the Board of Directors has stated that under normal circumstances the issue of shares will not attract Australian income tax, but a cash dividend would. Let us consider an investor who receives $1,000 a year in dividends from Defiance and whose other income is such that the marginal rate of tax payable by the investor is 60c in the dollar. That person's net return on the investment in the company would be $400, or $390 if the Medicare levy is taken into account. However, if that investor decided to take shares in lieu of the cash dividend, the net return would be about $1,000. There seems to be no reason why an investor could not sell an entitlement so obtained and, even if there were some legal bar, there is no reason why shares with a market price of $1,000 should not be disposed of from an existing holding. The investor is then $600 better off and the Commonwealth has lost revenue to the same extent. It would be interesting to know how many shareholders would opt for the cash dividends, even if their marginal rate of tax is less than 60c in the dollar. The legal niceties of this proposal are more complex than the summary which I have just outlined, but they do not alter the way in which the scheme will operate. A letter from the Chairman of the Board of Directors gives further detail of the proposed scheme and I seek leave to incorporate the text of that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 10 August 1984 Dear Shareholder, I am attaching Notice of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Company for the purpose of amending the Articles of Association of the Company. If the resolution is passed by the Company, it will mean that the Directors may decide in respect of any dividend or any portion of any dividend to be declared and paid by the Company that shareholders have the option to receive a normal cash dividend or to elect to forego the cash dividend and to receive instead an issue of ordinary shares credited as fully paid up. The issue price of the shares shall be 95% of market price as defined in proposed Article 135A.(b). Such ordinary shares will be funded by the capitalisation of reserves of the company which are tax free under present law and which include Share Premium Reserve, Asset Revaluation Reserve and Capital Profits Reserve to the extent such profits were derived from the sale of assets not acquired for the purpose of resale. Accordingly, you may expect, in normal circumstances, no liability for Australian Income Tax in respect of the issue of shares made pursuant to your Election. Of course, cash dividends which you receive will continue to form part of your Australian assessable income. If the resolution as attached is passed, your Directors will forward to you a Notice of Election prior to the payment of the next dividend and you may complete that Notice in respect of the whole of your shareholding or any portion thereof. If the Election is not completed and returned to the Company by the date nominated or if the election is not in respect of your total shareholding, you will receive a cash dividend in the normal way in respect of shares not covered by the Election. You will note that once having given the Notice of Election to the Company, it will continue to apply to those shares nominated by you unless you revoke the Election by written notice addressed to and received by the Company. The ordinary shares allotted pursuant to the Election will be issued immediately after the due date for payment of the dividend and will rank pari passu with the existing fully paid ordinary shares and will rank for all dividends on ordinary shares declared after the date of such allotment. Your Board recommends that the resolution be passed. Your faithfully, Defiance Mills Limited P. W. O'Brien Chairman of the Board of Directors Senator COLSTON —I consider that the proposed amendment to the articles of association is too lengthy to incorporate in Hansard. For any person who is interested in perusing it, the amendment is as readily available as the articles of association of any public company. I cannot agree with such a form of tax avoidance as proposed by this company and indeed by any other company in Australia. If a dividend is declared, it should be duly paid in cash and those who receive that cash dividend should pay their way by fulfilling their tax obligations. If a company for some reason wants more share capital, there are ways by which that capital may be obtained and shareholders can benefit from bonus issues or issues at par or premium values. The two should not be combined to allow shareholders to avoid tax that within the intent of the law should be paid. Some time ago, I referred Defiance's proposal to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to determine whether it breaches the current tax laws. As far as I can ascertain from the Treasurer's letter, it is a legal scheme. I seek leave to incorporate a reply from the Treasurer in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Dear Senator Colston, I have now received advice from the Commissioner of Taxation in relation to the proposal by Defiance Mills Limited to amend its Articles of Association to provide shareholders with the opportunity to take up an issue of ordinary shares credited as fully paid in lieu of a normal cash dividend. Documents relating to the proposal were enclosed with your letter of 15 August 1984. The Commissioner of Taxation has informed me that there is no liability to income tax on dividends paid to shareholders wholly and exclusively out of profits arising from the sale or revaluation of assets not acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit where the dividends are satisfied by the issue of shares. Nor is there any income tax liability on distributions from a share premium account. There are, however, safeguarding provisions in the income tax law to prevent manipulation of share premium accounts. To the extent, therefore, that the company makes distributions to its shareholders out of the funds referred to in the preceding paragraph the shareholders would not be liable to tax. The Commissioner stated that it is always necessary to be satisfied that, where a dividend is paid to shareholders out of profits arising from the sale or revaluation of assets not acquired for resale at a profit, it is paid wholly and exclusively out of those profits. Where companies pay dividends out of more than one fund, it is generally the practice to declare separate dividends out of each particular fund. In this way, the requirements of the income tax law are observed. If the declaration of the dividend were part of some wider arrangement which could be seen as having tax avoidance implications, it would be necessary to have regard to the safeguarding provisions and to the general anti-avoidance provisions of the income tax law. The Commissioner went on to say that the proposal has already been considered in his Office and he is satisfied, in the light of the explanations given by the company, that it is not a situation to which the safeguarding provisions or the general anti-avoidance provisions apply. Yours sincerely P. J. KEATING Senator COLSTON —I was not surprised that the proposal falls within the existing Commonwealth legislation, as I am sure that a company of Defiance's standing would have received appropriate legal advice before proceeding. Whilst the scheme may be legal, I consider that it breaches the intent of our tax laws. That being the case, the law should be changed to close this loophole and nip in the bud what would become an established tax avoidance scheme in Australia. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(7.07) —At a time when the Federal Government is contemplating allowing the entry of foreign banks into Australia, with the uncertainty as to whether they all have to comply with certain local equity guidelines, I wish to spend a few minutes demonstrating how ineffective the Foreign Investment Review Board can be and how detrimental its decisions or lack of decisions can be in relation to local employment in existing firms which are in a competitive position. The case that I wish to present concerns foreign investment in the Australian wool processing industry. Let me spend a few minutes going back into history so that we are all in a position to put this matter in its proper perspective. Amidst local opposition, yet with Government endorsement and assistance, a French firm, Prouvost Hefebvre, established the Riverina Wool Combing Pty Ltd in Wagga Wagga in 1980. Under the Commonwealth Regional Development Program, Riverina Wool Combing was offered a loan of up to $1.9m for seven years. The New South Wales Government made grants and other subsidies, with other inducements being offered by the Wagga City Council. In contributions towards the total expenditure on land, buildings and housing, $4m was estimated to be shared on the following basis-New South Wales Government, 60 per cent; Wagga City Council, 30 per cent; and Prouvost 10 per cent. There was local opposition because the wool textile industry already had excess capacity in the scouring and combing areas and at the same time the industry was 'struggling towards rationalisation'. In this scenario the local market was therefore fairly static. There was already active competition in Australia for the domestic market. Local combers were therefore somewhat dependent on exports for output levels to be maintained. Yet Australia's position in the export market was predominantly in residual areas due to the combination of competition from cheap South African and South American wools and duties which were applied to Australian exports. However, Government expectations produced a different picture. Firstly, and importantly, the Government expected and made it a condition-and this is the crunch line-that 50 per cent Australian equity would eventuate. That was the condition. Secondly, Riverina Wool Combing Pty Ltd was anticipated as an export earner for Australia, given that the total output was intended primarily for export and therefore would not interfere with the domestic market. The establishment of Riverina was also expected to generate economic and population growth in the Wagga Wagga region. One hundred new long term employment opportunities were predicted. Also the new plant would use existing local services, such as freight, engineering and repair. Unfortunately there was a dichotomy between expectation and actuality. Although established in 1980, Riverina Wool Combing is still 100 per cent foreign owned. Efforts are also being made by the company to become a significant competitor in the local market. Thus, the two fundamental aspects, indeed prerequisites, of the agreement have been wavered-firstly, equity and, secondly, market orientation. The consequences of this for the indigenous processing industry unfortunately are unfavourable. Local processors are at an economic and trading disadvantage. Closure of indigenous wool processers is predicted as imminent, and this would be of concern to Senator Messner. Job losses are thus likely. Indigenous wool processers have continued to agitate, yet hitherto the Government has not responded in any positive way. Prouvost was supposed to approach local companies with partnership proposals and keep the Government informed on the progress of these approaches. Yet nothing at all has arisen. The company has made the paradoxical contention that given its need to protect its technology and markets, an Australian competitor now would be incompatible. The Government has unquestioningly accepted this hollow argument and stated that it is government practice not to interfere in a foreign company's search for Australian equity given these commercial considerations. The Foreign Investment Review Board is a toothless tiger in such situations. I just wonder how it is acting in similar situations and, how it will act in relation to the entry of foreign banks into this country. One wonders where, or how, Prouvost will find a compatible company in the industrial sense that is not a competitor and which is interested in this sort of investment. The Government's submissiveness to this foreign company, despite the fact that two preconditions for its establishment have been breached, is worrying given the negative repercussions it has for the indigenous industry. I think this incident highlights a need for action both to rectify the equity problem now and to ensure a situation where this does not occur again. I regret that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who represents the Treasurer in this place, was not interested enough in this important subject to be present tonight although I gave him notice that I would be speaking. I hope that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will see fit to take this matter up because I regard it as one of great concern, as no doubt do many of his constituents. Senator HILL(South Australia)(7.14) —I wish to make a few brief comments during the adjournment debate about the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link. This issue has receded from public attention over recent months. Nevertheless, it remains an important and necessary national project which requires careful and considered assessment. The completion of the rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin was the stated intention of the previous Government. In 1981 it was announced that the project would go ahead at an estimated cost of $545m. On completion at the end of the decade, together with the completion of the Stuart Highway, Australia would have finally had a rail and highway network linking our major population and development centres. The rail link was supported at the time by the Australian Labor Party and during the last election campaign it committed itself to its completion. Unfortunately, like so many other promises given prior to the election, the Government failed to deliver. The subsequent findings of the report of the so-called Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, which was undertaken by the Chairman of the New South Wales State Rail Authority, Mr David Hill, and published last February, provided the Government with its justification for abandoning the project. The Hill report concluded that in present value terms the direct economic benefits of the rail link would be far outweighed by the costs of the project. The social benefits of the project, while believed to be 'considerable', were not, in the opinion of the Hill report, enough to warrant the construction of the rail link. It is not my intention at this stage to canvass in any detail the methodology adopted by the Hill committee to reach the conclusions it did with regard to the rail link. It is important to note, however, that the findings of the Hill committee differed significantly from those of the Northern Territory Government which, even under the worst possible scenario it considered, found that the rail link would achieve a real internal rate of return of 7.51 per cent. On the other hand, the Hill committee's estimates, even on its most favourable assessment of the project, indicated that any social benefits arising from the project would not close the cost-benefit gap and, as such, it was not viable. It should be noted that the approach adopted by the Hill committee in its assessment of the viability of the project looked only a the costs and benefits of the railway to be generated in the corridor between Alice Springs and Darwin. The Hill committee failed to examine the costs and benefits which would accrue over the entire rail and road system in Australia as a result of the construction of the proposed railway. Such effects should have been included in the Hill committee's evaluation of the project. Its failure to do so eliminated measurable benefits arising from lower road maintenance costs over a wider geographical area as well as the savings in marginal resources costs for each tonne/kilometre of freight transferred from road to rail. Differences also arose between the Hill committee and the Northern Territory submission in the estimates each made of freight volume that would be carried following the construction of the railway. The Hill committee argued, for example, that the Northern Territory submission had assumed too large a volume of freight, too optimistic a growth rate and an overstated potential rail-road split. As such, the committee argued that the Northern Territory's research model had an inherent bias in favour of the railway. In view of the discrepancies between the findings of the Hill committee and the Northern Territory as to the viability of the railway, it is interesting to examine more recent figures obtained by the economics and commerce group of the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. In view of the Hill committee's failure to consider the effects of the proposed rail link outside the Alice Springs to Darwin corridor, the Parliamentary Library asked the Northern Territory to rerun the research model it used to make its submission and use the Hill committee estimates of freight volume, freight growth and rail- road split but evaluating the effects over a wider geographical area than the Darwin-Alice Springs corridor. The results of that simulation were provided to the Library via telex in June. I seek leave to have a copy of that telex incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Northern Territory's model has been re-run to conform with your request to substitute the freight forecasts and growth rates of the Hill Inquiry, for those used in the original work by the Northern Territory. An additional modification has been made to use the Hill Inquiry's mode-split (76% to rail) rather than the marginally higher mode split adopted in the original work. All other parameters remain the same a those specified in the N.T.'s submission. For the purposes of modification, the worst case model is used i.e. the lowest freight forecast of 1.182m tonnes or 2395 m NTK (Road and rail) in the 'With Rail' case. (see p.102, vol. 1). Taking Hill's illustrative projection I (1.115m tonnes in year 1) and translating this to a national transport task results in the following: Freight demand, with rail case, year 1 Road-542 m NTK Rail-1717 m NTK Total-2259 m NTK Saving in year 1-$36.73m Appraisal period-40 years Rate of growth-2.75- p.a. Net present value (NPV) of total cost/benefit stream at 7- discount rate-$80m Internal rate of return (discount rate which yields a zero NPV)-6.32- p.a. Hill's illustrative projection II provides a better result than the N.T.'s worst case. Total transport task is not provided by Hill in this case, only an estimate of 949,000 tonnes assigned to rail in year 1. Assuming 76% mode share for rail, this translates to a total transport task of 1,249,000 tonnes in year 1, with the following result when translated to a national transport task. Freight demand, with rail case, year 1 Road-607 m NTK Rail-1924 m NTK Total-2531 m NTK Saving in year 1-$41.13m Appraisal period-40 years Rate of growth-2.97- p.a. NPV (7- discount rate)-$34m IRR-7.27- p.a. Senator HILL —The insertion of the Hill committee estimates into the model provides some interesting results. First, using the more optimistic of the Hill committee estimates, the model shows the project would generate an internal rate of return of 7.27 per cent. This would, therefore, provide an acceptable rate of return. Another way of expressing the result is that using a discount rate of 7 per cent the project would return a positive net present value of $34m. When the more pessimistic of the Hill committee's freight task estimates are used, an internal rate of return of 6.32 per cent is generated. Although this is much higher than the figure generated by the Hill assessment it may not be a sufficient rate of return for such a large publicly funded project. However, as I pointed out, it is certainly well above the rate of return that was originally estimated by the Hill committee. Again, using a 7 per cent discount rate, a figure of minus $80m is calculated. It should, however, be noted, as I indicated at the commencement of my remarks, that the range of social benefits which would occur from this project are not included in such calculations. But the discrepancy between direct costs and benefits as estimated by the committee was so great that the committee seemed to assume implicitly that the consideration of social benefits was still unlikely to lead it to reverse its decision. But on the new figures, when these benefits are taken into consideration it appears that the Hill committee may well have been hasty in dismissing the viability of the project. In the light of these findings I would argue that the benefits of the railway have been considerably underestimated by the Hill committee. The huge gap found by the Hill committee between the costs and benefits of the proposed railway may in fact be much closer. Therefore, the social benefits of the project, which the Hill Committee admitted would be considerable but did not seriously attempt to evaluate, could turn the rail link into a viable project. I stress that that is so even on Hill's figures. I therefore urge the Government to re-examine its attitude to the Hill committee's report in the light of these findings. It might not have long to run as a government but its conscience would benefit if it were able at least on this occasion to meet one of its election promises. These new figures might just give it the basis to do so if it is really interested in the future economic prosperity of South Australia and the Northern Territory. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(7.21) —Tonight I want to make a few remarks to the Senate on small business. Small business is the way to go to ensure Australia's future prosperity. It is crucial that we do everything to encourage the small business sector to grow. The fact is that nearly 16 per cent of the workforce are self-employed, conducting their own businesses. As well as that, they employ a further 40 per cent of the private sector workforce. It is worth noting, too, that over 90 per cent of the growth industries start out as small businesses, not as new ventures by large public companies. Small businesses proliferate competition. They depend on new ideas and require high levels of effort to achieve productivity. On the other hand, large enterprises oppress then consolidate markets. While this may achieve economies of scale, job levels are drastically reduced. Small business is a job creator. Last year small business in Queensland created 45,500 new jobs. Queensland's percentage increase is 4.6% compared to the national average of 3.7%. The jobs were not created in manufacturing or mining; the majority have been found in the small business sector. Politicians must be realistic and face up to the fact that the manufacturing industry will not create jobs, at least not in the short term. In the past year, there have been 71 major plant closures. In 1973-74, the metal and engineering industry had a workforce of 620,000. Last year the workforce stood at 470,000-a loss of 150,000 jobs in 10 years. Despite all the attempts to cloud over the situation, the outlook for the heavy engineering and construction industry is grim. The problem is that we have saddled our manufacturing industry with crippling costs which make it all but impossible to compete in the world markets. Cost after cost has been heaped upon the manufacturing sector. Labour add-on costs have grown in New South Wales from an additional 21.8 per cent in 1970 to 40 per cent in 1982-an increase of 82 per cent in on-costs per wages dollar in the two- year period. This makes the costs of the worker to his employer much greater than the salary he receives. On-costs have grown to the extent that they are one of the major barriers to new employment. They include leave accruals, public holidays, holiday loadings, sick leave and bereavement leave, State payroll taxes and surcharges, workers compensation premiums, accident pay insurance and other labour related insurance expenses, such as public liability and life insurance. If a company employs a worker on a salary of $300 a week, the real cost of the employee to that company is $409. Looking at the development of on- costs since 1973, it is easy to see where increases have occurred. Annual paid leave has increased from three to four weeks and holiday loadings have been introduced, as well as bereavement leave. The latest add-on costs came courtesy of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Last week it approved very generous redundancy payments. The so-called sunrise industries have been put forward as the great hope for the future. We can only wait and see what they will achieve. However, we can already see what is happening in the United States. Many people have been impressed by the creation of new employment in the United States. From November 1982 to the present, 6.3 million people have found work in the United States and unemployment has fallen from 10.7 per cent to 7.5 per cent. These are not cosmetic jobs created under community employment programs funded by the taxpayer ; they are permanent jobs. The jobs created have been in small business. The job surge has been in new fast food and other restaurant positions. Nearly two million jobs have opened up in this area alone. The point is they are jobs and they have come from small and medium sized companies. The United States, with its privately sponsored Olympic Games, is supposedly the land of big business employing thousands of people. Yet according to Fortune magazine the top 500 industrial forms have shed 2.2 million jobs. That is more than 10 per cent of the US work force. America's job growth has been in the service sector, ranging from neurosurgery through to car park attendants. Another aspect of the American economy is that Americans have priced themselves into jobs by accepting lower real wages. Labour costs in America have actually fallen by 2.8 per cent since 1982. The message to Australia is, firstly, that small business can lead a job revolution and kill off unemployment, which we all agree is our biggest problem at the moment. Secondly, to do this it needs a reduction in labour costs and an environment which encourages the small businessman. Unions should get off small business's back with claims for penalty rates, superannuation payouts and portable long service leave. Thirdly, governments must bend over backwards to help small business. They must cut payroll tax and other charges which cripple small businesses. Governments are learning slowly the importance of small business to the economy and are at least beginning to pay more attention to its needs. Small business has flexed its political muscle in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. It can show very decisively, exactly its attitudes towards government philosophies and policies. Governments must respond by reducing the tax burden of the small businessman. Last week I attended a national small businessmen's conference in Sydney, and the plight of one small businessman attending graphically illustrates the tax burden under which small businessmen labour. This gentleman started a business, investing $10,000 of his own money and borrowing $90,000. In his first year of operation, he lost $15,000. In his second year he made $15,000 profit and, in his third year, made $100,000 profit. However, out of that $100,000 he had to pay $46,000 company tax and $33,000 personal income tax. This left him with an income for the three years of $21,000 . In the meantime, he had made sales of $2m over the three years. This had produced $650,000 in revenue for the Government. He was also saddled with payroll tax which amounted to $90,000 for the three years operation. So he had $ 21,000 to show for three years of very hard work and the Government had $819,000 courtesy of his effort. This will not encourage small businessmen to invest. Governments must reduce the level of tax on the small businessman to provide the incentive to start a small business. However, there is only so much governments can do. Take another excellent example of small business-tourism. From 1971 to 1982 Queensland jobs in tourist related activities grew by 3.3 per cent a year-faster than the 2.5 per cent growth in total Queensland employment. The Australian Bureau of Industry Economics calculated that one job is supported in the tourist industry by every 20 international visitors. Altogether tourists put $872.8m into Queensland's economy last year, and there is potential for even more spectacular growth. I am sure all honourable senators agree with me in saying that Queensland has outstanding tourist potential. I conclude by saying that small business is the way out of Australia's job problems. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.29) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the adjournment debate and undertake to refer to the appropriate Ministers those matters raised by them. In particular the matters raised by Senator Colston and Senator Watson seem appropriate for some follow-up action or at least a noting by the Ministers concerned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.30 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal No . 7 of 1984-New topics to be included in the population survey-October and December 1984. Defence Act-Determinations 1984- No. 36-Allowance for Loss on Sale of Furniture and Effects. No. 37-Recreation Leave and another. Export Control Act-Orders 1984-No. 4-Meat Orders (Amendment No. 4). Public Service Act-Determinations 1984-Nos 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determinations 1984- No. 23-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices- Members (other than the Chairman), National Crime Authority and others, dated 26 July 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 687) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) Has the Federal Government given approval for the two upgrading projects concerning the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory, for which contracts have already been awarded and for which a total expenditure of $850 000 is anticipated. (2) Are there a number of other Stuart Highway projects, with a total expected construction expenditure of $3.55 million which have not yet received approval from the Government. (3) Why have the above projects not as yet been approved by the Government. (4) When will a decision be made on their future. (5) Will the Minister for Transport guarantee that, if construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway is not to proceed, funding will be provided under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development and Commonwealth Road Grants Act programs for the accelerated upgrading of the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) The Chief Minister's repeated repudiation to the Prime Minister of the need to upgrade the Stuart Highway required that I satisfy myself that the proposed works were in fact warranted. I arranged for a technical inspection of the highway to satisfy myself they were required. On 23 April 1984, as a result of this inspection, I approved the projects submitted by the Northern Territory. In addition to the normal program of works a special budget allocation of $5m for road and rail improvements has been made for the Northern Territory in 1984- 85; $2.7m of this has been allocated for the accelerated upgrading of the Stuart Highway this year. (Question No. 914) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 30 May 1984: (1) What provisions are made for full time employees of the Department of Administrative Services to attend Defence Force Reserve training. (2) What provisions are made for part time employees of the Department to attend Defence Force Reserve training. (3) Do part time employees receive a 15 per cent loading of their salary in lieu of all paid leave. (4) Does this mean that every part time employee is being compensated for Defence Force Reserve training time if this 15 per cent loading is intended to include a portion for this training time. (5) Will the Minister for Administrative Services make provision for part time employees of his Department to attend Defence Force Reserve training on a similar and proportional basis to full time employees, if this 15 per cent loading does not include a portion for Defence Force training time. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Public Service regulation 61D provides that officers and employees of the Australian Public Service who are members of the Defence Force Reserve may be granted leave of absence to undertake annual training and for compulsory attendance at a school, class or course of instruction conducted for members of the Reserve. Leave granted is with pay and maximum periods of leave during any financial year are specified in the regulation. Where it is not in the public interest to grant leave at a particular time it may be granted at a later time for attendance at an equivalent camp or course of instruction. (2) Part time employees are accorded the provisions of Public Service regulation 61D outlined above. (3) Only those part time employees who work less than 24 hours per week, or less than 4 days per week receive a 15 per cent loading of their salary in lieu of recreation leave, sick leave, maternity leave and payment for public holidays . The 15 per cent loading does not restrict access to other types of leave (such as leave for the purposes of Defence Force Reserve training) normally available to other employees generally. (4) No. (5) All part time employees of the Department of Administrative Services, whether their salary has a 15 per cent loading or not, are eligible to be granted leave for the purposes of Defence Force Reserve training on the same basis as any other officer or employee of the Department. Senator Walsh —On 23 August 1984 (Hansard, page 257), Senator Macklin asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, a question without notice concerning the rise in the level of export inspection receipts and the variation to Export Inspection Service staffing levels included in Budget Paper No. 5. The Minister for Primary Industry has confirmed my response to the first part of the question that the principal reason for the projected large rise in export inspection charge receipts is the carry forward into 1984-85 of meat export inspection charges relating to 1983-84 slaughterings. These charges were not collected during 1983-84 due to the deferral of passage of the Livestock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill and the protest withholding of payment action by industry. The Minister has further advised that the projected rise in receipts is also attributable to the proposed introduction of new charges for honey, canned, processed and fresh fruit and vegetables, the closer alignment and actual recovery levels with the long standing 50 per cent recovery objective and small cost increases. Regarding the second part of Senator Macklin's question, I have been advised that the description 'Executive' should have read 'Executive and Administrative Support'. The increase in staff of 232 is notional as it represents an accounting transfer within the Department's appropriations. As noted in the footnotes to the respective pages of Budget Paper No. 5 Regional Office staff were paid from the administrative appropriation (Division 490, page 104 of Budget Paper No. 5) in 1983-84 however as these staff are functionally classified as Export Inspection Service personnel they have been accounted for under the Export Inspection Service appropriation (Division 495, page 106 of Budget Paper No. 5) in 1984-85. This transfer has no effect on the level of export inspection charges as these staff were already taken into account in arriving at the cost of the inspection service for charging purposes. (Question No. 777) Senator Chipp asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) What action does the Attorney-General intend to take in light of growing community concern at the Crimes Act prosecution of the suspended Foreign Affairs officer, Don Witheford, which was described by the Australian Capital Territory, Acting Chief Magistrate Dobson on 16 March 1984 as being 'conceived in prejudice and born in bias on the part of some officers in Foreign Affairs'. (2) Is the Attorney-General aware of the very strong views held by unions and staff associations on this issue. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The question of any further prosecution against Mr Witheford was a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. On 17 April 1984 the Director of Public Prosecutions decided that charge No. 635/84 in regard to the Tehran File should proceed and that charge No. 636/84 in regard to the Henderson personnel file should not be pursued. As honourable senators are undoubtedly aware, charge No. 636/84 was subsequently heard and dismissed, and the Director of Public Prosecutions announced there would be no appeal. I also understand that Mr Witheford has re- commenced duties with the Department of Foreign Affairs. (2) I am aware of the views on the issue of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Foreign Affairs Association, as the union and staff association most closely concerned with Mr Witheford's situation. (Question No. 834) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As at 3 August 1984, the following persons held appointments to boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Treasurer. Date Position/salary Name appointed Term Commonwealth Banking Corporation Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 Chairman $30,805 Prof. L. F. Crisp 19.2.84 5 years Deputy Chairman $23,104 Sir Brian Massy-Greene 8.3.83 5 years Member $15,402 H. D. Huyer, A.O. 19.8.80 5 years Member $15,402 H. C. Schmidt, C.B.E. 4.6.82 5 years Member $15,402 J. A. Rickard 18.7.82 5 years Member $15,402 C. O. Dolan, A.O. 8.3.83 5 years Member $15,402 J. J. Kennedy, C.B.E. 19.2.84 5 years Member $15,402 J. N. Yates 26.7.84 to 31.1.85 Member (Secretary to the Treasury) J. O. Stone Ex Officio Managing Director $88,908 V. T. Christie 15.8.81 6 years, 1 month Deputy Managing Director $75,097 N. B. Aspery 16.9.83 7 years Prices Surveillance Authority Prices Surveillance Act 1983 Chairman $66,557 H. A. Rolfe 19.3.84 5 years Member $249 daily sitting fee A. H. M. Fels 19.3.84 5 years Member $249 daily sitting fee M. N. Little 19.3.84 5 years Member $249 daily sitting fee L. C. Townsend 19.3.84 5 years Reserve Bank Reserve Bank Act 1959 Governor $88,908 R. A. Johnston 14.8.82 6 years, 11 months Deputy Governor $75,097 D. N. Sanders, C.B. 23.7.82 7 years Member (Secretary to the Treasury) J. O. Stone Ex Officio Member $15,402 Prof. T. W. Swan 22.8.80 5 years Member $15,402 Sir Gordon Jackson, A.C. 23.10.80 5 years Member $15,402 Sir Samuel Burston, O.B.E. 16.9.82 5 years Member $15,402 J. N. Davenport, A.O., D.S.O., D.F.C., G.M. 16.9.82 5 years Member $15,402 C. H. Fitzgibbon, A.O. 8.12.83 5 years Member $15,402 Sir Peter Abeles 2.8.84 5 years Member $15,402 B. E. Quinn 2.8.84 2 years Taxation Boards of Review Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Chairman $66,557 H. P. Stevens 31.10.77 7 years Member $61,129 P. M. Roach 30.4.84 7 years Member $61,129 T. J. McCarthy 1.2.83 7 years Taxation Board of Review No. 2 Melbourne Chairman $66,557 K. P. Brady 8.7.80 7 years Member $61,129 J. E. Stewart 22.5.80 7 years Member $61,129 D. J. Trowse 21.2.83 7 years Taxation Board of Review No. 3 Brisbane Chairman $66,557 M. B. Hogan 8.11.83 2 years, 9 months Member $61,129 Dr P. Gerber 28.4.83 6 years, 9 months Member $61,129 Dr G. W. Beck 30.1.78 7 years Australian Taxation Office Tax Agents' Boards Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Tax Agents' Board NSW Member $140 daily sitting fee W. H. Bratby 1.1.82 At pleasure Tax Agents' Board Victoria Member $140 daily sitting fee B. H. Pascoe 28.7.83 At pleasure Tax Agents' Board Queensland Member $140 daily sitting fee A. R. Bottomer 28.7.83 At pleasure Tax Agents' Board SA Member $140 daily sitting fee P. C. R. Edwards 28.7.83 At pleasure Tax Agents' Board WA Member $140 daily sitting fee F. G. Stone 28.7.83 At pleasure Tax Agents' Board Tasmania Member $140 daily sitting fee R. J. Dwyer 28.7.83 At pleasure Relief Boards Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 1941 Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act 1971 Relief Board Chairman-Substitute for Commissioner of Taxation M. J. McHugh 6.2.84 At pleasure Member-Substitute for Secretary, Department of Finance C. J. Louttit 30.8.81 At pleasure Member-Substitute for Comptroller-General of Customs R. W. Blackmore 8.12.82 At pleasure Alternative Substitute for Commissioner of Taxation E. V. J. Killesteyn 8.5.84 At pleasure Alternative Substitutes for Secretary, Department of Finance G. J. Balfour D. K. Wallace 30.6.78 23.12.80 At pleasure At pleasure Alternative Substitutes for Comptroller-General of Customs M. H. Gallen B. M. Strang P. A. Sargeant 10.4.84 8.12.82 8.12.82 At pleasure At pleasure At pleasure Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914 Relief Board Chairman-Substitute for Commissioner of Taxation D. F. Murphy 6.2.84 At pleasure Member-Substitute for Secretary, Department of Finance C. J. Louttit 30.8.81 At pleasure Member-Substitute for Comptroller-General of Customs N. S. Foldi 1.12.82 At pleasure Alternative Substitute for Commissioner of Taxation E. V. J. Killesteyn 8.5.84 At pleasure Alternative Substitutes for Secretary, Department of Finance G. J. Balfour D. K. Wallace 30.6.78 23.12.80 At pleasure At pleasure Alternative Substitute for Comptroller-General of Customs A. J. Moore 1.12.82 At pleasure Commonwealth Banking Corporation Commonwealth Banking Corporation Promotions Appeal Board Chairman $175 per day sitting fee F. L. Hall, A.M. 6.11.82 3 years Commonwealth Banking Corporation Tenure and Disciplinary Appeal Board Chairman $175 per day sitting fee Hon. Justice P. B. Toose 8.12.81 3 years (Question No. 994) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 22 August 1984. What are the details of forecasts of annual Western world requirements for uranium made by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in each year since 1975 for the years 1980, 1985 and 1990. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The following table lists the estimated annual Western world requirements for uranium as detailed in the annual reports of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission from 1974-75 to 1980-81. ANNUAL WESTERN WORLD REQUIREMENTS FOR URANIUM ('000 tonnes U308) 1980 1985 1990 1974-75 Planned Growth 57 115 175 Low Growth 54 100 140 1975-76 Planned Growth 53 100 160 Low Growth 45 80 120 1976-77 AAEC Best Estimates 37.8 70 106 1977-78 AAEC Best Estimates 29.8 54 79 1978-79 AAEC Best Estimates 27.2 44 59 1979-80 AAEC Best Estimates 26.4 39 54 1980-81 AAEC Best Estimates 39 48 The AAEC has not published estimates of uranium demand since 1981. However, the Commission will be publishing shortly a publication 'Nuclear Power and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle-Status Report 1983' which will contain more recent estimates. (Question No. 1100) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Will the massive increase in public sector borrowings as evidenced by the ratio of public debt to gross domestic product crowd out the borrowing of companies and raise interest rates. (2) Should the private sector wish to benefit from the Government's confidence in the economy by expansion through borrowing, will not interest rates rise within the next twelve months to both Government and private sectors. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The public sector borrowing requirement is expected to fall as a proportion of GDP in 1984-85, reflecting the lower Commonwealth Budget deficit and the agreement reached by the Australian Loan Council in June 1984 that the ' global' borrowings in all forms by Commonwealth and State authorities would be limited to close to their 1983-84 money levels. Meanwhile, the forecast increase in private investment spending in 1984-85 is expected to be largely financed by internally generated funds-reflecting the recent and prospective improvement in corporate cash flow. The corporate sector is therefore not expected to be a significant net borrower in 1984-85. Interest rates paid on most private sector borrowings and government security yields have fallen over the past year. While prospective developments are always uncertain, the reduction in public sector borrowing and the outlook for corporate sector borrowing together with the significant decline in Australia's rate of inflation in recent times should help to keep pressure off interest rates in the period ahead.