Monday, 25 February 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 1,028 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law; the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; that further measure be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; that, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 19 citizens) and Reid (from 55 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulation and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law; the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; that steps be taken to re-classify the present guidelines to ensure a better standard of entertainment; that further measure be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; that, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show that: We deplore and oppose the decision of the Federal Government in legislating to allow the importation and distribution of hard-core pornographic video films and material into Australia and the social consequences of this action particularly for our children. We request the Federal Government to re-enact immediately the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and sale of this hard-core pornographic material, until the Enquiry into the Effects of the current legislation in relation to adults and children has reported to the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 26 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That 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 Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Reid (from 43 citizens) and Robertson (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we strongly oppose the 'A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Jack Evans, because it will adversely affect sporting organisations and small businesses in the A.C.T., it reverses the onus of proof, and represents an unnecessary intrusion by Government into the private affairs of individuals and other groups. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 115 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31 March 1985, and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jessop (from 14 citizens), MacGibbon (from seven citizens), Robert Ray (from 18 citizens) and Reid (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of, the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned staff and students working and studying in TAFE colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of 'X' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children, from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 26 citizens) and Jessop (from 23 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 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth their objection to any proposed legislation removing the power of existing Commonwealth law to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography, (e.g. x-rated videos), and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. They furthermore petition that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that the Senate call upon the Government to honour its obligation to protect Australia's children, by reversing its decision to remove barriers to the importation of hardcore pornography; and to restore control to customs point-of-entry; because control at point-of-sale has proven to be wholly ineffective, and injurious video viewing by children is widespread. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 112 citizens). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the freezing of applications for appointments to the Small Business and Local Enterprise Development Unit which the Government announced in the 1984-85 Budget was to be set up in the then Department of Territories and Local Government; (b) urges the Government to take prompt action to ensure that the Unit is adequately staffed and put into operation as soon as possible; (c) urges the Government to carry out this commitment to the economic development of the Australian Capital Territory. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Council of Small Business Organisations, the Australian Small Business Association, the National Farmers' Federation and numerous other groups representing the interests of small business and primary industry in Australia have stated their implacable opposition to the introduction of any capital gains tax; (b) notes that the small business sector employs 46 per cent of the Australia's work force and already contributes more tax revenue than any other sector of the economy; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to give an immediate assurance to the small business and primary industry sectors that it will not introduce a capital gains tax. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to standing order 38, I lay on the table my warrant appointing Senators Archer, Peter Baume, Bolkus, Chipp, Colston, Robert Ray and Sibraa to be members of the Standing Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Agricultural Council 119th meeting held in Townsville 30 July 1984-Report. 2. Australian Fisheries Council 14th meeting held in Townsville 28 July 1984-Report. 3. Australian Forestry Council 21st meeting held in Brisbane 25 July 1984-Report. 4. Museum of Australia-Annual Report-1983-84-Pursuant to section 38 of the Museum of Australia Act 1980. 5. Australian Postal Commission-Annual Report 1984-Pursuant to section 102 (3) of the Postal Service Act 1975. 6. Australian Wool Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 90 (1) of the Wool Industry Act 1972. 7. Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982. 8. Pig Meat Promotion Committee-Annual Report 1984-Pursuant to section 16 of the Pork Promotion Act 1975. 9. Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 8 (1) of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965. 10. The Australian National Line-Annual Report 1984-Pursuant to section 35 of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956. 11. Department of Administrative Services-Annual Report 1983-84. 12. Barley Industry Research Council-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 35 of the Barley Research Act 1980. 13. Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 49 (4) of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979. 14. Australian Dried Fruits Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 36 (1) of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978. 15. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 38 (3) of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. 16. Defence Service Homes Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 50B of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918. 17. Australian Forestry Council 1982-83 Bushfires-Report by the Standing Committee on Forestry. 18. Aviation cost recovery-report of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery. 19. Australian Broadcasting Corporation-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 80 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983. 20. Australian Research Grants Scheme-report on grants approved for 1985. 21. Australian National Satellite System-annual report 1984. 22. The Heavy Engineering Industry-interim IAC report-together with an annexure to the report. 23. The Dried Vine Fruits Industry-IAC report. 24. Re-Import Concessions-IAC report. 25. Office of Australian War Graves-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 13 of the War Graves Act 1980. 26. Australian Honey Board-annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962. 27. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-annual report 1983-84, which also includes a report on the operation of the adult migrant education program which is required under the Immigration (Education) Act 1971. 28. Department of Defence Support-annual report 1983-84. 29. Tableware and other Goods of Ceramics-IAC report. 30. Acts Interpretation Act-papers relating to the extension of time granted for annual reports (1983-84) of the following organisations: Australian Dairy Corporation Milk Authority of the Australian Capital Territory Canberra Commercial Development Authority Australian Trade Union Training Authority Australian Law Reform Commission Commissioner and Superannuation Fund Investment Trust Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority Australian Atomic Energy Commission Ombudsman Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board Legal Aid Commission (Australian Capital Territory) Senator CHANEY —Is the Minister for Finance aware that any benefit to the competitive position of Australian industries from the recent devaluation of the dollar will be irretrievably lost if resultant cost increases are passed on by means of full wage indexation? Will the Government argue before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that any future national wage increases should be discounted to take into account the effect of the devaluation on the consumer price index? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney correctly draws attention to the possibility of the potential benefits to exporting industries and, indeed, to importing industries flowing from devaluation being lost if there was a subsequent wage explosion which eroded them. I must say that I find it incongruous, to say the least, that a senior representative of a former government, which presided over the greatest explosion of wages which Australia had seen for a decade, at a time when the present Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Peacock, was Minister for Industrial Relations and the present Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Howard, was the Treasurer, should make such comments. It was a wages explosion of such dimensions that it destroyed the international competitiveness of the Australian economy. It was not until this Government came into power that an agreement on centralised wage fixing system was sought and adopted, in particular one which by prior agreement did not make adjustments to wages for the effect on the CPI of the Medicare arrangements. I find it incongruous, with this Government's record in containing wage increases, compared with the irresponsible stewardship of the previous Liberal Government, when the two key positions were held by the present Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and when they allowed a wages explosion in mid-1981 and succeeding years, which, coupled with one or two other factors, had the effect of destroying one-quarter of a million jobs in the Australian economy, that a representative of that political Party should have the audacity to raise this question in a tone which is critical of this Government. However, if one can overlook the audacity and the hypocrisy-- Senator Townley —Mr President, I take a point of order. We now have an increased Senate. We have what I regard as a very short Question Time. We have to put up with repetitive rubbish from the Minister-- The PRESIDENT —Order! What is the point of order? Senator Townley —The point of order is that the Minister is being repetitive and he is going on too long. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Townley will know from his long experience that the Chair has no control over the length of a Minister's answer. However, I draw the Minister's attention to standing order 100, which states that Ministers should not debate their answers. I call the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Mr President. There is a possibility that import price increases caused by devaluation of the Australian dollar will feed into the consumer price index. Indeed, one can say that there is a certainty that they will feed into the consumer price index to some extent. In regard to estimates following previous devaluations, I have particularly in mind the major devaluation of the order of 20 per cent which the Fraser Government made when it first assumed office, and a subsequent major devaluation when this Government first assumed office. That was forced upon us because of the sabotage of the Australian economy by the present Leader of the Liberal Party in the weeks leading up to the March 1983 election, when he said that under Labor there would be a flight of capital out of this country. Some people were silly enough to believe him and there was a flight of capital out of the country. We were put in the position that we had to devalue the dollar. However, the effects of those devaluations on the CPI through changed import prices were much less than had been predicted by reputable commentators at the time. I will discuss this matter with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, whose prime responsibility it is, along with the Treasury, and ask whether he has anything to add to the answer I have given. Senator CHANEY —By way of a supplementary question, I would remind the Minister that in his reference to the old days he seems to have forgotten that the Government now claims it has a new approach to centralised wage fixing which will solve a great number of Australia's economic problems. The Minister has conceded that there is a certainty that to some degree import prices will affect the CPI. Will he address his mind to the question whether, if those CPI increases are fed into the wage system and there are wage adjustments, that will remove the advantage gained for Australian industry by the devaluation. I ask him again whether he thinks the Government should argue before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that any future national wage increases should be discounted to take into effect those particular CPI changes. Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney is quite wrong in suggesting that the advantage gained by Australian exporters and import competitors would be removed-that is the word he used-if the consequential CPI effects of changed import prices were allowed to feed into wages. It is a matter subject to arithmetical proof that the advantage given to import competitors and exporters is directly related to the movement in the exchange rate. At the most, the effect on the CPI of a change in import prices would be a small fraction of that figure, and a smaller fraction than a simple calculation of the import component of the CPI regimen would suggest. As to whether the Government should argue for a discounting, which was the essential part of the question, it is attractive perhaps to argue that that should be done, but I would remind Senator Chaney and others that I do not believe any particular item affecting wage determination should be considered in isolation from all the other items and all the other trade-offs that might be achieved. I think that is one of the factors which the Government should take into consideration; but it is better, as the record of the last couple of years surely would have demonstrated, even to members of the present Opposition, to have a wages system which is under some control than the sort of wages system which operated in the last couple of years of the previous Government and which was completely out of control. Therefore, it would be simplistic and wrong to say that, because this change has taken place, the Government must argue trenchantly that a corresponding adjustment has to be made. That is one factor which, along with many others, should be considered in determining the Government's position. Senator TATE —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance representing the Treasurer and refer to the report of the Auditor-General published on Friday which indicates that, according to the Taxation Office's estimates, as much as $3.6 billion in dividend and interest revenue is not disclosed on tax returns. After two years in office, does the Government accept any responsibility for this state of affairs? Will the Government take vigorous action to ensure that the Taxation Office deploys its resources and devises systems to recover these moneys? Will the Government consider the introduction of a withholding tax applicable to dividends and interest? Does he agree that were these moneys, estimated at $500m per year in dividend and interest revenue, to flow into the Treasury, there would be less need for regressive indirect taxation, which is traditionally so repellent to the Labor Party? The PRESIDENT —Order! Before the Minister answers the question I draw honourable senators' attention to the length of the question. I suggest that, in view of the fact that there are now 74 senators here, we all should look at the length of our questions. Senator WALSH —I am aware of the report to which Senator Tate referred and I will confess that I was not previously aware that any suggestion had come from an official source that non-disclosure of income of that magnitude had been identified. I do not know whether the Australian Taxation Office had had any previous estimates or had attempted to quantify it. If there is any information, I will supply that information to Senator Tate at a later time. The Government, of course, has in the last two years increased significantly the staff of the enforcement branch of the Australian Taxation Office in order that it is better able to pursue or recover the taxes which ought to be paid, in contrast, if I may say so, to the neglect of the previous Government, both of the staffing requirements of the enforcement branch of the Taxation Office and, of course, of enforcing in a judicial sense other breaches of the taxation laws. The suggestion for a withholding tax on dividends and interest I will refer to the Treasurer for his comments. Senator Tate's final point, essentially, is: If the income tax which is due and ought to be paid were paid, would there be less need for taxes of other types? The obvious answer to that is, of course, yes. Indeed there would be less need for taxes of other types if half the members of the old Senate here-and I expect half the members of the new Senate-desisted from consistently rejecting legislation brought in by this Government to ensure that people who had evaded income tax in the past actually had to pay it. There would be less need for taxes of all types if that legislation were passed by this Senate. In the near future this Senate will again have an opportunity to decide either whether it is going to continue to protect tax evaders or whether it is going to vote for the Government's legislation. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. My point of order is the point you have already made, Mr President, about debating questions. The question was specifically on a form of tax avoidance which is of concern and which has been dealt with in a report. The Minister was specifically asked to comment on that and is now debating a range of other matters. I ask you to bring him to order. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to restrict his remarks to the question that was posed to him by Senator Tate. I call the Minister for Finance. Senator WALSH —I had finished, Mr President. Senator PUPLICK —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether the former Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, gave a major address at the Pennsylvania State University in June 1984 in which he stated: The Government's 1983 review of the ANZUS Treaty led to the conclusion that the Treaty still reflects a coincidence of strategic interests between Australia, New Zealand and the United States- I ask whether he also stated that the agreed co-operative activities of the Treaty included: supply and support arrangements and visits to Australian ports by US Naval units. I ask: Is this still the Government's official position? If so, does the Minister unequivocally repudiate the motion moved by the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party which stated in part that the alliance presents contradictions with Labor policy? Was this motion seconded by the Minister for Education? If so, can the Minister explain why, when a Minister expresses a public view which is contrary to Government policy, she is not, in line with proper Westminster practice, dismissed from the Ministry? Senator GARETH EVANS —There has been no change in the Government's position since it was articulated, in the terms described by Senator Puplick, by Mr Scholes, the then Minister, in the middle of last year; nor has there been any change in our position since we conducted a full review of the ANZUS relationship. As Mr Hayden stated in putting down the results of that review in the Parliament on 15 September 1983, we make a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of the alliance as fundamental to Australia's national security and our larger foreign and defence policies. So let there be no doubt, if there is any doubt, as to the first part of Senator Puplick's question. As to anything that may or may not have been said in internal party forums by a Minister of this Government, I have no further comment to make on the subject to that which I uttered in response to a question last Friday. It is entirely consistent with Labor Party practice, whatever disciplinary mechanisms might operate within Senator Puplick's party, for matters to be able to be canvassed within internal party forums, and it would be quite inappropriate, consistent with the Westminster system, for Ministers to utter outside such forums. As to the questions involved in the case to which Senator Puplick referred, I have nothing further to add. I think the Prime Minister has said the last word on that subject. Beyond that, I think little more needs to be said in relation to the honourable senator's question. We do not regard any of the events of recent times as in any way having put the ANZUS relationship at risk or in any way requiring a fundamental reconsideration of the treaty. We, of course, regret the difficulties that have arisen between the United States and New Zealand in this respect, but those difficulties as to the present peacetime operational clauses of the treaty do not in any way signal the end of the treaty or, for that matter, the network of relationships that are associated with it. Senator BOLKUS —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of comments made at the fourth biennial conference on research methods at the Australian Institute of Criminology last week by Dr Grant Wardlaw to the effect that harsher laws and stiffer penalties for drug use are not having the desired impact on the problem of drug trafficking in Australia? In particular I ask whether the Minister has seen Wardlaw's following comments: The evidence is overwhelming that a law enforcement approach to drug use control has not succeeded in effectively diminishing the availability and use of illicit drugs. In light of these comments, can the Attorney-General give an assurance that the forthcoming drug summit will focus on both the rehabilitative and educative aspects of drug use, together with the long-tried and failed legislative solution? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am able to say on behalf of the Attorney-General that, as the honourable senator will be well aware, the Prime Minister, following his election policy commitment, has now invited Premiers to a meeting on 2 April 1985 to discuss a national strategy against drug abuse. That is to be preceded by meetings of Commonwealth and State officials and Ministers. It is the case that education, treatment and rehabilitation measures are clearly central to any national strategy in relation to drug abuse, and they are certainly being given very careful consideration. At the same time, the Government takes the view that it is important to see that appropriate legislation is in place and to ensure that our law enforcement efforts are effective. Just what is the most appropriate form of legislative response to the drug problem in this area is a matter of continuing debate, and no doubt it will be the subject of debate at the forums to which I have referred. Certainly, the Commonwealth, I am told, will be seeking progress on uniform legislation and we will be looking at other ways of enhancing law enforcement action. The Government seeks in this respect to build on measures already taken, such as the establishment of the National Crime Authority and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which clearly have a bearing on efforts to counter illegal drug trafficking. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is it a fact that, as reported in the Australian Financial Review of 4 January, 300 tonnes of uranium bought from Queensland Mines Ltd because it was not to be exported to France will be stored by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission? Will this material be stored at Lucas Heights? What extra security, staffing and safety procedures are planned? Will any of the uranium be used at the Lucas Heights reactor or for any other purposes by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission? Has there been any consultation with municipal and community leaders in the Sutherland area over this matter in the event that the uranium will indeed be stored at Lucas Heights? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not the case that the uranium in question will be stored at Lucas Heights. The misunderstanding has no doubt arisen because the Australian Financial Review article to which the honourable senator referred speaks of delivery of uranium to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. But I can assure him that 'delivery' is there being used in its legal sense rather than in the physical geographical locational sense. The uranium which the Commonwealth has undertaken to purchase from Queensland Mines Ltd will in fact be stored in drums at QML's Nabarlek mine on behalf of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. It will be subject to the same physical protection arrangements as those applying to QML's own production. Those arrangements were, of course, devised in consultation with the Australian Safeguards Office. I can add that the ASO from time to time checks physical protection arrangements at Australian mines and will certainly make periodic checks on material purchased by the Commonwealth on its visits to Nabarlek. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. What were the major matters raised in the December 1984 report of the Steel Industry Authority? How is the Government's steel industry plan progressing? What levels of steel production were achieved at Port Kembla and Newcastle in New South Wales and at Whyalla in South Australia during 1984? Senator BUTTON —The report of the Steel Industry Authority for the quarter ending December 1984 was given to the Government at the end of last year or early this year. I am not able to give the honourable senator, as he requested, details by steel mill of the precise levels of production. However, I can say that annual production in the steel industry is now running at about 6 million tonnes, which is close to the operating capacity of the Australian steel industry. Production in the period January to November 1984 increased by 11 per cent over the same period in 1983. More importantly, productivity in the steel industry is now exceeding initial targets and is currently averaging 254 tonnes per employee per annum. Honourable senators will remember that at the time the steel industry plan was announced the Government had the goal of attaining a productivity rate of 250 tonnes per employee per annum in the first year of the plan. That has been exceeded. Employment in the steel division-- Senator Peter Rae —What is the attrition rate? Senator BUTTON —I was coming to that. At the end of 1984 employment was 24,196 compared with 25,206 in January 1984. Those employment reductions were all achieved by natural attrition. Profits for the steel division of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd for 1983-84 were $97m. The company, in accordance with the steel industry plan, has announced major items of investment which include a continuous slab caster at Port Kembla costing $146m and a continuous bloom caster at Newcastle, which I think was announced two or three weeks ago, at a cost of $90m. The investment by the company in the first year of the steel plan is now at about four-fifths or more of the total investment level promised by the company in terms of the overall parameters of the steel plan in the course of five years. So that result has been obtained in a little over one year. I should say in respect of the safety mechanism provided by the steel plan that there have been problems with an increase in the level of imports of particular categories of steel, and the category of cold rolled strip and sheet continues to be below the 80 per cent level provided in the steel industry plan. Nonetheless, the overwhelming situation of the industry is very healthy, and the Steel Industry Authority will report shortly on those areas where the market share has fallen below 80 per cent in 1984. Senator MacGIBBON —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to statements by Mr Gerry Hand, who said in the Age on 8 February that the MX missile was an offensive missile and could not be justified as having any deterrent role in the arms race, and by Senator Peter Cook, who said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on 4 February that the MX was a technological development which would destabilise the present nuclear balance. Is this the Government's assessment of the MX program or does it view these comments as hysterical and inaccurate, coming from people publicly identified as fourth graders by the Treasurer, Mr Keating? Senator GARETH EVANS —The MX missile, as Senator MacGibbon will be well aware, is a counter-force missile rather than one designed for retaliatory use. Nonetheless, it can still be regarded as part of the overall pattern of deterrence which is the current philosophy under which the super-power relationship presently exists. Whether or not the MX proposal ought to be supported as part of the United States Government's so-called strategic modernisation program is not a matter on which the Australian Government has formed a view. I made it clear in my answer to a question on Friday that it was in order, among other things, to be put in the position of not being taken to specifically approve the MX missile testing program, that the initial decision was made to ensure that the splashdown occurred outside territorial waters so that there would be no misunderstanding. It is possible to form different views about the utility, the vulnerability, and the cost benefit factors associated with the MX, as well as to argue it out in the context of the whole question of super-power weaponry and the arms race generally. These are complicated questions on which the Government is certainly considering the position, as indeed we are constantly monitoring the whole question of the arms race and ways in which we can contribute to de-escalating it and turning it into a downward spiral. Differences of opinion as to the best way to contribute to that process are legion, of course, within the Party as within the community as a whole. There is no foundation for the particular premises of Senator MacGibbon's question, let alone the conclusion which he draws from them. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question arising out of the answer of the Minister. When did Australia get the prerogative to approve of the American missile development programs? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a silly question which barely deserves an answer. I simply make the point that when it is a matter of Australia giving minor logistic support to a test occurring outside its territorial waters, the question of approval or disapproval does not arise. The only context in which I addressed the question of approval or disapproval in my answer was that Senator MacGibbon seemed to imply that the Australian Government should have a position on the issue and I was making the point that it did not. Senator COOK —Has the Minister representing the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters seen an article in the Australian on 19 December last in which the former Secretary to the Treasury, Mr John Stone, criticises the Government's introduction of reforms in the Australian Public Service? Are there any grounds for Mr Stone's complaints, and specifically for his complaint that he was not consulted on the formulation of the reforms? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article published in the Australian on 19 December. It is a record of interview with John Wheeldon in which Mr Stone pontificates about the evils of big government and the economic incompetence or irresponsibility of governments. Big government is a matter about which Mr Stone should know something from personal experience because in the period from 1976 to 1982, including when he was Secretary to the Treasury, employment in the Australian Public Service in total increased by 6 per cent, although the increase would have been somewhat greater had some functions not been transferred from the Public Service. In the Department of the Treasury, over which Mr Stone presided, the increase was over 30 per cent. Senator Ryan —How much? Senator WALSH —Thirty per cent. The Second Division, which is now called the Senior Executive Service, of the Public Service in general increased by 7.2 per cent in that same period, and increased by 36 per cent in the Department of the Treasury under Mr Stone's stewardship. One of the other allegations in that article was that the people who actually knew something about the Public Service were not consulted by my predecessor prior to the legislation reforming the Public Service being passed last year. There is absolutely no truth in Mr Stone's allegation. Indeed, Sir Geoffrey Yeend and Sir William Cole were consulted; the whole 1,600 officers of the then Second Division, now the Senior Executive Service, were written to directly by the Minister seeking their views; and Mr Stone , of course, was also asked directly by the Minister. He deigned not to reply. Mr Stone was given a further opportunity to make his views known and to discuss the proposals at a meeting of all departmental secretaries which was convened specifically for that purpose. Mr Stone did not attend. The reason he gave was that it clashed with a prior luncheon engagement. The meeting was held at 3.30 p.m. I do not wish to suggest that extended lunches of that magnitude are commonplace among departmental secretaries. In fact I would be surprised if they were. Evidently if Mr Stone were giving the real reason for not attending, it was his practice, at least on that occasion, to have a very extended lunch. Mr Stone was not noted for his modesty when he was in the Public Service. He now appears from time to time all over the country as the self-proclaimed oracle on economic matters. I think it ought to be noted in that context that he presided for approximately five years, as Treasury Secretary, over the Australian economy. The economy in that period was in the worst state, in absolute terms, it had been in since the 1930s and probably was in its worst state ever in relative terms; that is, relative to what was happening in the world. Indeed, it was not until the present Government came to office and virtually ignored the assorted dogmas of J. O. Stone that that record both in absolute and relative terms was turned around. On the more specific points covered in Senator Cook's question, it was often said, with considerable justification, that as Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Stone, in making his judgment on economic matters, was guided principally by dogma and used to select evidence to support his predetermined conclusions. In his comments on the Public Service he has gone beyond that propensity, which he displayed as Treasury Secretary, carefully to select the evidence which supported predetermined conclusions and has gone completely into the realm of fiction and fantasy. Senator HARRADINE —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that a combination of the devaluation of the Australian dollar, the co-operation of the labour force and Federal and State financial guarantees in 1978 ensured that the mining operations of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd have continued until now, and will probably continue for the next few years? In view of the rapid fall of the Australian dollar, which throws fresh light on the viability of the mining operations at Mount Lyell, since the Government refused to provide any guarantees last month, will the Minister enter into further discussions with the Tasmanian Government, the employees at Mount Lyell and the company, for the purpose of ensuring the development of the 50 series? Would not such an initiative taken by the Government be consistent with the absolute promise made by the shadow Treasurer in 1978 that a future Labor government would ensure the continuation of mining operations at Mount Lyell for as long as the ore body existed? Senator GARETH EVANS —One thing about Mount Lyell is clear and is accepted by just about every party to this unhappily drawn-out saga and that is that the mine really is very close to the end of its viable life. It is a matter of commercial judgment as to just how much more time it has if particular engineering contingencies are weighed and balanced. But certainly all the discussion so far has been premised on the assumption that at most the life of the mine could be extended to 1988-89 without, on almost any commercial assumption on the exchange rate or anything else, it being feasible to go beyond that. I must confess that the Commonwealth has had a great deal of difficulty in getting clearly from the Tasmanian Government in particular just what kind of financial support is necessary to keep the mining operation alive at least until 1988-89. Initially a proposal was put to us in terms of $15m being necessary in combined Federal-State subsidies to keep the losses of Renison Ltd covered, of which the Commonwealth was asked to put in $5m. That subsequently reduced around Christmas time to $10m, of which the Commonwealth was asked to put in $5m, we being told that the Tasmanian Government was just unable to find more than $5m. The Commonwealth responded to that by offering immediately the whole of the remaining $9m of Gordon below Franklin funding as it had not been possible hitherto, in the course of discussions, to come up with viable projects for the use of the money in question. The Tasmanian Government then told us that it did not want to spend any of that $9m which we gave it essentially without strings but said that it could in fact, after all, find the resources to keep the mine going until 1988-89. In the context of all this and of very careful consideration of the matter over a long period, and very careful judgments in consultation with the company about the viability of the mine, the Commonwealth and the Cabinet made it clear, as I announced, that there would be no further consideration of any financial assistance to Mount Lyell. Unhappy as that state of affairs may be, mines do come to the end of their useful working lives, and the social and economic dislocation associated with that just has to be confronted. The depreciation in the value of the dollar will of course have some impact on everybody's calculations, as I readily acknowledge. But the Commonwealth Government's position now would have to be that it remains a matter of commercial judgment by the mine in consultation with the Tasmanian Government as to whether the mine can in fact be kept alive for a longer period. It remains open to the Tasmanian Government to devote any proportion it likes of that $9m of Commonwealth funding now in its possession if to do so would in fact be helpful in keeping jobs on the west coast going longer. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Minister will be aware that the incidence of repetitive strain injury is approaching epidemic proportions, especially amongst data processors and other keyboard operators. Would the Minister assure the Senate that his Department is taking all possible steps to identify, and provide treatment for, the victims within that Department and to ensure that the working environment is redesigned to eliminate those elements which predispose people to this painful and crippling disease? Senator GIETZELT —Repetitive strain injuries, as they are commonly known, are a growing problem affecting both the public and private sectors of administration. Clearly, in a big department such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which has 12,500 employees, we have major problems associated with this new phenomenon. However, before I make some reference to what steps have been and are being taken in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, I think I might just refer to the rather foolish statement made in Tasmania by a general practitioner who last week suggested that all those people suffering from repetitive strain injuries were, in fact, malingerers and were not justified in seeking any health remedies. He did not produce any evidence to that effect. One can say only that his statement was uninformed and provocative and already has been dismissed by many other prominent members of the medical profession. In respect of my Department, as of 31 December last we had 165 cases of repetition strain injury, representing 1.5 per cent of the staff. Of course, a number of those have been involved in computer work. They have been working on data processing and word processing machines. Many of those involved as keyboard operators have found the need for some remedial medical assistance as a result of the new technology that operates in many government departments. Therefore, any suggestion, such as that of the Tasmanian doctor, that this is evident only in the public sector is not shown by the medical evidence, not only of other persons involved in the medical profession but also of the Commonwealth Department of Health and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. We have taken steps within the Department to halt the development of RSI that has taken place over the last several years by introducing job rotation, regular change of work or tasks, the need for consistent and regular breaks, specially designed exercises and also specially designed furniture. Currently the Australian Government is involved in the purchase of ergonomic furniture for the express purpose of avoiding the types of injuries that have come to be known as repetition strain injuries. Senator Scott proceeding to address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate- The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not think a question in relation to party policy is relevant to the responsibilities of any Minister. Therefore, I rule the question out of order. Senator CROWLEY —I ask whether the Minister representing the Minister for Health has seen and noted the attacks on Dr Lindsay Thompson and the Australian Medical Association for their willingness to negotiate in the doctors dispute. Are these attacks representative of a general response from the medical profession? Are such attacks conducive to a reasonable and rapid settlement of the dispute? At what stage are the negotiations and what is the likelihood of a satisfactory settlement in the near future? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I, like every senator in this place, have noticed attacks on the Australian Medical Association, on Dr Lindsay Thompson and others by a mixed group of people in the community. During Question Time on Friday I said that I was disappointed that someone such as the honourable member for Mackellar, Jim Carlton, should so quickly enter into this dispute, particularly as he is a former Minister for Health and realised the difficulty at a time when the present shadow Minister for Health and the Leader of the Opposition had not made any comments about the position of the AMA vis-a-vis the procedural specialists. It is even more disappointing to find since then that Mr Howard has joined in with Mr Carlton in these attacks on the Australian Medical Association. I gather that at last Mr Porter is now being heard and Mr Peacock, bringing up the tail, as usual, has now joined in the attack on the Australian Medical Association and Dr Thompson. Today I was also interested to note that Mr Paul Gross, the Director of the Institute of Health, Economics and Technology Assessment, in an article warning the procedural specialists on their difficulty, pointed out that the Council of Procedural Specialists is now advised by Dr Peter Arnold. Dr Peter Arnold, formerly the President of the General Practitioners Society of Australia-I think he was a foundation president-of course, is not a procedural specialist, has nothing to do with surgery, and is an extreme right wing political activist who is far to the right of the soup spoon by anyone's calculation. I think the fact that Dr Arnold is now advising the procedural specialists explains why for the first time, when they met with the Prime Minister last week, they actually had a concrete proposal. For the first time they had put something on paper-something they were unable to produce when they were negotiating with me. The requests they had put on paper were for changes to legislation which would mean the end of universal health insurance in this country. However, other people are now coming out in support of the Australian Medical Association. The Association of University Clinical Professors of Australia has in fact-- Senator Walters —Ha, ha! Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters laughs. She does not think much of clinical professors because most of them are salaried people. But for years in this country they have taught the procedural specialists in the public teaching hospitals. The procedural specialists involved in this dispute have forgotten that they trained at public expense and that they received their specialised training at public expense in public hospitals. Senator Walters may be offended by that point, but that happens to be the fact. The Press statement issued by the Association of University Clinical Professors, which Senator Walters holds in such contempt, states that the Association: . . . strongly supports the action taken by the AMA, the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales in entering into immediate negotiation to resolve the crisis in the provision of medical services in New South Wales . . . Senator Walters should listen to the next line of the statement, which reads: We also support the call from the presidents of the three senior clinical royal colleges for a moratorium on the implementation of resignations . . . I remind Senator Walters that those colleges are the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. So Senator Walters holds them in the same contempt in which she holds the university clinical professors of Australia. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Clearly, again, the Minister is debating the question. I ask you to ask him to answer the question and sit down. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister clearly is replying to a question asked by Senator Crowley, but I ask him to restrict his reply to Senator Crowley's question and not Senator Walters's interjection. Senator GRIMES —I was being helped by Senator Walters's interjections. I thought they deserved an answer. The simple fact is that not only the AMA, the presidents of the senior colleges and the Association of University Clinical Professors of Australia but also the editorialists of every newspaper in this country strongly support the idea that people should actually negotiate and discuss the matter. The only people who do not want to see negotiation are a few procedural specialists and Mr Jim Carlton, who is leading the Opposition on this occasion in its charge to see chaos result in New South Wales teaching hospitals. The New South Wales teaching hospitals have borne the brunt of this dispute. They have had to do that because the procedural specialists in the outlying hospitals, who do not do any teaching and who do hardly any work for public patients, have refused to assist them and, to use a crude term, have bludged on the teaching hospitals. The teaching hospitals are fed up. They deserve the support of those procedural specialists and I believe the clinical professors of this country deserve their support. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to a statement he made last Thursday in which he endorsed the approval given by the Minister for Trade for the shipment this week of uranium from Darwin by a West German company to a French trading company. The uranium, of course, may enter France. Senator Evans, in his statement, said: It is clear from the material available to the Minister that the uranium will not in fact be used in France, and so no question arises of any breach of Australia's present policy. I ask the Minister: How is his statement to be reconciled with stated Government policy, which has been to refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France? Is this another case of Ministers making policy on the run or is it just another example of the contradictions of the Government's uranium policy? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I made perfectly clear on Friday, in the answer I gave to a question, it is and remains the Government's policy that so long as the French continue with nuclear tests in the South Pacific the Government will not supply uranium for end use in France. Senator Durack —That is not the way you put it. That is not the way it has been put. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the way in which the policy has been applied and the way in which it has been understood and the way in which it has been endorsed within Party forums, to the extent that that is any of Senator Durack's business, which it is not. The reality of the matter remains that this particular uranium will not be used in France. We have assurances to that effect, as I indicated on Friday, from Electricite de France, the only utility in that country which does engage in peaceful uses of uranium that might, prima facie, be consistent with our bilateral safeguards agreement. That has been further confirmed by subsequent developments over the weekend, which involve, I am afraid, questions of commercial confidentiality, and I cannot fully share with the Senate the information available to me. All I wish to say is that despite Senator Durack's and Mr McVeigh's rather extravagant Press releases of last Friday, the Government remains fully confident in its characterisation of the contract in question as being a ruse or a ploy designed simply to encourage Australian Government action to stop a contract which was commercially embarrassing to the German firm. Every piece of information we have had since this matter became public has confirmed that assessment of the situation. I repeat the terms, without spelling it all out again, of the answer I gave in this place on Friday. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the Minister for Education seen recent Press reports suggesting that students in post-compulsory education are a privileged group in the community, that they come predominantly from high socio-economic backgrounds, that they can anticipate high prospective incomes, and that they already receive a substantial share of society's resources through free education? Do the facts support such assertions? Senator RYAN —Honourable senators will be aware that there has been a great deal of discussion in the media recently about who tertiary students are and what kinds of backgrounds they come from. Unfortunately, the discussion has often been quite inaccurate and out of touch with developments in recent years. While it is the case that many students in tertiary education do come from privileged backgrounds and, by virtue of acquiring tertiary degrees and higher degrees, are ensuring that they will continue to be a privileged sector of society, it is certainly not true as a generalisation to describe tertiary students in that way. Recent evidence available to my Department has indicated that those students who are recipients of student assistance benefits, mainly the tertiary education assistance scheme, are among the most disadvantaged groups in the community. Some 40 per cent of SAAS students-that is the secondary allowance assistance scheme-are children of pensioners or of the unemployed. For TEAS the figure is about 25 per cent. About 30 per cent of TEAS recipients, whose entitlement is based on parental income, are children of single parents. Technical and further education students, often destined for relatively low income occupations, make up 20 per cent of TEAS recipients. Those statistics demonstrate that discussion about tertiary students should take into account the very high proportion of students, particularly in some categories, who come from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds. It is the policy of this Government to ensure that able students from disadvantaged backgrounds will not be prevented by the poverty of their families from getting some of those benefits which certainly are the fruits of tertiary study. Senator VIGOR —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Is the Minister aware of the lack of confidence in Australia Post, as expressed recently by the Confederation of Australian Industry, other organisations and consumers? Is the Minister aware that the basis of this lack of confidence is the long delays in postal deliveries for both standard items and special services, for example, priority paid? Given that Australia Post includes in its advertising timetables for delivery of postal articles, could the Minister advise whether the Government intends taking action under sections 52 or 53 of the Trade Practices Act, which, in effect, prohibit false advertising, or whether the Government will investigate what action needs to be taken to ensure that Australia Post's performance matches both its statutory obligations and its advertised practices? Senator WALSH —I will ask the Minister for Communications what comment he has to make on that matter. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. What is the Minister's estimate of revenue lost to the Commonwealth due to tax avoidance and evasion? What steps is the Government taking to recover this loss of revenue? Senator WALSH —A number of estimates have been made of the amount of tax outstanding, principally in the Commissioner of Taxation's annual report for 1983-84 which on page 46 gives a figure of scheme debts of almost $2 billion-$1,953m-and of non-scheme debts, a good deal of which is tax which has been assessed and ought to have been paid but has not yet been paid, and of what one would call late payments, of an additional $1.3 billion. I am not sure whether that assessment incorporates the matters raised by the Auditor-General and to which Senator Tate's earlier question referred. Senator Childs asks what has the Government done about this matter. First, there has been a major increase-I now have the figures-in staff in the enforcement branch of the Taxation Office in the last financial year. An additional 420 staff were appointed in the enforcement branch. In this financial year provision was made for an additional 392, making a total of 812 staff positions in the enforcement branch to enforce more effectively the law and eliminate that backlog. The Government has taken a number of other measures and has attempted to take other measures to deter tax evasion. I refer, for example, to the bottom of the harbour recoupment legislation, which was rejected four times by half this Senate, including Senator Harradine who, contrary to the way in which he had voted for the Fraser Government's legislation, reversed his vote and prevented the Government collecting the revenue which ought to have been paid years ago. He votes in favour of the tax dodgers when his vote matters and against the tax dodgers when his vote does not matter. We have also introduced the prescribed payments system to eliminate the tax avoidance or evasion-- Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The last comments of the Minister about Senator Harradine reflect on his good faith and, I think, are unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. The fact is that Senator Harradine voted for certain legislation. He has voted against quite different legislation. Indeed, that is a stance which has been adopted by Opposition senators, the bulk of whom voted for particular legislation but refused to go along with the then Labor Opposition's desire to extend that legislation The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is not in order for you, Senator Walsh, to reflect on the integrity of the way in which Senator Harradine votes. You should withdraw those words. Senator WALSH —Mr Deputy President, I do not know whether you were listening. I simply stated the facts. Senator Chaney chose to debate the issue. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I was listening. You were reflecting on the integrity of Senator Harradine and you should withdraw that remark. Senator WALSH —In deference to you, Mr Deputy President, I withdraw. The other action of a legislative kind which the Government has taken relates to the cherry picker scheme, again rejected by the Senate. We have taxed lump sum payments which were being used by short term employees for avoiding tax by taking what was in fact deferred wages in lump sum form, removed tax exemptions for friendly societies and done a number of other things which I do not propose to read out at this stage. The Government has taken action of both a legislative and a staffing nature to ensure that the existing law is enforced more effectively and that the law is improved where it needs to be improved to ensure that tax avoidance and evasion of the magnitude which has occurred in the past do not continue. There is more, of course, that can be done. That is on the Government's legislative program, and the Senate will again have an opportunity to decide whether it is going to ensure effectively that taxation can no longer be avoided and evaded or whether it is going to allow the present and long-standing unsatisfactory situation to continue. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —by leave-It has been brought to my attention that on Friday, 22 February, in the other place the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, referred to a letter which was sent to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Lange, on the matter of New Zealand's actions in respect of the ANZUS alliance. Mr Peacock's reference to the letter was widely reported in the national Press over the past weekend. Mr Peacock claimed that the letter had been sent to Lange by Shorty and that Lange was a good friend of Shorty. Mr Deputy President, having been blessed with the surname Short, I have since my childhood been known affectionately to most of my friends and others as Shorty. The implication that I was the author of the letter to the Prime Minister of New Zealand has caused me considerable embarrassment. I wish to have it clearly recorded that I am not the Shorty referred to by Mr Peacock, that I certainly am not a good friend of Mr Lange and that I would never back down to the left wing of the Australian Labor Party in the way that the real author of the letter, Prime Minister Hawke, has so blatantly done. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented- Senator Walsh —I seek a ruling, Mr Deputy President. Senator Harradine has initiated legal proceedings regarding this matter and I seek a ruling from you as to whether he can comment on it in the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I do not know what matter Senator Harradine is going to raise. He has been granted leave to make a personal explanation. If he refers to matters that are in my opinion sub judice in effect, I will pull him up. In the meantime, Senator Harradine has the call. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I claim to have been misrepresented again for, I think, the fourth time by Senator Walsh on this particular matter. I refer honourable senators to the four Hansard reports on this question last year. It will save me repeating what- Senator Walsh —On a point of order, we now know the matter to which Senator Harradine refers. He has issued a stop writ in the Australian Capital Territory court because I publicly outside this chamber have made statements on precisely that matter. I seek your ruling as to whether he is entitled, given that legal proceedings have been initiated, to bore the Senate yet again with his feeble excuses. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The sub judice rule is enforced in this chamber if, in the opinion of the Chair, the remarks being made would adversely affect the interests of people before the courts. Nothing that Senator Harradine has said so far in my opinion is covered by that rule. He is merely answering remarks made earlier by Senator Walsh. Senator Harradine will no doubt bear that rule in mind. If he does not I will pull him up. I call Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Yes, I have been misrepresented. Senator Walsh is entirely incorrect in his description of my vote in 1982 and my vote last year in respect of a particular matter. The fact is-it is clear to everybody-that I voted to outlaw bottom of the harbour schemes and for legislation to ensure that those who had breached the law were brought to justice. What I was not prepared to do, as honourable senators realise, was to vote for legislation which established an entirely new tax to be levied retrospectively on the innocent and the guilty alike. That was consistent with my support for the rule of law. I am certain that those who read the Hansard will see precisely the principles upon which I decided that issue, that I decided correctly and that Senator Walsh in fact is wrong. What Senator Walsh is doing-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, you must not in a personal explanation debate the issue. You have explained where you were misrepresented and I think that is enough unless you wish to continue with any-- Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am trying to mitigate my remarks but I wish to demonstrate to everyone what Senator Walsh really is doing. I did not wish to call him straight out a purveyor of untruth; so one has to see why he is doing it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, you are not entitled to debate Senator Walsh's motives. You are entitled only to describe how you have been misrepresented. Senator Georges —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is fairly obvious that your earlier ruling is now being transgressed. I cannot see how Senator Harradine, having taken a course which one would question-that is, he has taken action against another honourable senator in the courts-can possibly support his case in the Senate. Obviously, he is covering the grounds of his complaint before the courts. Having done that, having taken that initiative, he should not then continue to raise the matter by way of debate or personal explanation in the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you, Senator Georges. Senator Harradine is entitled in the personal explanation he is making to reply to remarks that were made about him by Senator Walsh. He is not entitled to debate Senator Walsh's motives and should confine his personal explanation to matters of a personal nature in which he has been affected. He must not debate the issue. I call Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I simply point out, as I did the other day, that there are constitutional measures to obtain the passing of this legislation through the Parliament. The Government chose not to adopt those measures. It could have had this legislation through the Parliament on the first day that it sat by holding a joint sitting, had it chosen to go to a double dissolution on that question. Senator WALSH —Senator Button, in answering a question from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle last Friday, indicated that I may add some further information to that supplied by Senator Button. I do not have anything significant to add because the essential point was made by Senator Button, that being that the principles of the wages accord require that the movement in the consumer price index within the last six months be taken into account. In the present national wage case, the movement in the CPI over the last six months was 2.7 per cent. Over the previous 12 months, because of the Medicare effect, it was 2.6 per cent. The Government considered which figure should be presented. A decision was made, given that the principles required the CPI movement of the previous six months to be taken into account, that that is what the Government would do. I understand that it appears to be somewhat incongruous that over the previous 12 months the CPI increase was a marginally lower figure. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle-Last Friday I also asked whether the Government's decision reflected the fact that there has been a decline in the dollar and a rapid increase in the money supply. I asked whether the Government took that into account when it made its decision to support the 2.7 per cent application in the national wage case. Senator WALSH —I am not sure how much I should be disclosing about discussions which took place within the Government. However, the principal reason as I assessed it, and, indeed, probably the only reason, was that the principles required a certain form of adjustment. At the time those principles were established I expect that it was not foreseen that the situation which has arisen in the last 12 months would in fact arise, that is, that in some six-monthly period the CPI would actually fall. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I should like to make a few brief comments on this report. Firstly, I draw to the notice of the Senate the fact that the meeting to which this report relates was held on 30 July last year. Eight months is a tremendous length of time to wait for a report to be presented to the Parliament. I realise that the Parliament has not sat for some time, but this is not the first time such a report has taken so long to present. Probably the most important matter in the report to which I should draw attention is set out on page 3. Under the heading 'Economic and trade situation' the Council noted that aggregate farm income in real terms was forecast to decline to the second lowest level recorded by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. We all ought to take this matter into account. It needs to be borne in mind in Government legislation, in debates in this chamber, and in the community at large. It is terribly important that we should bear in mind that farm income is forecast to be at the second lowest level recorded by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The issues covered at the meeting were many and varied, but I believe that in future we should take into account those matters which will have a big effect on how we reverse the trend of declining farm income. Amongst those issues is the biological control of both living things and plants. There is certain work afoot in this respect but it is very slow and there is considerable objection to it. The objection comes from people who are not involved in trying to maintain the national economy and produce the income the country needs to support the policies of government. Another important issue is the question of feral animals, which is a very considerable Australia-wide problem. More direct policies need to be entered into to ensure that some feral animals are brought under control. We need a system that will be productive in terms of income and make the country safer and better for animals of our own choosing. I now turn to the questions of plant variety rights. If we are to overcome the decline in the income earning capacity of people who are trying to produce food or export produce, it is absolutely essential that we have a plant variety rights scheme to enable them to produce or import better plants. While ever we have this ostrich situation of saying that we do not need plant variety rights, we cannot have such a system and there is something wrong with it, we will continue to go down the shute that shows we are declining. I understand that we will be dealing with other matters considered by the Australian Agricultural Council in about a month's time. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.20) —I speak briefly to the report of the Australian Agricultural Council because many people are concerned about probably the worst problem for our future so far as agricultural products are concerned. It is a problem which has been substantially ignored over the years. I refer to a matter which is being brought up by the Australian Conservation Foundation, among other organisations. Because of the acute seriousness of the problem concerning soil conservation, it has become a cliche in our society, as road accidents have. We tolerate the situation in which year after year in our wheat lands a certain amount of our topsoil is routinely removed. Australia is the one agricultural country which has cause to worry about this situation because we have perhaps the most fragile ecology and the lowest amount of normal tree and vegetation cover compared with any other country of our degree of civilisation, if I can put it that way. We are neglecting this issue shamefully. I think that part of the neglect is due to the fact that so many government departments are involved. No attempt has been made to concentrate on the problem which is one which deserves major consideration in this country. After all, all of us owe our lives to those fragile few inches of top soil that exist to that we may grow living things. All of us have, I would hope, a stake in preventing the loss of top soil which, after all, has taken millions of years to evolve. Yet since the first national assessment of soil erosion was made in 1970, 15 years ago, virtually nothing has been done to overcome the problem. There have been many conferences, and discussions were held recently. The Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and Environment, in its inquiry into land use, pointed out the grave difficulties of co-ordination in this area and the fact that the States and the Commonwealth are in on the act. A large number of different departments is also involved. Because of this the situation exists whereby the loss of top soil is continuing and the problem, if anything, is becoming worse than ever, especially in some States. No palliative measures are being implemented and a relatively small sum of money, in relation to the nature of the problem, is being devoted to this area. I refer briefly to an unusual aspect of the problem as it exists in my own State of New South Wales. I refer to the crass and criminal decision which has been made by the State Government of New South Wales to pipe sewage from the cities of Sydney and Newcastle miles further out to sea instead of returning this material in a properly processed form to the land. Some years ago I was in Shanghai. The sewage of that city is composted and used for the surrounding communes which are the food bowl of that great city. It was pointed out by the Chinese that without that process the people of that city would starve. Our situation in Australia is only an extension of the situation in China. Just because we can manage for the moment does not mean that in the future we can go on with the same sort of crass and stupid situation. We in this planet live in a state of symbiosis between living and growing things. The gross indecency or stupidity is that those people with so-called finer feelings say that the sewage ought to be piped out to sea, thereby dumping out to sea every year probably thousands of tonnes of our top soil, because that is what it amounts to, instead of having a decent and reasonable conservation of this kind of asset, as most other civilised communities do. For years people in New South Wales have been offended by the fact that the present sewerage outfall is simply dumping raw sewage back on to our beaches. The people of Manly, Bondi and those who live right along the coast know this. It is something which we have learned to live with. This situation is stupid. It is even more stupid to try to solve the problem by spending literally herculean sums of money to run further pipes further out to sea and, by doing so, offending against one of the prime natural laws of our habitation of this earth. Sooner or later we must return to the earth what we take from it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The first item dealt with at the meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council was the off-shore constitutional settlement. The first paragraph of the report states: Council recalled that at each of its last four meetings, it had urged the Commonwealth Government to implement the fisheries aspect of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement . . . as soon as practicable. This has been going on for years. We do not seem to be getting any closer to a settlement. In the resume of likely legislation for the session the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) did not mention this matter. The present situation is creating considerable pressures. The northern Australian prawn fisheries, the southern scallop fisheries, the shark fisheries, the trawl fisheries in south-eastern deep waters, the lobster fisheries between Victoria and Tasmania and the tuna fishery are all in trouble because they lack a constitutional settlement statement. In the past it has been argued that the settlement is necessarily tied up with mineral rights and various other things. It is certainly not necessary to implement the decisions that have been taken in the past. In the last 12 months we have seen a ridiculous situation arise between Tasmania and Victoria over scallops and now we are seeing an even more ridiculous one over rock lobsters. There is absolutely no excuse for this matter not being dealt with and a declaration being made giving the States concerned authority over waters and the power to license accordingly. Another matter dealt with fairly lengthily at the Council meeting was foreign fishing. I believe it is necessary to make a few comments on this because Australia has obligations to international fishing countries. We are working hard on Australianisation and we need foreign fishermen to assist us in biological assessments of the stocks in waters we do not fish and in marketing the product of those waters. We do not fully understand what foreign fishing is all about and how to run it. I regret that after a few years of foreign fishing we are still in some instances imposing patently ridiculous requirements. There is quite heavy handed treatment of the fishermen involved in foreign fishing. It seems to be constant niggling and the use of unsettling tactics which prevent Australia from gaining a reputation of being a reasonable country to deal with. The agreements we make with other countries are two-sided. We have to appreciate that for a deal of any sort to work properly it has to be reasonable for both sides, and at present we do not seem to be capable of that. I commend the Fisheries Council for holding the conference. It was an excellent start. I am sure the industry will appreciate being given something to do now that it is showing some maturity in its operations. It must have an attitude of co-operation. The Government, the fishermen and the processors will all have to give a bit. None of them will get exactly what they are looking for, but if we genuinely want to improve the fishing industry in Australian waters it will be necessary to establish a new fisheries body and all sections of the industry will have to work together and settle for the best that they can get. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report of the Australian Forestry Council states that there have been big improvements in forestry procedures and management in the period under review and that there is now a much better utilisation of the resource than was the case some years ago. In Tasmania, for instance, there has been a considerable cleaning up of the useless treed country and it has been replanted with better species that are both more useful and more attractive. This is proceeding at the rate of about 10,000 hectares a year. One in seven of the entire Tasmanian work force works directly in the timber industry. That demonstrates the enormous economic position it has in that State. We find that increasing pressure is being exerted to try to encourage Australian governments to renege on arrangements they have made for the supply of commodities in the timber industry. I think that we need to understand fully that before we can have trading partners those partners will have to accept that Australia is a reliable and dependable supplier and that when they enter into contracts those contracts are likely to be fulfilled. We have only to look at the coal, iron, uranium and wood chip industries to see that Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier of goods is now under test. It is my hope that we can become fairly mature in these matters and that we can again be regarded as a respectable and responsible supplier of goods. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.31) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I do so to draw the attention of the Senate to the inadequacies of the Canberra Mail Exchange. The Australian Postal Commission seems to have its priorities wrong. It has built in the centre of Canberra a magnificent new post office. I do not know what it cost but it certainly is a magnificent building. No doubt it cost the taxpayers of this country a large amount of money. At the same time the Australian Postal Commission has left the Canberra Mail Exchange, as I understand it, inadequately staffed and with inadequate equipment. I am sure senators and members would have noticed the enormous delays that occur in their mail coming to and from Canberra. When this Parliament is sitting the Canberra Mail Exchange is absolutely swamped with enormous amounts of articles which arrive there for members and senators. Of course, even when the Parliament is not sitting the Government and the Public Service are operating from Canberra so that the Canberra Mail Exchange is enormously busy. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the facilities at the exchange are inadequate. In order to bring that to the attention of the Government many of the employees at the exchange have had to flex their muscle in the usual way-the only way which will get this Government to listen-by taking industrial disputation to the point of strikes. The result is that last year, for example, there was a series of strikes and mail buildup in the Canberra Mail Exchange was quite enormous. So I have taken the opportunity of moving that the Senate take note of this report just to draw the Government's attention to the massive problem which exists at the Canberra Mail Exchange. I hope that the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) will persuade the Postal Commission to put this problem to the forefront as a priority. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In 1983-84 the coarser wools bore the brunt of the appreciation of the Australian dollar but now these wools have benefited from the recent slump in the Australian currency. It has given a renewed lift to them, making them competitive with sources in New Zealand, South Africa and South America. I believe that the Australian Wool Corporation should look very closely at situations in which, a reserve price having been set for the season, there are Australian currency appreciations. One of the failures to adjust prices in these situations was partly responsible for the Corporation's high acquisitions. On the other hand, its decision to maintain store stocks overseas is desirable in offering a facility for quick delivery, given many of the industrial problems in Australia and particularly among maritime unions. Wool production was up 4 per cent last year despite the drought, and production is expected to rise a further 6 per cent in 1984-85. Unfortunately, apart from the United States of America, wool textile activity in 1983 remained rather weak and the lift in the Chinese purchases in the previous year unfortunately was not sustained. The importance of the industry I think is illustrated by the fact that there are 81,000 growers in Australia and the Wool Corporation had a turnover of nearly $124m. Australian wool processors use about 23 per cent of the Australian clip and retain about 3 per cent for domestic consumption. An attitude is prevalent in some sections of the AWC that the Wool Corporation should control the marketing of wool through total acquisition of the clip. Such a concept might be acceptable to those with a socialist doctrine but it denies the skills and excellent commercial responses of a highly trained private sector operating in the wool industry. Some of the actions of the authorities are quite bewildering. I have referred on previous occasions to the lack of customer acceptance of pre-sale dumping of wool and the entry of the Corporation into otherwise normal wool broking activities with the private sector. At times I believe the Corporation is overly defensive and over-reactive at some of its senior levels. On the other hand, it does have an abundance of ambitious people with a sense of power. It has excellent skills in most areas which are, by inclination, more responsive than planning orientated. As a result of pressure from the growers and criticism by users, over the last two years the Australian Wool Corporation has tried to reduce costs and improve the quality of the clip. This is recognised as a mammoth task and has been encouraged by all sectors of the industry. Because of lack of planning, ability and commercial expertise within the AWC the dominant response mechanism sought to appeal to growers during a weak market by hastening the implementation of two alleged cost-benefit arrangements. Pre-sale dumping is one and additional measurement is the other. Pre-sale dumping, I believe, was poorly researched, totally misunderstood and badly timed. The same can be said, I think, of additional measurement. Because of diminishing net returns there has been a tendency in all sectors to reduce costs. This has manifested itself in a problem of lack of uniformity and control within the clip. This must be addressed at all levels within the industry commencing at the farm. Hobby farmers in particular have a responsibility to ensure strict segregation of black fibres in presenting wool for sale. I think some of the company amalgamations in the wool industry have possibly gone too far with the result that the service to customers is depreciating. One must query the viability of some of the smaller companies. Elders, IXL and Dalgety now dominate the wool broking area. However, I would like to pay a tribute to a local Tasmanian company, Webster Ltd, which is matching some of the other organisations with a modest expansion to the mainland and offering high grade service to the industry. In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Australian Wool Corporation for sponsoring the uniforms for the Australian women athletes at the Olympic Games. The use of the wool in the heat of the Los Angeles summer indicated wool's exceptional qualities. The award for the best dressed women athletes at the Olympic Games recognised the versatility of lightweight woollen fabrics made from Australia's finest 19.5 micron fleeces. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales)(3.38) —I will speak very briefly to this 1983-84 report of the Australian Wool Corporation. I believe that the Corporation needs to be congratulated on having reported in such a full way. Indeed, the financial statement which accompanies the report is, as one would want it to be, complete and explanatory. I think it is worth noting that the Australian Wool Corporation is now more than 10 years old and has indeed played a very significant role in the success of the Australian Wool Industry. It has been one of the forerunners, one of the originators, of the concept of organised marketing and stabilisation of prices in a fairly volatile field. The Australian Wool Corporation has indeed operated a stabilising price system which has been of very significant advantage not only to the Australian wool producer but also to the manufacturers-the end users all around the world. I think it is interesting to note that in 1983, which was a year of recovery after the somewhat tragic drought and the economic circumstances world wide of 1982, the Wool Corporation was still forced to buy no less than an average of 23 per cent of the clip in order to retain stability within the market-place. It did that with excellent effect. Although there was a significant upturn in economic circumstances around the world, and certainly in the wool industry, rather ironically it was the appreciation of the Australian dollar that in very large measure forced buying by the Wool Corporation to the extent of 23 per cent of the wool clip. Added to that was the competition of cheaper wools from the South African and New Zealand areas. I do not want to speak at length on this matter but I do want to say that the widening capacity of the Australian Wool Corporation to borrow has been a significant advantage which is bringing it into line with the capacities and operations of more free enterprise oriented industries. In the very near future Brazil is to be brought into the International Wool Secretariat and within five years it is to be a full contributing member. Indeed, the greater the membership of that organisation the greater will be the strength of wool to the producer of the raw material and indeed to the producer of the textile. Finally, I want to comment on the establishment of the research and development policy committee within the Australian Wool Corporation. It is very pleasing to note that as time goes by the emphasis of the Corporation on research and development is increasing. The position of wool as a textile in the world today, and indeed its position in the future, is significantly relevant to the degree and intensity of research and development. Therefore, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the report of the Australian Wool Corporation and I endorse the remarks that have been made. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. It is particularly relevant that we should congratulate the Pig Meat Promotion Committee on the fact that its production has broken all previous records and that consumption of pig meat per capita also has broken all records. At a time when other producers of meat are finding it difficult to maintain their place in the market it is very significant that this industry can continue to forge ahead. I think all honourable senators owe the pig meat producers congratulations on the fact that the presentation, preparation and production of the commodity they sell is so good. I believe that other producers of meat should take more notice of what the customer wants and more effort should be made so see that they work in exactly the same way. The pig meat industry is sound, it is in good order, stock is good, and pig meat is marketed in a manner that customers have suggested they require. I congratulate the pig meat producers for that and draw the attention of other meat producers to this matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make only a couple of short points. The 1976 report of the Industries Assistance Commission identified the primary cause of the dried fruit industry's problem as being too great a dependence on low return export markets. Since that time the Australian market increasingly has been attacked by overseas producers, with the result that concern is now emerging, in this industry and others, about the political insecurity of legislative support for industry marketing arrangements. This is another case of an industry that is not sufficiently satisfied that the Government feels for it and is prepared to give it some support. It also needs support from other producers who are depositing fruit on world markets at unproductive prices. We have to take into account the fact that Greece is now a member of the European Economic Community. I feel sure that it will increase its production of dried fruits and that, firstly, it will try to sell to Australia and, secondly, it will sell to markets in which Australia has traditionally sold. There has been an inquiry into the dried fruits industry, but that is a matter which appears later in the list of papers. In the meantime, let the Parliament be aware that this is a long established industry with considerable socio-economic effects in isolated parts of Australia, and these factors need to be taken into account and dealt with accordingly. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.47) — My contribution to the debate is simply to ask on whose authority the priority for the listing of Government papers is determined. Paper No. 19 concerns the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Paper No. 21 is the Australian National Satellite System report, and Paper No. 27 is the annual report of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. These are all major reports about which we now are not able to have any discussion at all. We should be able to have discussions on these major matters of importance. However, as time has now expired discussion of these papers will have to be held over until Thursday, when we will not have time to debate them. I wonder why the papers are put in this order and why these matters of specific contentious importance are at the end of the list. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present reports of the Auditor-General on certain efficiency audits, dated 7 December 1984. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. I will be brief in my remarks. I thought the opportunity should not pass without some comment on the report of the Auditor-General on efficiency audits to do with the Australian Taxation Office. The report raises very serious questions of a gravely worrying kind. One had hoped that the Taxation Office would have adopted vigorous and robust procedures and methods and devised systems to take full advantage of new technology to recover those taxes legally due to the revenue of this nation. However, in the report the Auditor-General comments on serious deficiencies in the Taxation Office system for the checking in particular of dividends and interest disclosed in income tax returns. There is evidence to suggest that $3.6 billion of dividends and interest are not disclosed in taxation returns in Australia which if subjected to taxation are said to be capable of yielding some $500m a year to our revenues. Of course, when speaking of those sorts of figures one becomes conscious of the fact that new forms of taxation such as will be debated at the taxation summit, and in particular regressive indirect taxation, would not be required, or at least not on the scale envisaged, if the Taxation Office devised a system to enable it to recover these outstanding amounts. One may also comment that in the Sydney office the Auditor-General found that of 1.8 million individual returns assessed in 1983-84, only six were referred by assessors for further investigation, which seems to be such a minuscule number as to beggar any correlation with reality. One also finds that the Taxation Office does not receive lists of individuals who received interest from savings banks. I must say that I was surprised to read that statement, having thought and acted on the premise that those lists were available to the Taxation Office. The point I am making is that it may be that this chamber should consider the introduction of a withholding tax on dividends and interest payable to Australian residents. At the moment there is a withholding tax payable on dividends to non-Australian residents. It may be that in order to put receivers of this income on some sort of parity with pay as you earn taxpayers, who bear the burden of tax avoidance measures in this country, we should ensure that taxation on interest and dividends is withheld at the point of the bank, building society or distributor of the dividends. I make those few points to point out the grave misgivings which must arise in one's mind as one reads this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motions (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. That the General Business Order of the Day relating to the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984 have precedence over all other business on the Notice Paper until consideration of that Bill is concluded. Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 September 1984, on motion by Senator Chipp: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.55) —The Senate, pursuant to the motion which has just been carried, is now debating a Bill which was introduced into the Senate on 11 September last year by Senator Chipp. That Bill is described as a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear powered ships and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons through Australian waters or in the air space over them. I suppose the simplest description of the Bill is that, if it were passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives and received royal assent, it would effectively end the visits of ships of our allies, the United States of America and Great Britain, because according to the conditions under which they would be prepared to use our port facilities they would not enter our ports. The Opposition last year supported this Bill being brought on for debate in this place on 12 September. We agreed to it being brought on because of our very firm belief that the Bill was not in Australia's interests and should be disposed of and, by being voted against by the Senate, it would make Australia's stance quite clear to the rest of the world. The Bill which has been introduced by Senator Chipp would reverse what has been substantially a bipartisan policy for some time; that is, that United States ships, British ships and the ships of our allies generally should be able to use Australian ports as part of their defence of the interests of the Western alliance. It is true, I suppose, that the extent of that bipartisanship has been reduced in appearance by the doubts raised by the present Government about whether it would be prepared to receive the HMS Invincible when it was clear that that ship needed docking. It is quite clear that some doubts have been raised by the actions of the Australian Labor Party organisation. For example, at the ALP National Conference last year, concerns were expressed about the porting of American ships. Indeed, a committee was formed which was charged with looking at ways of reducing the frequency of visits by ships to the west coast of Australia. That is a committee about which, perhaps mercifully, we have heard very little, although it may be that during the course of this debate we will be told what has happened to it by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), who is at the table, or by somebody else. There was, of course, some absurdity in the suggestion at that time that ships that were required by the United States Navy to patrol in the Indian Ocean should call at Sydney and Melbourne for rest, recreation and refurbishment. That is the sort of proposition which was raised then and it is the sort of proposition which gives rise to some doubts about the firmness of Labor's attitude on this issue. We will oppose this Bill and we hope that the great majority of senators will oppose it. We will oppose it on a number of grounds. It is the view of the Opposition that the continued access by United States and United Kingdom nuclear powered and nuclear capable ships is vital to the maintenance of peace and an effective and stable deterrence. We are also very clearly of the view that measures which seek unilateral disarmament can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. Probably the most easily understood objection to what is proposed by the Australian Democrats in this Bill is that it goes squarely to the ability of members of the Western alliance to perform their tasks and does nothing to reduce the military effectiveness of the Eastern bloc by way of a phased and multilateral reduction of forces. The proposed move would strike only at the United States and its allies. It would strike only at those countries which traditionally have been allied with us. It would do nothing to ensure that the Soviet Union and its allies had some significant and equivalent reduction of forces. For that reason alone, the measure is thoroughly objectionable to the Opposition. In the course of this debate I will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading which expresses the Opposition's views and in addition expresses our concerns at the attempt unilaterally to place restrictions on the military forces of Australia and its allies. It expresses our view that disarmament measures should occur only as part of a mutual and balanced reduction of arms with effective verification and compliance. We also seek to affirm the view that Australia has a significant role to play in the search for peace and disarmament, but recognise that Australia's influence in disarmament forums is dependent upon our continuing to help in the maintenance of an effective deterrent. Over recent weeks there has been a great deal said about these subjects. It is the hope of the Opposition that as far as possible the Government will maintain a very firm stance which makes it clear that it is a strong supporter of the Western alliance and of the concept of deterrence as the best means of achieving a genuine move towards disarmament, as opposed to the one-sided approach which has been adopted by Senator Chipp. I refer to the question which Senator Chipp asked earlier today during a radio discussion with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and me. I think Senator Chipp said: 'Show me where in the ANZUS Treaty it says that we are going to be defended by the United States?' I wish to remind Senator Chipp of the views which he expressed years ago when he was speaking as a Minister of the then Liberal Government. Senator Jack Evans —Here we go. Senator CHANEY —'Here we go' says Senator Jack Evans. The fact is that the views which the Opposition now puts forward are the views which were expressed by Senator Chipp when he was a Minister, when he had a position of responsibility and authority and when he recognised the value of the ANZUS Treaty and, indeed, the need for reciprocal behaviour under it. Senator Jack Evans —Quote it in full. Senator CHANEY —I will certainly quote several passages and I will leave it to subsequent Democrats speakers to quote whatever they like. I wish to quote from page 2177 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 22 May 1969. Mr Chipp said: The Prime Minister brought back a reaffirmation of the ANZUS treaty by President Nixon in such unequivocal and categorical terms that gave heart to every member of this side of the House who still believes that the ANZUS treaty is the most precious piece of paper in Australian archives. It is a precious piece of paper, but as such it only a piece of paper. Without the intent and the good faith of one of the signatories to that treaty-the United States-it is not worth the paper it is written on. Apparently, that is the bit the Democrats wish to hear. I agree that it is a very important part of what Senator Chipp, then Mr Chipp, had to say at that time because it points out that the ANZUS Treaty provides a framework which requires the intent and good faith of the signatories to that Treaty. It is the strong view of the Opposition that it is for Australia to show good faith and intent, just as it is for the United States to show good faith and intent. On Australia's part, that involves its assuming a fair sharing of the burdens which are involved in the defence of the free world. Mr Chipp later in his speech used words that I believe are still pertinent today. I will quote from page 2,179 of the same Hansard. He said: If we set any store by that treaty-- he was, of course, referring to ANZUS-- what sort of morality is it to accept what the treaty gives and to give nothing back in return? We on this side of the House believe that we have this sense of morality. If we enter into a treaty for the security of the people of this country for the rest of this century, we cannot have it one sided. We have to give and take. I suppose that is one of the fundamental differences on this key issue which certainly now lie between the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. The Opposition believes that there has to be give and take and that Australia, in taking the security which is offered by its participation in the ANZUS Treaty, has to offer to bear some of the burden. There were many clear indications in the last Parliament that the Government and the Opposition would combine to defeat this legislation. That was certainly the appropriate course. I wish to refer to some comments that were made by Senator Gareth Evans when he led for the Government in the debate on 12 September 1984. I refer to page 880 of the Senate Hansard of that year. Senator Evans referred to a number of principles which are extremely relevant to the stance which we adopt on this Bill and which are relevant to the stance which Australia must continue to adopt. Senator Evans made the point, with which I completely agree, that it should be a fundamental element of Australian foreign policy that the world's nuclear weapon stockpile be reduced and eventually eliminated and that that was a matter which should be dealt with by agreement between the super-powers. He said that such an agreement should lead to both qualitative restraints and quantitative reductions in nuclear forces. A very important element in the debate which surrounds this issue is that we have that fundamental commitment to achieve nuclear disarmament by that means and that we have agreement between the two major powers which will get a reduction in both the quality and quantity of arms which are available to them. Senator Evans went on to say something which is again important in this debate. He said that we live in a real world, that nuclear weapons cannot be wished away and that nuclear disarmament will not happen overnight. I wish now directly to quote his words. He said: It accepts- meaning the present Government- 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. What Senator Evans, the then Attorney-General, was saying at that time was that we have as our only option the maintenance of a stable nuclear deterrence and the maintenance of a strategic balance. Failure to agree with that option is a fundamental defect in the proposal which the Australian Democrats have put before us today and which they put before us in September. There is no suggestion in what the Democrats are proposing that there should be mutuality. There is nothing in what the Australian Democrats are advocating which would go to the question of balance between the super-powers. There is therefore an inherent defect in this speciously attractive proposition which has been put forward by Senator Chipp this afternoon. A number of other points which were made by Senator Evans again provide part of the relevant framework of this debate. He made the point that there has not been an unlimited acceptance of the right of our allies to use our ports; rather there has been on the part of successive governments-he referred to the policy of the Fraser Government-a clear establishment of a set of rules which apply to the visits of ships. He also made the point that over 40 per cent of the United States Navy's combatant ships are now nuclear powered and that this percentage will continue to rise. He said: 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 . . . The final quotation which I wish to make from the speech of the then Attorney-General is as follows: 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. Again, there is no mystery as to why that third strand should be part of this argument. It would not be strategically sensible or indeed possible for the relevant navies to disclose the armaments of their ships. It would not be consistent with either their security or their effectiveness. I am pleased that I have been able to quote some statements by a Minister which go to the point the Opposition wishes to establish. I also wish to make the point that the recent vacillation of the Government, particularly over the MX missile testing question, has done a great deal to throw doubts on the Government's adherence to the principles which it insists are part of its approach to this matter. The Government's unity of purpose has been cast into doubt, not least by the words of Senator Ryan which have already been quoted in the Senate since we returned. Senator Ryan said things which were quite inconsistent with what was said by Senator Evans in the Senate last year and which I am sure he would reaffirm this year. Senator Ryan said: I think the time has come when real contradictions now appear between our fundamental role in peace and disarmament and between the American alliance. This morning a Minister refused to entertain the question that Senator Ryan be dismissed for her clear breach of Government policy, a breach which she made as a senior Minister in the Government. The fact is that there is no possible consistency between the view expressed by Senator Evans, supposedly on behalf of the Government, and the view expressed by Senator Ryan. There is no real contradiction between one's fundamental role in peace and disarmament and the American alliance if one believes that an essential part in achieving disarmament is to maintain a stable deterrence. Our alliance with the United States is an essential element in the Western alliance and it is the existence of that alliance and its reliability, constancy and strength that provide the real possibility that we will get the super-powers to enter into real negotiations for disarmament. A further concern which has arisen following the vacillation over the MX missile is whether this Government has the ability to control and make the essential decisions in this area. In Question Time today the Minister for Resources and Energy again made the point, which is worth repeating, that all that was sought by the United States with respect to the MX missile testing was some logistical support. One understands that the United States would have wished to enable its aircraft which were engaged in monitoring and supervising the testing to refuel and to provision in Australia. Yet the Government has not been able to maintain a decision that we would provide that minimal logistical support-the ability of our ally to land aircraft in Australia and for those aircraft to be refuelled and generally serviced. The Government could not achieve that very small objective, that very small contribution to the ANZUS alliance and to our obligations under it. That is a matter of great concern to the Opposition and again a reason why this debate needs to be brought on so that there can be the utmost clarification of Australia's situation. Our fundamental objection to what is being proposed by Senator Chipp is that he is proposing the unilateral destruction of the United States's ability to match the Soviet Union in an important area. There is nothing the Democrats can do or seek to do to reduce the ability of the Soviet Union to operate in our region. One knows that the Soviet Union has obtained its facilities in the area. The Senate has before it the simple requirement that the United States should be weakened without a contemporary and agreed weakening of the Soviet military position. This Bill is based upon the assumption that one can safely take a moral lead and Russia will follow. That is a proposition that needs some consideration. The idea that unilateral acts will result in what the Democrats sincerely seek is to assume that, given a moral lead, Russia will follow. I would have thought that if one examines the recent behaviour of the Soviet Union, its continued attitude towards Afghanistan, its occupation of that country and the military exercise and activities it carries out there the goodwill of the Soviet Union should not be assumed. If one examines the behaviour of the Marxist regime in Ethiopia, that goodwill should not be assumed. If one looks at the behaviour of Vietnam in light of the current concern about what is happening in that country and in Cambodia, again that goodwill should not be assumed. I suggest that the idea that some unilateral moral lead will lead the Soviet Union to follow that example is not borne out by experience. That is the central problem of the Australian Democrats' approach and that also of its competitive running mate, the Nuclear Disarmament Party. They are selling an emotional solution which would, in the view of the Opposition-and, as it would appear from many statements, in the view of the Government-increase the risk of war. They see peace as a product of a weakened Western alliance, whereas we see peace as a product of a strengthened Western alliance. That has been restated at various times by numerous Government spokesmen. It appears to be a matter on which there is bipartisan support in this place. The Prime Minister's words on this topic on 6 June last year are worth repeating: In approaching this responsibility, the Government unequivocally rejects the attractive but unrealistic idea that unilateral disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. We proceed from the fact that Australia is an aligned nation and that our security is supported by co-operative measures under the auspices of ANZUS. Mr Hayden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, much more recently, on 4 February, said: We are not neutral, we are not unaligned, we're not pacifists. There are those who are and they can argue their case. It's a legitimate and creditable one, but it's one which I would refute. We are a country which believes . . . that we should have a capability of self sufficiency for any overt attack against this country from within the region, and we hope that we could be reinforced by military supplies under ANZUS if that is needed. The same arguments were put forward by the Government's disarmament ambassador, Mr Butler, who said that our position is that deterrence is necessary so that there is no nuclear war. Because of the MX decision, some doubt has been cast upon the Government's stance in these matters, but I have already quoted what Mr Hayden said on the very night of the Hawke capitulation. One can only hope that the Government will strongly reaffirm the sorts of views put forward by Mr Hayden at that time rather than the more wishy-washy approach adopted more recently. Indeed, I suggest that recent experience shows that the lesson of history has been taught yet again. A strong United States-and no one would deny that the United States has strengthened its position in the last couple of years-has led the Soviet Union back to the negotiating table. The fact has to be faced that we are not dealing with a regime whose behaviour suggests that weakness will be repaid with kindness. I was impressed the other night by a presentation of what Solzhenitsyn said on this issue. He made a point back in the mid-1970s that needs to be stressed time and again in this debate. In his Nobel lecture on literature, Solzhenitsyn said: The spirit of Munich has by no means retreated into the past. It was not a brief episode. I would even be so bold as to say that the spirit of Munich dominates the twentieth century. The frightened civilised world found nothing better than concessions and smiles to counterpose to the sudden renewed assault of bare-fanged barbarism. The spirit of Munich is an illness of the will of prosperous people. It is the daily state of those who have given themselves over to their thirst for well-being at no matter what cost, to material prosperity as the principal goal of life on earth. Such people-and there are a multitude of them in the world today-choose passivity and retreat, anything so that their accustomed life should continue undisturbed, anything so as not to have to cross over into hardship today, while tomorrow, they hope, will take care of itself. (But tomorrow never will take care of itself! The retribution for cowardice will merely be all the more cruel. Courage and overcoming are given us only when we are willing to accept sacrifices.) I think those words of Solzhenitsyn accurately sum up some of the decisions that Australia has to take. I believe that if we are to survive-and, beyond survival, if we are to advance the cause of peace-we must show some courage and be prepared to participate in the Western alliance in the positive way that has always been advocated by the Liberal Party, and indeed by the Opposition. I can understand the attractiveness of an appeal to a moral lead which will lead bare-fanged barbarism to retreat, but only in the last few days we have received more recent information and evidence of the fundamental attitudes that permeate the Soviet Union. I remind the Senate of the pamphlet issued by the Australian Human Rights Society under the banner 'Save Dr Korjagin!'. One is reminded that one is dealing with a country which uses psychiatry as a method of suppressing dissent, which denies freedom, and which regards human rights as virtually irrelevant. Dr Korjagin is quoted in the pamphlet as saying: . . . let there be no doubt that the Soviet authorities have turned psychiatry into an instrument for suppressing dissent. I believe that that reality about the Soviet Union is one of the reasons why this debate is such a serious matter and one of the reasons why the disposal of this Bill is a serious matter. I believe that the reality is that the Western world, the world which does pay some regard to human rights, faces a determined foe, a country without respect for the values which I believe the Australian Democrats themselves would seek to promote in Australia. I believe that our only solution to the very vexed problems which we face in the field of arms, possible war and, worst of all, possible nuclear war is that we maintain our strength and, from a position of strength, we negotiate a better deal for the world. To adopt the sort of unilateralist approach which has been put forward by the Australian Democrats is, I believe, to court precisely the opposite result to that which they seek. It is, indeed, to put Australia at very great risk; it is indeed, to threaten war; it is indeed, to threaten us with subjection in a way that is totally unacceptable. To make the Opposition's point clear on this legislation, I move: Leave out all words after 'That' insert: '(1) The Senate is of the opinion that- (a) continued access by the United States and United Kingdom nuclear-powered ships, and of nuclear-capable ships, is vital for the maintenance of peace and an effective stable deterrence; and (b) unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. (2) The Senate- (a) expresses concern at the attempt unilaterally to place restrictions on the military forces of Australia and its allies, and strongly is of the view that disarmament measures should occur only as part of a mutual and balanced reduction of arms with effective verification and compliance; and (b) is of the view that Australia has a significant role to play in the search for peace and disarmament but recognises that Australia's influence in disarmament fora is dependent upon our continuing to help in the maintenance of an effective deterrent.'. I seek the support of the Senate for that amendment because I believe it expresses the principles which should activate the Australian Government of not just today, but also of tomorrow. I trust that the amendment will have the support of this Senate. Senator Chipp —I do not propose to detain the Senate, but I raise what I believe to be a crucial point of order in the circumstances. My point of order is that Senator Chaney's amendment is a direct negative of the Bill, the second reading of which I have moved. I appreciate that in the Standing Orders there is no standing order that says that no senator shall move an amendment which is a direct negative. I am conscious of standing order 194 which says: Amendments may be moved to such Question- that is, a second reading question- by leaving out 'now' and adding 'this day six months', which, if carried, shall finally dispose of the Bill; or the Previous Question may be moved. I suggest, Mr Deputy President, that the conventions that govern the conduct of any public meeting democratically run in the English speaking world or the democratic world preserve the right of minority groups to have their questions put and voted upon. While it is not specifically in the Standing Orders of the Senate, I put to you that there is a convention governing meetings of all people in a democratic society that forbids the putting to a meeting, by the sheer weight of numbers, of a motion that is a direct negative of the original motion. In conclusion, the Bill that the Australian Democrats have brought forward has the effect of banning totally from all Australian ports and waters nuclear powered and nuclear armed war ships. The amendment, which Senator Chaney did not read out because time beat him, would have the effect of doing the exact opposite by allowing the status quo to be preserved. I submit that that is a very dangerous precedent. I know that it has been established before, but I want to raise it now. It means that if a minority party in the Senate or an independent senator like Senator Harradine could raise something of enormous importance and have someone second it, by this subterfuge-and I say that to Senator Chaney in a kind sense, not in a nasty sense-the Senate by the sheer weight of numbers could prevent a vote being taken on that issue. I notice that the Government, with due respect, has another device after Senator Chaney's amendment has been disposed of. The use of a series of these devices by the major parties can result in important questions raised by minority parties and people never being put to a vote. I put that to you for your consideration. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have heard enough argument to allow me to rule on the point of order. This is a point which I have given some consideration to, knowing that Senator Chipp was going to raise it. By the custom of this chamber, a direct negative is defined as an amendment which has the same effect as a vote against the motion. Senator Chaney's amendment goes further than just a mere negation of Senator Chipp's motion for the second reading of the Bill because it proposes further consideration of opinions and concern. Therefore, it is not a direct negative and is in order. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs)(4.25) —Senator Chaney's amendment gives me both the opportunity and the need to re-enter this debate. The Government will not support his amendment for reasons that I will explain more fully at the conclusion of my remarks. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Evans, before you continue, you are obviously aware-I think I should explain the position to the Senate-that you are in fact speaking a second time in this debate, to the amendment, and you must confine your remarks to the amendment and not deal with the substance of the original motion. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There are other honourable senators who will be in the same position. That is why I am drawing your attention to this. Senator GARETH EVANS —In dealing with the amendment it is necessary to establish enough groundwork to understand why we adopt the attitude not only to the Bill but also to the second reading amendment which purports to undercut it. I make it clear that I certainly will not traverse the same ground that I occupied in my contribution in September. Indeed, that ground was fully travelled again for me by Senator Chaney in the course of his remarks. However, it is important that we, as the Government, have an opportunity once again to explain in the context of this amendment why we adopt the approach we do to this whole matter. The Government agrees with the Australian Democrats that there is no issue more important in today's world than arms control and disarmament because nothing less is at stake than the survival of the world. Where we differ from the Australian Democrats is on the question as to how best we in Australia and the Australian Government can contribute to that process. It is this particular matter to which the rival second reading amendments are in fact addressed. The essence of the Australian Democrats case is, I suppose, the demonstration effect, the symbolic effect elsewhere, of a decision to ban not only the presence of nuclear weapons on Australian soil or in Australian air space, which are already banned by present government policy, but also, going further than that, the entry into Australian waters or ports of ships which are carrying or may be carrying nuclear weapons and, indeed more than that again, the banning from Australian waters of any nuclear powered ships. The Government's position, which emerges clearly from the amendment that I will be moving, is that there should be clearly defined ground rules for access of nuclear powered and possibly nuclear armed ships of a kind set out by me in the debate on the Invincible matter on 15 December 1983 and again repeated by me in my first contribution to this debate on 11 September 1984. But we say that there should not be absolute prohibitions of the kind involved in this legislation. I make it clear that the Government does not dismiss the Democrats' essentially moral argument lightly or superficially and in dismissing it we certainly do not invoke, as did Senator Chaney, the spirit of Munich. I do not regard the Democrats' contribution to the debate as being in any way pusillanimous or misguided to that extent. There are powerful emotional currents running on this issue. There is a role for morally and emotionally based stances as a way of demonstrating that people are no longer prepared to take the continuation of the nuclear arms race as simply a fact of life. Nor do we dismiss the Australian Democrats' Bill on the basis of some simple or perhaps simple-minded equation of self-interest with the kind of knee-jerk reaction that was more appropriate to political debate in the 1950s and 1960s in response to requests, whatever their character, from the United States. The world of the 1980s that we inhabit is a much more complex place and we simply do not put the argument on that basis, notwithstanding Senator Chipp's numerous attempts to paint us as arguing in those terms. We put the argument on the basis that, were Australia to follow the course proposed by the Australian Democrats and to follow New Zealand's recent example, this would be counter-productive to the achievement of those arms control and disarmament goals about which we care so passionately and which we have done more to achieve, let it be said, than any other government in Australia's history. To fully appreciate the Government's position on this matter, I think it is necessary to stand back for a few moments and to get a perspective on the different possible approaches one can bring to the issue of the avoidance of nuclear war. Three basic approaches form part of the currency of debate, although they are sometimes not sufficiently clearly disentangled in public debate in this country. I am talking about, firstly, the mutually assured destruction approach; secondly, the mutually assured defence approach; and, thirdly, the approach of common security. Mutually assured destruction, or MAD, as it is known, is the approach which has formed the logic, if that is the right word, of the whole arms race for the last 40 years. It involves by its very nature a continuing upward spiral with the nuclear super-powers outbidding each other in the kinds of weaponry they can produce and bring to bear, all in the name of guaranteeing, by way of massive retaliation in the event of a strike by the other side, the destruction of the world and hoping that that will in turn constitute sufficient deterrence to ensure that nuclear war does not get started. It is an approach that involves massive dangers, massive uncertainties, and a massive misallocation of the world's scarce resources. Mutually assured destruction is not an approach to dealing with the danger of nuclear war that has any moral or, indeed, any other kind of justification except, I suppose, that somehow for the last 40 years it seems to have worked. There is a perfectly understandable concern that it may not go on working and that it is hardly a satisfactory basis on which to approach this whole extraordinarily important and extraordinarily difficult area. The second general approach to questions of overarching nuclear strategy is the more recently fashionable approach of MAD II, as I suppose it can be described-mutually assured defence, rather than mutually assured destruction. I refer to the notion that each country, or at least each super-power, should erect barriers around it that make it impenetrable to nuclear attack from the other side. This is the logical foundation of the strategic defence initiative, or the so-called Stars Wars concept, in the United States of America, although this has been much misunderstood in public discussion. Morally it has to be said, and it has been acknowledged by Mr Hayden, that it is an infinitely more defensible and justifiable approach than mutually assured destruction. The only difficulty, however, with this view of the world, and it is a huge difficulty, is that, put simply, it seems quite unworkable. Indeed, worse than that, it seems likely to create in practice an even more unstable situation than the one it would be replacing. It is for this reason that profound scepticism about this approach has been voiced all around the world, not least by the Australian Government, which has rejected it as a viable approach. Much more can be said about this, but the extraordinary level of technical perfection that would be required to produce impenetrable defences, the non-applicability, even conceptually, to cruise-type missiles and bomber-delivered weaponry as distinct from ballistic missiles, the fact that it would have to be implemented simultaneously by both the super-powers to have any effect, and, of course, the continuing massive costs associated with it, are in essence the reasons why this approach has been so widely rejected in the form in which it has been espoused by the Reagan Government. That leaves the third approach, which has gained a great deal of currency, and properly so, since it was articulated very carefully and very thoroughly by the Olaf Palme chaired commission reporting in 1982. This is the approach described as common security, the essence of which is the development of a network of bilateral and multilateral treaty arrangements by which the nuclear powers can confidently embark upon a downward spiral of arms shedding, leading ultimately to complete nuclear disarmament, the contradistinction being very obvious between this approach and the logic of the mutually assured destruction approach which involves one, conceptually and logically, in an ever increasing upward spiral of spending. Australia sees-this has been carefully articulated on a number of occasions by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden-common security as the only approach to the avoidance of nuclear war which is both morally sound and realistic. What makes it realistic is the recognition that disarmament cannot be secured overnight. As I have said before and was quoted as saying by Senator Chaney today, in the short run deterrence and all that goes with it, including the deployment of both counter-force and retaliatory nuclear weaponry, is a necessary part of the process. We all want a freeze in the arms race as a necessary prelude to arms reduction, but we have to acknowledge the reality that any such freeze, if it is to occur, has to be on the basis of balance, verifiability and obviously, following from that, agreement between the super-powers. Whatever any other country in the world might be minded to do unilaterally, it is perfectly evident and will remain so that neither super-power will ever disarm unilaterally. What, then, is Australia's role if common security is the only approach that makes any kind of sense conceptually? What is the role of non-super-power countries such as our own? That is at the very heart of the debate on this Bills and that is why I have spent a little time tracking over more abstract territory before getting to the immediate issue. It is against that background that many of these issues become a little more clear than might otherwise be the case. The Government's argument is that action of the kind proposed in the Democrats' Bill may from one point of view be pointless but is certainly, in our view, likely to be counter-productive. The pointlessness argument depends on the view that one adopts about the likelihood of a nuclear exchange of a significant scale resulting in a nuclear winter, as the description has it. If it is the case that any major nuclear exchange in the Northern Hemisphere will create the kind of climatic conditions which world-wide, globally, will produce the phenomenon described as a nuclear winter, that makes very starkly the point that nothing we can do unilaterally, or even by way of creating a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific, is likely in itself, unless accompanied by many other measures, to help much the insulation of Australia from the events we are talking about. I am well aware that the whole concept of a nuclear winter is scientifically controversial and that one cannot, as a result, erect too much of a debating edifice upon it. I simply point to the fact that, in my awareness, the Democrats have been very keen constantly to talk about nuclear winter as one of the numerous awful consequences of nuclear war. I remind them that, to the extent that they hold that view, there is an element of contradiction involved in any sort of new unilateralist position or one that seeks to insulate Australia from the effects of nuclear war. We simply cannot have it both ways if that is a real world likelihood. The more substantial point I wish to make on behalf of the Government is that, viewed against the common security approach we so warmly espouse, the kind of prohibitions contained in this legislation would be counter-productive so far as our contribution to the achievement of peace and disarmament is concerned. The reality of the matter is that the fact of the Western alliance and, indeed, the Eastern bloc alliance for that matter, is crucial to the common security concept and the move we all want to see occur towards arms reduction and, ultimately, disarmament. The networks of alliances that exist around the world are crucial from this point of view. They are a stabilising factor politically and in security terms. They are the kinds of phenomenon that give the super-powers the confidence as a necessary precondition to moving into that downward spiral of disarmament and arms reduction we are all so anxious to see occur. So the mere fact of the alliance, quite apart from the content of each particular alliance relationship, is of importance, viewed in that global context. Secondly, of course, the particular alliance that Australia is party to with the United States has elements which are of quite crucial and immediate instrumental significance in the maintenance of that mutual deterrence and strategic stability which now exists. I am referring in particular not so much to the role of North West Cape, which has been rather overstated-it is, as we all know now, simply a communications relay station-but more particularly to the role of Pine Gap and Nurrungar in early warning and verification. The more specific aspect of the alliance which comes in question in the context of this immediate debate is the port access that is involved in our alliance relationship at the moment and which is regarded, it has become apparent, by the United States as an integral part of that alliance relationship with its ANZUS partners. One appreciates that the point that is being made is that port access is of some operational significance in American fleet operations in the South Pacific. The more important point which probably lies behind the American concern and which has been widely articulated is, of course, the symbolic impact upon an otherwise healthy alliance relationship of one partner in the alliance denying the other logistic support of this kind, at least on an involuntary basis. It is not a matter that I particularly want to emphasise in purely strategic terms. I think it is the larger questions of principle which are involved and which are probably of the essence when one is focusing specifically on the question of ship visits. So, for a whole variety of reasons there are a number of dimensions at a very general level and at a quite specific level from the point of view of which it is possible to say that the stability of the particular Western alliance relationship to which we are a party would be put at risk were we to go down the track involved in this legislation. The other particular point that needs to be made under the general heading of the counter-productivity of the Democrats legislation is simply this: To get ourselves into a position where that alliance is put at risk is not only debilitating for all the reasons that I have mentioned already but also it would undoubtedly have the effect of removing entirely such clout or such influence as Australia does have with the United States both in terms of bilateral discussions and perhaps more immediately obviously in the context of debates and treaty negotiations in international forums. Australia has played in recent times a very significant role in multilateral forums in particular, encouraging the United States to adopt positions which are seen by us as helpful to the longer term cause of disarmament. It is a recipe for rendering oneself impotent to go down the particular track that has been mapped for us now by the Democrats. Australia's activity in this respect has been constant and very evident. I spelt it out in considerable detail in my speech in September and I do not want to track over that ground again. All I do want to say for the record is that having spent, a fortnight ago, two or three days in Geneva at the multilateral disarmament conference, having spent time in the company of our Ambassador for Disarmament, Richard Butler, and having spent a lot of time talking to ambassadors from other countries, including the super-powers, I am extremely impressed by the quality and the dedication of the work that is going into Australia's effort and I cannot help but be impressed, as we all should be, by the role, the stature, the visibility and the credibility that Australia now has in these forums. That activity, however, has been premised on the whole common security set of principles that I have spelt out and on Australia's role as a key member of the Western alliance through, in particular, its membership of ANZUS. It would not assist Australia's credibility, it would not assist Australia's effectiveness, if this Bill were to be adopted. Some of the themes that I have been mentioning are picked up in Senator Chaney's amendment. But it has to be said, coming now to the terms of the amendment, that the amendment in the form in which he has moved it can be described only as extravagant overkill. It cannot, the Government believes, be supported by any responsible participant in this very serious debate. Some of the language in the Liberal's amendment owes more, I believe, to political gamesmanship than to intellectual conviction on the part of the Opposition. But this is not a game the Government is minded to play. For example, let me make clear just some of the difficulties that we see with the language in Senator Chaney's amendment. Paragraph (1) (a) contains the proposition: continued access by the US and UK nuclear powered ships, and of nuclear capable ships, is vital for the maintenance of peace and an effective stable deterrence. . . We are readily prepared to concede that the continued access by at least United States ships may be vital to the alliance, and one notes in passing that ANZUS does not get a mention in the Opposition amendment, notwithstanding the emphasis that the Opposition apparently wants to place on it. But, while vital to the alliance, it is not necessarily vital to peace and deterrence as such. At least it is consistent with the objectives of the maintenance of peace and an effective and stable relationship. It is just stretching too long a bow to couch the language in those terms. The language is, as I have said, extravagant in this respect. Paragraph (1) (b) of the amendment states: unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. Again, it is much too extravagant a statement to suggest that unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine. Were by some miracle the major powers to determine simultaneously-not by virtue of multilateral agreement, but just to do it-- Senator Chaney —That would not be unilateral. Senator GARETH EVANS —It depends on who is doing the disarming and in what context. It could be a country which is not party to an existing alliance network but which has been a candidate for joining the nuclear proliferation stakes. For such a country to decide unilaterally to disarm without prejudicing any existing alliance relationship in the process would not necessarily undermine peace and generate instability at all. On the contrary. The point can be made, without perhaps going so far as I sought to in respect of the super-powers. Paragraph (2) (a) of the amendment states: expresses concern at the attempt unilaterally to place restrictions on the military forces of Australia and its allies . . . This is a shaft at the Democrats for having the temerity even to want this matter to be debated. That is not a view, as I have made clear, that we in the Government adopt. These are terribly serious issues and it is entirely appropriate that this Parliament debate them in the way that we have been. It is not a matter of going down the Democrats path of invoking, as Senator Chaney said, the spirit of Munich. It is a matter of expressing genuine concern which is being voiced by many people in the community. It demands a rational response. It is not a matter of expressing concern, as this amendment does, that the Democrats should even have sought to go down that path. Paragraph (2) (a) further states: . . . disarmament measures should occur only as part of a mutual and balanced reduction of arms with effective verification and compliance . . . That, again, seems to us to put the matter much too highly. No doubt as a practical matter disarmament will occur only in that environment that I spelt out. That is a statement of realities put that way. But were there to be a chance in this context, if not the earlier one I mentioned, of the super-powers deciding to disarm without first wanting some balanced reduction of the kind that is here referred to, we would all utter, I guess, a hearty cheer in that context. So the exercise can continue. It is not especially productive, I think, to go into it in any more detail. It is enough to make the point, however, that the language, as I have said, owes more to political gamesmanship than to careful thought as to its consequences or to intellectual conviction. So far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with paragraph 2 (b)-it makes the point which I have made in the course of my speech and, no doubt, will again publicly-but the context in which it occurs would demand some rewriting. To come to the terms of the Government's amendment, we believe a simpler and less extravagant way of making the point that the Opposition wants to make is in terms of the amendment to Senator Chaney's amendment which I foreshadow and will move at the appropriate time: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: '(1) The Senate is of the opinion that continued access by visiting allied war ships, within the framework of appropriate safety and environmental controls as laid down by successive Australian governments, is essential for the effective operation of the ANZUS Alliance. (2) The Senate is further of the view that Australia's membership of the ANZUS Alliance has a significant role to play in advancing Australia's influence in disarmament forums'. The language makes the point simply and succinctly, firstly, that to go down the track spelled out in the Democrats' legislation would put at risk the alliance of which we are part and, secondly, that that in itself would have a much wider significance than merely our bilateral relations with the United States or our own military self-protection. That would have consequences for our capacity to argue effectively in international forums for the cause of peace and disarmament which all of us in this chamber, whatever our views as to how they might best be achieved, universally espouse. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.52) —I notice that two amendments, one by the Liberal Party and one by the Australian Labor Party, have been made with regard to the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984 which the Australian Democrats brought in, through myself, last September. I wish to address my remarks to those amendments. May I, without being patronising, compliment Senator Chaney and Senator Gareth Evans for the thoughtful, high level of debate which they have brought to this crucial question. That does not mean to say that I agree with a hell of a lot of what they said, but I compliment them on the way in which they said it and the thoughtful way in which they put it. I hope that the rest of the debate-I am pleased to say that it has attracted something like 14 speakers-will maintain that high standard. The first thing that puzzles me about Senator Chaney's amendment is that it suggests that by banning the visit of nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships from Australian ports the Democrats are advocating unilateral disarmament. Never in our history have the Democrats advocated unilateral disarmament. We regard that as an absurd proposition. We have advocated two things: There should be some moral leadership given to disarmament by Australia, as New Zealand has, and by the United States of America; and, secondly, Australia's defence policies should change drastically towards our being more strongly independent in our defence posture and less reliant on a nation or nations whose posture is geared to a global defence strategy and possibly a global aggressive pre-emptive first-strike strategy, which we believe the United States is moving to. Why should there not be moral leadership? Senator Chaney, or Senator Evans-they both meant the same thing when they talked about unilateral disarmament-suggested that the Democrats are advocating unilateral disarmament. We have never advocated that. The fact is that there are now 50,000 nuclear bombs in existence. Thirty thousand of those bombs are owned by the United States and 20,000 by the Soviet Union. There are a few other nations in the nuclear club, but that is essentially the spread of the nuclear bombs. It is wise, I think, just to pause for a moment to contemplate the amount of destruction that those 50,000 nuclear bombs could wreak. Senator Evans spoke about the nuclear winter. That is a nice poetic phrase, but it does not get to the true meaning of the total insanity which has driven humankind to the point where 50,000 nuclear bombs are in existence. It is the declared intention of President Reagan and President Chernenko and their henchmen to produce a further 20,000 bombs over the next decade. The average size of those 50,000 bombs-not the biggest-is something like 20 to 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, which killed 200,000 human beings. The situation is that 50,000 nuclear bombs are in existence. The average one would kill, it it were possible, something like six million people in one hit. That is the stage which we have reached. If Senator Chaney wants to say that the Soviet Union has never taken the initiative on disarmament, I will essentially agree with him. One interesting point is that every time the United States of America has taken the initiative-it has done so on several occasions-it has been immediately followed through by the Soviet Union. I am not looking to the Soviet Union for moral leadership. I do not look to the Soviet Union for anything that is moral in any form, but the facts of life are that when the United States has taken the path of moral leadership it has been followed by common-sense motivations by the Soviet Union. All we are saying and suggesting now-if Senator Chaney wants to talk about unilateral disarmament, which is not in our dictionary-is that if President Reagan wanted to give moral leadership he could say tomorrow, in Geneva: 'The Americans will denuclearise'-I am sure that is not the correct expression, but I think it conveys a meaning-'5,000 of our 30,000 bombs'. The Americans would still have enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the whole world dozens of times over and still have superiority over the Soviet Union, but it would be an act of moral leadership-I am sure that is not a naive expression-which we believe the world needs desperately before we have the nuclear winter about which Senator Evans spoke. I agree with Senator Evans that if we have a total nuclear confrontation between the major powers this debate is useless; any talk is useless. There is no point in even contemplating it. There would be a nuclear winter. It would mean that every living creature and organism on earth would be destroyed. The world would be in total darkness. There would be no growth and no life for hundreds of thousands of years. Before Senator Evans dismisses the concern of the Democrats with one swoop of the hand saying 'What are you worried about? If there is a nuclear war there will be a nuclear winter and there will be no need to worry because we will all be dead'. I remind him that there can be and there is an evil, insane concept of a winnable limited nuclear war. This concept is still being proposed by President Reagan and other people in the Defense Department in the Pentagon. Even if the strategic defence initiative is successful, a limited nuclear war is still possible. Australia should not have a bar of it. If President Reagan and his elderly, insane advisers want to play war games with the equally elderly, insane generals in the Kremlin, we cannot do much about it. In God's name, let us have the guts to say to the Americans and the Russians: 'We do not want any part of your dirty, rotten business of destroying the world because you have no right to do that.' All out nuclear war is not the only concept to be considered. A limited nuclear war is still an item on the agenda in the Pentagon and the Kremlin. Australia is a nuclear target. It is not Don Chipp or the Democrats saying that; the Soviets say so, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Hawke, says so and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) says so. We are now a nuclear target and it is time every Australian who says he or she believes in God, who says he or she cares for the family and for children, realised that. It is not a matter of fantasy; it is a fact. Authorities that cannot be contradicted say so, and nuclear warships and planes carrying nuclear weapons are as much targets in a nuclear conflict as the bases are. Senator Gareth Evans, speaking on radio today, with Senator Chaney and me, said a very quaint thing as far as the Labor Party is concerned. I do not want to score points but, please, will some following speaker from the Labor Party explain this? Senator Evans said: 'The Labor Party is still adamant that there will be no B52 bombers or any other kind of aircraft carrying nuclear bombs flying across Australian soil.' I believe that, but what I would like to have explained to me is: What is the difference between having a nuclear bomb carried across our soil in an aircraft and having a nuclear bomb on board a ship-a bomb, I remind honourable senators, that could be 20 to 30 times more powerful and destructive than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima-in Sydney Harbour, Fremantle, or Port Melbourne? The logic of that escapes me. If the Labor Party wants to take credit for saying: 'We will not have a bar of aircraft carrying nuclear bombs but we will let nuclear bombs into our ports', there seems to me to be an inconsistency which is unexplainable. Those ships and planes go close to large population areas. The Government is heightening the panoply of hazard and fear in which the people of Australia live. We now have 24 American bases on Australian soil. I bet that comes as a surprise to some Australians listening this afternoon. We now have 24 American bases on Australian soil, some of which are prime nuclear targets. Again, it is not Don Chipp and the Democrats saying that; the Soviets are saying it. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs admit that we do have American bases on Australian soil which are nuclear targets, one of them within a cricket ball's throw, if you have a reasonable arm, of Adelaide. The debate on this Bill today is urgent because of Australia's vulnerability. It is not static; it is increasing. The bases are now linked with the infamous SDI Star Wars program-SDI standing for strategic defence initiative. This matter is of the utmost urgency because it is being done by stealth. Senator Button —You cannot substantiate what you have just said for a minute. Senator CHIPP —I am about to try. Australia is not even being consulted in this matter. It is all very well for the Minister to interject that I cannot substantiate that for a minute. I am not asking the Minister to tell me details, but does he, as the third most senior Minister in the Government, know exactly what is going on at Nurrungar? Senator Button —I believe so. Senator CHIPP —Can he tell me exactly what is going on at Pine Gap? Senator Button —I believe so. Senator CHIPP —Can he tell me what is going on at Watsonia? Senator Button —I believe not, in my case. Senator CHIPP —The Minister is renowned for his frankness and honesty, and I thank him for those answers. I believe, in all sincerity, he has answered truthfully, but he has not answered in accordance with fact, because I suggest to him with the greatest respect that he does not know exactly what is going on at Pine Gap, Nurrungar, North West Cape and a dozen other bases in Australia. For example, Nurrungar is being transformed from part of an early warning system to aiding the United States in trans and post-attack intelligence, and in this way it is contributing to strategic instability via its contribution to war fighting capacities, and I say to the Minister that that is a direct contribution to the strategic defence initiative. The debate today is a matter of urgency. I put this very simple proposition: I move from the ultra-technical aspect of Star Wars to something very simple. If I asked the average Australian in the street 'Do you believe it is your right as an Australian to say whether you should have nuclear bombs in your ports?', I believe that, cherishing that myth of independence with which we seem to clothe ourselves, he would say: 'Bloody oath, no one is going to stand over us. No one is going to tell us we have to have nuclear bombs in our ports.' That is what the average Australian would say. But is that the fact? No, we are no longer the masters of our own destiny. We have now got Big Brother, the United States, telling us: 'You step out of line on this, Australia, and we will do to you what we are going to do to New Zealand.' What was New Zealand's horrendous crime that has earned it the wrath of the United States of America? It has had bully boys such as Shultz, Weinberger, this moron called Cheney-spelt C-h-e-n-e-y, not the distinguished Senator Chaney of this House-who says: 'If Australia steps out of line like New Zealand, I will move to introduce private members Bills in the Congress to punish it for stepping out of line.' Did we hear any response from the Government or the Opposition to that outrageous statement from a moron such as that? Yet the statement gets Press coverage here. What did New Zealand do? All it did was to say: 'We do not want nuclear bombs in our ports'. Is it not the right of any nation to say that? That is all Mr Lange said. That is all the New Zealanders say. I have been there recently and 73 per cent of New Zealanders have responded to the magnificent and courageous moral leadership that Mr Lange is giving the South Pacific and Australia and they are totally supporting him. How would members of the Liberal Party, who pride themselves quite properly on being champions of freedom and justice, feel if the Soviet Union said to one of its satellites, where ordinary men, women and children work and play: 'You must become a nuclear target. We, the Soviets, insist that you have the visit of Soviet warships loaded to the teeth with nuclear bombs. You must accept danger because we, the Soviet Union, believe it is our global strategy for you to have it.'? Every member of the Liberal Party in this Parliament would stand up outraged, and quite properly so. They would say: 'What a monstrous intrusion into civil liberties that is-major powers being bully boys and saying to the minor powers and nations: ''No, you are no longer entitled to your independence.'' ' I am fascinated by the Liberal amendment with regard to our Bill. Honourable senators will notice that there is not one word about ANZUS in the Liberal amendment. Do I take it that at last the Democrats have had some success in that the Liberals now concede that ANZUS is valueless? It is not worth a damn. Senator Peter Baume —You are not correct. Senator CHIPP —Why do the Liberals not have the guts to put it in their amendment? They are now relying on phrases such as 'the Western alliance'. What the hell does that mean? Is there a treaty? Senator MacGibbon —It means the Western democracies. Senator CHIPP —I see, it means the Western democracies. If anyone can point out to me what bit of paper, what resolution, constitutes the Western alliance I would be grateful. Let me go back to ANZUS. I ask the Senate two questions: What has Australia given to the Americans and what have they given back to us? Let us see how fair and two-way it has been, because Senator Chaney and other people rely rather heavily on this. I just heard some fellow in the Pentagon saying: 'Of course, if our allies like Australia and New Zealand want our protection in time of war they have to be prepared to pay for it'. That is what he said. It is on Channel 9 news tonight. What have we given to the Americans? Let us look at that first. Firstly, we have given the Americans 24 precious places on Australian soil on which they have built their bases. Some of them are nuclear targets and the character of some of them is being changed by stealth. Secondly, we have now agreed twice to monitor the testing of MX missiles. Do people listening to this debate know what an MX missile is? It is a device which can hit hard silos in which Soviet nuclear weapons are stored. An MX missile does not contain as a warhead one nuclear bomb; it has the capacity to contain eight to 10 nuclear warheads. Australia agreed to monitor the testing of the MX missiles on two occasions-once at least by Prime Minister Fraser and once at least by Prime Minister Hawke. I mention as an aside the infamy of Prime Minister Hawke. Months after he had agreed with President Reagan that Australia would continue to monitor the testing of the MX missile Australia voted in the United Nations for a nuclear freeze. Months after Prime Minister Hawke had given that assurance to President Reagan we supported a zone of peace in the South Pacific at a meeting of the South Pacific Forum held in August 1984. Even as late as November 1984 Australia voted in the United Nations for a nuclear freeze knowing full well that we had agreed to monitor the testing of the MX missile. The Liberals know that I totally disagree with their policies, but at least, as they say in Cockney London, they are 'straight up and down, guv'. They have said that they are all for the MX missile. They have said that they are for the alliance. I do not know of any occasion on which the Liberals have said something to a President of the United States and then voted the opposite way at the United Nations. Senator Tate —I think the freeze we voted for was a mutual and verifiable freeze. Senator CHIPP —It also included the means for delivering weapons as well as weapons themselves. I should have thought that that is precisely what the MX missile is. That is the second thing we have given the Americans under ANZUS. Thirdly, we have given them Nurrungar, which directly links us to the Star Wars concept. Fourthly, has any member of the Senate with any knowledge of the technical defence of Australia looked at the kind of defence equipment we have bought over the last 20 years? I should know more than most senators because I was Minister for the Navy, Acting Minister for the Army and Acting Minister for Air, my qualifications for the three jobs being that I was once a leading aircraftsman in the Royal Australian Air Force. This is the crazy way in which we appoint Ministers in this country. I say in a flash that I have changed my mind in 16 years. If anybody wants to make a cheap fourth form debating point about that I will say: 'Of course I have'. I would not want to have even a cup of tea with an honourable senator who has the same views on everything today as he had 16 years ago. Some honourable senators have. Does Australia want DDGs? Does it want the incredibly sophisticated kind of equipment we have bought for the sake of the Americans over 20 years or do we want a fast, elite, well-equipped, well-armed Army, Navy and Air Force to keep off some nearby predator? We have spent billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on equipment to fit in with America's global defence policy, not Australia's. That is what we have given to the Americans. We have allowed nuclear ships into our ports. We have manufactured in Australia parts of the electromagnetic rail gun. If Senator Button wishes to interject again and say that that is not an integral part of President Reagan's Star Wars concept let him do so. We have allowed B52 bombers to fly over, refuel and land on Australian soil. I remind honourable senators that next year the B52 will be fitted with cruise missiles. That is what we have given to the Americans, as far as I know. I do not know of any other secret deals that have been done by Prime Ministers, Liberal or Labor. What have we got out of ANZUS and what were we likely to get out of ANZUS? I have challenged both Senator Chaney and Senator Evans and I challenge any Liberal senator who follows me in the debate to name the article in the ANZUS Treaty which says America will help us. That should not be hard to do because the Treaty is only 1,200 words long. It is only a page and a half long. Surely honourable senators can point out to me the article or the phrase which says that America will come to Australia's aid if we are attacked. The Treaty says that America will consult. That means no more than a phone call. Even if the President of the United States commits land forces or any sorts of forces to Australia's defence, according to article IV of ANZUS the decision still has to go through the constitutional process, which means the President has to have his action endorsed by Congress. Is there one honourable senator in this chamber now or one person listening to the broadcast of my speech who believes that the Congress of the United States would approve presidential action to commit troops to Papua New Guinea or Australia if perchance we were attacked by Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam or anybody else? Does anybody in his right mind really believe that because of ANZUS America would come to our aid? Of course it would not. It would come to our aid if it suited the United States of America. That has been the motivation of the foreign policy of every nation since history began. I am not blaming the United States for that. Senator Messner —They agree to. Senator CHIPP —Because the Labor Party agrees with Senator Messner on this certainly does not make it right. The Government has voted for these matters, I believe to our shame. How the Government will explain it to our partners I do not know. Let me conclude my remarks by referring to this man Cheney in the United States. I do not pin-point him because, to use the English expression, he is a twerp or, to use the Australian expression, he could be called a moron. One thing that is indicative, however, is that he mouths some of the sentiments coming out of the Pentagon. He says: 'If Australia dares stop nuclear ships coming into its ports I will move motions in the Congress hurting Australia's trade'. Let us look at that comment. Did nobody tell this individual that we buy two and a half times more from the United States than it buys from us? Did someone not even bother to tell this idiot that the kind of stuff that we buy from the United States is high technology stuff which Japan would love to sell us? Does this fellow not know that we have companies in Australia such as IBM, GMH, Ford, Honeywell, Alcoa, Comalco, Caltex, Esso and General Electric, to name just a few, which are wholly or essentially owned by American shareholders? Senator Button —What are you suggesting? Senator Messner —Are you going to expropriate them? Senator CHIPP —I suggest that instead of having interjections such as the ones I heard from the Labor side and the Liberal side of the chamber and instead of being stood over by the Americans it is time we showed some guts, stood up, were counted and stopped nuclear bombs coming into our ports. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.22) —The Senate is debating a private member's Bill, the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill presented by the Australian Democrats, the effect of which, if passed, would stop the passage into Australian seaways or Australian air space of sea vessels or air vessels whether nuclear propelled or nuclear armed. I think we have heard a speech by Senator Chipp of gross inaccuracy and gross distortion. I propose to deal with that. I am saddened by that speech because it concerns a subject of enormous seriousness to the people of Australia. However, we have heard from Senator Chipp a clear statement to the effect that he, at least, of his Party is opposed to ANZUS and that the Australian Democrats therefore, since Senator Chipp speaks as the leader of that Party, are opposed to ANZUS. That is of immense importance. Senator Mason, as Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats, in speaking in this debate has indicated that the policy of the Democrats is not only to have nuclear free zones in the ordinary sense that the Pacific Forum considered but also that there should be no vessels either nuclear propelled or nuclear armed in the Pacific. That means a removal from the Pacific of all modern efficient naval vessels. Of course, this means vessels on our side because there is no such sanction on Russian vessels. Lest anyone have any illusions about this matter, Senator Chaney has moved a very effective amendment supporting the need for vessels to come into Australian ports, pointing out the terrible dangers of unilateral disarmament, with the danger of weakening our side of politics in the peacekeeping role, and pointing out the importance of having a multilateral disarmament with verification and compliance. He also pointed out the effect of deterrence. I want to take step by step this matter of the ANZUS Treaty because it has been said by Senator Chipp to be of no value. Senator Chipp is therefore almost the only person in step in the regiment. I have in my hands a report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, a very prestigious committee. The subject of the report of November 1982 is the ANZUS alliance. The report directs itself to the effective nature of the ANZUS Treaty. The opinions of a substantial majority of members of this Parliament are voiced in this report. Let that be perfectly clear. The report states: The Committee considers that the mutual security provisions of the ANZUS Treaty, taken together, represent a stronger assurance of military assistance in the event of an attack on Australian territory than a commitment merely to consult. The Committee believes that in the event of a threat to Australia which proved beyond the capacity of the Australian defence force to meet unaided United States support would be forthcoming in accordance with the mutual security provisions of the Treaty. That is the voice of the majority of members from both chambers of this Parliament. It is the voice of a prestigious committee, the most senior committee of this Parliament. Let me now look at the question of keeping nuclear powered or armed ships or aircraft out of Australia. First of all Senator Chipp gives the impression whenever he speaks that he and his people are the only custodians of peace and that the rest of us are war mongers. Let me put that in perspective. Every member of this Parliament, almost everybody in Australia-all right thinking people-wants peace. The question is how best we get this. Of course; we get peace by certain mechanisms. Do we get peace by unilateral withdrawal or do we get it by an alliance which keeps a sensitive world balance and retains a deterrence which, for lack of anything better, has kept the peace in recent times? There is a complete distortion of argument by the Democrats. On the one hand the Democrats have repeatedly said in this Parliament that there will be tremendous damage to the whole ecology of this world-I accept that-in the event of a nuclear holocaust. There will, in the modern phrase, be a nuclear winter. No one can escape. In this nuclear winter all life on this earth will be destroyed. That is accepted. If the first bomb were to fall on Australia, for example on a defence establishment in Australia or on a ship in an Australian port-no matter where it falls-humanity will be lost. In fact, that will be because of the failure of humanity to prevent war. Let me make that perfectly clear. I spent the best part of the end of last year travelling around the world talking to all sides on the disarmament issue, trying to seek the facts. The facts are very clear indeed. In future there can be no significant wars-whether conventional or nuclear-in this world because the danger is that conventional war will escalate to nuclear war. There is a general acceptance that nuclear war is total, that we cannot have a small nuclear war. The arguments against theatre nuclear weapons in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation scene are strongly accepted around the world. It is accepted that war there would escalate into a cosmic war. Indeed the physical situation is that the cosmic mix would destroy by radiation people around the world. Therefore, we have a situation in which on the one hand the Democrats are admitting that in a holocaust, once it starts, everybody will suffer and yet on the other hand they are trying to suggest that somehow or other Australia would suffer more by the destruction of an installation or a ship. They are saying forcefully that somehow or other a nuclear vessel, that is a vessel with nuclear bombs on board and in port, will create a nuclear holocaust. Everybody knows that scientifically the most inert weapon on this earth is an unarmed nuclear missile. It cannot explode whether by misadventure, fire or another bomb dropping on it. Indeed it is plain scare tactics to say to people that somehow or other a vessel in port with a nuclear weapon on board is a fundamental hazard. If a nuclear bomb should fall anywhere in this world it signifies one thing, that the world is engaged in a nuclear holocaust. Fundamentally what we should be addressing is how we stop that first bomb falling, no matter where it falls. The Democrats are arguing, for example, that Nurrungar and Pine Gap are, on balance, a threat to Australia and the world. If Senator Chipp had been, as I have been, in Geneva and observed the conferences on disarmament, and if he had talked to people from both sides of the Iron Curtain, he would know that they are now trying to protect the very satellites and base stations such as Nurrungar and Pine Gap. Why? It is because people from both sides of the Iron Curtain say that the greatest peacekeeper in the world today is the surveillance satellite. Senator Chipp wants to frighten the Australian people by saying that, on balance, we have something that is enormously bad for Australia and that we are doing a favour to the American people by having it here at great risk to ourselves. In fact, everyone admits-the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, and the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, admit-that the surveillance satellites are the best peacekeepers on earth. Indeed, in Geneva Mr Hayden proposed that the treaty that is being designed to protect the satellites should also embrace the ground stations. So we are denigrating the best peacekeepers. I digress for one moment to say that I believe the quite wrongful attack by Senator Chipp on an American congressman named Cheney ought to be put in place. When he told the story, I wonder whether he thought of telling the people why that man said those things. He said those things because he was speaking on behalf of tens of millions of his constituents who have agreed to tolerate 100 MX missiles in their State at an enormous risk to themselves in the overall belief that they are a deterrent against nuclear attack and are therefore a safeguard of peace in the world. He is saying: 'If the tens of millions of people in my State are willing to have the missiles located here and to run this enormous risk, can't the Australians refuel a couple of aircraft which will look at MX missiles'? That is the real story; not as it was told by Senator Chipp. The way in which Senator Chipp told the story was disgraceful. In fact, I think Congressman Cheney was speaking from his heart about the whole test. The test of peace today comes down to one single thing: Let us do the things that we can do best in order to keep peace because, once peace fails, it does not matter whether one has a base that is a target; it does not matter whether one has a ship that is a target; the world will be engulfed. So an installation at Alice Springs may be a force for peace. Indeed, Senator Chipp is certainly the only one in the regiment who does not believe that that is the case because among the 40 nations at the Conference on Disarmament there was virtually a universal view that those satellites were the best surveillance system and the best monitors for peace. It is madness to try to distort the situation as has been attempted. In regard to the ANZUS Treaty, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans-he should listen because I will quote him-stated that Senator Chaney's words were too strong. Everything-and I say this to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button-in Senator Chaney's amendment today is more than fully supported by speeches and written statements made by Labor Party Ministers. If they choose to reject this amendment today, it can only be because they are once more making concessions to their faction. Let me make this perfectly clear. The Senate will recall, for example, that Senator Evans said that Senator Chaney's amendment was much too strong when it stated: The Senate is of the opinion that (a) continued access by the United States and United Kingdom nuclear powered ships, and of nuclear capable ships, is vital for the maintenance of peace and an effective stable deterrence . . . He thought that 'vital' was a little strong. But he quoted from statements of the ANZUS Council meetings of 1982 and 1984, and he commended them on behalf of the Government. The 1982 Council stated that it: . . . confirmed the high priority each partner placed upon a regular and comprehensive program 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 port 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. I repeat that phrase: 'As a critical factor in its efforts to maintain strategic deterrence'. That is much stronger than the words contained in Senator Chaney's amendment, yet we received a lecture about that. Mr Hayden's speeches are full of attacks on unilateral disarmament and the weakening of that situation. We have a crazy situation in regard to the Democrats. Senator Macklin's words need to be immortalised. During the debate previously he said: The Australian Democrats strongly support ANZUS but we believe it can be a non-nuclear arrangement. Honourable senators should think about that, roll the words round their tongues like old wine, and say a prayer for Mr Lange to be forgiven on this matter. Their logic is that they will not have in their ports ships that are, or might be, nuclear propelled or nuclear armed, but they are willing and eager to race out into the Pacific and associate with those vessels in naval exercises-exercises which might be war exercises. Of course, they know that some, if not all, those vessels are nuclear propelled; some, if not all, are nuclear armed; and that the exercise in which they are taking part is based on the fact that the deterrent must work and therefore both the conventional exercise and the nuclear exercise are combined. We cannot say: 'We are going out today on exercise ''Eagle'' but we will have only a conventional exercise. We will work it out so that there will not be any nasty nuclear wars in the world'. It is hypocritical of the New Zealand Prime Minister and the Democrats to say that they will not have those ships in the port but then to race out and take part in those exercises. That shows how they have distorted the situation. The simple fact is that Senator Macklin-he was very sure of this-stated: 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. He went on to say that by that he meant no nuclear propelled or nuclear armed vessels in the Pacific. So we are taking one enormous step further. We are going to deny, by our actions in regard to our allies, something that cannot be denied to the Soviet bloc. Senator Peter Baume —In effect that is a unilateral policy. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Of course it is. Indeed, it will be interesting to see how Senator Gareth Evans faces up to rejecting that part of Senator Chaney's amendment which states: . . . unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. Of course, he knows that we are referring to this Bill when we refer to those measures. So the Government is hooked. To examine the Democrats' proposal is to examine a complete muddle, because if they believe in a nuclear winter wherever a bomb should fall is of no consequence; everyone will suffer. For the Democrats to talk about some extra danger from the presence in port of a nuclear propelled ship or of a ship armed with a nuclear bomb is simply to frighten people unnecessarily. The history of nuclear propulsion is one of great safety and lack of pollution world-wide. In any case, once the Democrats stop visits to Australia of nuclear powered ships, they will in future stop all major naval ships from coming into our ports because all ships will be nuclear propelled. To suggest that a bomb present in a ship is dangerous is a fundamental error. If a bomb is dropped on that ship the war will have started. The war will be global and we will be engaged. I say again that those who keep saying that we should reject Pine Gap and Nurrungar and that by so doing we would be doing a favour to the Americans fail to understand that no greater favour can be done to the people of Australia and the rest of the world than to maintain surveillance systems that enforce total deterrence. If we are to preserve peace we have to take those actions that are best calculated to do so. Everybody outside the Iron Curtain is emphatic that preservation lies in effective surveillance, monitoring and, in the end, a sensitive balance of deterrents. How can the Labor Party reject the amendment moved today by Senator Chaney in which he refers to our need to have balanced reduction of arms with effective verification and compliance? That is Labor Party policy, but the Government will not accept it today. Senator Robert Ray —Are you going to vote for our amendment? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Through you, Mr Deputy President, I ask Senator Ray whether the Government will vote for our amendment. Ours was the first amendment to be moved and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has seen fit to denigrate our amendment and to foreshadow his. What is more, basically every paragraph of our amendment is straight out of the mouths of the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of this Parliament. How can they go on with this nonsense? Take Mr Hawke as an example. On 12 July 1983 Mr Hawke was reported as saying: Australia could not have a defence agreement with the United States but refuse peacetime visits of its ships . . . You can't have it both ways. Yet the Labor Party is extremely ambivalent. Mr Hawke had different views on ANZUS before he was elected to Parliament. Mr Hayden, in fact, held views against ships coming into Melbourne's ports. The Hawke Government could not guarantee to the British people that the civilian workers at Garden Island would be willing to repair HMS Invincible or to let it out of port. One of the most disgraceful and miserable things that ever happened occurred when this Government gave in in a cowardly way and an allied vessel could not be serviced in our ports. Much mention has been made by Senator Chipp of the MX missile. I wonder why the Democrats have never mentioned the SS18 and the SS19 Russian missiles, which in recent months have been tested regularly in the Pacific over the same range, around the Cook Islands and close to New Zealand. Those missiles are much more nasty. They have a much longer range. Senator Chipp-I share his horror at the size of these missiles-spoke of the size and the danger of the MX. The SS18 is a much more terrifying weapon, with one third extra range and one third extra megatonnage, and it makes no sound at all. This is an extraordinary situation. Why have we mentioned 'unilateral disarmament' in our amendment? In the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks that were held around the world all through last year, there was a general and total acceptance that the total megatonnage, the total throw weight, of the Soviet bloc-that is the actual plutonium throw weight or explosive power-is three times that of the Americans. True it is that neither the Russians nor the Americans needs a fraction of that power, but the Russians have three times that of the Americans. There is 12 million pounds throw weight on the Russian side as opposed to four million pounds on the American side, and no one on either side argued against that. In fact, 60 per cent of that enormous surplus throw weight is in hardened silos on the Russian mainland, as yet impervious to any weapon other than the MX. First strike weapons such as the SS18 and the SS19 are capable of taking out, in first strike, the whole of the Americas-virtually the whole world-and not a word has been said about their capability or about the fact that the only deterrent against this massive destabilisation is the MX. Not a word has been said about the Scowcroft Commission and the purpose of the MX missile. The purpose of the existence of the MX is to say around the table to the Russians: 'Now that there is a neutralising deterrent against your massive throw weight, for Lord's sake, reduce your throw weight well below 12 million pounds. Let us get below the four million pounds throw weight of the Americans. Let us cut out a lot'. The greatest destabliser in the world, which is recognised universally, is the first strike potential of the hardened silos, which no missile except the MX is able to destroy. Does anyone disbelieve that the reason the Russians have come to the table today is the existence of the MX and cruise missiles? Did we hear the Democrats or any other honourable senator talk about the fact that 1,300 Russian SS20 intermediate range missiles were ranged on Western Europe and not one retaliatory weapon of intermediate range was possessed by NATO? It is apparently all right if such weapons are possessed by the other side. The fact is that it is only the intervention of the cruise and MX missiles that has brought the Russians to the table. I hate the idea of this gamesmanship but it has been universally accepted that unless we have a mutual deterrent there will be destabilisation and the risk of war. What is needed is not a freeze; a freeze simply freezes destabilisation. What is needed is a lowering of the number of arms on both sides to equally verifiable levels, and that is what Senator Chaney's amendment proposes. I was fascinated to hear the Government's spokesman, the former Attorney-General, saying on behalf of his defence colleagues that the Hawke Government had not really made up its mind about the MX. Of course it has not. It has three minds to make up. That is why, like Gaul, its factions are divided into three parts, some with more gall than others. There is no reason why the Government cannot make up its mind on the MX. It knows about the hardened silos, it knows about the disproportionate throw weight, it knows about destabilisation and about the role of the MX and it has said nothing. It has not stood up and been counted because at the moment the counting is all that matters in the Caucus. The same thing has happened with regard to the strategic defence initiative. It is true, as Senator Gareth Evans said, that Mr Hayden is on record as saying that the concept of a strategic defence initiative-that is stopping weapons before they reach their target-is one of high morality. A number of times he has stressed in publications that the concept that Mr Reagan is putting forward is one of high morality. The only question is: Will it work? How will one determine whether it works? Mr Reagan says: 'I am not in the business of making the weapons. I am saying that I am going to put researchers to work to decide whether we can get a completely foolproof system that will break the need for deterrents and stop weapons altogether'. We have heard from the Labor Party that it is opposed to research that is likely to lead to a breakthrough and a reduction of tension in the world. It is an extraordinary situation. The Democrats have come forward with something which, on the say-so of the ANZUS Council, the Prime Minister, the United States Secretary of State and others, would destroy ANZUS; it must do so. The concept is aimed at trying to drive out of the Pacific altogether all modern allied warships, while we are powerless to do so in terms of the Warsaw Pact. The Labor Party is completely ambivalent on the great issues of the day. There has been a failure on the part of Senator Gareth Evans to accept in the amendment put forward by Senator Chaney the fundamental principles which both Mr Hawke and Mr Hayden have advocated in the past. If our amendment is not accepted, it is for only one reason. Labor has found that such language is not acceptable to some of its factions and the Government cannot live with it. Once again, we shall experience the Prime Minister and his Ministers knowing what is right, but doing what is wrong. No wonder the Australian dollar is falling and our credibility in the world is bottom. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.52) —The House is debating a private member's Bill presented by the Australian Democrats entitled Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984, the amendment moved by Senator Chaney earlier this afternoon, and a subsequent Government amendment. Inevitably, events in recent weeks in regard to New Zealand's ban on the entry of United States ships to New Zealand ports and the United States' response have provoked general discussion on the relationship of small countries such as Australia and New Zealand with the United States. Just as inevitably, this has raised the question of ANZUS and Australian and New Zealand dependence on the Americans in our defence area. I was fascinated to hear Senator Sir John Carrick mention that a 1982 Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence report said that the Committee considered that the ANZUS Treaty provision stated that it gave greater commitment to the defence of Australia than simply consultation. I find that statement fascinating. The ANZUS Treaty itself gives no greater commitment to the defence of this country or of New Zealand by the Americans than is provided by the consultative process. I am fascinated by this also because it perpetuates one of the great myths that have surfaced over recent years on the ANZUS Treaty and America's alliance with other Western nations. The myth is that the United States will help Australia or other allies of America whenever those countries need it and however they need it. History does not substantiate that point of view. It is worth pointing out what any half-hearted student of history will know-namely, that this is not the case. America, in line with its past behaviour, will enter into a conflict in support of any of its allies only when and if it is in America's political, military or economic interests to do so. One does not have to go back far into this century to see that this is correct and the United States has every right to take its own interests into consideration. I object to the fact that some people, who I am sure are well-meaning but somewhat misguided, refuse to acknowledge that America has the right to take its own interests into account, that it has done so in the past and is likely to do so in the future. In recent times, one has only to look to what Nixon said in 1969 in what has become known as the Guam doctrine, or one can also go back to the two major world wars to ascertain America's attitude to its allies. It came into those wars, in the first case when politically it was in its interests to do so, and in the second case when it was directly attacked. The United States did not support its traditional allies, England and France, over the Suez crisis because it was not in America's economic interest to do so, nor did it support its traditional allies, the Dutch and the Australians, over the Indonesian raid on Western New Guinea. Again, that occurred because such support was not in America's economic interests. It was made clear by the Americans that United States' interests in Indonesia were considered by American officials to be at least as important as their interests in Australia, and economically far more so because of American dependence on the rubber and oil which the Americans could obtain from Indonesia. Notwithstanding the fact that Australian officials pointed to our vulnerability in terms of a takeover of Western New Guinea by Indonesia, the Americans were prepared to take the attitude that they had to sell us on the proposition that there was a greater threat if the communists took Indonesia than if Indonesia took New Guinea, and that the United States would not jeopardise its economic interests in Indonesia for the sake of America's alliance with Australia. Nixon went further than that in the Guam doctrine in 1969 in which he said: The United States will keep all its treaty commitments. That in itself was fine, but the doctrine continued: We shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security and the security of the region as a whole. A report by the United States Secretary of State in 1969-70 said: In cases involving other types of aggression we-- that is the United States- shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested and as appropriate. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense. In other words, the Americans were taking on what they called a more restrained diplomatic style in Asia and the Pacific: Our new approach calls for a new diplomatic style. We will attempt, consistent with protection of our own interests, to reduce our official presence and visibility abroad. We will emphasise mutuality and multilateralism. We will encourage others to assume a greater share of the responsibilities for the security and economic development of the area. Nowhere is it said that the United States will automatically leap to the defence of any country in this area unless there is a direct nuclear threat. Nowhere does the United States promise automatically to come to Australia's aid if she is threatened by her northern neighbours. That proves the rightness of what Senator Chipp, then a member of the House of Representatives, said on 22 May 1969 that the ANZUS Treaty, while being 'a precious piece of paper' was only a piece of paper. Without the intent and good faith of one of the signatories to that Treaty-that is, the United States-it is not worth the paper it is written on. Although there is an article in the ANZUS Treaty that says that any member can pull out at any time, the United States in recent weeks has hardly been generous to the small country which took its rights and refused admission to nuclear warships of the United States. Senator Peter Baume said earlier in this debate by way of interjection-and he was joined by others-that he genuinely believed that the United States would leap to our assistance. I respect Senator Baume's point of view. He is entitled to that belief, but I say with the greatest of respect that I think he is deluding himself. The Americans have not behaved that way in the past. There is no reason to believe that they will behave that way in the future. Indeed, I suggest that Australians remember that the United States sat back in two world wars and watched hundreds of thousands of Australians die in the first years of those wars before it deigned to enter itself, and then it did so not as a result of a treaty or an alliance but because it was in its own interests. This is only one of the myths that have been spread about and generally accepted by an easily deluded public over Australia's relationship with the United States. One other myth which is frequently alluded to in the letters pages of Australia's major newspapers is that anyone who criticises the United States in any way at all is automatically anti-American and, by being anti-American, somehow through some quantum leap, becomes pro-Russian. This is arrant nonsense. If we are to be prevented from criticising anybody at all, I wonder what has happened to Australia's freedom of speech. If we cannot criticise a country without being accused of being totally opposed to that country and in favour of one of its enemies, then I wonder what has happened to the tolerance that is supposed to exist in the Australian democracy. Surely there is no need for us to become or act as if we have become America's fifty-first State to prove that we are not anti-American. Indeed, I suggest that Australia and the Australian Government should not have to prove that we are anything at all except pro-Australian. I believe, although others such as Senator Baume and Senator Sir John Carrick may not believe it, that handing over our land, our facilities and our port facilities to the United States as part of its nuclear global strategy, thereby making us prime targets in any nuclear offensive, is not necessarily being pro-Australian. We talk about the ANZUS Treaty as if somehow it was produced in a nuclear age-in a massive, global nuclear age. It was not. It is a 1951 treaty, one of something in excess of 120 treaties we have one thing and another with the United States. This 1951 ANZUS Treaty was established in the Japanese threat context and not in a nuclear threat context. Yet, through the Guam doctrine, the Americans have changed the intention of that Treaty somehow, without changing the wording of it, to be relevant only in a nuclear context. Another myth that wanders around this chamber from time to time, and not just on this matter, is that changing one's stance according to changing circumstances is somehow dishonourable. That may well be the case if the changes are for purely political purposes or are merely pragmatic ones, but the Democrats policy has been anti-nuclear since 1977, since our inception. It is not new. The contents of the legislation before us today are totally consistent with the Democrats policy from the very beginning. Indeed, our attitude to treaties has been one of balance rather than a purely sycophantic one. Our international relations policy makes it quite clear that, as far as the Democrats are concerned, in the review of existing treaties understandings for defence or in any new such treaties we will take as the paramount consideration the security of Australia, regularly weighing any risk to our security through association with super-powers by possible involvement in global conflicts against the protection conferred against attack by lesser forces. The Guam doctrine indicates that there is no help to be expected from the United States in the case of any attack by lesser forces unless that involves nuclear and communistic attack. We all know that the lesser forces north of Australia do not at the moment have those facilities. We are not changing our minds. Senator Chipp has not changed his mind. His attitude in 1969 indicated quite clearly a belief in a piece of paper being valued only according to the intent and good faith of the signatories and the way in which they intended to operate it. I point out that not only is not changing one's mind often not foolish; it is also frequently vitally necessary. For those honourable senators here who do not recall it, I remind them of the fact that in 1935 the then Mr Menzies returned from a trip to Germany full of praise for Hitler and for the way in which he was governing Germany. The Sydney Morning Herald on 28 October 1935 ran a story quoting Mr Menzies as saying that the nazi leadership was inspiring and as saying to a gathering of old Melbournians: 'I thought it was a great thing for Germany to have arms. If you and I were sitting at our firesides in Berlin we would not be critical of a leadership that had produced such results'. Mr Menzies was forced, quite rightly, completely to re-assess those comments some few years later. We then have brought forward the argument that being anti-nuclear is exactly the same thing as favouring unilateral disarmament. That is arrant nonsense. The Democrats are not and never have been in favour of unilateral disarmament. We have never asked nor expected the United States to disarm unilaterally. Nobody in his right mind would. What we favour, and what I believe the Australian people deserve, is a strong independent Australia, a country with a defence force which is capable of actually defending us regardless of the form of attack, particularly if the form of attack is non-communistic and non-nuclear, for then, as the Americans themselves have said, we need not expect any help from them. At the moment we have a defence force which is almost totally linked in, as Senator Chipp said, to the nuclear global strategy of the Americans. We have something which is not sufficient to defend Australia against a non-nuclear attack. I suggest we have to stop this silly nonsense of tying ourselves into purchase of defence which is of value only if it is combined with United States weaponry, weaponry which under ANZUS will be used to help us only after consultation and after the full constitutional decision-making processes that operate in the United States are complied with; that is, after full congressional debate. I suggest that, in a nuclear attack, by the time Congress has debated what to do we might just as well forget about it. For those people who are listening and for those people here who have not read it, I refer to Articles III and IV of the ANZUS Treaty. It is frequently thrown about by people who have not read it. It might be time that some people out there knew what it actually said. Article III states: The parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened in the Pacific. That is fine. As Senator Chipp said, that merely requires a phone call, probably of condolence. Article IV says: Each party recognises that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of the parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. I repeat: Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof . . . There is no guarantee of them, but if there are any such measures they will be reported to the United Nations Security Council. Honourable senators will recall that the debate on this Bill began in September 1984, at a time when the New Zealand Government recommitted itself to a policy of prohibiting visits to that country of nuclear powered and/or armed warships of all nations. This was something that Mr Lange reiterated less than a week ago. This is not something which simply is limited to the United States; it is multilateral. It is not an anti-American policy; it is an anti-nuclear one. Events of the past few weeks in our region once again demand that urgent and rational debate take place on the Bill that we have before the Senate today and, as has been said before, on all components of the ANZUS Treaty. The Australian Democrats are not interested in rhetoric. We are interested in seeing this country genuinely and actively committed to disarmament. If that is to be the case we have to make decisions now. We all know the sorts of things that have been brought before us today. We all know that the two super-powers have between them 50,000 nuclear weapons; that our planet and all life on it can, as Senator Sir John Carrick among others mentioned, be destroyed by nuclear weapons; and that $1m is spent on the arms race every minute of the day while millions of people die from starvation, disease and ill-health. We all know that our priorities are skewed. We all know that the cost of the arms race is increasing, that the numbers of weapons are increasing, that their destructive power is increasing and that people's fear is increasing. This Government states in its Australian Labor Party platform: Only if ordinary people demonstrate consistently their insistence that this madness be stopped will the world's leaders move to take action to bring it to a halt. For the Australian Labor Government, there can be no higher priority than nuclear arms control and disarmament. If we fail in this, we fail in everything. The Australian Democrats applaud these statements, but we ask: For how long do the Australian people have to continue to tell this Government that they want no part in the war games of the super-powers and that they do not want to be nuclear targets? When will this Government's pledge be honoured by actions? I would have thought that the Labor Government, as a first step in honouring its pledge to the Australian people, would en masse today support the Australian Democrats' Bill. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(6.14) —I fear that this debate on a Bill to prohibit the passage of nuclear powered ships and vessels carrying nuclear weapons through Australian waters or in the airspace over them has taken an unfortunate turn in that it has almost become an occasion for a definitive statement by this Senate on the whole question of the obligations inherent in the Australian-United States of America alliance or relationship. I do not believe that the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill ought to be asked to bear that tremendous weight. The fact is that the Australian Labor Party Government, elected by the Australian people twice in the past two years, is a democratically elected government. Australia is a democracy in a world of totalitarian states. We have a natural association or alliance, therefore, with the United States, itself a great democracy. We have expressed that association historically over the decades since the Second World War when the Australian Labor Party forged an alliance with the United States in various ways, including the ANZUS Treaty. But to turn this debate on a Bill concerning the offering of permission to enter our ports to nuclear powered vessels or those which might be carrying nuclear weapons into a debate on the ANZUS alliance, that expression of the relationship-the questions of the bases, the MX missile and the B52 flights have been brought up-seems to me to be going far too far, given the obligation on us as senators in looking at this Bill. I do not intend to go further than the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Gareth Evans, did in his dealing with the foreign affairs stance of our Government. My only comment about Senator Haines's speech would be that I think it is too simplistic to say that our only obligation is to be pro-Australian. I believe that that is precisely to fall into the trap that has bedevilled humanity for generation after generation and century after century. It is to retreat into a possible isolationism and certainly a nationalism. It sounds patriotic when expressed, but I believe that our obligation is to a much wider sweep of humanity. We are involved internationally in combating, and in conflict with, totalitarian regimes of the Left and of the Right. I believe that we as Australians, fortunate to live in a democracy, must offer assistance, where we can, to those who may be crushed by these totalitarian forces or who are in alliance with those who are trying to resist them. How that should be undertaken, whether by way of a military alliance or some other means, is, of course, a matter for debate, but I believe that it needs to be kept in mind that alliances with like-minded democracies are an essential expression of an international character of our obligations, given that conflict with totalitarian states which besets us at the moment. I want to speak in terms of the Bill, which is rather a new note in this debate today. I find that I cannot support it because it has two very fundamental flaws. The first flaw concerns the identification of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes with the use of nuclear energy to develop horrendous weapons of war. I do not believe it aids the debate in Australia at all to associate continuously and identify the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes with its use for horrendous destruction. Always to say of uranium that its uses are evil and to be resisted is to invest it with some sort of demonic quality which I think in the end involves an abdication of our free will as human beings as to how it should be utilised for mankind. My father quoted from Shakespeare now and again when we did something wrong. He would say: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. The fault lies in humanity, in the misuse and abuse of nuclear energy for destructive purposes, and not in the inherent qualities of uranium itself. To bundle all the possible uses of uranium together and categorise them all as demonic and to be resisted is, I think, to be guilty of a confusion which does not help the debate. We find in this Bill an attempt to prohibit not merely the passage of vessels carrying nuclear weapons but the passage of nuclear powered ships. As I say, I think the identification of the two is absurd and probably comes about because of equating nuclear powered ships with naval vessels bearing nuclear weapons. Of course, that is not the case. I was interested at the weekend to hear a radio item about an icebreaker of the Russian fleet liberating many hundreds of whales that were trapped in an ice blocked fiord in the Soviet Union. As I have discovered, that icebreaker was diesel powered. However, it is well known that the Russians have nuclear powered icebreakers. I would have thought that a good sensible use of nuclear propulsion would be the use of a nuclear powered icebreaker to bash ice aside and liberate whales from certain death. Perhaps people who have 'save the whale' stickers on their bumper bars would agree. Surely they would not advocate the inclusion in small print of the words 'but not by nuclear propelled icebreakers'. It seems to me wrong continuously to confuse and identify the two uses that can be made of nuclear power. The fact is that on some previous occasions people who say that there is an absolute identity between the two uses have likened those in the Australian Labor Party and Australian society generally who see a difference as somehow the moral equivalent to opium or heroin pushers. We have been called that in this chamber. I find that analogy quite wrong. Opium poppies are grown in my area of north-west Tasmania. In fact, we have just harvested a crop of many acres. The hills are covered by that mauve coloured poppy. The choice is one of making use of the product of opium poppies to alleviate the suffering of pain of mankind or allowing it to find its way into the back alleys of Sydney or Melbourne to be administered with dirty needles and cause misery and destruction of human life. There is a choice in the use of heroin between life and death. I believe there is a choice in the use of uranium between life and death. The fact is that nuclear powered or propelled vessels are probably a good use of that source of energy. The fact is that the Australian Democrats have been moving to a more considerate and reasonable stand. I assure Senator Chipp that I do not say this in a patronising way but I believe there was a movement last year in the realisation of the Democrats that good uses can be made of nuclear energy. One recalls that, during the debate on the Customs (Prohibition of Importation of Nuclear Hardware) Bill, the Democrats made a concession in their attitude to an earlier draft of the Bill and recognised that the use of imported nuclear hardware to help produce medical and industrial isotopes at Lucas Heights was of benefit in alleviating the suffering of patients and of benefit generally in terms of the industrial uses that were outlined in that debate. They made an exception. In other words, there are good uses of nuclear energy. I believe that that ought to have been recognised in the redraft of this Bill over the summer months and the parliamentary recess. Allowance should have been made for the fact that nuclear propelled vessels represent a use of this source of energy that can be beneficial to mankind. Of course, as with the Lucas Heights reactor, there would have to be the most stringent and careful safeguards surrounding the operation of nuclear powered vessels if they were in Australian ports. I do not think anyone in this chamber would be opposed to the most stringent regulation being applied to the use of that energy source. Not only should the Democrats rethink the identification of these two quite different questions, which is apparently the basis of their Bill, but they should also have a look at the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which, organised at it is in the international community, is the only hope of mankind to try to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The Treaty comes up for renegotiation and reaffirmation this year. One finds in the Treaty, to which the Australian Government has given considerable resources in trying to attract continued adherence by the member parties to its terms, a recognition of the very tension which lies at the heart of the debate in Australia. What this Bill totally ignores is the resolution of the conflict, if it be a conflict, in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. One finds in Article II, which concerns the obligations of non-nuclear weapons states, that a member party 'undertakes not to receive a transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly' and so on. However, Article IV (1) of the Treaty states: Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty. In other words, one finds there the very tension and conflict which, as I say, are a characteristic of the Australian debate. We have been a constant voice in international forums for the reaffirmation and growing adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We strongly advocate adherence to its clauses. But, as I say, its clauses recognise and, indeed, embody the tensions of which I speak. They are not incompatible; they are not contradictions. They are expressions of proper human responsibility that there is a good use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes as opposed to a potentially destructive use when it is used to add to the arsenals of destruction. That is my argument about what I believe to be a conceptual underpinning of the Bill which is completely untenable. However, I say that the Bill is also disfigured in another way. There is another flaw which goes to our civil liberties in this country and, if agreed to by this Parliament, I believe would represent a serious erosion of principles which we hold dear. Of course, I will develop this argument more after the suspension of the sitting for dinner. However, a clause in this Bill has the remarkable effect of offering immunity in advance to officials of the Government who undertake unlawful and illegal activity, including the use of violence. It is not as though the Democrats have had no warning of the likely reaction of this chamber to such a clause. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, of which Senator Haines was a member, pointed out on 10 October 1984 that in so far as, I think, clause 6 protects the Commonwealth or any other person against legal liability for actions taken by virtue of an instrument signed by the Minister, including acts of illegal violence, it definitely and very clearly has the potential to trespass unduly, to use the Committee's phraseology, on personal rights and liberties. It offers immunity in advance for illegal and violent activity in achieving what might be a good and desirable end. Either Senator Haines was overcome in the Democrat Party room when she raised this matter or the drafters of the Bill have not seen fit to take into account this unbelievable clause which goes back to medieval times when the king of England said that, by virtue of his feudal position, he could not be subjected to the courts. The fact is that under this Bill the Government will be allowed to don feudal garb and to give to itself and its officers immunity in a way which I believe should not be supported by this chamber. Mr Acting Deputy President, perhaps I could take five minutes after the suspension of sitting for dinner to explain my argument more fully. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Senator TATE —Before the suspension of the sitting I was pointing out that there were two flaws in the Bill which has been presented by the Democrats concerning the prohibition of visits by nuclear powered vessels or vessels thought to be carrying nuclear arms into Australian waters. The two flaws were, firstly, that the Bill, wrongly in my submission, identifies and confuses the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, in this instance for propulsion of a vessel through water, with the use of nuclear energy for horrendous destructive purposes in those armaments which, in the arsenals of the super-powers, threaten the very history of mankind. It seemed to me that insofar as the Bill refuses to make any concessions to the logical and practical distinction between those two uses of nuclear energy, it could not be supported. I likened the responsibility which faces mankind in the use of uranium to that which faces us in Tasmania, for example, with the use of opium poppies in that they can be used either to enhance human life and alleviate suffering and pain or they can find their way into the back alleys of Kings Cross or St Kilda where, with the use of dirty needles, the addicts are brought to ultimate destruction. In other words, it is the destruction of life rather than the enhancing of life. I pointed out that the Democrats, over the previous 18 months, have conceded, by way of subsequent drafts of legislation, that uranium and the energy derived from it can have useful beneficial purposes for mankind. I instanced the use of medical and industrial isotopes. Senator Chipp's amended Bill of late last year conceded that the use of such isotopes was beneficial. I pointed out that there was another flaw to this Bill in which those who do not agree with my previous argument could nevertheless find sufficient reason for not supporting the Bill in its present form. Quite extraordinarily, this Bill represents a most serious erosion of principles which we normally hold very dear in our common law and parliamentary system. In the book on administrative law by Professor Wade, which is the great text-book in our English tradition of law, under the heading 'Legal status of the Crown' it is stated: It is fundamental to the rule of law that the Crown, like other public authorities, should bear its fair share of legal liability and be answerable for wrongs done to its subjects. The immense expansion of governmental activity from the latter part of the nineteenth century onwards made it intolerable for the government, in the name of the Crown, to enjoy exemption from the ordinary law. Indeed, it is not a modern matter. The Bill of Rights itself provides: That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal. Very briefly what that means is that the granting of legal immunity to the Crown or its officials is something which is abhorred by our legal system. Yet clause 6 of the Bill states: The Minister may, by instrument signed by him, direct the taking of such action, including the use of force, as is in his opinion necessary to be taken for the purpose of the performance of the duty imposed on the Government of the Commonwealth by sub-section (1). The clause continues: Action taken by a person under and in accordance with an instrument under sub-section (2) shall for all purposes be deemed to have been lawfully taken by the person. It further continues: An action does not lie against the Commonwealth, the Minister or any other person for loss or damage suffered by a person in consequence of action that is, by virtue of sub-section (2), to be deemed to have been lawfully taken. So we see there that legal immunity is granted in advance to officers of the Government or those acting by virtue of the authority of the Minister, for actions which may be illegal and violent. I recall that one of the worst features of the situation in Rhodesia under the unilateral declaration of independence was that the then Government gave to its army, on its sweeps through the countryside, immunity in advance. In other words, whatever the army did by way of rape, murder or pillage, it knew that it would not face legal consequences. One can imagine what sort of action that led to. It is not the case that we are looking at such an extreme situation-I have no doubt that the Democrats would not have in mind such an extreme situation-but the fact is that that is the way in which they have chosen to draft their Bill in its operative clause and, to me, it renders the whole of the Bill obnoxious. It is not as though the Democrats have not had notice of the view of the relevant Senate committee as to the way in which the clause should be viewed. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in October 1984-that is some four or five months ago-drew the attention of this chamber to the clause. It said, in the language of the Committee-honourable senators know that we do not say things definitively; we point them out and make the chamber aware of the possibility of a conflict with our traditional liberty-that there was a conflict. Honourable senators have been alerted over many months to that conflict with our traditional concept of rights and liberties of the subject. I for one find it amazing that the clause should remain after that intervening period. Not a jot, not a tittle of that offending and offensive clause, has been altered. It seems to me to be ironic and worth noting that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee largely came into existence because of a common conviction of Senator Alan Missen and me that previous legislation of former conservative coalition governments which had regulated the uranium industry in Australia was marred by sections which could only make any sense within the Cold War context when uranium from Rum Jungle was supplied to our allies in the 1950s. The fact that those clauses in the then legislation regulating the uranium industry were continued in subsequent reaffirmations by this Parliament was something of concern to both Senator Alan Missen and me. It was one of the factors which led to our support for the setting up of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. As I say, it is ironic that this Bill should offend in the way that it does. The Democrats should heed the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. They should heed the voice of one of their own senators, Senator Haines, who was a member of that Committee. I do not believe her voice can be suppressed for very long in an appropriate forum. Senator Chipp —That is absolutely right. Senator TATE —Yes, and I believe she should be listened to in this respect. Perhaps the Democrats, without necessarily conceding my argument as to the first flaw in the Bill, should take the opportunity to withdraw it and redraft it in a way which is not offensive to our normal sense that the Crown and its officials should be subject to the ordinary law of the land and not be granted immunity from illegal and possibly violent activity. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(8.09) —Tonight the Senate is debating a Bill which was introduced by Senator Chipp on behalf of the Australian Democrats, namely, the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984. The Bill seeks to prohibit the passage of nuclear powered ships and vessels carrying nuclear weapons through Australian waters or in the air-space over them. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has introduced an amendment in the following terms: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: '(1) The Senate is of the opinion that- (a) continued access by the United States and United Kingdom nuclear-powered ships, and of nuclear-capable ships, is vital for the maintenance of peace and an effective stable deterrence; and (b) unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. (2) The Senate- (a) expresses concern at the attempt unilaterally to place restrictions on the military forces of Australia and its allies, and strongly is of the view that disarmament measures should occur only as part of a mutual and balanced reduction of arms with effective verification and compliance; and (b) is of the view that Australia has a significant role to play in the search for peace and disarmament but recognises that Australia's influence in disarmament fora is dependent upon our continuing to help in the maintenance of an effective deterrent.'. I view with concern and some sorrow the tone of the debate of both Australian Democrat speakers to date. It appeared to me that they took a very blatant anti-United States stance. Senator Haines commented that before the United States came into World War II it sat back while many thousands of allied troops were killed. Yet I put the question: Is that isolationist attitude not the attitude she expects Australia to take in 1985? Those of us who were alive at the time would remember with gratification the massive effort and the great sacrifice the people of the United States made in that major conflagration, and we are mindful of that. There is no doubt in my mind nor, I am sure, in the mind of anybody in the Liberal and National parties, of the resolve of the people of the United States towards her allies in the event of any future conflict. Senator Chipp in his contribution referred to the elderly insane leadership, or advisers to the leadership, of the United States. Senator Chipp —And the Soviet Union. Senator COLLARD —And the Soviet Union. It was a rather unfortunate term to use, particularly when it involved people who at this stage are our allies. The people of the United States equally might sit back and talk about the ancient and demented people in this debate who are taking this attitude towards them. One of the statements that are made quite regularly in these debates is that we are a nuclear target. Would we be any less a nuclear target if we were non-aligned? It is an interesting question. Are we a nuclear target just because we have some American installations within our shores or are we a nuclear target for what we are, for what we represent, for what we could contribute to any conquering nation? With our massive assets and resources we would obviously be good pickings for anybody who, in the course of a major war, saw fit to take us over. I do not think the American bases make one bit of difference. People who wanted to take over Australia would certainly not waste nuclear weapons, which are rather expensive, on Pine Gap and North West Cape. They could be put out of action considerably more easily in other ways. Our major airfields and large metropolises would be far more inviting targets to anybody bent on taking over this great country of ours. We should think seriously before we continue this rot about the bases being prime nuclear targets. Australia would be a prime nuclear target and, as I said, in any major conflict, our major airfields, naval bases and centres of population would, have to be more prime nuclear targets than the American bases. All of us dislike war. That is not the sole preserve of any one person or party in this chamber or in the other place. I suppose all of us dislike nuclear war more because of all the horrors we envisage. We are living in an imperfect world, whether we like it or not. There is a real world outside with such things as greed, intolerance, racism and bigotry, which are the things that cause war. Senator Chipp and the Democrats have taken a rather idealistic point of view. I think the Premier of New South Wales, the Honourable Neville Wran, refers to 'mistaking the warm inner glow for the light on the hill'. I think we could accuse the Democrats of doing that in this instance. Senator Chipp —Are you going to adopt him as your patron? Senator COLLARD —Hardly, but it is not a bad quote. Senator Chipp —That sort of creature! Why quote him on moral grounds? Senator COLLARD —It is not a bad quote. Senator Chipp —Why quote a creature like Wran on moral issues? Senator COLLARD —It suits the- Senator Georges —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. That remark by Senator Chipp was a grave reflection on the Premier of New South Wales and I ask that it be withdrawn. It is in contradiction of the Standing Orders. The honourable senator obviously does not know them. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, the phrase was a reflection on the Premier of New South Wales. It should be withdrawn. Senator Chipp —I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing anything I have just said. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, I urge you to remind Senator Chipp of the Standing Orders in this place, which refer to reflections on a Premier of a State, and ask that he be requested again to withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, regardless of your opinion, members of the State parliaments are protected by our Standing Orders, and the way you phrased the remark about the Premier of New South Wales was, in fact, a reflection on him. It would help the business of the Senate if you would withdraw it. Senator Chipp —To the extent that you, Mr Deputy President, believe that I made a reflection on the Premier of New South Wales, I shall withdraw, in deference to your ruling. I am still somewhat puzzled as to why my questioning the honourable senator quoting such a person as Mr Wran as a moral criterion is a reflection, but in deference to your ruling I withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, I should make it clear that the remark I ordered you to withdraw was the one that referred to the Premier of New South Wales as a creature. Senator Chipp —I withdraw that term. Senator COLLARD —If it is balm to Senator Chipp's troubled conscience, I was not in any way discussing the morals of the Premier of New South Wales or anybody else. I thought it was rather a good quote-'the warm inner glow'. The Democrats have mistaken the warm inner glow for the light on the hill. Peace is like motherhood. We all believe in it, but it certainly does not come cheaply, as has been proved down through the centuries. We are in a nuclear age and, whether we like it or not, that is a fact of life. Senator Tate discussed that aspect quite adequately. The nuclear age is with us and we can use it either for power or for weapons of destruction, just as we have used plenty of things in times past for weapons of destruction. Steel has been made into swords instead of ploughshares, explosives have been used for bombs rather than for clearing roads, and so it goes on. I guess it is the pattern of history that man's inhumanity to man has always existed. We are in the nuclear age. We cannot be like the Luddites and try to turn it back. As when coal was first used during the Industrial Revolution, it would be like saying that we are not going to go down that track. The same sort of thing happened when electricity was discovered and when the motor vehicle first came into use. There were those with a Luddite mentality who said: 'We cannot have this; it will mean the destruction of society.' It is ironic that that electricity can now be generated more cheaply and probably more cleanly by nuclear power than by any other method. Whether we as a society decide to use that nuclear capacity for power generation or for weapons of destruction is in our hands. People wage wars. Weapons are the means of destruction in those wars. If a person is dead it really does not matter whether he or she was killed by cold steel or a bullet, or blown up or roasted with nuclear power. That is one of the unfortunate aspects of this society. Once we go down the track of war we are committed to destruction and killing. It is interesting that in all the conflicts since World War II well over 5 million people have been killed, and not one of them by nuclear means. Over 103 million people were killed during World War II. People have been trying to limit arms for over 2,000 years. Even the ancient Greek states attempted to keep some degree of control over the citizens army. They did not succeed, of course, and successive generations have seen that man cannot and will not succeed in his bid to eradicate armaments or the need for armaments. Today in a society that is primed to a world of increasing tension there are two camps-one seeking unilateral disarmament, and the other seeking multilateral disarmament. Whilst the latter principle is based on the policy of arms control by negotiation on a one to one basis, the former principle, to which Senator Chipp and the Democrats subscribe, advocates the complete laying down of arms by individuals nations. Unilateral disarmament includes also the revoking of any treaties, and in Australia's case this, of course, would have to mean ANZUS. Unilateral disarmament is, at best, a questionable goal. Costa Rica is the only nation I can recall to have attempted such methods of arms control. A series of military coups in this Latin American country led to the abolition of armed forces. Now, instead of instituting a state of beauteous tranquillity and Shangri-la revisited, a state of internal turmoil has unfortunately ensued. Of course, Costa Rica now finds its territories being used as operating bases by people waging guerrilla wars against Nicaragua. As for multilateral arms control-this is a problem that presents itself today-it is imperative, if negotiations are to succeed, that all parties participating in a treaty recognise their similar interests, recognise that the control of the buildup of arms will serve those interests and recognise also that they must trust their negotiating partners. ANZUS not only provides Australia with formal agreements and formal opportunities to persuade a great ally, America, to follow those directions which we would prefer, it also provides us with far improved informal contacts with the administrative forces of America. When the links with the United States are severed, the right to voice protest or support for moves initiated by this vital ally will be silenced. India serves to exemplify this, leading, as it does, the group of non-aligned nations. The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics tend to discount virtually everything India has to say. India, in its bid for non-aligned status, has forgone its capacity to influence policies of arms control. Let us face facts: India is a major nation and it could have far more influence if it decided it wanted to, rather than just sit on the non-aligned fence. With ANZUS Australia at least maintains its right and ability to intercede. When the Democrats advocate unilateral disarmament the natural presumption is that they are advocating that Australia undertake non-aligned status. A revoking of the ANZUS Treaty or any refusal to co-operate with the United States in its nuclear policies could be seen as a condemnation of its policies. Australia would then become a non-aligned nation. But becoming non-aligned does not come cheaply. I recall when this issue first blew up. In a recent State by-election campaign in my town of Rockhampton the new member for Capricornia, Keith Wright, went public in the Press, saying that he believed that Australia should become non-aligned and neutral and that when he got to the party room he would be seeing to it that that sort of thing happened. I am not quite sure what has happened and what his contribution has been within the confines of that party room. Let us look at Switzerland. In Switzerland 21.3 per cent of the national budget is spent on defence. In Australia only 9.1 per cent is spent on defence. Whilst in Australia we have a paid professional and civilian armed contingent whose members can choose to serve for a minimum of three years and after that sign on again for another three years, in Switzerland every fit male is conscripted into regular, unpaid military training from the time he is 19 years old. This training continues until he is 60 years of age. This non-aligned nation is so primed to respond to war that within 48 hours 400,000 men can be called into action. Sweden also is a non-aligned or neutral country. It has more men under arms than we have. It has been estimated that to attain the same level of defence preparedness as Sweden now has we would have to expend $1.3 billion more per annum than we are already spending on our defence preparedness. So non-alignment or neutrality does not come cheaply. Therefore, one has to look at what one could do in this instance. We are but a small nation and I suppose that to get the best value for our dollar we must recognise that we have to have alliances and we have to team up with out friends. Not only do we have to keep teaming up with them and have those friendships but we have to keep them in good repair. When we were at school, we remember, the bully always picked on the person who was weak, but when that weak person had friends who were fairly big and strong the bully did not dare go about his bullying tactics. It is the same with arms limitations. If we want to go into arms limitation talks we can do so only from a position of strength. We can negotiate only from a position of strength. If we do not do it from a position of strength but rather from a position of weakness I submit that we do not negotiate; we just succumb. To us ANZUS is part of that strength. As well as being part of ANZUS we have the technology transfers that are available to us. We could not afford to do the massive amount of research and development that unfortunately go into the weapons systems and the means of delivery in the world today. We can take part in joint exercises. We can keep our armed forces, small though they might be, at peak strength and peak readiness because we can exercise with other nations. We can bring our troops up to standard because we are exercising in fields in which we would not exercise by ourselves. We can exercise our naval forces with nuclear submarines. We can exercise in over-shore activities and so on down the line. So we can operate at very much reduced expense and keep our troops in a great state of readiness. In the year 4 BC a Roman writer by the name of Vegetius wrote: 'Let him who desires peace, prepare for war'. I think those words are as true today as they were then. We live in a very imperfect world, even though it might be different. Unilateral disarmament is based on the fairy godmother syndrome-if we do it, the rest of the world will do it. Like heck they will do it! We know darn well they will not. Tonight we are dealing with this Bill and with the amendments put forward by Senator Chaney on behalf of the Opposition and by Senator Evans on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. It was interesting to note in the Bill Senator Chipp introduced that the Government is to be given the power to implement this Bill. I find that rather unusual. I am not quite sure how it could be implemented. Maybe Senator Chipp had better buy himself a horse. Surely this provision in the Bill authorising the use of force to remove any nuclear powered or nuclear armed ships from Australia is nothing short of quixotic in the extreme. The only trouble is, who plays Sancho Panza? Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(8.29) —We are debating a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear powered ships and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons through Australian waters or in the airspace over them. I confess that I am attracted to the Bill. I find that its terms, expression and intention are worthy of support. It places those who sincerely support the Bill in the same position as the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand people who have taken a very firm stand which I believe is important. I believe this stand reverses a process which has been developing throughout the world, a process which has, over the past few years, made the world almost a complete armed camp. The New Zealand people have taken a courageous initiative to reverse the position. Therefore, I am attracted to the proposition. To anticipate Senator Boswell's interjection, I say that it is not a matter of unilateralism. It is not a unilateral decision, as some would like to describe it. It is a decision which the New Zealand people had the courage and determination to make as an example for others to follow. If that trend develops-as it is developing in small ways as people determine that certain areas such as cities, provinces and shires shall be nuclear free areas-that will be part of the trend which reverses initiatives taken and supported by people such as Senator Collard who think our destruction is inevitable, that war is always with us, that slaughter, massacre and the destruction of our environment are inevitable and that therefore we should with some stoicism give it up and say there is nothing else we can do about it. Senator Lewis —On the contrary. Senator GEORGES —Unless of course Senator Lewis is looking for a pax Romana so that we can take action to destroy all opposition to our thoughts and ways and become so dominant that we impose a forced peace on everyone else. This in itself is a great corruption. This is not possible because we are faced at the present-we are making history at the moment-with the absolute and complete destruction of the world as we know it. I am not going to be moved away from the remarks I am making. I merely indicate that as far as I am concerned the Bill has its merits. However, I am puzzled by the direct negative of the Opposition's amendment. Also, for the first time, I find myself looking at an amendment from the Government's side. I will deal with those as they come before the Senate. However, let me say that when we look at a Bill of this sort we cannot separate the Bill from those who have presented it. I am particularly disturbed that such a Bill should have been introduced by the Australian Democrats, and by Senator Chipp in particular. There is no chance of success for this Bill, because there are not the numbers to pass it, and Senator Chipp knows that. His motive, of course, is questionable. This Bill reminds me of a proposition put to a human rights conference in Teheran in 1968 by Haiti, a nation which at the time had the worst human rights record in the world. It was a record equal to that of Idi Amin of Uganda and Pol Pot of Kampuchea. The nations of the world voted on the proposition. It was absolutely exact and immaculate in what it proposed. Senator Chipp —What year was that? Senator GEORGES —That was in 1968. It was immaculate in what it expressed in terms of human rights. However, the motives of those who proposed it were questionable. In fact, they brought into question the very proposition they moved. Senator Chipp —Papa Doc Duvalier. Senator GEORGES —Exactly. Senator Chipp recalls him well. Senator Chipp —I attacked them in Paris and Madrid in 1977-the same group from Haiti. Senator GEORGES —I am pleased to hear it. I say to Senator Chipp that there is a comparison between what is happening here and what happened at that time. I question Senator Chipp's motives in this Bill. I believe that this Bill has been introduced for the meanest political motives. It is brought forward for a purpose. Senator Mason —That is absolute rubbish. You know that we have put forward these views for the last seven or eight years. Don't put that sort of line across. Use your brains. Senator GEORGES —Senator Mason is a bit late in the field. The Australian Democrats, having lost their constituency upon which they depended for their support, are now setting themselves up as champions of some of the most radical positions in Australian politics. The Australian Democrats are endeavouring to take up- Senator Chipp —You are a sorry, devious old man who has lost his way. Senator Grimes —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order- Senator GEORGES —I am old, and I admit to being devious. Senator Grimes —But you are not sorry, George. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Grimes, do you have a point of order? Senator Grimes —Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Georges is making a very serious and telling contribution to this debate. I do not believe the interjections of the type made by Senator Chipp are within Standing Orders and I ask that what he said be withdrawn. Senator Mason —Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to speak to the point of order. I think that is absurd. If the Australian Labor Party cannot take that standard of debate it is so soft and unfortunate and I do not think it is likely to be with us as a government for very much longer. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Mason, by taking that point of order you are likely to make me reverse my decision. I do not think the comments that were made transgress any Standing Orders but I do think they transgress the dignity of this place. I ask Senator Georges to continue. Senator GEORGES —The remarks Senator Chipp made are in keeping with the remark he made earlier in referring to the Premier of New South Wales as a creature. Senator Chipp —Hear, hear! Senator GEORGES —By the words 'Hear, hear' Senator Chipp will be judged. It makes fairly apparent that Senator Chipp's motives are always questionable. Certain actions, decisions and initiatives that he has taken in this place in the past few months have been directed by that malice which he has expressed against the Premier of New South Wales. In fact, every decision and every position that he has taken on a number of matters before the Senate have been directed to bringing down the New South Wales Government. The bitterness and malice which he has expressed against the Premier of New South Wales support what I am putting when I say that his motives are questionable. When he proposes something therefore it becomes questionable whether it ought to be supported. Senator Chipp —I hate corruption. It is as simple as that. I hate corrupt police, corrupt Ministers and corrupt bureaucrats. That is what I hate. That is why I hate the Administration in New South Wales. If you want to defend it, defend it to the end. Senator GEORGES —I say to Senator Chipp that he is in a better position to understand those words, those terms and accusations than any other honourable senator in this place. That is the way his mind works. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, I ask you to direct your remarks through the Chair. Senator GEORGES —Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that is the way Senator Chipp has been performing in this place. That is the great question we have to face here. Before Senator Chipp goes I say clearly to him that he has called others in this place frauds and hypocrites. I level that against him. I do that clearly and without-- Senator Mason —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask you to require Senator Georges to withdraw those remarks, which I think are completely gratuitous and unnecessary and an expression of the tenuousness of the argument which he is trying to put forward and which he knows as well as everybody else has no substance. He is going away from substance and argument to abuse. I ask that his remarks be withdrawn. Senator Grimes —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: It is my clear recollection that Senator Georges was referring to things that Senator Chipp said. He was not referring to Senator Chipp. Senator Mason levelled accusations at the Australian Labor Party earlier. Senator Chipp quite clearly cannot take this sort of thing because he left the chamber as Senator Georges was speaking. He just could not tolerate having his words thrown back at him. But I certainly cannot recall anything Senator Georges said which should be asked to be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The way in which I heard the remarks was that Senator Georges was referring to Senator Chipp. Senator Georges, I have allowed a fairly easy rein at this stage but you have imputed improper motives to Senator Chipp. I ask you to withdraw those remarks which were the subject of the point of order. Senator GEORGES —Perhaps I could be permitted to speak to the point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have made a ruling. Senator GEORGES —The ruling has been made. I find it difficult to withdraw the remarks. Mr Acting Deputy President, you should allow me the latitude to express an opinion before I withdraw the words. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Go ahead. Senator GEORGES —The opinion I wish to express is that Senator Chipp-- Senator Jack Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. You have asked for a withdrawal and you are now being studiously ignored. Your ruling is being overruled by Senator Georges. Senator GEORGES —I withdraw the words. I proceed to make my explanation as to why I was forced to use them. I hope that that satisfies Senator Jack Evans. I was forced to use them because the attitude that Senator Chipp takes in this place is that he, and he alone, is the master of the Standing Orders, that he can at any time dictate to the President and the Clerks with impunity. On Friday he made some most insulting remarks and revealed his motive for bringing forward this Bill; that is, to embarrass a number of people in our Party who took a very strong and firm view on the matter that is before us. He was saying: 'We will see where those who sent telegrams will be and we will see where Senator Georges puts his considerable posterior when it comes to the vote'. Those are rude, insulting and extremely patronising remarks. He can dish it out but he has left the chamber and he is not prepared to take it back. I am not prepared to make any further remarks about him. If he wishes to come back, I will tell him exactly what I think. Let me point out also that Senator Chipp has now revealed that he is going to take portions out of Labor Party policy and bring them forward as a Bill. He will do so not for the purposes of supporting that policy, but for the purpose of embarrassing the Labor Party and substantial sections of the community that support the Labor Party. He has done that on a number of occasions. He did it in regard to a nuclear substances Bill. He put forward the proposition and he went out into the electorate and boasted that no one in the Labor Party opposed it. He could not count. Senator Mason —We did not boast; we were just saying that you should stick with your principles. Senator GEORGES —Yes, you were boasting. The Democrats insulted the intelligence of people. The Nuclear Disarmament Party received so much support because people could see through the hoax and the fraud which the Democrats have shown themselves to be. Half a million people went away-- Senator Jack Evans —From the Labor Party. Senator GEORGES —Yes, perhaps from the Labor Party. But they did not go to the Democrats. They found somewhere to go, but they did not go to the Democrats. The Democrats' greatest fear is that next time an election takes place they will be finished. They will be a thing of the past. In three years time they will be scratching. All they can do is to find themselves a new constituency, and that is what this is about. That is what they are trying to do in this regard. They are trying to take over the leadership of the Left. I was amazed to find that the Democrats were against the introduction of foreign banks, another initiative of the Left. They continue on this subject to try to gain the support which they will not get at the next election. I will explain to the Senate how insulting Senator Chipp can become. In a speech headlined 'Embargoed'-the Australian Democrats policy speech for the 1984 Federal election-he stated: Good Evening. This is a different kind of policy speech. It contains no personal abuse. There are no tricky promises of how to put more dollars in your pockets. He said that it contained no personal abuse. He then said some things about nuclear disarmament, things on which I support him, about the problems that we face, and the possibility of instant and immediate destruction. He continued: You don't have to take my word for that or the word of some left-wing fruitcake. He had not even read a dozen paragraphs before he said, 'You don't have to take the word of some left-wing fruitcake', referring to me, I suppose, and a number of others. But it contained no personal abuse! I am proud to say that I am a member of the left wing and possibly at times I am a fruitcake. But I do not need to be told by Senator Chipp who, incidentally, is taking the positions that I had taken for many years before he changed his mind. He said today that he has a right in 16 years to change his mind. But he does not have the right to change it every month and that is virtually what he is doing. I return to the Bill that is before us. The Bill is so serious that I determined to look at Labor Party policy and my view is that that is what Labor Party policy intended. Maybe I have not been attending conferences or maybe I have not read the policy lately. But I find that the policy is like the Bible. It can be quoted by anyone to suit his own purposes. I suppose I can quote certain sections of it that support my point of view and the point of view contained in the Bill. But what I have found to my astonishment is that the policy is not as clear as I thought it was. What position do I take? Do I say: 'I believe in this Bill. It is part of party policy, therefore I will support party policy and I will do what I did last time when we debated a Bill like this'? I did not speak to anyone else. I did not consult anyone else. I did not try to influence anyone else. When the bells rang I just did not vote during the division and, to the credit of my Party, it did not question me about it. So much for Senator Chipp. Senator Mason —You got a lot of respect from the community. Senator GEORGES —Obviously I got none from the Democrats. Senator Mason —Yes, you did. Senator GEORGES —None at all, according to the way in which Senator Chipp has been going on and the way in which he went out to the electorate. Senator Mason —You are the only person on that side who is honest. Senator GEORGES —I do not know about honesty. You can say what you like, but you have real problems, Senator. Senator Mason —I do not have any problems. Senator GEORGES —You have problems. The problem is, so have I. So what is the situation? I strongly believe that the initiative taken by New Zealand is the correct positions for any Labor Party to take. I look at my Party's policy and I find that it is not clear. If it were clear on that point, I would have no difficulty in supporting Labor Party policy, because that is my prime consideration. Policy is laid down by conferences of the Party-I ask all honourable senators to remember this-in order to keep us nicely in line so we will not start doing things on the run. If we are in difficulties with our policy we can always fall back and say: 'But the Party policy says so and so. That is what is in the document. Until that is changed that is what we support. That is our position'. That is what Party policy is all about. One of the problems in trying to amend Party policy to suit a variety of opinions is that finally it means nothing, and that is the problem with our policy in this regard. So what is the option now? Should I support this questionable initiative of Senator Chipp's or discard it for what it is worth and risk the challenges out in the community as to why I, or others, did not support it? Do I take that course or do I just push it to one side and do what all of us would normally do, namely, go back to the party forums and seek to change the policy? Until it is changed, I have no right to take any other position. I could possibly do the sneaky thing that I did last time and without telling anyone not answer the bells. But I have already indicated what I did last time and I am not prepared to do it this time because the motives of the Democrats are absolutely suspect and they will be shown up for what they are. I was almost going to say that they were a bunch of frauds and hypocrites; but they would jump to their feet and ask for those words to be withdrawn. I would not be in contravention of the Standing Orders because the comment would be all-encompassing. Even though the Democrats are small in number, there are two or three honourable senators who could be excluded from being called frauds and hypocrites, but there are some who could not be excluded. If they can find out who they are, they can then complain to the Acting Deputy President. Senator Lewis —Can you narrow it down a bit further, like the Leader or Deputy Leader? Senator GEORGES —I have narrowed it down to three, maybe two. I suggest that this debate ought not to be discarded lightly. We should look to our various policies and see what commitments we have made under ANZUS. Might I say that these commitments do not in any way intend us to become subservient to someone else's dictates. New Zealand has proved what the United States would like to do but is not prepared to do. What New Zealand has been able to do we also can do and I suggest that we should follow its example. The real problem that we face is that there are some people-this applies across the parties-who believe that we are so vulnerable and so expendable in world affairs that the only way to obtain protection and defence is to commit ourselves heavily to the United States and to involve the United States heavily in this area. Such people wish to hand out large slabs of our sovereignty to allow the Americans to create bases here so that they become so firmly involved that we cannot be ignored. That is a most despicable position for anyone to take. Senator Townley —Would you rather have the Russians? Senator GEORGES —It could safely be said that we have had a great fear of them even as far back as 1870 when we put cannons at the mouth of the Brisbane River to prevent a Russian invasion. It goes on and on. Unless we have something to fear, nothing will be done; nothing can be justified. Our subservience to the United States is based on some empty fear of the Soviet Union. Opposition senators interjecting- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! I ask that the interjections on my left cease and that Senator Georges be allowed to continue. Senator GEORGES —I notice that Senator Chipp has returned. Last Friday, Senator Chipp, in his usual way as part of his contribution to a debate on the Government's legislation program, said to the President, in effect: 'If you do not deal with Senator Georges, I will have to'. I say to Senator Chipp: 'I accept the challenge; you try'. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.55) —The Senate is debating the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984 [1985] which was introduced by the Australian Democrats and which purports in effect to declare Australia a nuclear free zone, but in fact is a proposition for unilateral disarmament. As Senator Georges so ably pointed out in his speech, it is a piece of cynical hypocrisy, designed to try to win back for the Democrats the votes that they lost at the last election to the Nuclear Disarmament Party. Nevertheless, I have to say seriously to the Senate that I was, quite frankly, shocked by the fervour of Senator Chipp's attack on the United States during his speech. Senator Townley —Terrible, disgraceful! Senator LEWIS —I agree with my colleague Senator Townley. I thought it was disgraceful. Senator Chipp virtually put the responsibility for the arms race on the Americans. He referred to the Americans as being stand-over people. Senator Chipp —No, bully boys. Senator LEWIS —Senator Chipp has just confirmed that that is his view. 'No, bully boys', was his interjection. I feel that he made no reference in his speech to what the Soviet Union has done in its attacks on the peace-loving peoples of the world. I am concerned about the nature of the report and, no doubt, the American Press will feature on what Senator Chipp had to say. The American Press probably will not hear what I have to say, but I have to put on record for the sake of the Americans a couple of matters of great importance. The first point is that, although Senator Chipp is the Leader of a party in Australia, he will never be in government. Those from the United States who become concerned about anything he might say can rest easy on the basis that he will never again be in a government in Australia. The second thing which I have to say to the Americans in regard to Senator Chipp is that he does get very emotional about whatever happens to be his current obsession. He is currently obsessed with trying to win back the votes that the Democrats lost to the Nuclear Disarmament Party. So we are getting emotional speeches about the nuclear holocaust. Quite frankly, I can only say to the Americans that when Senator Chipp gets this way it tends to cloud his reasoning. The attack which the Democrats have conducted by way of this Bill related to ANZUS. When it has been pointed out to them that in effect this Bill's passing would mean the total end of ANZUS, they have then said: 'What is the meaning of ANZUS?', and they have started to look at the words of the ANZUS agreement. They have criticised the fact that the agreement simply says that the Americans 'will consult'. I have had many years of experience with partnership agreements and it is my view that once partners start to look at the wording of their agreements, the partnership is in trouble. That is precisely what happened to ANZUS from the day the Labor Party came into office, because very shortly afterwards, Mr Hayden, in his wisdom, said: 'I have had a look at ANZUS and it does not mean anything'-the same sort of argument that the Democrats have been putting here tonight. He started talking about the words 'will consult'. These words were said by Mr Hayden in his new office as Minister for Foreign Affairs and right from the word go the ANZUS agreement was in trouble. I say to honourable senators that the ANZUS agreement required full faith and loyalty on the part of the people involved. Australians have always understood that if we were attacked the Americans would come to our aid. I have no doubt-I say this to Senator Chipp, who challenged us this afternoon-that the Americans would have come to our aid while the Liberals were in office and while we were standing by ANZUS. On the other hand, in view of how we now stand with ANZUS, I do not know whether the Americans would still come to our aid. They would certainly have an excuse not to do so. It is clear from the Bill that the Democrats propose to disarm all weapons on our side. The Bill says that no nuclear-powered ships should come into Australia and that the Government should enforce this. But the Bill goes further. Believe it or not, it gives power to certain officers, and defines 'officer' in this way: (a) an officer for the purposes of the Customs Act . . . (b) a member of the Australian Federal Police; (c) a member of the Police Force of a State or Territory; or (d) a member of the Defence Force. It gives such officer power to board a vessel and to search it. Can one imagine Premier Cain directing a Victorian police officer to go on board an American ship which happened to be in a Victorian harbour, if it could get there, and that officer saying to the captain: 'I intend to board this vessel and to search it'? If that part of the Bill is not bad enough, it goes on to say about any officer who makes such a boarding: require the master of the vessel to give information to the officer concerning the vessel; . . . . . . . . and take copies of, or extracts from, any documents, books or papers produced to him in pursuance of a requirement under this section or found by him in the course of searching the vessel. No doubt that would include all the secret codes and the rest of the documents that may be found on vessels that come into harbour. Can one imagine anything so utterly stupid as that proposal in the Bill? This is the sort of nonsense that comes from the Democrats, who will never be in government and will never have to worry about such matters. As always, the result of that kind of activity would be total disarmament. Under those provisions no ships, whether they be nuclear powered or otherwise, would want to come into our ports. Even a wooden sailing vessel would not come into our ports if the captain were to be subject to provisions such as those in clause 7 of the Bill. The clear indication of the Bill is that it warrants unilateral disarmament. It is simplistic nonsense. I quote from an article in the Melbourne Age by Claude Forell, who is not a person from whose writings I would normally quote. He rarely writes things with which I would agree, but I agree with his comments in an article entitled 'Lessons from history Labor must heed': . . . to be passionately concerned about the dangers of nuclear war and the super power arms race is one thing; to strive for realistic and effective policy objectives is quite another. The issues involved are far too complex and delicate to be solved, or even intelligently confronted, by the simplistic sloganeering, the emotional pressures and the symbolic posturing pursued by the anti-nuclear coalition . . . Most of their demands would do more to increase rather than reduce the risks of war, and could not be met by any Australian Government with a sensible appreciation of national security and international obligations. I recognise the view taken by Senator Georges, but I adopt a contrary view. Senator Georges is so passionately concerned with the problem that he thinks the best thing we can do is to disarm. Senator Georges —Who said anything about disarmament? Senator LEWIS —The truth is that this has been tried before. It was tried in the 1930s and totally failed. It has been tried on previous occasions and will not work. Let us forget disarmament for the moment. Let us look at the current problems this Government is facing with its own Public Service. When the present Government came into office, it disarmed. It did away with the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, and one has only to look at the problems the Government now has before it. It is in desperate trouble trying to control its own Public Service because it disarmed. That is exactly the situation experienced by nations throughout the world. I was disturbed by the attack by Senator Chipp and his colleague Senator Haines, based on fear, involving Australia as a target. It is clear that, as usual, the Democrats want to have their bets each way. Senator Macklin wanted Australia to stay part of the ANZUS agreement, but he thought it could be a non-nuclear agreement. I feel I have demonstrated beyond doubt that that is nonsense. The Democrats have sought to bet each way in their fear campaign. Although they are saying that Australia has targets at Pine Gap and Nurrungar, they also take the view that as soon as one atomic bomb has been exploded anywhere in the world certainly Australia will suffer a nuclear winter. There is no doubt that, by the time a nuclear explosion occurs in Australia, this community, this society and the world as we know it today will be finished. We all want peace. Even the Soviets say they want peace. The question is how peace is to be achieved. President Carter tried to achieve peace, as did other American Presidents before him, including President Kennedy. They all tried to persuade the Soviet Union to come to the bargaining table and they failed miserably in that task. Now, after President Reagan has had four years in office, the Soviets are finally getting close to coming to that bargaining table. That has happened because the United States has finally reached the stage where it has produced a weapon, the MX missile, which is able to cope with the Soviet SS18s and SS19s, which are aimed all around the world. The Soviets knew that they had control of the world and could blast it apart. They could have started with Europe or with the United States and blasted the world apart with SS18s and SS19s. Now, the Americans have produced a counter-weapon which has re-established the balance of power. That having happened, the whole world-not just Australia-has been subjected to one of the most massive campaigns of disinformation ever known. After four years with President Reagan in power, there are books about the nuclear holocaust, as well as films on the subject. People are being constantly inundated with material from all sorts of academics and from all sorts of places. Clearly that has happened because the balance has been restored by the existence of the MX missile. A great deal of nonsense is put about in an effort to get rid of the surveillance satellites or the ground stations, but it is clear to all and sundry that, at last, the Soviets are coming to the table to negotiate because of the strength of the United States and its MX missile campaign. The situation will get worse. I predict that, as the Soviets squirm under this strengthening of American power, there will be more and more disinformation and more proposals put forward by people such as Senator Chipp and the Democrats attacking the Americans. Judging by the way Senator Chipp spoke today, I believe that the Americans will hear a lot more from him about their actions. For example, what about that 1980 map of ballistic missile test ranges of the Soviet Union, showing shot after shot being fired into the Pacific Ocean? There is no suggestion by Senator Chipp that some action be taken against the Soviet Union for its activities. I now turn to the Australian Labor Party. The editorial in the Melbourne Herald this afternoon contains some interesting comments about this matter. It talks about the censure debate in the other place last Friday. It states: On Friday, Mr Hawke spoke with great conviction of his respect for the American alliance. He attacked the concept of unilateral disarmament. He pledged Australia's continued involvement in ANZUS. These were the right words. But, coming from a Prime Minister who reneged on a promise to support the American MX missile tests, coming from a politician who folded in the face of party pressure and snubbed our major ally, they sounded incongruous, if not hypocritical. Is that not so very true? Here tonight again there is an opportunity for Mr Hawke, through his Party, to support the Americans by supporting the amendment which Senator Chaney moved this afternoon. But no, those in the left wing, the left faction, of the Labor Party clearly have Mr Hawke and his Ministry in their control. What they have done is come up with some sort of weak amendment which I will refer to in a minute. Government senators-Ha, ha! Senator LEWIS —Mr Acting Deputy President, the left wing in the Senate here tonight, or most of them grouped here, are indicating by their laughter that they do not think they have Mr Hawke under their control. But the way the Prime Minister has backed off in regard to this matter is very interesting. It is very interesting that the Labor Party is not supporting our amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill. It is very interesting to think back to what happened with the Invincible. One can think back to what happened in the State of Victoria to Mr Cain, who is in the same position. Mr Cain, the current Premier-I hope he will not be the Premier after next Saturday-told the United States that American warships were simply not welcome in Victorian ports. Although it had nothing whatsoever to do with him, in fact, of course, that means that American warships are not entering Victorian ports. As I say, the result is an amendment by the Labor Party. I can only presume that this amendment has been worked out by the faction leaders. We have had Senator Robert Ray and Senator Richardson on one side. I do not know who would have led the left wing of the Labor Party. I suppose that it would have been Mr Hand. Senator Boswell —Senator Georges is the leader of the Left. Senator LEWIS —No, I do not think Senator Georges was involved in the preparation of this. I do not know who those in the Left would have got; they probably had to get Mr Hand from the other place. They worked out this weak-kneed amendment, which states: The Senate is of the opinion that continued access by visiting allied war ships, within the framework of appropriate safety and environmental controls as laid down by successive Australian Governments, is essential for the effective operation of the ANZUS alliance. Of course, we support that. It goes on: The Senate is further of the view that Australia's membership of the ANZUS alliance has a significant role to play in advancing Australia's influence in disarmament forums. Is that the best the Labor Party can say about the ANZUS alliance- that it has a significant role in advancing influence in disarmament forums? Let us look at what the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee had to say in its report in October 1984. This report was unanimous. There were 21 senators and members on this Joint Committee. This part of the report was quite unanimous. The Committee included Senator Elstob, Senator Jones, Senator Sibraa and Senator Tate from the other side. Senator Withers —They are all right wingers. Senator LEWIS —My colleague Senator Withers reminds me that they are all right wingers. There were no left wingers on that Committee; they could not get the numbers. This report says, and this is a unanimous view, that the Committee considers that it is in Australia's interest to maintain the ANZUS Treaty and other bilateral defence arrangements with the United States-no question; no humming and hawing; nothing about maintaining membership because it has a significant role to play in advancing Australia's influence in disarmament forums, but it has something to do with the defence of the nation. That is what ANZUS is all about; it has something to do with the defence of the nation. Those in the left wing of the ALP have persuaded their leaders not to support our amendment. Our amendment actually puts a bit of guts into the matter. It says: The Senate is of the opinion that- (a) continued access by the US and UK nuclear powered ships, and of nuclear capable ships, is vital for the maintenance of peace and an effective stable deterrence; and (b) unilaterial disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. They are practically the words of various members of this Government. They are practically the words of Mr Hayden. They are practically the words of Mr Hawke. But the Labor Party is not prepared to support that amendment. That is where the words came from, of course; they came from their speeches. The amendment also goes on: The Senate- (a) expresses concern at the attempt unilaterally to place restrictions on the military forces of Australia and its allies- Of course, we ought to be concerned about that. But the Labor Party is not concerned about it. Our amendment continues: . . . and strongly is of the view that disarmament measures should occur only as part of a mutual and balanced reduction of arms with effective verification and compliance. That is what the United States is on about. That is what it is hoping to achieve in Geneva. That is what it is all about with its MX missile tests; it is in order to show the Soviet Union that the strength is there, that the ability to defend this world is available. Senator Georges —There is no end to that sort of thing; it just goes on and on. It just goes up and up. Senator LEWIS —Senator Georges says that there is no end to it. That is not true. There is no end to it while we keep unilaterally disarming and weakening ourselves. Once we show strength we reach the stage where the Soviet Union will come to the bargaining table and there will be a chance that we can achieve a reduction. In fact there should be total disarmament of all weapons let alone nuclear weapons, but that can be achieved only by strength. Surely the 1930s told this world that it can be achieved only by strength. The weakness which we showed to the Germans in the 1930s resulted in the disaster of the 1939-45 war. If we had shown some strength in 1932 it would not have happened. If we had shown some strength in 1934 it would not have happened. If we had shown some strength in 1936 it still would not have happened. But, no, people, with all due respect, with the same sorts of views as those expressed by Senator Chipp and Senator Georges this evening, put those sorts of views in the 1930s. That led to the disaster of the Second World War. For 40 years we have had peace, and the only reason we have had peace is the strength of the United States. Finally, it is our view that the Senate should say that it is: . . . of the view that Australia has a significant role to play in the search for peace and disarmament but recognises that Australia's influence in disarmament fora is dependent upon our continuing to help in the maintenance of an effective deterrent. That is what it is all about-providing an effective deterrent. At the present moment Australia, with its satellite transmitting station, is simply providing some sort of information about what is happening in this world. There can be no doubt that the surveillance of what is going on in this world is the greatest thing that the world has going for it to bring peace. It is the total surveillance of the world which will ensure that the information is available to people around the world. That is the sort of thing that will bring peace, not unilateral disarmament and certainly not unilateral disarmament by a small insignificant nation such as Australia. In just the same way, unilateral disarmament by New Zealand, which is the effect of what Mr Lange has been on about, will be absolutely meaningless to the Soviet Union. Is there any suggestion about the Soviet Union getting out of Can Ranh Bay of the other areas that it is developing in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific area? Is there any suggestion of the Soviet Union withdrawing from those areas because of this action by New Zealand? Not at all. The sort of action proposed in this Bill by Senator Chipp and the left wing of the Labor Party will just bring tragedy to this world, certainly not the peace which we all hope to achieve. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(9.21) —In listening to Senator Lewis I am reminded of a book I have just been reading which describes how the Teutonic knights brought Christianity to Poland. They discovered that in the end the only way that they could impose Christianity on the Poles was not just to destroy the Polish nation but to eliminate the people of Poland completely. They set about that very methodically. In fact they brought Christianity to Poland by getting rid of the Polish people in total at that time. Senator Lewis obviously believes in the same philosophy. He has just outlined to us a rationale for bringing peace to the world. He said that, provided the Americans can build enough arms, gather enough strength and be assured that they have the ability to destroy the Russians without themselves being destroyed, we have a formula for peace. Senator Lewis —Rubbish! Senator JACK EVANS —Of course it is rubbish, as Senator Lewis has just said. It is a rubbish rationale because the other side to this particular exercise is that the Russians in turn have adopted the same approach. As Senator Georges implied in an intrusion into Senator Lewis's comments, that does not bring about disarmament; it brings about escalation, the same escalation of which Senator Lewis is so proud and in which we have indulged the people of this world for the past 40 years. During 40 years of depriving the underprivileged of this world we have fed the arms manufacturers of this world, fattened the generals in the Pentagon and in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and looked after everybody except the people of the world. I am here to tell Senator Lewis and everybody else who feels that we can continue to escalate this armament race that many people around the world will no longer buy that argument, that false logic. It is a growing number, not just in Australia but across the world. I think it is very sad that tonight, after a very good debate this afternoon we have descended to a lot of political point scoring and personal attacks. It has become a rather frivolous debate in the last hour or so, almost as though, as Senator Georges interrupted, we were discussing video games. But we are not. Today we are talking about choices and it may well be the last choice. Should we, as part of Australia's contribution to peace and disarmament, welcome to our country nuclear powered or armed warships and aircraft, most of which are loaded with weapons deliberately designed for the most horrendous destruction of life, or should we now say: 'No, that is enough'? The insanity has to stop. Australia, as an independent nation, must do everything possible to halt the nuclear arms race because the stockpile of nuclear bombs is now so large, the technology is so advanced and the destructive power is so awesome that the present nuclear madness will continue to grow if nations such as ours do nothing. We have reached a crisis point and it now takes the deliberate choice of people-and politicians, I remind honourable senators-for there to be a hope for survival or progress with a future. Senator Chipp's Bill provides one deliberate choice that the people of this nation and their representatives can take-must take. The young people of this country, I believe typical of young people around the world, are losing hope. There are two principal reasons for that. One is the disastrous unemployment rate in most nations but the other, far more insidious, is their fear that there may be no future, that they may live just a few short years and that some lunatic will press the wrong button. It does not have to be a lunatic in the Pentagon or the Kremlin. It could a lunatic sitting in a submarine in one of the oceans who just suffers temporary insanity which could speak the end of the world. It could be as simple as that. I know that when that happens I will be a nuclear target, because I live near Fremantle. In Fremantle and Cockburn Sound adjoining it we have frequent visits by United States and British nuclear powered and nuclear armed warships. If, when one is there, somebody presses the wrong button I will be one of the lucky ones. I will be immediately put out of my misery and the survivors will be those people including young people, who see no future in terms of the type of existence we have enjoyed. The future for them will be a bare survival if anything at all. Just as the fixed United States bases on Australian soil are targets, nuclear armed and nuclear powered ships and planes are not simply essential factors in any nuclear conflict; they are bona fide targets in such a conflict. The cities, the populations and the land masses which abut any such nuclear vehicles, whether they be aircraft simply refuelling, warships, submarines or whatever, will be targets of nuclear weapons. When we think of the things which are likely to be taken out as part of a nuclear exchange our thoughts go most naturally to missile silos and communications bases. But, of course, it is wishful thinking to ignore the targets of nuclear warships, submarines and bomber aircraft. This Bill is bringing to our attention the fact that these are nuclear targets, and we are currently welcoming them to Australian shores and Australian airports. We know we have one class of high priority targets already installed; that is, the communications bases around Australia. But we are also host to a second class of high priority nuclear targets-those warships and bomber aircraft. It would only remain for our peace-loving Government to agree to the installation of fixed missile silos for our vulnerability to be complete. Such a request from Washington would, of course, be based on an appeal to our obligations under ANZUS to which some of us are sycophantic, a threat that if we did not fulfil them ANZUS would be in jeopardy and a lecture on the contribution that the new system, along with the others, makes to the efficacy of the overall deterrent and the search for world peace which is the ever stated, oft repeated desire of the Pentagon, our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and our Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden). I pose a question for those who are so willing, so keen to accept the bidding of the United States Pentagon and the United States President. What would be their response to such a request? That is a hypothetical question today, but such a question was hypothetical in terms of United States communications bases and United States nuclear powered and armed ships 40 years ago when ANZUS was entered into. If anyone thinks that such fixed missile silos would never be proposed by the United States or allowed by the Australian Government, we must ask: Would that be on moral grounds? Do honourable senators think the Government would refrain on moral grounds or because it is bad politics? Would it be seen as the straw that might break the camel's back or quite simply that our allies had no need from them? There is no real difference between any of these nuclear systems. They are either all acceptable or none of them are acceptable. They are all risks-they are all unacceptable risks to the people of Australia irrespective of the views of a few politicians. The Australian Democrats repeat that none of these nuclear systems, none of these risks, are acceptable to us. That is why we have introduced not one but many Bills concerning the whole gamut of these various threats to our very survival. To return to the most recent and the most unwelcome addition to the panoply of hazard and fear which our Government condones and the Opposition welcomes at the very time that the New Zealand Government has most courageously refused to take on board the passage, periodic berthing and landing of nuclear ships, submarines and bomber aircraft, I have already said that this particular nuclear infrastructure puts this country in a condition of wholly unjustifiable peril. Nobody disagrees that we live in perilous times. It is just that many honourable senators seem content to expose their fellow citizens to these dangers unnecessarily. Quite obviously there is a large and ever increasing number of Australians who oppose this nuclear masochism, this Russian-American roulette played with other people's countries and with posterity. We, the Australian Democrats, are speaking for those people today for it seems that neither the Government nor the Opposition is prepared to represent those people. We know that many members of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia agree with us and share our grave fears and misgivings. But we also know that many will not have the courage of their convictions. For them it will be not even a case of my country right or wrong but my party right or wrong or, dare I whisper it, my parliamentary pre-selection right or wrong. Those who really do care about nuclear disarmament would not want to split the anti-nuclear vote any further, and this has happened both here in Parliament and in the community. By voting for this Bill, all senators have the chance to stand together for disarmament. I want to speak now about the totally subversive effects that Australia's agreement to host nuclear ships and planes is having and will continue to have upon a number of long-standing, widely-supported and greatly desired projects and, in one case, potential agreement to reduce tensions in the whole Indo-Pacific region and to eliminate nuclear weapons, nuclear tests and nuclear bases. I refer, of course, to the south-west Pacific nuclear free zone, to the Indian Ocean zone of peace and, incidentally, to the recurring desire by the nation's of South East Asia to create a zone of peace and neutrality. So the Democrats are not alone. The people in Australia who support this concept are not alone. We have very strong support in the region and, in fact, across the world. This Australian Government and a previous Labor government gave these measures their strongest verbal support once, imprinted them upon their party banners and went to the polls, not once but many times, promising to do all in their power to bring these ideas to fruition. They have always said what a staggering contribution zones of peace and nuclear free regions would make to the reduction of world conflict and world tension. What an example they would set to nations, to peoples, to other regions. They talked about how these nuclear free zones were things that we in Australia could really do something about. I remind you, Mr Deputy President, that that philosophy was endorsed and acted upon by Labor governments at all levels-Federal, State and local. But as far as the Federal Government is concerned, that is forgotten history. Australia may not be able to get Russia and America to agree about mutual troop reductions in Europe or anywhere else or reductions in Pershing and SS20 missiles. But we and like-minded nations in the Indo-Pacific region have the capacity, indeed the responsibility, to forge our own destiny and secure our own immunities. Australian governments which have spoken in this way spoke correctly, but what have they done? They have taken one step after another to subvert and make unworkable the very institutions upon which they have asked us to pin our hopes for order and security. They have landed us with 24 bases, only some of which have been coyly identified as constituting prime nuclear targets. I wonder who they are trying to kid? They have allowed the introduction of ships and planes, bristling with the most advanced nuclear weaponry, not out in the desert somewhere or out in the middle of the ocean but in our very cities, in our country itself. They have also tried to implicate us in the testing and development of MX missiles and quite possibly Trident missiles as well-missiles which have been widely and authoritatively described as almost deliberately destabilising the nuclear balance, the nuclear balance of which our pundits talk so passionately; missiles which it is well known can be used as first strike weapons in a first strike strategy. In other words, the Government's adherence to all or any of its professed concerns that Australia makes its own policies, that Australia evaluates its own security needs and acts accordingly and that we work with nations of a similar mind in our own region amounts to simply words and breaths and nothing more. The Government has betrayed its principles, it has betrayed its voters and it has put this nation in the situation of unnecessary and unacceptable danger and never ending insecurity. We have to ask ourselves what reasons it has given for these apostasies? What reasons can it give for this failure to look at our country's real needs? Simply that the United States demands that it does these things; insists that it is a condition of the continuation of the ANZUS alliance. I do not believe that such concessions are in fact the necessary conditions of a continued alliance with the United States. I do not believe that the Americans really believe it is and I do not believe that the Government or even the Opposition really believe it. Mr Lange certainly does not believe that it is. To take the worst possible case, alliances can be bought at too high a price. The Australian Democrats hope that it has not come to this. We are seeing the wholesale, step by step inflation of the ANZUS Treaty-its goals, its values, its duties and its obligations-by one member of that alliance, the United States, but most specifically by the Reagan Administration. Most Australians who have supported ANZUS, and many still do, are unaware of what has been done to this compact under their very noses. The ANZUS they think we are talking about is being destroyed by the wholly unwarranted and frequently surreptitious introduction of nuclear warfare. I remind Senator Lewis that it has been happening under his nose and mine for the past 40 years. What we are seeing was never part of the original ANZUS Treaty. There is not a word in the treaty about it. There is no relationship or reference to it in the ANZUS Treaty. In any case the treaty was written before this kind of nuclear madness was ever conceived in anybody's mind. So to suggest that it was part of the original ANZUS Treaty or part of the original ANZUS intent is a nonsense. It has been sneaked into the ANZUS alliance conditions by one nation alone. We have already recognised that one of the trio does not believe that it should be, has been or is part of the ANZUS Treaty as it now stands. This is the position taken by one-third of the ANZUS Treaty nations at the moment-the nation of New Zealand. I believe that if we were to take a referendum of the people of Australia we would discover that their attitudes are probably identical with those of the people of New Zealand. That is something we may need to consider because I believe the people who have spoken against Senator Chipp's Bill today do not represent the views of the vast majority of Australians. Despite the fact that many people supported the Labor and the Liberal parties at the last election, I believe that if they had been given the opportunity to put aside all other concerns-economic, social welfare, everthing else-and cast a separate vote on what they believed Australia's position should be in terms of nuclear disarmament, in terms of American bases on Australian soil, and in terms of having American warships in Australian ports, they would have had the same courage as the people of New Zealand had. They would have indicated to this Government and to the alternative government at that election that they do not want a bar of nuclear armed or nuclear powered warships in Australian ports. The new style ANZUS, the ANZUS Treaty for which we are currently endeavouring to meet the conditions laid down by the United States, was concocted in the Pentagon and bears bitter fruit. We should realise this, just as the New Zealanders have. The Kiwis are not anti-American. If honourable senators have heard and seen Mr Lange they will know that he is pro-United States, as are the great majority of Australians, including the Australian Democrats. The New Zealanders are quite content to operate joint defence and intelligence arrangements with Australia and the United States, but they simply refuse to accept the shattering of the long-standing practices and values and the destabilisation of the basic order and regional amity which all political parties say they support. It is not the New Zealanders who have changed; it is Washington and Canberra. It would be well to remember that even under the McMahon Government, when the Vietnam war was still raging, the Government gave firm assurances that no nuclear armed ships would be welcome in our waters, and the Nixon Government accepted that without protest; nor did the United States claim the right under the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. This was at a time when Australia, New Zealand and the United States were parties in a war. One initiative this Government took was to vote in the United Nations last November for a nuclear freeze. It brought the Government widespread applause during the election campaign. The general thrust of the nuclear freeze resolution, quite clearly, is against further development and testing of nuclear devices as a means of helping reduce the escalating arms race. The nuclear freeze is against a rising involvement in more and more societies in the nuclear game. Senator Chipp —And delivery systems. Senator JACK EVANS —And delivery systems. A government which expressed, as this one has, concrete support for the turning back of the tide of nuclear escalation but continued to conspire with the United States to install yet more bases, upgrade existing ones, and facilitate a rising volume of nuclear weapons on and outside its shores, can be accused of utter bad faith or perhaps election gimmickry. Senator Lewis —You are still attacking the Yanks. Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Lewis has not been listening. He should get back to his novel. In the light of events since last November I am forced to accuse the Government of total bad faith. Perhaps the most obviously hypocritical double standard is the abuse the Government has hurled at New Zealand for adhering to the very principles upon which it says it places great store, such as the nuclear freeze and zones of peace. I ask: Which government is hypocritical? Is it Australia's or New Zealand's? As I said at the outset, Senator Lewis obviously finds this quite amusing. I doubt that the people of Australia find it as amusing as he thinks. The Opposition cannot be accused of bad faith, as can the Government. The Opposition simply has no faith. It believes in nothing, least of all nuclear disarmament or peace. It is abundantly clear that Australia, for perhaps a brief period, is at a watershed in her affairs. Either we start retracing our steps and choose the path of life, hope and truth, or else we sink quickly ever deeper into a condition of hopelessness or the apathy of despair and the acceptance of subterfuges and whitewash in the conduct of our national affairs and thus ever increasing danger and insecurity. Senator Lewis —Cynical hypocrisy and humbug. That is the only way to describe it. Senator JACK EVANS —I hope that the listeners have heard the honourable senator's interjection. In handing over our sovereignty, our integrity, we are handing over what remains of our freedom of choice. We may not be able to retrieve those powers in the foreseeable future. Some very important moral and political decisions are going to have to be taken now-not in two or three years time or in a decade. Fortunately, more and more Australians are getting hold of this reality. Both the Government and the Opposition are deceiving themselves, if they think they can divert this growing protest, this coming of age of the people of Australia. The universally accepted fundamental notion of disarmament is that it must be a process of reduction of arms, reduction of tension and shrinkage of the areas of potential conflict, not an increase in arms, tension or conflict. The first step is to stop the nuclear madness where it now stands and then gradually to push back and dismantle the successive stages of the nuclear weapons death machine, a death machine which has got us within sight of Armageddon. This is the policy the Government is advocating for everyone else in the world but ignoring for Australia. Surely the place to begin is here and the time to begin is now. We can do it as a friend. We can put pressure on the United States. We can join with other friends of the United States, such as Belgium, Greece and New Zealand, all United States allies. We can join with the Third World countries which want to feed their children before they allow the escalation of the arms race. We can join with the majority of mankind and apply pressure to both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I remind the Senate that our opponents in this are not the people of the United States. They are not the people of Western Europe and Eastern Europe. All the people want nuclear disarmament. All the people want a start towards world peace. New Zealand started this movement, which represents the voice of the people. We have to ask ourselves whether Australia has the courage to be next. We have to show the people of the West and the people of the East that free people can start the movement towards disarmament. Senator Don Chipp's Bill is the first move in this movement towards nuclear disarmament. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.58) —I will not speak for long because I believe that we should proceed very quickly to a vote on the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill. Almost everything that needs to be said on this question has been said during the debate, which has ranged from early this afternoon until now. However, a couple of matters have not been addressed and I will deal with those very shortly. I refer to the remarks made by Senator Jack Evans, who has just spoken to the Bill. I am concerned that a climate of mindless fear is being generated which could, in the short term, isolate Australia from our allies and, in the long term, make war more inevitable by undermining the will of democracies to continue their painstaking search for a mutual, progressive and verifiable arms reduction agreement without which lasting peace is impossible to achieve. Senator Evans referred to the fear among young people that they may not live for more than a few days. I have probably more reason than most members of this chamber to be concerned about peace and the need for peace. I do not think anybody in this chamber can have a trademark on the desire for peace. It is a desire that dwells in the hearts of all of us. The question is: How is that to be achieved? I believe that it cannot be achieved by generating a mindless fear which does not address itself to the realities of the situation. Furthermore, that fear engenders a type of nuclear numbing which ignores the need to eradicate inequalities both at home and abroad and the violation of human rights as a prerequisite for a genuine, lasting world peace with freedom. I would like to go over a number of matters that have been addressed, including the question of deterrence and how this action would be perceived not only by our immediate allies but also by those on the periphery, but I desist from doing so because this would normally be covered by other speakers. A couple of points that have not been covered are: Firstly, the failure of successive governments to provide the information upon which the Australian people can have an intellectual commitment to the ANZUS Treaty and the American alliance; and, secondly, the role of sections of the Press in this area, particularly over the last two or three weeks. As to the first point, over a number of years, successive governments have asked the Australian public to take, almost as a matter of faith, the Australian-American alliance. It was said recently by the Executive Director of the Australian Defence Association in a public statement which was printed in the Hobart Mercury on, I think, 5 February that what governments do not understand is that Australians under the age of 40 years have had fed to them in the education system, particularly at universities, a diet of anti-Americanism. Certainly those over the age of 40 years either have had personal experience of war or were in their childhood days during or just shortly after the war when the realities of the American alliance were clear cut. What governments need to do-I include this Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden)-is to provide the information upon which an intellectual commitment can be based in support of the Australian-American alliance and to challenge those who seek to destroy it with the question as to what the alternative would be and whether it would be too costly to consider as it may lead to the conclusion that we should develop our own nuclear capacity. I am not one to support them. In fact, I believe that if information is provided to the general public about the importance of the alliance we will be able to avoid the quite unnecessary expense in which we would have to engage in developing our own type of defence posture. The second matter that has not been referred to is the role that sections of the media play. For example the National Times gloated on its front page about 'Hawke's humiliation' over the MX question. On 1 February, I think, it regurgitated a story that was around just before the election about whether Australia would be involved in any way in the MX tests. One week later it was able to blazen on its front page the headline: 'The Treaty Trembles. Hawke's humiliation signals the end of an era'. It played a partisan part in this whole sordid affair, and so did the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The ABC acted in a most biased way on the critical day that this question was being considered. It took up the story which was printed in the National Times. I do not know how many honourable senators listened to the ABC's AM program on 5 February but those who did will not have heard any balance at all in that program. Who did the ABC have on that AM program that morning? It canvassed the views of Mr Alan Griffiths MP, of Senator Peter Cook and of a person it described as an expert of Australian-New Zealand military affairs, Peter Hayes. I am advised by experts in the field that Hayes's name is unknown as a specialist in that area and that he actually demonstrated an abysmal ignorance of the technical aspects of his subject. All of those who were interviewed to that point were hostile to a greater or lesser degree to the announced policy of the Australian Government, the United States Government and the Prime Minister. The only defender was Richard Butler, who is our Ambassador for Disarmament. He, as a public servant, was placed in a difficult and awkward position and of course was somewhat muted in what he could say. Not to be outdone, the PM program on the same day made no attempt to present other than a hostile point of view towards the United States and to the leadership of the Prime Minister of his Party. Those who contributed to PM on that day-the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is supposed to be unbiased but it was obviously playing a partisan role in this affair-were Senator Chipp and Mr Tickner MP, who actually used the program to attack his leader. The ABC even dragged out Rear Admiral Gene La Rocque. Senator MacGibbon —Him? Senator HARRADINE —Yes. It was scraping the bottom of the barrel. Senator MacGibbon —Is he older or younger than President Reagan? Senator HARRADINE —La Rocque's history ought to be well known to anyone who has held a vague interest in the area of defence. Senator Chipp —Have you as distinguished a war service as he? Have you served your country as he did? Senator HARRADINE —As a matter of fact, I am not that old. Of course, I was a member of the 27th Infantry Battalion, but I did not see overseas service. I was too young. He has been the subject of articles appearing in the Australian and anyone, including the ABC, should have known of his record. We are talking about Admiral La Rocque in respect of this matter. Admiral La Rocque has a magazine called the Defense Monitor. The Defense Monitor has consistently taken an anti-Western view on defence matters ever since his organisation was established by the so-called Fund for Peace. La Rocque has attended and spoken at KGB sponsored conferences and often appears as a commentator on Moscow television. Of course, the ABC program trots him out. Senator MacGibbon —That's right, Trotsky. Senator HARRADINE —That was a slip of the tongue. The point I am simply making, with due respect to Trotsky, is that the ABC was playing a partisan role in a matter of great major national importance. It was not only an ordinary partisan role but also a party political partisan role because the ABC did not attempt to give the view of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or any of those factions. It simply gave the view of one faction which happened to be opposing the Prime Minister's view. I thought it was necessary to raise those two points because they had not been raised before. There is further information about the role of the ABC and the role of the National Times in respect of this matter. But I believe that I probably would be transgressing Standing Orders if I were to elaborate on those matters at this point because the matter before the Chair is a Bill introduced by Senator Chipp to ensure that nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels are not given authority to come to the ports of Australia or that nuclear capable aircraft are not given landing facilities in Australia. It has been admitted all round that this would destroy the ANZUS Treaty and the Australian-American alliance. Senator Jack Evans —It has not been admitted all round. Senator HARRADINE —That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this. Senator Jack Evans —That is not admitting it. Senator HARRADINE —You do not admit it then? Senator Jack Evans —No. Senator HARRADINE —I can only repeat that it is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. This applies not only to the fleet and aircraft of the United States forces but also to those of our other allies-the United Kingdom, for example. It is strategically unacceptable even to ask the navies of those countries to declare publicly whether a specific vessel is nuclear armed. That ought to be recognised. It is a strategic nonsense to suggest that that could be done. Of course, to implement this Bill that question would have to be asked and answered. Of course, that is not on because that would then destroy the effectiveness of a very significant part of the treaty. As to the treaty and the perception of Australians of the Australian-American alliance, if Australians were asked the question 'Who could Australia rely on if faced with an attack from a superior force?' undoubtedly most Australians would answer 'The United States of America'. The basis for the assumption that America would act as our ultimate protector is to be found in the ANZUS Treaty and-this is also a very significant point to which I think the Democrats have not adverted-in the economic and diplomatic linkages between the two countries. That applies also to arms procurement. Imagine if the treaty did not exist and the linkages were broken. Imagine the cost, not to mention the lead time, that would be involved in establishing the industries necessary to make ourselves self-sufficient. Over a number of years in this place I have advocated a greater reliance on our defence industries. But it is inconceivable that the high technology material now required for a modern army could be produced in this country without unacceptable lead times. The key clause of the ANZUS Treaty requires each party to recognise that an armed attack in our area on any of the parties to the treaty would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and requires each party to declare that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. On the basis of ANZUS and our joint wartime experiences Australia and the United States have developed a close strategic relationship which includes the installation on Australian soil of sensitive United States communications equipment. Honourable senators have heard what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have said about the importance for peace of those installations. Yet some people now say that the ANZUS Treaty should be scrapped. That is, in effect, what is proposed by this legislation. Clearly, Australia could not withstand the onslaught of a super-power without increasing a hundred times its defence expenditure and, as I have said, possibly obtaining a nuclear strike capability. It has been said in the Senate that much depends on the interpretation of the imprecise terms of the ANZUS Treaty. But on the worst interpretation-that of Nixon's Guam doctrine-there is no doubt that, if Australia were attacked either by proxy or directly by a super-power such as the Soviet Union, the United States would come to Australia's defence. I emphasise the word 'proxy' because that is how it is done these days. Generally it is not done directly. I admit that according to the interpretation of the Guam doctrine other security problems for Australia such as regional warfare or the blocking of trading sea lanes vital to the economic survival of Australia may not attract an immediate American response desired by Australia. However, in view of the increased Soviet interests in the Asia-Pacific area and the decline of the United States naval presence in the area which, of course, would be accelerated by a Bill such as this, Australia needs to accept more responsibility as a regional power. But I believe it cannot do so unless it does this in close co-operation with the United States of America. By 'co-operation' I mean a continued close co-operation such as we have seen over a long period and such as was born out of the blood of World War II and developed in economic and diplomatic linkages since then. The United States of America is, of course, anxious that regional powers, including Japan, ourselves and the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, accept more responsibilities for their own defence. Of course, that is important for our own economic reasons as well as for security reasons. After all, the five nearest countries to our north comprising ASEAN have 260 million people and an annual growth rate of 7.5 per cent. It is well for us to consider at this point whether we should enhance and develop a common cause with our neighbours in the international arena as a basis for the establishment of a South East Asia and Pacific community with common trade, economic and security policies. I believe that that would be consistent with our responsibilities as a regional power. However, in order to do this we need to maintain and improve our alliances with our ally, the United States of America. Let me remind the Senate that the Singapore Foreign Minister expressed his concern about the possibility that the ANZUS treaty was trembling. I believe that if we are to uphold our place in this part of the world we should do everything in our power to maintain and develop our alliances with the United States and to ensure that the public of Australia has the information which provides it with the basis for an intellectual commitment to that alliance. The view that I am expressing today is consistent with the view I have had for many years. In fact, I fought this fight back in 1976 when, as I recall, it was the leaders of the pro-communist left unions who were attempting to place a black ban on the visits of United States nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels at that time. I well recall it because it was being said by the Prime Minister of the day that the Government could not get the USS Enterprise into any port in Australia. As a matter of fact, in conjunction with the then Labor Premier, Bill Neilson, and the various authorities in Tasmania it was our union that made possible the very successful visit of the USS Enterprise to the port of Hobart. That was done in a democratic manner because the workers involved, the members of the unions, had a meeting and unanimously decided that the port of Hobart always welcomed friendly naval and commercial vessels. The vessel was made by union labour and we were not going to see anybody but union labour work on it. I believe that those people who made that unanimous decision recognised the importance of the alliance. This is an alliance which, of course, would be destroyed by Senator Chipp's Bill. Senator Chipp —What's the point of all this? Senator HARRADINE —Senator Chipp is interjecting. Perhaps it is true- Senator Chipp —I have treated your speech with the total contempt it deserves. I have not been interjecting. Senator HARRADINE —I have attempted to be objective. I have not attacked you. I have heard what you have been saying sotto voce, including that last remark. Senator Georges made a very perceptive comment in his speech when he said that it seems that the Australian Democrats now are attempting to take control of the leadership of the Left in Australia. Perhaps that is correct, because Senator Georges ought to know. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(10.18) —I will try to confine my comments on the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill to 10 minutes, unlike Senator Harradine who took up his full half-hour. However, before I turn to Senator Chipp's Bill I will make a couple of comments on Senator Collard's remarks. For some reason or other Senator Collard likened the situation we are debating to that of the Luddites. I fail to see the connection. Obviously, Senator Collard does not know much about the history of the Luddites. The Luddites, who went about destroying the spinning jenny in the 1780s, did so because they considered progress would be detrimental to the people. If one cares to check the history of that time, one will see that hundreds of thousands of people died of malnutrition in Britain because of the spinning jenny. The lesson that Senator Collard seems to have learned is that we cannot stop progress. The lesson that I have learned is that not only can we not stop progress; we should also do something about a situation bringing about so much malnutrition and death in the country. Therefore there are ways of looking at the Luddites other than the simplistic way that Senator Collard looked at them. He also used the expression that peace is like motherhood. When Pandora's box was opened and all the evil spirits came out and killed all the good spirits, they left one spirit called hope. It looks as though Senator Collard was trying to kill that hope. Surely peace is something that we have made great sacrifices for, at the cost of hundreds of thousands-indeed, millions-of lives. The thing that has eroded this precious peace is ignoring violations of human rights. Some honourable senators on the other side who spoke about human rights were most selective about the types of human rights in this world. I believe that when one uses the expression 'man's inhumanity to man', as Senator Collard did, one should use it in connection with the violation of human rights, because it is the violation of human rights that is the start of eroding that peace. In regard to Senator Chipp's Bill, unfortunately I found it to be a rather cynical exercise designed to embarrass the Government in general and, in particular, those members of my Party who support the broad thrust of the legislation in principle. We do support the broad thrust in principle. However, the honourable senator knows that he will not have the numbers in the Senate, let alone the numbers in the House of Representatives, for the Bill to be passed. No member of this Parliament needs to have spelt out what are the realities and practicalities of the way in which Australian political parties operate; rather, what is needed is a rational and reasonable debate on the matter of our defence, disarmament and foreign policies. The type of exercise that is going on now will do nothing to further the cause that Senator Chipp claims to support. Some members of my Party have openly and sincerely sent a message of solidarity to Mr Lange, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, supporting the stand he has taken in this matter in his country. He was able to take that stand only with the support of his Party and the people of New Zealand. I emphasise the fact that he could do it only with the support of his Party. I, for one, would not hesitate to send a similar message to any country which democratically came to the same conclusions as the Labour Party, Mr Lange, and the people of New Zealand came to. But Senator Chipp knows full well that members of the Australian Labor Party are bound to support party policy. That does not mean to say that we have abandoned the democratic right to try to have that policy changed. This is, of course, not the only matter on which members on this side of the House have differences. But we are a democratic party and we will sort it out within our Party. Australian participation in the undeclared war in Vietnam is a good example of what can be done to change the minds of members of parliament. If it had not been for the work done outside this place by lobby groups and the public in general, our immoral participation in that conflict might not have ended as early as it did. I can remember only too well Senator Chipp's support for our presence in Vietnam. With all due credit, he has since changed his position on that matter, and I respect him for that. I respect him sincerely for changing his attitude on that over the last 16 years. Indeed, I was most interested in his contribution to the debate when he tried to give a picture image of the 50,000 nuclear bombs that are stacked in the world today. It is difficult for people to perceive the effect of 50,000 nuclear bombs, but 50,000 nuclear bombs or warheads would be almost equal to one million Hiroshimas. That is what we are looking at. There is a deterrence of one million Hiroshimas. I will say more on that subject in a moment. Does Senator Chipp honestly believe that he and his Party are the only ones with a conscience or the ability and wisdom to change their minds? Senator Jack Evans —No, most Australians have the same conscience. Senator McINTOSH —Yes, of course we have. This legislation does the honourable senator no credit. As I said before, I believe it is a cynical and naive exercise that does nothing to further the cause that not only Senator Chipp but also many of us on this side of the chamber believe in. It seems that we drifted from that subject to the subject of ANZUS. Certainly marvellous contributions were made in a debate which was not really designed for the purpose of passing this Bill. The subject of ANZUS came up on a number of occasions. But what are the origins of this alliance? It began, in general terms, with America's role in the Pacific in World War II. Australia apparently became part of a secret strategic intelligence agreement with the United States and others. It was a United Kingdom-United States of America agreement in 1947. But it was the Menzies Government which in 1950 pushed for an open North Atlantic Treaty Organisation type pact to keep the United States in the region. The Menzies Government pushed for the ANZUS alliance, particularly to guard against a re-emergent Japan at that time. The United States was more interested in-- Senator Jack Evans —Japan was not a nuclear nation. Senator McINTOSH —I am talking about the ANZUS alliance. The United States was more interested in promoting an economically strong Japan. Senator Jack Evans —But Japan was not a nuclear nation. Senator McINTOSH —I will come to that in a moment. The honourable senator is against ANZUS. I am not saying that the subject of ANZUS includes the nuclear question and I am not saying that it does not. In the meantime I will talk about ANZUS. The United States was more interested in promoting an economically strong Japan to counter Asian communism. What Australia eventually obtained was a vaguely worded treaty in exchange for acceptance of a lenient peace treaty with Japan. The ANZUS Treaty was signed in 1951 and allegedly formalised the United States in a protector role for Australia and New Zealand. Whilst the treaty in 1985 is only one expression of the alliance, it is still invoked as the legal basis-putting aside any secret agreements that may exist-of our defence links with the United States. Volumes have been written about the limits of the 30-year-old treaty. But these shortcomings are not widely known. Certainly Senator Haines, Senator Chipp and Senator Jack Evans tried to point out some of the shortcomings of it. I believe that the limits of the ANZUS Treaty are best explained by quoting McGeorge Bundy, a former United States assistant to the President for national security, who stated: . . . the American commitment anywhere is as deep as the continued conviction of Americans that their interests require it. We all look at it in that way to a degree because the Australian Labor Party is quite well aware of the misconceptions of ANZUS. The Labor Party's constitution states: Co-operate with the United States and New Zealand within the context of the Australia, New Zealand and the United States (ANZUS) Treaty. Recognise the need to ensure that its provisions do not derogate from Australia's right of national decision-making in foreign and defence policy matters or its duty to provide for its own security to the extent which its resources allow. Having said that, I should honestly believe what Senator Harradine said, that we should have an intellectual look at the ANZUS Treaty. In the meantime, I intend to support my Party's decision on it. I also throw a challenge to the Democrats as they have thrown out to us, especially to members of the Left. I say to them that if they are genuinely sincere about peace and about the nuclear question, they will find that if they disband their Party and join the Labor Party as individuals they may be able to contribute towards changing the policy of the Australian Labor Party, because we were within an ace of doing something at the last national conference. However, I am standing by the decision made at the last national conference. Senator Walters —Why should they- Senator McINTOSH —The honourable senator should pipe down. I am standing by the amendment to the motion for the second reading that was moved by the Government today. The Democrats know, as I said, that they have Buckley's chance of getting enough numbers in the Senate in order to get legislation passed before the holocaust comes. They may have some chance in the Labor Party if they are capable enough. I believe that they all have the capacity to contribute to the policy of the Party. Then they may get somewhere. My advice to the Democrats is to disband their Party, join the Labor Party and work hard towards this policy. They may be able then to lend weight to members of the left wing, whom they have obviously tried to embarrass by putting forward this piece of legislation. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It being 10.30 p.m., I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. Attorney-General's Department-Corrigendum to the Annual Report 1983-84. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal No. 1 of 1985-Survey of Public Unit Trusts. Census and Statistics Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 18. Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 11. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 12. Departure Tax Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 8. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 13. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement in pursuance of sub-section 7 (3) of land Acquired by Agreement. Pig Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 10. Public Service Act- Determinations 1984-Nos 9, 13. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 7. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance 1985- No. 2-Motor Traffic (Amendment) No. 3-Health Services Torres Strait Fisheries Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 9.