Tuesday, 26 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 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 Senator Richardson (from 22 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: 1. We affirm our belief that, in Jesus Christ, human sexuality is placed in the context of mutual loving relationships and therefore Christians reject any form of pornography which depicts violence against adults and/or children and the economic, physical and spiritual exploitation which is basic to hard-core pornography. 2. We urge the Parliament to prohibit the importation or production of this kind of pornography. 3. We request the Parliament to continue a public enquiry during 1985 to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to video tapes and video discs which have been refused classification or classified 'X' by the Film Censorship Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 12 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 in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sibraa (from 120 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (a) U.S. military and intelligence bases which continue to operate on Australian soil pose a threat to our safety; (b) The installations which transmit messages to and from nuclear armed submarines operate with little or no Australian supervision; (c) These bases make us extremely vulnerable to attack and a prime target in the event of war. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Parliament will, as a matter of urgency, commence negotiations for removal of the bases in the interests of the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Richardson (from 182 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 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 Senators Archer (from 19 citizens) and Richardson (from 60 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we condemn that Australia should assist the United States of America by participating in the testing of MX Peacemaker missiles, or any similar weapons, from Australian shores. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: 1. seek to reverse this deplorable decision and, 2. ensure that Australia's commitment to a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific be maintained. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 20 citizens). Petitions received. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: Present and planned changes in the presentation and structure of the appropriations presented to Parliament and consequential changes to the content and format of Departmental Explanatory Notes. 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. I also seek leave to have the text of paper No. 1, the statement on the 1986 Census of Population and Housing, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- 1. 1986 Census of Population and Housing-Paper-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs made in the House of Representatives 25.2.85 relating to the paper. 2. Trans Australia Airlines-Annual report 1983-84-pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines act 1945. 3. Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 49 of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act 1977. 4. National Library of Australia-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960. 5. Department of Trade-Annual Report 1983-84. 6. Australia Council-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975. 7. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories-Report of the Commission for 1983-84-pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961. 8. Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. 9. Australian Egg Board-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947-together with the text of a statement relating to the Report. 10. Australian National Railways Commission-Annual Report 1983-94. 11. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982. 12. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 51 (1) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. 13. Advisory Council on Australian Archives-1st Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 68 of Archives Act 1983. 14. Australian Archives-1st Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 68 of the Archives Act 1983. 15. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 60 of the Great Barrier Reer Marine Park Act 1975. 16. Australian Biological Resources Study-Annual Report 1983-84. 17. ASTEC-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 18. The Pipeline Authority-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973. 19. Snowy Mountains Council-Annual Report 1983-84. 20. Social Welfare Policy Secretariat-Annual Report 1983-84. 21. Australian Atomic Energy Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953. 22. Department of Resources and Energy-Annual Report 1983-84. 23. Heavy Commercial Motor Vehicles, Parts and Accessories-IAC Report. 24. Acts Interpretation Act-Papers relating to the extension of time granted for annual reports (1983-84) of the following organisations: Capital Territory Health Commission Commonwealth Legal Aid Council Australian National University 1986 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING I wish to inform the house that the Government has decided that the next Census of Population and Housing will be conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1986, in accordance with provisions of the Census and Statistics Act 1905. The date of the census will be 30 June 1986. At the conclusion of this statement I will table regulations specifying the topics to be included in the Census and an explanatory statement. In order that the Parliament and the general public should be fully informed on the questions to be asked in the Census, I will also table a paper entitled, 'The 1986 Census of Population and Housing: Content and Procedures' which gives a description of the topics to be included, the proposed questions and the methods of conducting the Census. The Census is the most wide-ranging collection undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as it involves contact with every household in the country. It provides a considerable amount of information used extensively by government bodies for policy formulation and monitoring. It provides a statistical profile of the whole population in terms of number, age and geographical distribution, and in terms of a range of demographic and social characteristics. Users include Government agencies at the Federal, State and local level; welfare and social service organisations; research institutions; bodies undertaking regional, manpower and educational studies; Demographers; business organisations; and private individuals. The Government has decided that the census will seek a total of 46 responses from households, a very small increase from 43 responses required in 1981. The inclusion of many additional topics was requested by users, but the topics selected by the Government are considered to represent a reasonable balance between the need for information, the appropriateness of the census as a means of collecting particular kinds of data, the difficulty with some topics of formulating questions likely to get accurate and consistent answers, and the desire that completing the forms should not impose too great a task on the public. The conduct of the census will require the expenditure over the next four years of an additional $59 million (in current prices) from the budgets of the bureau of statistics and associated service departments. The Government recognises that asking questions of householders in order to obtain statistical information involves a degree of intrusiveness and places a burden on the community. The Government has aimed to minimise both burden and intrusion but nevertheless accepts that some degree of each is a necessary requirement for the collection of statistical data. For the first time, the 1986 census will include questions on each person's ancestry and on language other than english spoken at home. These questions will greatly improve census data collected on the ethnic composition of Australia's population and provide data for planning and evaluating services to migrants and ethnic communities. A number of improvements to census data on families are planned for the 1986 census. First, the inclusion of a question on usual residents temporarily absent will allow family members temporarily absent on census night to be included in the coding of family structures. This will overcome the problem created by absent spouses in previous censuses leading to overstatement of the number of single-parent families and understatement of the number of families with both partners normally resident in a household. Second, a change in the question on relationships within a household will make it possible to produce statistics on de facto living arrangements and children in blended families. Third, in response to many user requests, statistics will be produced for the first time on the family structure of persons residing in caravans or mobile homes in caravan parks. At the request of educational authorities, an additional question for those attending an educational institution will enable comprehensive statistics to be produced on characteristics of people attending various types of institution. A question on the material of the outer walls of dwellings has been included in previous censuses. This question is no longer considered to be a satisfactory indicator of housing conditions, and the Government has decided not to include it in the 1986 census. A number of other census questions have been simplified in order to reduce the number of responses required, without detracting from the data collected. The 1986 census will be first to include Australia's external territories. This will be different from past practice in which separate censuses have been conducted in each of Cocos (Keeling), Christmas and Norfolk Islands. Public understanding and acceptance of the census is essential for statistics of a high quality to be produced. For this reason a substantial public awareness campaign will be conducted prior to the census. The aims will be to make known the availability of assistance for those who may, for language or other reasons, experience difficulty in completing the form, to explain the measures taken to ensure the confidentiality of the information provided and to explain the uses made of the statistics obtained from the census. A number of organisations and individuals have requested that information on identified persons and household not be destroyed, but be transferred in some form to archives, with access for most purposes forbidden for many years. The government rejects this request. The purpose of the census is to gather statistical information and the legal obligation on people to answer census questions (except one relating to religion) is accompanied by strict measures to ensure the confidentiality of the information provided. The Government believes that it would be inconsistent with that purpose and with that guarantee of confidentiality to retain information on identified persons or households. Consequently the present practice of destroying all records of names and addresses and of not entering such names and addresses into the computer record will be continued. The Government places great significance on the census as means of collecting important social and economic data which is of primary concern to a wide range of uses. It is recognised that, to be of maximum utility, such data must be both accurate and timely. Consequently the Government has decided that all forms collected at the 1986 census will be processed fully and without delay so that detailed information is available to users as soon as possible. The Australian Statistics Advisory Council has given a considerable amount of time to considering plans for the 1986 census and their conclusions have been of great assistance to the government in reaching its decisions. I now table the census regulations, an explanatory statement and the paper to which I referred earlier. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to Australia's huge current account and trade deficits and remind him that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have effectively ruled out any discounting of national wage adjustments for the effects of the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar, thus throwing away any competitive gain conferred upon our export and import competing industries by that depreciation. What steps does the Government propose to take to improve the competitive position of those industries? Senator BUTTON —First of all let me say that, as I interpret the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday and by Senator Walsh in the Senate yesterday, discounting in the national wage case was not ruled out. It was described as a factor which had to be taken into account in the Government's assessment of its approach to the national wage case. I think that is a fairer summation of what was said than what Senator Chaney said a moment ago. Senator Chaney —I hope that is right. Senator BUTTON —That is my understanding of what was said by Senator Walsh and of my reading of what the Prime Minister is reported to have said during yesterday's Question Time. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —That is not what your counsel argued in the Commission though, is it? Senator BUTTON —With respect, that is a different question. That matter has not come up for argument in the Commission at this stage. Perhaps if Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has a specific question she can direct it to me later and I will deal with it then. Senator Chaney, having not established the premise from which he launched the remainder of his question, then asked me what we were doing about competitiveness in Australian industry. I am appreciative of the constraints placed on honourable senators at Question Time. I would take half an hour to answer that question. We are doing a great number of things. I must say that in my time in the Ministries of Industry, Technology and Commerce, and Industry and Commerce before that, we have addressed a number of issues which are concerned to ensure increased competitiveness of Australian import-competing and export industries. Primarily, I suppose Senator Chaney would say, the question which has to be considered is the question of costs. I concede that. I think even in considering the question of costs one has to consider a variety of other factors which are related to the Government's general wage policies, including, for example, the industrial relations climate. Moving away from the question of costs, as I said, there is a wide range of other issues which have to be considered in both the manufacturing sector and other sectors of the economy, particularly the finance sector. All those matters are matters on which I could have given a different answer, in a sense, because there is a wide range of issues to be considered, but they are some of the important ones. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer. In light of his quite correct statement that he could take half an hour to discuss the various issues that come up, would he be prepared to make a statement to the Parliament during this session on the measures which are being taken to improve the competitive position of those industries so that we may consider them and have a chance to debate them in a proper manner? Senator BUTTON —With the greatest respect, I would like to think about that. I am not averse to making statements. I have waited for two years for the Opposition to assail us on what we were doing wrong in respect of industry policy. I was never given the opportunity to discuss those issues in this forum at the instigation of the Opposition. Senator Chaney now turns the thing around and asks me to make a statement so that he can have a kick at it. Senator Chaney —Well, tell us. Senator BUTTON —I do not mind doing that in time. However, the precise timing and so on will be a matter for consideration and I will let the honourable senator know at the appropriate time. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. What is the current position with regard to sales tax on retreaded tyres? Senator WALSH —The position is that a Federal Court ruling was given adverse to the Commissioner of Taxation; that is, that the sales tax was not correctly levied on retreaded tyres. The Commissioner has established the procedures for the refund of sales tax paid, and the Government has no plans, I am advised by the Treasurer, to take any further action. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister for Finance. I remind the Minister that he told me yesterday that the wages accord required that movements in the consumer price index within the last six months be taken into account and that that was why the Government was supporting a 2.7 per cent wage rise before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, reflecting the September and December quarters of last year, rather than 2.6 per cent, which is the figure since the last wage case and takes account of negative results in the earlier quarters. Why did the Minister misrepresent the prices and incomes accord by claiming that it stipulated a wage adjustment based on six-monthly consumer price index movements when no time is specified in the agreement? Further, how can the Government justify supporting a 2.7 per cent wage rise when pensions and benefits will be adjusted by the figure of 2.6 per cent, as will excise increases? Senator WALSH —The last part of the question concerned the excise adjustment. Excise adjustments are to be made every six months. I am not sure, off the top of my head, whether an adjustment was made downwards because of the CPI figure at the end of the December quarter. In fact, I think that the six-monthly periods for adjustments to wages and excise are two different periods, but I will check that out. In the first part of the question I am accused of having misled the Senate or something or other. I was advised by Mr Willis that one of the principles-I am not sure what is written down in the accord; I do not have it here with me-of the agreement which was made was that when wages are reviewed account will be taken of movement in the CPI over the previous six months. I think I said yesterday that I do not know whether the figure will be 2.6 or 2.7 per cent. Probably the case can be made for either one. The major reason for the Government making the decision that it did was that the principles of the accord required that six-monthly adjustment. I suppose it could be argued that we should have gone to the Bench six months earlier and sought a 0.2 per cent downward adjustment in wages because of the change in the CPI, but it would have seemed to be a fairly trivial matter on which to conduct another national wage case. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister provide the Senate with the extract from the accord which stipulates that wages adjustments are to be based on six-monthly CPI increases? My reading of the accord was that it did not reflect a six-monthly adjustment. I ask that the Senate be advised of the extract from the accord that provides for this. Senator WALSH —As I have said, I do not have a copy of the accord here with me. Senator Button has reminded me that his understanding of the situation is that it is the wage principles as determined by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I will seek an answer from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to clarify precisely the context in which that principles reference should be applied. Senator HEARN —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware of the mounting concern in the Devonport area of northern Tasmania about the toxic effects of crop spraying? As many as four young people in the area are suffering from leukaemia. One young woman who is known to have been horse-riding and drenched by the spray is now seriously ill with leukaemia in hospital in Melbourne and is not expected to live. Her horse also has been diagnosed as having a serious blood complaint. Is the Federal Government conducting or funding any research into the effect upon humans, animals or the environment of toxic chemicals used for aerial crop spraying? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether this matter should be handled by the Minister for Primary Industry or the Minister for Health. There was a specific question at the end: Is the Federal Government conducting or funding any research into the effect of agricultural chemicals on human or animal health? I am not aware of any, but I will see whether the Minister for Primary Industry can stipulate any. Regarding the other matters raised, as I have suggested, I am not sure whether they ought to be more appropriately considered in the Health area rather than in the primary industry area, but again I will seek the views of the Minister for Primary Industry on that to see what he has to say. Senator CHIPP —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does he recall a recent statement by the Prime Minister that he had been given an unqualified assurance by Defence Secretary Weinberger that no United States facility in Australia would be involved in the United States strategic defence initiative or Star Wars plans? Could the Minister provide precise details of the assurance given by Weinberger? Is the Minister aware of the fact that leading researchers in this area believe that some of the facilities in Australia are irrevocably tied to the SDI and that in a sense Australia has no choice or option in the matter? In light of the 1980 project agreement between the United States and Australia on electromagnetic gun research, can the Government state what section of this agreement expressly prohibits any Australian research being used by the United States for Star Wars plans? Does the Government deny that electromagnetic gun technology is being developed by the United States Air Force for space based nuclear missile defences? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think the best way I can answer that part of the question which deals with Mr Weinberger's assurances is to quote from the transcript of the Prime Minister's Press conference given on 19 February when the following exchanges occurred after the Prime Minister commenced by saying: I received assurance that the facilities, the joint facilities in Australia, were not and would not be involved in such research. Journalist: How can you prevent the joint facilities being involved in the testing and deployment of missiles under the SDI though? PM: Well, following our accession to government in 1983 there was a review of the whole question of the facilities and the ANZUS relationship. We are in a position where we are involved in and know of the operations of the facilities. We have specifically put the question to the United States. They have given us an unequivocal answer and as distinct from some people, I am not in the business of questioning the integrity of the United States. Journalist: Could I take your answer to mean . . . PM: I specifically put to Mr Weinberger, and I thank you Mike for your question because it makes clear what did emerge, that firstly I received the assurance that facilities were in no way involved. And further than that I indicated that should there be any developments on the part of the United States which, on their part would contemplate the use of the facilities, then we would be required to be informed because it is not our position that we would be involved in the SDI. I add that yesterday I did spell out, in the course of my speech on the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill, some of the cogent reasons why the Australian Government takes the position it does on the SDI program, and I hope Senator Chipp will accept at face value what I said in that respect. As to that part of Senator Chipp's question which concerns the electromagnetic gun research, I do not have a full brief such as would enable me to answer in detail. All I can do is repeat the Prime Minister's assurance that was given during the election campaign, that no Australian research activity under that agreement with the United States will be directed towards the SDI program. I am certainly able to give that unequivocal assurance. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. He will be aware of reports published in the Brisbane Courier-Mail concerning an inspection of the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital by five Liberal Party politicians. Apart from the tying up of limited staff resources in the hospital and consequent disruption of services to the needy, will the Minister reply to the specific criticisms levelled at his Department by the five politicians? The criticisms were: Firstly, there is a severe shortage of funds to replace old equipment and buy new equipment; secondly, there are shortages of staff; thirdly, there is a deterioration in the standard of care; and, fourthly, there are delays in elective surgery. Senator GIETZELT —It is true that during the recess some members of the Opposition visited the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital in Brisbane, for what purpose I cannot quite comprehend. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the Department of Veterans' Affairs operates nine repatriation hospitals, the six principal ones being in each of the capital cities. I have been Minister for Veterans' Affairs for less than two years. If in fact there were the sorts of deficiencies suggested by the Opposition politicians those would be politicians reprimanding the previous Government for its failure to act upon many recommendations made in recent years following reports about the repatriation hospital system and its failure to allocate sufficient financial resources to ensure for each of our hospitals the standard it needs for the maintenance of effective treatment of veterans. The facts are, of course, that in every repatriation hospital there are deficiencies of different magnitudes. Some hospitals require better operating theatres, some need to refurbish the wards and others require new equipment and technology. However, this Government's approach to the problem has been demonstrated by the amount of additional funds and resources that have been made available in each of the Budgets we have presented. We have dramatically increased the amount of funds for the repatriation hospitals. The Government has agreed in principle to provide sufficient resources, to the extent of $13m, in respect of the Greenslopes Hospital of which Senator Black spoke. It is true that there are problems with elective surgery and other treatment requirements in some of our repatriation hospitals. The situation is particularly bad in Queensland where it would appear that there has been a breakdown or at least a deterioration in the State hospital system. That of course puts extra pressure on our hospital at Greenslopes. If patients cannot be properly provided for in the State hospital system, which is the responsibility of the Queensland Government, and because of the Government's policy of having 20 per cent of community patients in the repatriation hospital system, extra pressures are placed upon our repatriation hospitals. That has happened in respect of Greenslopes. Of course with elective surgery we are in the hands of members of the medical profession. If they have commitments in private hospitals, State hospitals and our repatriation hospitals, they determine the degree to which patients are treated. That matter is out of the hands of the Government. However, Senator Black can be assured that I visited the Greenslopes Hospital several months ago and took steps to make sure that there was no cut in the staff requirements. I also reduced the number of community patients in Greenslopes from 20 per cent to 15 per cent in order to ease the pressure on the staff to enable them to provide the sorts of facilities and treatment necessary to fulfil our obligations to veterans. Therefore, any difficulties that exist there flow from the years of neglect of the previous Fraser Administration. Senator DURACK —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether the Government is giving consideration to reversing the planned move by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation headquarters to Canberra which is scheduled to take place, as I understand it, later this year. If the Government is considering that change, what are the reasons for it, given that the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies recommended that the move should take place as a matter of priority and given that the new headquarters for ASIO, which have been specially constructed for ASIO's needs, are nearly complete? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand that the matter is the subject of some consideration in the context of the 1985-86 Budget, but no decision has yet been made. The difficulty that has arisen and that has given rise to a degree of Press speculation on the subject concerns basically the cost of the transfer, given the kind of transfer packages that are being sought by the staff members concerned. I understand that there are very substantial financial implications in this, and that matter is currently being given consideration. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Government, in its consideration of this matter, taking into account the very large expenditure on the specially constructed building? Senator GARETH EVANS —Very much so. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the large number of people reporting ill-health since the fire at Brisbane's chemical and fertiliser factory, Rite-Gro Pty Ltd, last month? One resident who lived 300 metres from the fire has died suddenly and an autopsy is being conducted to establish whether this death is related to the chemical fire. What assistance can the Federal Government offer the Queensland Government to ensure that residents are fully informed about the extent of toxic fumes which appear to have contributed to some 250 reported cases of sickness since the fire? What responsibilities does the company Rite-Gro have as a result of this chemical fire in proximity to a residential area? Senator GRIMES —My attention has been drawn to the fire at the Rite-Gro chemical factory at Zillmere in Brisbane in January and the reports in the newspapers of cases of illness allegedly caused by the fallout from that fire. Responsibility in this area generally is in fact shared by the Commonwealth and State governments. The Queensland health authorities have claimed that they have found no evidence of a continuing health problem as a result of the accident, but obviously the Queensland authorities are continuing to investigate the matter. The Australian Chemical Industries Council operates an around-the-clock computerised information system known as Data Chem which is specially designed to give fire authorities information on hazardous chemicals involved in emergency situations of this type. However, coping with the immediate hazard problems presented by explosions or combustion of pesticides in factories of this type is in general a matter for the local authorities and for emergency personnel provided by the State departments of health, by the various fire authorities and the various State authorities. Individuals are made available on request by the Federal authorities in these circumstances. The general question of chemical hazards in the work place is the subject of legislation now being developed by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission will have the primary carriage of this legislation. The Department of Health is responsible for the evaluation of the toxic properties of pesticides, but this function is barely related to the problems arising from the large scale combustion of pesticides and reactions with other chemicals which unfortunately have occurred in factories of this type in recent times. I am uncertain as to the responsibilities of the Rite-Gro company as a result of this chemical fire. I imagine that it would be a matter largely for the courts. However, I will refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who probably will be able to give more information than I am able to do at this time. We have a problem in which both the Commonwealth and State authorities are involved. Certainly the Commonwealth authority, on request, will be available to assist the Queensland Department of Health or other Queensland Government departments in handling this problem. Senator REYNOLDS —I ask a supplementary question. Has the State Government documented its investigations to the Federal Government and, furthermore, has the State Government requested any Commonwealth assistance? Senator GRIMES —I will have to seek that information from the Minister for Health as I do not have it in my brief. Senator SHORT —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the answer given yesterday by Senator Gareth Evans to Senator Puplick when he said that it was 'entirely consistent with Labor Party practice' for Senator Ryan to challenge the ANZUS alliance in the way she did on the grounds that she was merely canvassing an issue within internal party forums-that is, the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party. I ask: Did the Prime Minister take a very different view when the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Stewart West, was forced to resign from Cabinet because he wanted to argue against the Government's uranium decision in the Caucus? If this is so, why? Would not the criterion of the internal party forum apply much more readily to the supposedly private deliberations of the Caucus room than to the meeting of the Canberra branch of the ALP, which I understand was open to the media? Why was the principle of Cabinet solidarity enforced in Mr West's case while Senator Ryan was let off the hook, even though she was clearly contradicting the publicly announced policy of the Cabinet and the Government? Senator BUTTON —Senator Evans gave an answer yesterday in relation to Senator Ryan. Senator Short purports to draw-- Senator Coates —A long bow. Senator BUTTON —Yes, a long bow. I was going to say an analogous situation with the situation of Mr Stewart West following a decision of the Cabinet. The important point is that in Mr West's case Cabinet reached a decision about a particular matter. Cabinet solidarity applies in relation to decisions which have been reached as a result of Cabinet discussion of a particular matter and that was the position which applied in Mr West's case. Senator Ryan's comments at a meeting of the Canberra branch of the ALP were not binding on Cabinet. I understand that there has been some subsequent discussion within the Party about Senator Ryan's comments. But I adhere to the answer given yesterday by Senator Evans in relation to Senator Ryan's rights in that matter within a party forum. It is quite distinct from the rule of Cabinet solidarity which applies in this Government. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister's policy statement of 13 November last, in which he stated that a 150 per cent tax concession for expenditure on research and development in Australia would be made available. What reaction has there been within industry to this proposal and when will we see it implemented? Senator BUTTON —There have been, of course, some initial reactions within industry to the proposal. But before one attempts to gauge a final reaction the proposal will have to see the light of day in terms of specific proposals which are available for industry to rely on and ultimately in terms of legislation. The reaction was generally favourable because it is widely recognised that Australia must improve its industry performance in respect of research and development, particularly in the private sector. Public sector expenditure on research and development in Australia is high by international standards. About 80 per cent of total funds invested in research and development in this country is spent in the public sector, whether it be by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or other bodies established by governments either at the Commonwealth or State levels. In most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, shares of research and development investment are more or less equal between the private sector and the government sector. In Australia there was a significant fall of 40 per cent in private sector investment between 1973-74 and 1981-82. It is most important that that trend be reversed. It must be reversed if Australia is to have modern and competitive industries which are capable of adjusting and changing. It is certainly important in terms of Australia's export manufacturing interests if Australian manufacturing is to provide a flexible and modern base for export activity. The deductions which have been foreshadowed by the Government are in line with those offered by most other countries which purport to have modern economies and which are exporting high technology or medium technology products. It is high time, we believe, that such concessions are introduced in Australia. For obvious administrative reasons it takes a little time, because it is very important that tax incentives for research and development are not abused in the way in which tax incentives in other areas have been abused in this country. The rules and guidelines must be very strict. But I am hopeful that the system will start to operate from 1 July 1985, which is the logical date on which to commence the operation of such a system. The commitment made in respect of research and development incentives is quite separate from any other initiatives which may be taken in terms of business taxes arising from the current taxation review by the Government and is a quite express commitment in light of the Government's concern to raise the level of research and development performance in the private sector of the Australian economy. In conclusion, I just draw attention to the very real gap which exists between research capacity in Australia and entrepreneurial capacity to match that research capacity. One of the important tasks is to try to integrate Australian research effort with developmental and entrepreneurial skills to ensure that the benefits of that research flow to Australian industry and not overseas. Senator TOWNLEY —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence to the meeting of the Cabinet's National Intelligence and Security Committee on 29 January of this year, a meeting at which the Prime Minister raised the question of the MX missile test and which formally confirmed the Government's willingness to allow United States monitoring aircraft to operate from Australia. As the Minister was a member of the Security Committee, were he and other members who participated in the decision consulted from Brussels by the Prime Minister before it became known to the media travelling with Mr Hawke that he had backed down to factional pressure and agreed that logistical support would not be provided, or is this another example of what Senator Cook has described as Australian foreign policy made on the run? Senator GARETH EVANS —The internal processes of the Government's decision-making in this matter or in any others are none of Senator Townley's business. Senator McINTOSH —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to Press reports suggesting that the proposed smelter at Kemerton in south-west Western Australia is in doubt? What impact would the failure of this project to proceed have on the current discussions being held between the North West Shelf joint partners and the State Energy Commission in Western Australia with regard to the Domgas contract? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of recent Press reports indicating that the KUKJE-ICC group in Korea has just been broken up but that the South Korean Government has proposed forming a partnership to take up the group's equity share. The Korean Heavy Industries Corporation, it seems, may also be prepared to take up a share. Given these various circumstances, we are advised that the Western Australian Government remains confident that the project will still go ahead. The State Energy Commission in Western Australia, SECWA, is contracted, as we know, to purchase gas from the North West Shelf. Generation of electricity for this smelter would come from the Western Australian grid, using coal/gas generating plant within the SECWA system. While it would obviously be helpful for SECWA for the Korean-backed smelter project to proceed, I should say that the implementation of that project is, in my understanding, not in itself crucial to the future of the North West Shelf project. On the larger question of the Domgas negotiations now taking place, it is the case that negotiations between SECWA and the North West Shelf joint partners are currently taking place to consider aspects of the contract. Although the terms of the original Domgas contract have given rise to some difficulties for all those concerned, the Commonwealth, which has been monitoring the progress of the discussions taking place in recent weeks, is confident that the two parties will be able to reach agreement. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is also addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. In view of the fact that world fuel prices continue to fall, can the Minister explain why this Government considers it necessary to introduce two-monthly indexing of the excise tax on fuel, the result of which is ever-increasing fuel prices and the erosion of Australia's competitive position on world markets? Senator GARETH EVANS —The short answer is that the import parity pricing formula is based not only on prevailing world oil prices and in particular on the price of Arab market crude but also, of course, on the price of the Australian dollar on world financial markets. To the extent that the dollar is devaluing, which means that we have to pay more Australian dollars for a given quantity of something, the price of which is fixed in United States dollars, it does mean that the whole basis of the pricing formula does shift. That means there are pressures running in competing directions. There has been some recent modification of the price of Arab crude from $29 to $28, which would suggest a reduction in prices at the petrol pump in Australia, but countering that has been the devaluation of the Australian dollar, which more than compensates for it. That is the reason, and I think that point is beginning to be well appreciated by consumers as people better appreciate some of the consequences, both beneficial and occasionally adverse, that flow to the consumer from the floating of the Australian dollar. The whole philosophy of import parity pricing remains, as it always has been, to ensure that there will be an appropriate return for Australian producers of the product of domestic oil exploration to encourage continuing expenditure on oil exploration, which is important in circumstances where, as we all know, we are facing a decline in the reserves of Australian oil. Although it would be politically attractive to be able to respond to the sorts of considerations that Senator Bjelke-Petersen points out, by allowing a reduction in the price, be it ever so small, at the petrol pump, the overall balance of policy considerations-which have been, I believe, supported in the past by her party, like the Liberals-points in favour of the maintenance of the import parity pricing system. The Government's decision to make adjustments more frequently than six-monthly was generally welcomed at the time it was made last year. If it so happens that the swings occasionally cancel out the roundabouts in terms of the way in which the pricing formula operates in practice, that is something I am afraid we all have to live with. Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations noticed that the latest employment figures, compiled before the recent electricity dispute in Queensland, indicate that Queensland has a higher level of unemployment than that of any other State? Do recent figures, also compiled before the electricity dispute, indicate that the level of industrial disputation in Queensland is higher than that of the national average? While recognising that the Queensland Government is primarily responsible for this situation, is there anything the Federal Government can do about these matters which are so damaging to the Queensland economy? Senator WALSH —I do not have the most recent employment and unemployment figures before me, but from memory I believe what Senator Colston said in his question is correct; that is, that Queensland has a higher rate of unemployment than any other State. I think the most recent figure was of the order of 10 1/2 per cent compared with the national average of 8 1/2 per cent. In Victoria the figure is around 7 1/2 per cent, which is the lowest in Australia. Perhaps a lesson is to be learned from that fact that Queensland has the highest rate of unemployment and that Victoria has the lowest, but that might have something to do with the respective governments in those States. It is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. I am also aware of the fact that Queensland has by far the highest level of indebtedness per capita of any State government. Therefore, despite the enormous debts which the Queensland Government has been irresponsibly accumulating over many years, it has still managed to achieve simultaneously the highest rate of unemployment. I am not aware of the relative level of industrial disputes prior to the present strike, but I shall seek confirmation from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and let Senator Colston know. Senator HAMER —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The question concerns Australia's withdrawal from the United Nations Decolonisation Committee. I ask whether the Minister agrees with the statement made by our representative: There is no further matter to be dealt with, so we decided to withdraw our membership. Does the Minister really believe that there is no further matter to be dealt with when there exist many Russian colonial territories, including the Baltic States, Ukraine, Soviet Asia and Afghanistan, territories without independence or any hope of independence at present? Does the Minister not believe that the people of the Russian colonial territories have the same rights of independence and freedom as the people of the colonial territories which were once under the control of the Western countries but which are now free and independent? Why is the Government condoning the last remaining imperialism, the Russian Empire, and ignoring the plight of the territories under Russian occupation in this ignominious way? Senator GARETH EVANS —While that rhetoric may well go down very well on Captive Nations Day each year, the truth of the matter is that it has very little to do with the remaining agenda of the United Nations Committee of Twenty-four from which Australia has recently made a decision to withdraw. I am happy to explain for the honourable senator's benefit the reason for that withdrawal decision. It is as follows: At the 1984 General Assembly the United Nations recognised the act of self-determination integrating the Cocos (Keeling) Islands into Australia, and this brought to an end Australia's last direct responsibility within the United Nations system for a non-self-governing territory. The integration of Cocos provided an opportunity to review Australia's membership of the Committee of Twenty-four on Decolonisation and the Minister decided accordingly that we should withdraw. He advises me that in his view-it is mine too-the decolonisation process has been one of the major achievements of the United Nations system, but it is a process which, no matter how much Senator Hamer might wish otherwise, is now nearing completion. Of course, Australia will participate in debate on the future of the remaining small territories which are part of the agenda of the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly. The one outstanding decolonisation issue of major importance, and I can appreciate it not attracting much attention on the Tory benches, is the question of Namibia. In withdrawing from the Committee of Twenty-four, however, Australia has made it clear that it will be continuing as a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia. Senator HAMER —I ask, by way of supplementary question, whether the Minister is saying that the Russian-occupied territories such as the Baltic states are not Russian colonies? If so, on what basis is he saying so? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Minister has nothing further to add to his previous answer. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister for Resources and Energy: In view of the continuing threat to Australian export industry caused in no small measure by the failure of the Queensland Premier to enter into forms of meaningful negotiations with the power unions in his State, first, what is the current total cost to the Australian economy since the Queensland power dispute began? Secondly, what has been the effect so far on Australian relations with our major trading partners, particularly Japan? Finally, what initiatives can the Federal Government take in the face of a deteriorating industrial and trade situation at this time? The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I am not representing the Minister for Trade. I was asked this question in my capacity as Minister for Resources and Energy. I would need to consult the Minister for Trade to give a full answer on this question. It may be that Senator Walsh will want to supplement it. I have not seen an estimate of the cost of the Queensland power dispute but the loss in terms of wages and production will clearly run into many millions of dollars. Indirect costs, not to mention the economic credibility and the impact on buyers' perceptions of Australia as a reliable and stable exporter of coal and other minerals, will also undoubtedly arise from this course of events. Despite the fact that power was not available to port loaders for several days, I should add that the disruption to coal exports has been relatively slight. Stocks at coal loaders can sustain shipping for some time but, if the coal miners stay on strike, loadings will soon have to be reduced. I am saying that the danger has been less to the actual exports associated with the strike during its current duration but rather more from the perceptions externally of what has in fact occurred. The proper conclusion to draw from all of this, of course, is that this whole affair has been the product of, and exacerbated by, the confrontationist attitude right from the outset of the Queensland Premier who, in refusing to accept the recommendation of the State Industrial Commission, has engaged in a spectacular breach of the principles so often asserted by those opposite of accepting the umpire's decision and who has subjected Queensland citizens to far greater discomfort and hardship than would have occurred had reason prevailed in this matter. Regrettably, the scope for Federal Government action has been very limited during the whole course of this affair, given that the dispute basically revolves around State issues and jurisdictions. But, of course, the Federal Government has monitored the situation throughout and will continue to do so. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy and follows the question he has just answered, or purported to answer. I ask: Is it a fact that the Utah miners were on strike for a week before the power strike in Queensland? Is it a fact that during the earlier part of this year the railway unions in New South Wales also severely restricted coal exports from the State of New South Wales? Is it also a fact that, despite the return to work by other unions in Queensland, some unions associated with the coal industry have remained on strike notwithstanding the return to work of those other unions? Does the Minister condemn this obstruction of the resource industries of Australia and the great damage which is being done to Australia by these reckless unions and their non-public-spirited actions? Senator GARETH EVANS —Industrial disputation occurs from time to time in any industry about matters great and small. I make the point in the context of the Utah industrial disputation that, by contrast with the depredations imposed upon the Australian economy and our export reputation by the Queensland Premier in his behaviour over the Queensland power dispute, any contribution that may have been made by the Utah miners to that dispute becomes quite trivial by comparison. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister not game even to join the Premier of New South Wales in his condemnation of the railway unions and what they did to coal exports from that State? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Common- wealth Government's attitude to the people responsible for the New South Wales rail strike in the Hunter Valley was made perfectly clear at the time, and I repeat it now: The strike was profoundly unhelpful in terms of Australia's export reputation and it was a situation which one hopes will never recur. I am glad to be able to remind the honourable senator of the steps that have been taken in the last few days to ensure that it will not recur. In particular, I refer to the meeting convened by the Joint Coal Board personnel and attended by over 30 unions in the Hunter Valley coal chain to establish formally a consultative council to ensure that pressures will be brought to bear, and in particular dispute mechanisms will be set in place, to ensure that in future there is no repetition of a dispute which undoubtedly was extremely costly, both directly to the economy and in terms of Australia's reputation. Senator RICHARDSON —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen a report in the Age of Friday, 22 February 1985 entitled 'Canada Dims Coal Hopes'? Has the recent offer by Canadian coal producers jeopardised Australia's bargaining position in our current round of negotiations with Japanese steel mills? Are Australian coal producers facing the possibilities of lower coal prices and even lower tonnage levels this year as a result of the Canadian offer? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Richardson for the opportunity to demonstrate some more of my new-found learning in this portfolio. I saw a report in the Age last week claiming that Canadian coal producers had undermined price talks between Australian producers and Japanese steel mills by dumping coal into the Japanese market. I am advised that the Canadian coal in question, however, is some 1 to 1.5 million tonnes of non-coking metallurgical coal used in briquetting, blending and pulverised coal injection in blast-furnaces. An estimated four million tonnes of similar coal will be supplied by Australia to the Japanese steel mills in the Japanese fiscal year 1985. Demand for this type of coal, I am told, is increasing as Japanese crude steel production technology changes towards the increasing use of non-coking coals, marginal quality coking coals and pulverised coal injection. Japan is a growing market which one would expect the Canadians to seek to enter, particularly in the situation of current world oversupply. While the Age article states that Australian exporters were aiming for a price increase in the Japanese fiscal year 1985, the situation is now that the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, has approved the rollover at last year's price level sought by Australian producers in respect of non-coking coal for the forthcoming Japanese fiscal year commencing on 1 April. That state of affairs is in line with recent settlements on hard and soft coking coals for that Japanese fiscal year. The Canadian prices in this respect were generally in line with prices for comparable Australian coal last year. The worrying trend that was referred to in the Age article is the impact that non-coking coal prices could have on coking coal prices in general. For example, hard coking coal currently sells at around $US52 a tonne and soft coking coal at around $US44.50 a tonne. Non-coking metallurgical coal is around $US39.50. To the extent that Japanese steel mills use more non-coking coal-as I have said, with technological advances this is the current trend-the average price of coals to the mills will be lower. There will still, however-and this is the glimmer of light that I want to emphasise-be a need for high quality coking coals for blending purposes. Australian producers of non-coking coals can reasonably then expect an expanding market of non-coking coals in which they should retain a share provided they remain competitive. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the paper from which he has quoted so that we can see whether Senator Webster's name has been crossed out. Senator JACK EVANS —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the fact that very shortly the Government will be allowing unprecedented ownership and control of Australian banking by foreign bankers and that the Australian financial system will, as a result, be dominated by overseas organisations which will not necessarily be operating with Australia's interests in mind, will the Minister representing the Treasurer give a guarantee that the Australian public will be informed as to the extent of foreign ownership and control of major assets in Australia and will have ongoing access to information about that foreign ownership and control? Senator WALSH —If what Senator Evans is looking for is an exhaustive catalogue of foreign ownership and control of all Australian industry, I think the answer is that it is not practical to compile such a catalogue. On a somewhat broader level I anticipate that the details of the ownership of new banks, or the degree to which banks are owned by foreign interests, will be disclosed. So far as I know, there is no plan to reduce the degree of either collation or disclosure of information about foreign ownership of industry in general. I will check that out with the Treasurer and see whether he has anything to add. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen recent comments of the United States President on the situation in Nicaragua wherein Mr Reagan has announced his desire to 'remove the present structure of the Nicaraguan government'? Did the President also claim that the Government was 'not a government chosen by the people' and that it was 'totalitarian, brutal and cruel'? Is it a fact that independent observers to the 1984 Nicaraguan election have assessed that electoral process as being fair? Is it also a fact that independent commentators, including the International Red Cross and the Americas Watch Report, have assessed the Nicaraguan Government's performance in the human rights field as far more liberal and tolerant than that of neighbouring countries, the regimes of which have been supported by the Reagan Administration? Can the Minister say whether the Australian Government supports the President's assessment and the position of the United States Administration towards the Nicaraguan Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen Press reports of President Reagan's remarks on Nicaragua made at a Press conference on 22 February. The remarks are consistent with the generally critical attitude of the United States Administration towards Nicaragua. Australia's view is that Nicaragua has a right to choose its form of government without outside interference. In our assessment, the electoral procedures involved in the election held on 4 November last year were fair and free of significant irregularities. The results indicated considerable support for the Sandinistas, although the process would have been more broadly pluralistic if the Coordinadora opposition group had in fact participated. It is Australia's assessment that the human rights situation in Nicaragua is significantly better than that of some other Central American countries. Most importantly in this respect, there are no death squads there. Some aspects of the situation are, however, of concern. More generally speaking we would say this: The situation in Central America is complex. There remains an urgent need for economic and social reform and for an end to the serious tensions in the region. Australia has supported efforts to promote political solutions to these problems, including the Contadora process and the recently suspended Nicaragua-United States bilateral talks. Senator JESSOP —I draw the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the fact that so far this year Australia has suffered losses in the vicinity of $250m as a result of natural and man-made disasters. Is the Minister aware that there is currently under development in Australia a state of the art computer based disaster management project called CADMAS, which, it has been estimated, could save the Australian community from 10 to 20 per cent of the annual cost of natural and man-made disasters? Is the Minister also aware that this project has been in the funding pipeline of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act since November 1983? In the light of these recent losses and the losses that are suffered every year from natural and man-made disasters, will the Government examine this project with the object of providing the necessary research and development grant to enable this system to be introduced as a matter of urgency in the national interest? Senator BUTTON —I do not make industrial research and development grants. That is the function of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board. That body is at arm's length from government. It is not within my province to direct that a grant be made to the CADMAS project. I was not aware that $250m had been lost, as Senator Jessop put it, as a result of natural and man-made disasters in Australia. I thought the figure would be far higher than that, if we included people such as Senator Jessop in the disaster category. It is very difficult to define. The point I am making is: What are natural and man-made disasters? Senator Jessop —The fires in Victoria and things like that. Senator BUTTON —I think we have plenty of them here, in addition to fires and so on. I am aware of the CADMAS project. I am aware that it is reaching the final stage of recommendation to me by the IRDI Board, if a recommendation has not, in fact, yet been made. I suspect that it may have and that it may be in the pipeline to me, as it were. I am aware of the project. I am not sure what the recommendation will be but it is on the point of fruition. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that a former French Foreign Minister has accused Australia and New Zealand of bias and self-interest over France's departure from New Caledonia? Is the Minister also aware of the rumour in New Caledonia that the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs task force on New Caledonia has a military role? Can he comment on these matters? Senator GARETH EVANS —Australia's policy towards New Caledonia is well known, as has been made clear by the Prime Minister and Mr Hayden on a number of occasions. The recent tensions in New Caledonia no doubt helped give rise to rumours, including some manifestly absurd ones. One such rumour alludes to the departmental emergency task force which Mr Hayden directed be established following the declaration of a state of emergency in New Caledonia by the French authorities. The rumour asserts that this task force, interpreted as a force de frappe, has some kind of military role. I am happy to assure the Senate that this rumour is utterly without foundation. The task force consists solely of officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is charged primarily with looking after the consular interests of Australian residents and tourists in New Caledonia. The Noumea media translation of the expression 'task force' into French appears to have added to the misunderstanding. New Caledonia is, of course, for the moment anyway, an overseas territory of France. France has the responsibility for law and order and defence arrangements for that territory, and it is no business of Australia's. Senator GARETH EVANS —Last Friday Senator Missen asked me a question concerning the Representation Act 1983, which is of some interest to a number of new senators in this place. I am advised, so far as the Attorney-General's Department's part of it is concerned, that while Attorneys-General had given general consideration previously to the application of the nexus provision in the Constitution the issue was specifically reconsidered following a story in the Age newspaper on 10 January casting doubt on the constitutionality of the Representation Act that governed the last election. The Attorney-General's Department advised, following this reconsideration, that there was no breach of section 24 of the Constitution because there was no House of Representatives in existence until the new House met and as at the date of the first meeting the nexus requirement was in fact satisfied. The relevant provision is section 5 of the Constitution, providing for prorogation and dissolution. The Attorney-General's Department's advice is that when the House of Representatives is dissolved there is no House of Representatives between the date of the dissolution and the date of the first meeting of the next Parliament, held in accordance with section 5 of the Constitution. That view is also supported by section 28 of the Constitution. The arrangements for payments to members and senators are not relevant to the constitutional nexus requirement in section 24. This can be illustrated by the fact that, although upon dissolution members cease to be members, those who renominate continue to receive their allowances up to and including the day fixed for the election. As to the part of the question dealing with the Special Minister of State and what might be done about the question of payment, the matter of the difference between the 1983 and 1949 legislation, to which Senator Missen adverted, is important and it is now under active consideration. I will advise Senator Missen and the Senate of the outcome of that active consideration as soon as possible. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I welcome the report to the Parliament on the 1986 Census of Population and Housing. In particular, I welcome the inclusion of questions that relate to language use in Australia which I believe will be valuable for language planning purposes. Similarly, there are questions relating to the birthplace of the person filling in the form and the birthplaces of his or her parents. Both those questions have been included in all previous censuses. There are also questions in regard to year of arrival in Australia, citizenship and a quite new question relating to ancestry. When replies to these, together with other questions on language use and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origins, are put together a very useful picture can be gained of the languages used in Australia, of the proficiency of Australians in the English language and of the need for educational and government planning to meet the needs of those populations. The replies to those questions will lead to a better understanding of the nature of the Australian community, which will add to the knowledge we have gained from the 1976 and 1981 censuses. A book that particularly relates to languages is Professor Michael Clyne's book on community languages in Australia, which gives an analysis of the extent and particular proportions of ethnic communities in each of the States and even in each local government area in Australia. In addition, the recent report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts titled 'A National Language Policy', which was tabled here last Thursday, updates that picture given by Professor Clyne's analysis of the 1976 census, and gives a very accurate profile that includes more recent material from the Bureau of Statistics. I therefore welcome these questions relating to the ancestry and language use of Australians. I note that the question 'How well does the person speak English?' will be self-assessed and therefore, when all the questions are analysed, will be understood as being possibly defective because of the different subjective measure that each individual involved in the census will give to how well the person speaks English. It will nevertheless be of considerable value. There is one area in which I wish to suggest an alternative approach. I fear it will be too late for consideration in the 1986 census but I give notice now that it might well be reviewed for all such similar purposes in the years ahead. I refer to the question relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin. I am not doubting the value of the question being asked, but the supplementary question that differentiates Aboriginal Australians from Torres Strait Islander Australians is a rather historic differentiation which is, I believe, no longer useful. Although we would need to listen to the Aboriginal communities, let us assert that Torres Strait Islanders are Aboriginal Australians. Of the 200 language groups of Australians why should we pick out two from the Torres Strait-the Kala Laga Ya speakers and the Merriam Mer speakers-and ask specific questions relating to those two when we do not ask those question of the other 200 language groups in Australia? I just make the suggestion that this should be the last time there is in a census a distinction made between Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal Australians. They are all Aboriginal Australians. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.12) —I wish to pass very few remarks on the 1986 census which this paper is directed to explaining to the Parliament and to the general public. The fact is that any census involves an intrusive element. It places a burden on those in the household who have to respond to the questionnaire that is brought to their door on the night in question. It is an invasion of privacy, but I think most of us around this chamber would agree that the statistics developed as a result of the answers to those questions being given in a reasonably honest way do help governments at all levels, and many institutions such as social welfare institutions and others with an interest in the demography of Australia. A census gives them the sort of basic information which is essential to undertaking planning to provide the services for which parliaments such as ours are called upon to appropriate moneys to fund. However, I want to comment in particular on what I think is the very proper response of the Government to a call from various researchers and historians that census forms be retained with a view to making available at some time in the future-perhaps 75, 80 or 90 years hence-the names of those who responded to the questionnaires. This would be helpful for members of historical associations, heritage organisations and so on who want to have access to the records. It was put by Mr Vine Hall on behalf of those interested in matters of heritage-I think he is the Director of the Society of Australian Genealogists-that the policy which has been maintained by all governments in Australia organising census questionnaires involves the destruction of the names of those in the household. He called it a policy developed in the 1890s by politicians who wanted to obscure their own convict ancestry. He said however that it was hardly appropriate to the modern day. Of course, what he failed to take account of was the experience of many of those who came to this nation from war-torn Europe, South America or elsewhere-places where repressive regimes have used the answers to questions in census surveys as a way of getting hold of information from those who otherwise, except under pain of penalty for not answering a questionnaire properly, would not have given the information to government. The fact is that many migrants in Australia who came from countries with a history of repressive government are highly suspicious of filling in these questionnaires. If it were not for the absolute, cast-iron guarantee that their names will not enter into any records accessible at any time in the future, the worth of those surveys would be very much diminished because, quite frankly, the information given would not be accurate. Who could blame people with that sort of history for not wanting to answer the questions? Rather than dwelling on the supposed fault of the politicians in the 1890s in trying to cover up their convict ancestry, I think we have to recognise the very real fears that people have in disclosing this information. I certainly think the Government has done the right thing in refusing to go along with this request of the heritage organisations. Senator LAJOVIC(New South Wales)(3.17) —I wish to refer to some of the proposed census questions. One question relates to where each person's father was born and asks whether the person's father was born in Australia or overseas. It then asks for the father's country of birth. If the census uses the name of country in which the person's father was born as the origin of that person we will have totally misleading information on the record. My father was born in Austria, not in Yugoslavia. At that time Yugoslavia did not exist. Therefore, I have to put down my father's birthplace as the Austro-Hungarian empire. My father was an Austrian. Therefore, the census would automatically classify me an Austrian and not Slovenian. I believe that the census questions are not properly identified. What about an Italian whose father was born in Egypt? He is of Italian origin. What about a Greek born on one of the Italian islands? I believe that the same thing will happen again as happened in previous censuses. I believe that people of minority nations, such as Slovenia, which is the country of my origin, and which are part of bigger countries will not be identified properly. I believe that all these questions, which according to the census paper will be used in calculating the number of languages and nationals or citizens from each different country, will not be clear at all. Further down the proposed census list there is this question: What is each person's ancestry? For example, Greek, English, Indian, Armenian, Aboriginal, Chinese, etc. The same problem applies here. For example, somebody who was born in India may not be of Indian ancestry. Senator Puplick —As in my father's case? Senator LAJOVIC —Yes. According to this question Senator Puplick would be Indian. I have tried to tell the Australian Bureau of Statistics for years and years of the difficulties in asking questions which are misleading and which will not achieve the results which they ought to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(3.20) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. At the outset I would like to say how pleased I was to see the turnabout in the financial result that Trans Australia Airlines has shown over the last year. I hope that the unfortunate strike by the flight engineers towards the end of last year does not result in TAA's profit returning to a bad level. I think it is unfortunate in an organisation such as TAA, which has a very high average salary structure, that such a strike could have been allowed to happen. It has more than just an immediate effect. People often make their travel plans well in advance. Therefore, if they think an airline is more likely than another airline to be affected by a strike, they are likely to choose the one that will not be affected. I believe the management of TAA could well have done a little more to avoid the strike. I agree with the decision made by the company in the end because there are no really good reasons these days why two pilots alone cannot operate aircraft of the size used within Australia by both Ansett Airlines of Australia and TAA. I note that page 39 of the report shows that the direct operating costs of the airline over the last 10 years have stayed roughly the same, as has the contribution to government revenue as a percentage of each dollar expended. I note also on page 38 that the passenger and charter of passenger trends are showing a quite healthy rate of growth. But the cargo rate of growth does not seem to be nearly as good. In fact, page 34 shows that there was a drop of 8.4 per cent in the amount of cargo kilograms carried by the parent company. I have a couple of questions that I would like to pose to the Senate with regard to the results of Ansett and TAA. I think it is a pity that we cannot exactly compare Ansett with TAA. Maybe that should be arranged. But it does not seem to me at first sight that TAA is making the same profit as Ansett, even though they appear to have roughly the same number of staff and they each have a share of about half the market. Senator Messner —They are too highly geared. Senator TOWNLEY —No, if they have the same number of staff and the same market share, I would have thought they would have to show roughly the same profit. As far as I can see, if one looks at the figures contained in the report, there are only two areas in which that extra profit could be made. I believe the amount of money we are talking about is $50m and that TAA should be making about $50m more than it is. I should think one of the ways in which it is losing money is by giving too many discounts. I have examples, which I will not cite to the Senate now, in regard to discounts being offered to certain companies to fly with TAA. Obviously, had TAA given the matter a little thought, it would not have made those offers because it was quite difficult for the people involved to fly with TAA. Also, I am not sure that its freight charges are quite as high as they should be. I regard TAA as a very good airline, and I fly with it quite regularly in the course of my job. I am not criticising it in any way but I want to see it become a better airline. I believe it can do so, without losing any customers, by ensuring that it does not offer undue discounts to various people. It should immediately look at what is happening on the cargo side of its activities. I also think it is a pity that it has dropped some of its services, particularly those to Tasmania. Admittedly, East-West Airlines Ltd is doing a reasonably good job but I would have preferred to see TAA continue to service the north-west coast of Tasmania. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(3.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is a most informative report. If all reports were of the same calibre and had the same amount of statistical information, the Senate would have very little to criticise. I take this opportunity to express some concerns about the long term future of the meat export markets, particularly at a time when farmers have completed their restocking following the recent drought. Producers should not be lulled into a false sense of security by reasonably satisfactory saleyard prices for sheep and cattle which were, as the report says, the result of reduced marketing and strong competition between abattoir operators and cattle fatteners. What is so serious is that in the period covered under the review exports fell to 28 per cent below the previous year's level. Getting those markets back will be a big job for everybody. The European Economic Community's dumping of subsidised products has forced Australia out of many world markets. Our meat export markets are now centred in the Pacific basin, which accounts for about 80 per cent of our trade. I must say that I am dubious about assurances given recently by the EEC to our Government. The operation of the common agricultural policy in Europe has effectively excluded Australia from many of its former markets in Europe, and now its Third World markets are seriously threatened by exports of EEC surpluses at highly subsidised prices. It has also suffered from reduced world market prices. At international conferences representatives of all countries speak of the need for global action on these sorts of matters but each country or community should take into account the effect and implications of its policies on those of other countries. If it does not, trade wars and other destabilising measures will unfortunately eventuate. I believe that the Corporation is performing creditably in very difficult circumstances. Its members are people of a high calibre and it would be difficult nowadays to pick a better team. The move towards a more aggressive advertising program should change the community's perceptions about red meat, and I congratulate the Corporation on that move. The downward slide in the meat export trade has been disastrous for the Tasmanian meat industry, as that trade is worth over $232m a year to Tasmania. One cause of this crisis is that there are now too many export plants handling a diminishing product. Another cause is that farmers are restocking after the drought. We are tending to lose sight of the severe impact that the high inspection charges have had in adding to already high processing costs, and the Australian Labor Party seems to be doing absolutely nothing about it. I believe that the Labor Party has failed to give the same support to the industry as did the Liberal-National Party coalition in the past. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Labor Party's lack of push in helping the Corporation in the export markets. I commend to the Senate the report and the tremendous amount of information provided in the statistical review. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.30) —I, too, support the report in the form in which it has been produced. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation is very big business and in its own right handles over $14m, half of which goes in salaries and administration and the other half in promotion and other activities. One has to be a little careful about the figures and the state of the market generally. As Senator Watson advised, there has been a drop of 28.3 per cent in the overall meat market. To break up that a little more, there has been a 24.1 per cent decline in beef and veal consumption, 53.6 per cent decline in mutton, 6.2 per cent decline in lamb, 31.3 per cent decline in goat meat and 29.3 per cent decline in fancy meats. The only meat to show any movement against the trend was pig meat which showed an increase in exports of 2.4 per cent, which is not very great. A good deal has been said about the advantages that go to exporters in the current devaluation mess. Such a drop in value is of only temporary assistance, and in the long term Australia stands to lose considerably as overseas buyers are always cautious in buying from countries whose currencies look unstable. In the meantime, although the trend shows that we should be gaining considerable advantage, I would point out that at the same time there is also a drop in price. Although Australia is getting some of the difference, it is not getting as much as it should, and one must bear that factor in mind. The report clearly indicates that the industry at large has been unable to contain the downturn in the meat-eating habit. There has been a 13.3 per cent decline in beef and veal consumption-a considerable decline in one year. This is occasioned probably by two main factors. One is that the industry has been unable to change the views of people following publicity about cholesterol and health levels generally, and eating habits have tended to take people to other forms of food. The industry is not providing the market with the product that the market seeks. I believe that a great deal more effort needs to go into ensuring that the customer and not the producer is regarded as the basis of the industry, and that the customer gets exactly what he or she is after. As to numbers of stock, the report shows that there are 22 million cattle and 140 million sheep in Australia. We must be careful about those increasing numbers. While producers are still in the herd-building process, they must ensure that before they build too much, there will be a market for what they produce. As I said yesterday, I commend the people in the pig industry for the fact that, in a difficult market, they have been able to increase their sales, basically by providing the market with the commodity it seeks. I offer this thought to the red meat producers in the hope that they may be able to make bigger efforts on exactly the same lines. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I commend the Department of Trade for an excellent report that is detailed and well-presented. I wish to thank Mr Menadue and the staff for the way in which they put the report together. The report goes a long way towards highlighting the problems that we need to face. One has only to browse through the various headings in the report to appreciate the difficulties in respect of a great proportion of our main trading items and partners. Considerable problems remain in respect of our cost structures, including the legitimate questioning of our reliability as a supplier of certain commodities. Further problems arise from the growth in the number of other suppliers-countries that are coming into the market for the first time, or that are developing their own economies to a point where they are meeting our prices both in Australia and overseas. There is a greater quest for self-sufficiency in more countries, particularly in relation to food and more countries are protecting their domestic markets in particular from overseas produce. There is greater protection and greater inroads are being made into our markets at home and abroad by new suppliers. Australia needs to compete much more strongly to maintain and improve its established position. This country has slipped in the stakes of national prosperity from being fifth in the world a few years ago to its present position of twenty-first. If some improvements are not made in Australia's trading position, it will be lucky to maintain that position. This is a good and complete report but we must not overlook one fact. Although I have not seen it stated in so many words in my initial perusal of the report, far from everything on the horizon is rosy. I ask all honourable senators to have a good read of the report to see what they can find in it that needs to be worked on. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —Order! As the time has expired for consideration of Government papers, I call on the next business. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Senator Chipp: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: 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.'. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.37) —I wish to make a few brief comments on the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill, on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, and also on the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Resources and Energy, which reads as follows: 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. It is true to say that Australia will be looking to the Government for strength and determination, but surely the introduction of such an amendment in this debate must be seen as nothing more than a wishy-washy proposal which typifies the problem of the Government at the moment. I refer to the fragmentation of the Australian Labor Party in government. Surely it must be recognised by all-certainly in the media where one sees reflections on the Government-that Australia must assume that the Labor party is in no shape to guide and control Australia's future. So much for that wishy-washy amendment. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition in this place, Senator Chaney, some two days ago gave the Opposition's view as to how it sees the position of nuclear-powered ships and nuclear weapons and the suggestion by the Democrats that they should be prohibited from entering Australia. Our stance is one of strength and common sense. The amendment 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) unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. The amendment goes on. Yesterday Senator Chaney introduced the amendment most capably, supported by Senator Sir John Carrick. I think that the speech made by Senator Sir John Carrick on that occasion will be long remembered and used on many occasions to understand the actual situation in the world today, particularly the stance that Australia should take. The amount of misinformation fed into the situation these days, particularly in the Senate, is amazing. The speech by Senator Sir John Carrick, I think, will bring a lot of relief to Australians who feel very strongly these days about means of recognising and overcoming the problem of the lack of unilateral disarmament. In speaking to Senator Chaney's amendment and against the Bill, I remind the Senate that Senator Chipp's Bill was introduced last year following the announcement by the New Zealand Government that it would not be permitting nuclear powered or nuclear armed ships to visit its ports. At that time Senator Chipp could not have known that within six months the policy of the New Zealand Government would lead to a substantial breakdown in the ANZUS alliance. Indeed, during the debate on this Bill last year Senator Chipp seemed to take the view that New Zealand's decision could have no effect at all on New Zealand's relationship with the United States in the context of the ANZUS treaty, for Senator Chipp's view of affairs, as it appeared in Hansard, was as follows: What did it- that is the United States- say when New Zealand said: 'No more nuclear armed warships'? The United States simply said: 'Okay, we will not send any more to you'. Has there been any talk about abrogating ANZUS? Of course there has not. Senator Chipp must now acknowledge that he grossly underestimated the impact of the decision of the New Zealand Government on the ANZUS alliance and that, had Australia followed that lead of New Zealand on this issue, the alliance would not have held up. That Senator Chipp is persisting with this Bill in the light of recent events such as the cancellation of the joint exercises which were to take place between the ANZUS members shows either a continued naivete on the part of the honourable senator regarding the importance the United States places on access to Australian ports for its naval vessels or a complete dismissal of the ANZUS treaty as the keystone of Australia's defence. The Labor Government has already done its fair share of damage to Australia's reputation with regard to our commitment to our American allies. The recent capitulation of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) over the MX missile issue must leave the United States wondering just how reliable Australia is as a treaty partner. Indeed, surely the United States must wonder what has happened to the Australian stomach. Mr Hawke has certainly left many Australians wondering just how reliable he is as the leader of our country when he is prepared to bow to internal party pressure to the detriment of our relationship with the United States and our national security at a time when Australia looks for strong leadership. What have we seen over the last few weeks? We have seen a cream puff government. One wonders what has happened to the Labor Party over the last few years, but when we see it as a coalition of many groups from the left wing through to the right wing. It is no longer the Labor Party of the Curtin or the Chifley days, when it was a very prominent party which gave quite strong leadership when it was in government. Now, of course, many Australians must wonder where the Labor Government is going to take us during the next two or three years. Australia's contribution to the stability of the free world is being jeopardised and is in danger of being destroyed by the unification of the left wing factions of the Labor Party. A Prime Minister who is incapable of withstanding the pressures of the warring factions within his Party, and who backs down at the first sign of difficulty in selling to the Left of his Party decisions taken in the national interest, is not only weak but also dangerous. Vacillation over our nuclear ships policy and the extent of our commitment to ANZUS at a time when the Soviet presence in our region is growing can lead only to a weakening of our relationship with America and the breakdown of Western deterrence in this region. The left wing of the Labor Government has already made its mark on our defence policy. At the ALP National Conference last year an amendment successfully placed restrictions on the pattern and frequency of United States naval visits. Of course, those left wing members of the Government who advocated those restrictions would like to see the banning of visits by nuclear powered or armed ships, regardless of the result of any such ban. One wonders in whose interest the left wing members of the Labor Party are working in advocating a policy which would leave Australia weak and vulnerable, without a strong ally and exposed to the ever-growing Soviet presence in the Indian and Pacific oceans. One would be rather hard pressed to find that these people are really working in Australia's interests. In bringing debate on this Bill back on, Senator Chipp may be hoping to capitalise on the irresponsible approach this Labor Government has taken to Australia's defence needs and our relationship with our allies, an approach which began with the refusal of docking facilities to HMS Invincible and which has most recently been demonstrated in the Government's refusal to provide assistance to the United States in the testing of its MX missiles. Of course, all that America wanted in that exercise was that aircraft that were following the testing of MX missiles in the Pacific Ocean, far from Australia, should be refuelled. Even assuming that the Labor Government is prepared to carry its unrealistic attitude to the point of not allowing nuclear armed and powered ships to pass through Australian waters, is Senator Chipp or any other honourable senator opposite so naive as to think that, by our withdrawing from the United States and other friendly nations the right to have their ships pass through our waters, the Soviet Union will be influenced to reduce its military build-up, for example, in Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam? The Soviet Union has an exceptionally valuable facility at Cam Ranh Bay. On any given day up to 29 Soviet surface ships and four or more submarines are in that strategically located port. Until recently deployment of a few Soviet Bear long-range reconnaissance aircraft was the normal air presence. The Soviets now have Badger aircraft at Cam Ranh Bay. The significance of these aircraft is that they provide the Soviets with a capability to strike and interdict the vital sea lines of communication throughout South East Asia. We have also seen the presence of Soviet Kilo class submarines in the Indian Ocean. To demilitarise in the way Senator Chipp has suggested would not make Australia any less a target in a nuclear war; it would make us a weak victim, all the more easily overcome. In Australia we are continually subjected to the protests of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party and other organisations which decry the role Australia has to play in the ANZUS alliance and our contribution to Western security. The ANZUS treaty and the joint United States-Australia bases in Australia are constantly under attack on the basis that they establish Australia as a nuclear target. I believe that there is more to it than that. I suspect the left wing of the Labor Party. It seems to me that it leans too closely to the influence of the Soviet Union. Yet how often do we hear these same groups calling for the demilitarisation of the Soviet bases in Vietnam? In this area too, Indo-Chinese countries, particularly Laos and Kampuchea, are being gathered, with Vietnam, into an Indo-China which now must be recognised as a puppet of the Soviet Union. How often these days do we hear protests against what the Soviets are doing not so far from us, in Afghanistan, where they are practising genocide? When one looks at the reports emanating from that country now one sees that village by village men, women and children are being wiped out. Why is there no protest in Australia regarding the actions of the Soviet Union there? Australia has a role to play in disarmament but it cannot achieve a global balance by itself. World peace can be gained only by maintaining a balance. Disarmament will be achieved only on a planned basis. Disarming the Western allies while the Soviets continue to build up their defences will serve only to destabilise the situation further and bring about their main aim, that of world domination. The Opposition urges the Government to recognise that the United States regards access to Australian and New Zealand ports as a central plank of the ANZUS alliance and any decision to restrict or deny access will threaten Australia's long term security. The ANZUS alliance, which is now over 30 years old, has continued to be the cornerstone of our defence policy since it was first established in the 1950s. Prior to the ANZUS treaty there was the Second World War. I remind honourable senators that 19 February, only a week ago, was the forty-third anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. I take the opportunity here, as I believe it is very much in line with the debate, to show how much we owe our friends and allies from the United States who in those days lost so many of their young men defending Australia. Have we forgotten what they did in flying, sailing and fighting alongside our own people? Senator Walters —Yes, Janine Haines has. Senator KILGARIFF —I believe Senator Walters is right. Australia is forgetting. Many Australians are deliberately forgetting and endeavouring to bring about some antagonistic attitude towards our friends and allies the Americans, people with the same ethnic background as ours. Indeed, when one looks back just a few generations one sees that parts of the families of many people who emigrated to Australia went to America too. Talking briefly of the bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942, it is interesting to note that the Japanese used a total of 135 aircraft for the two raids, 81 from the carriers and 54 from the first attack force. I will read out a little about the history of that incident. The report of the heavy losses of 18 and 19 February 1942 states: Under cover of night the combined forces of Admirals Nagumo and Kondo-an armada of 4 aircraft carriers, 2 battleships, 5 cruisers and about 20 destroyers-had steamed southward from Staring Bay, the outer harbour of Kendari, on 18th February and entered the Banda Sea. At dawn on the 19th speed was reduced and the 4 carriers altered course to turn into wind while their aircraft crews made final preparations for their greatest assault since Pearl Harbour. The Darwin raid was known in Darwin as the mini-Pearl Harbour. I can assure the Senate that the people there remember that. Very many Australians who lost members of their families on that day are still living in Darwin today. The report continues: Nagumo's force was at its peak. The 4 carriers-Akagi and Kaga . . . Hiryu and Soryu . . . together with the 5th Division . . . had triumphed at Pearl Harbour. Next they took on Darwin. In Darwin, many civilians-men, women and children-and men working on the wharf were killed. American sailors on the Perry and other boats were blown up and killed in the explosion or burnt in the sea alongside the wharfies. Young American pilots, some aged 20, 21 or 22 years, had been brought out from the United States to fly in that inhospitable part of the world to defend Darwin and Australia. Many American personnel were left there alongside the Australians-dead. I for one, and I believe most people in the north, remember the Americans for what they were and what they are to Australia today-necessary allies and friends. When Australia was almost overwhelmed by the holocaust of the Japanese attack they saved the day. Just off Cairns, in the Coral Sea battle, Australia was almost overwhelmed but the Australian forces, with the assistance of American forces, put the thrust aside. Here today the left wing and others have the audacity to endeavour to bring about a situation in which Australia is thrown against our allies, the Americans. The ANZUS treaty is an alliance for the mutual benefit of the parties to the treaty. It involves a two-way process, and responsibilities exist on all sides. Australia must make its position clear. We must state our intention to continue to allow access to the nuclear vessels of our allies and to meet our responsibilities. Those people who advocate unilateral disarmament and the abandonment of our treaty obligations to our allies do not only their fellow Australians but also the rest of the world a great disservice. If Senator Mason, who is trying to interject, wants to include himself in that number he may do so. The fact is that the Australian facilities are absolutely fundamental to world security. Australia should continue to make its contribution to maintaining the balance, particularly in this part of the world, with the Soviet buildup in Vietnam. The future security of Australia is threatened by both the Democrats and the Australian Labor Party. Both parties stand for the erosion and eventual destruction of the ANZUS alliance. They should stand back and take stock of the opinions of the Australian people-and I would say by far the majority of Australian people-before they jeopardise further the future of our defence policy. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.00) — Today we are debating Senator Chipp's private member's Bill which is described as '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'. That pretty well describes it. Only the extreme left wing of the Australian Labor Party agrees with the Australian Democrats on this issue. The Democrats and the left wing of the Labor Party are as one in this area. First of all I would like to establish the areas of agreement on the concept of this Bill, which supposedly is to seek peace. There are many ways of seeking peace. This side of the chamber does not go along, as the Democrats do, with the idea of unilateral disarmament. Over the past 40 years we have had semi-peace as a result of the balance of power. Although there have been skirmishes nuclear weapons have not been used. I believe that if it had not been for this balance nuclear weapons would certainly have been used. Senator Chipp commenced his speech by congratulating Senator Chaney and Senator Gareth Evans for what he called the 'thoughtful, high level of debate which they have brought to this crucial question'. He went on to say: . . . 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 . . . will maintain that high standard. Senator Chipp then proceeded to abuse the Americans and an American senator in particular by calling him a twerp, a moron and an idiot. It was at that point that the debate deteriorated. I agree with Senator Chipp that the speeches of Senator Chaney and Senator Evans were very moderate. Senator Chipp said that the Democrats have never said that they believe in unilateral disarmament. Of course he does but he will not admit it. That is what this Bill is all about. He suggests, along with the left wing of the Labor Party, that all American bases in the South Pacific be done away with, that ANZUS, a treaty upon which this country has relied for many years, be torn up. He did not suggest-there was not one word about this in his speech-that the Russian bases in Vietnam ought to be discarded. He did not mention it. Let us look at what he did say. He said that we should get rid of the bases and that we should get rid of ANZUS. He said that if the crunch came, no one believes that America would come to our aid. He is 100 per cent wrong. We on this side of the chamber believe that America would come to our aid. He said that the Liberals have been stood over by the Americans. He said that if America destroyed 5,000 of its missiles it would still be well ahead of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' capabilities. Where in the heck did he get that information? He did not try to substantiate it. He says these things just off the top of his head because they sound good in a speech. Senator Chipp said that America was behaving like big brother, that Shultz and Weinberger were bully boys and that America was only interested in the American defence requirement and not in Australia's defence requirement. He did not say, of course, that America was the protector of the free world. He did not mention that. He did not mention the atrocities that have been committed by the USSR. He called America big brother and American officers bully boys. He did not mention that the USSR was responsible for the building of the Berlin Wall. He did not mention the take-over of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. He did not mention the five-year war in Afghanistan and the terrible atrocities that the USSR has committed there. He did not mention the 269 people who were slaughtered when a Korean Air Lines jet was shot down by the USSR. He just said that America was big brother and that American officers were bully boys. He did not say that the USSR had test fired 24 missiles into the Pacific Ocean between 1978 and 1984. He did not kick up a fuss about the USSR firing 24 missiles during that period. He did not say a word about the SS18 missiles with a range of over 16,000 kilometres being fired in the vicinity of the Cook Islands. Why did he not bellow about that when it was happening? No, he only mentioned that America is big brother and that its officers are bully boys. Why are the left wing of the Labor Party and the Democrats bringing up this matter at this time? They are doing so in an attempt to undermine the USA in its present negotiations with the USSR. Let us look at history because Senator Chipp seemed rather keen to talk about history. Senator Chipp talks about disarmament as though it is his own bright idea. Disarmament has been tried many times over the ages. The last time it was tried was before World War II when Great Britain, the United States of America, Japan, France and Italy signed the Washington Treaty. France and Italy dropped out soon after it was signed. However, Great Britain, the United States of America and Japan abided by it until 1936. Indeed, Australia, as a member of the Commonwealth, scuttled its only battleship to abide by the Treaty. Britain disarmed, as did America. Japan got out of the Treaty in 1936. By then,of course, Hitler had come to power and we were scrambling to try to overcome the stupidity of the intervening years. It has been proved time and time again that disarmament by one side does not work. I believe that Senator Haines, when talking about history, uttered the worst comment of this debate when she said that America had sat by and watched hundreds of Australian soldiers die. Senator Hamer —Hundreds of thousands, she said. Senator WALTERS —She said America sat by and watched hundreds of thousands of Australians die until she deigned to enter the war. What an appalling thing for anyone to say; what ignorance of history. In fact, America was supplying us with all sorts of weapons and armaments. Britain desired and requested that it should stay that way. As I said, this was an absolutely appalling thing for anyone to say in this chamber. Let us look at the MX debacle and Mr Hawke's about-face in this regard, because they are very important. Let us look at why he did it. We have to go back only a little way to see why he was not so keen on his original decision. The United States of America made a very modest request to test a dummy missile over the largest area of ocean, with no land mass, that it could possibly find. The missile was to be fired from California. It was to fall about 320 kilometres south-east of Tasmania. Even if it were to have overshot that position it would not have touched our State. All the United States wanted to do was find out the total distance the missile could travel and its accuracy. At that stage Mr Hawke agreed to the test taking place. Then the left wing of the Labor Party came into the picture and a few comments were made. Senator Ryan entered the debate and said: 'I think the time has come when real contradictions are appearing between our fundamental role in relation to peace and disarmament and that of the American alliance'. Senator Ryan, the big Minister for Education, decided that she would keep in favour with her left wing constituents and sell her soul for the left wing vote. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, said that he was unhappy about the original secret decision to help the United States with its missile testing and warned of the dangers of taking decisions without consulting Caucus. Mr Keating said that the fourth-graders had better be careful and keep their place in Caucus-they all had to keep quiet. Then the fourth-graders came in. Gerry Hand said: 'I think that our policy should be for a nuclear free area and we should scrap ANZUS'. Senator Crowley and other fourth-graders said: 'I think that the Party's policy is, let us say, a little fluid'. The left wing got at the Prime Minister. Because the Prime Minister was willing, for political survival, to scrap all his principles, he changed his mind. He told the Americans: 'The test is out. We will not do what you ask. We will not refuel those planes to enable the monitoring of dummy tests. We will not do it for you'. Why did the Prime Minister give in so easily? I do not believe he was fully committed. We have only to go back a few years to an advertisement that appeared in the newspapers. I will read that advertisement because I believe it is terribly important that we know what the Prime Minister was really thinking at that time. The advertisement was published in 1976, which is not very long ago. Under the heading 'For an Independent and Non-Aligned Australia', it is stated: We, the undersigned, consider that: Military alliances are a source of international tensions. They lead to subordination of weaker nations to bigger powers, and often involve the aligned nations in military interventions. Foreign military bases on our soil are detrimental to Australia's safety. They constitute a threat to other nations, make this continent a potential nuclear target, and could be used by the USA contrary to our wishes and safety. Get a load of that! The advertisement continues: USA-Australia alliance dragged us into the Vietnam War. Australia's military arrangements with the USA, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia could involve us in military actions in South East Asia in support of unpopular regimes . . . in new Vietnams. I stress the next line: Therefore, we the undersigned, support the campaign for an independent and non-aligned Australia, which stands for: Mutual respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all nations; equality of national rights; opposition to military alliances, foreign military bases and military interventions; and support for national and social liberation. Who signed that? Senator MacGibbon —Bob Hawke. Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator guessed it-Bob Hawke. The Prime Minister of this country signed that advertisement. Not only the Prime Minister of the country signed it. He was in good company because it was also signed by people such as Pat Clancy, Laurie Carmichael, Joe Camilleri, George Crawford, Dr Cairns, Bill Hartley and John Halfpenny. They are all there. It was also signed by Senator Gietzelt, Senator Primmer, Senator Melzer, Robert Tickner and Bill Landeryou. Senator Harradine —You are not suggesting that he is holding those views at this moment, surely. Senator WALTERS —It was not very long ago that he signed this advertisement. I want to know why he gave in so quickly to the left wing of the Labor Party. Last year our brave media, which were very keen at that time on Bob Hawke, brought up this subject. They did not press it too much. In an interview on the television program Four Corners, Jim Downes said: . . . he put his signature to this newspaper advertisement. The signatories were said to consider that the American alliance dragged us into the Vietnam War. He said to Mr Hawke: Having believed in non-alignment then, what's your view now? Senator Harradine might be interested in this because he was asked this in March 1983. Jim Downes said: Having believed in non-alignment then, what's your view now? The Prime Minister replied: I didn't believe in non-alignment then. If you read the document in question it doesn't follow that from the appending of my signature at that time that I was saying that my unequivocal position was one of non-alignment. Let me read to honourable senators again exactly what that advertisement said: Therefore, we the undersigned, support the campaign for an independent and non-aligned Australia-- In the Four Corners interview Mr Hawke said that he did not believe in it then and that if one were to read the document one would see that it did not say that he did. What utter rubbish! Let us look again at the things he said at the same time. The Prime Minister gave a speech on Australia's place in world affairs at the inaugural H. V. Evatt Memorial Lecture. He talked about the Fraser Government and detente. He said that the policy of detente attracted strident criticism from the hard line right wing political figures in the United States of America, notably Ronald Reagan. It comes as no surprise that in this controversy Australia's Prime Minister emerged as a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan's line. This is what he said about the President of the United States, with whom he is so friendly these days: Detente is an essentially modern and civilised process which challenges nations to the cool subtleties of the negotiating table. It belongs to the latter half of the twentieth century. Mr Reagan, in contrast would have us relive on the international stage his wild west celluloid fantasies in which, cast as the hero, he triumphed after quick-draw six-gun shoot-outs. That is wonderful stuff from our Prime Minister about the President of the United States! It really makes me wonder why the Prime Minister gave in so very quickly to the pressures of the members of the left wing of the Labor Party, who are now so closely aligned with the Democrats on this issue. Look at the result of the MX debacle. We now have a situation where America has cancelled naval manoeuvres and has cut off the flow of security information to New Zealand. Australia is in the difficult position of not knowing who she is meant to be talking with on security matters. We had the ludicrous situation of Mr Lange the other day saying: 'Please, Russia, don't applaud me so loudly'. He was in the embarrassing situation of telling the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics not to keep saying how much it appreciated his action. Of course it appreciated his action, just as it appreciated the actions of Bob Hawke and the Labor Party. The Soviet Union will be sending a congratulatory note to Senator Chipp, too, because it will be laughing all the way to the Pacific. As I have said, Senator Chipp and Senator Haines have indulged in America bashing the like of which I have never heard before. Senator Haines talked about the United States sitting back and watching our lads dying, but she did not mention the Coral Sea battle. The Democrats are so anti-American it makes me weep. Senator Chipp asked how the Liberals would react if the USSR made demands on Australia similar to those the US is making. I can tell him. We would tell the USSR to go jump in the lake. There would be no way we would tolerate that. Then we see the subtlety of Senator Chipp's suggestion. He said the situation would be very similar, that we are prepared to kowtow to America's demands but we would not be prepared to kowtow to the USSR's demand-as if we could possibly compare those two countries. That is exactly what Senator Chipp is doing. He did not even compare them; he indulged in so much America bashing. I went through all the things he did, and at no time did he tell us of the USSR's atrocities. Senator Chipp —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I am always reluctant to interrupt another senator's speech, but when Senator Walters deliberately and mischievously misquotes what I say, it is taken down by Australian Associated Press and it goes out on the wire that Don Chipp compared two things, which I did not. What I said in my speech-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chipp, that is not a point of order. It is a debating point. You will be speaking later in this debate and you may, if you wish, then correct what was said. Senator Chipp —Can you hear me out, Mr Deputy President? Senator Walters has alleged that I said something whereas in fact I said the opposite. She is basing her criticism on that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a point of order, as I am sure you are aware. That is a debating point. If Senator Walters has misquoted you when you speak later in the debate you may correct anything she has said, but that is not a point of order. Senator Chipp —I do not want to canvass your ruling, Mr Deputy President. I just want to ask whether you are saying-if you are I may well take action under the forms of the House-that it is in order for a senator to misquote absolutely what another senator has said in a debate and that the senator who is being misrepresented has no redress in the matter? Is that what you are saying? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, that is not the situation. If a senator misrepresents something you have said, there are forms of the chamber that allow you to speak a second time to correct the misrepresentation. You are not allowed to interrupt a senator while he or she is speaking. You have to follow the ordinary procedures of the House. It is not a point of order, but a correction of a misrepresentation. I will hear you after Senator Walters has finished speaking if you wish to correct the misrepresentation or, alternatively, you may correct it when you reply to the debate. You are not allowed to correct it while she is speaking. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I know Senator Chipp is well aware of that as he has been here a long time, but he has succeeded in taking up three minutes of my time. In the four minutes I have remaining to me I would like people to look at the amendments moved by the Labor and Liberal parties. The Labor Party's amendment is just a deal with the Left. It is just a sop. There is no mention at all of the Labor Party being opposed to unilateral disarmament, as there is in our amendment. It is just a sop to the Labor Party left wing, to keep them all together. I believe the Labor Party really is underlining its lack of will by putting forward this amendment. I get back to the basic differences in how we pursue peace, because that is what every party in this chamber is, I am sure, all about. We can achieve it either by unilateral disarmament, which Senator Chipp is advocating, or by mutual balance; that is, bilateral disarmament. Anyone who does not believe that the Soviet Union has a strategic plan for world domination or that Australia is ignored in any such plan, should read the new book We will Bury You by Jan Sejna. He is a former Chief-of-Staff for the Minister for Defence in Czechoslovakia and Assistant Secretary to the top secret Czechoslovakian Defence Council. He is considered to be the highest ranking communist ever to defect to the West. At one point he quotes Marshal Grechko, the then Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet land forces, and Boris Ponamarev, the head of the International Department of the Soviet Central Committee. I would like to read the following extract to honourable senators: In Marshal Grechko's analysis of the major Warsaw Pact exercise . . . he said, 'Comrades, to forget Australia and treat it as a forgotten island would be a great strategic mistake.' Ponamarev said: 'Comrades, I can understand your view of Australia as a country of little importance to your concerns; I must tell you that you are wrong in this and that you have an important part to play in our operations against this country. You must understand that if we wish to control Asia we must first control Australia.' Mr Sejna continued: These startling revelations about the true Soviet view of Australia were clearly confirmed to me when I saw them set out in specific and unambiguous terms in the outlines of the Strategic Plan. According to the Plan, the neutralization of Australia and New Zealand will follow the neutralization of Western Europe. Like Europe, Australia will advance to Socialism and 'neutralism' step by step . . . In this process the Strategic Plan aims to exploit the internal forces in Australia by infiltration and deception rather than by a major military threat from outside. Because of the small size of the Communist Party of Australia, the Plan called first for the exploitation of the extreme left of the Australian Labor Party, infiltration of the younger working class in the industrial areas, and, of greatest importance, subversion and control of the trade unions. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —Under the provisions of standing order 410 I claim to have been misrepresented grievously and purposely by Senator Walters. Senator Walters during her speech made a statement to this effect. Mr Deputy President, with your indulgence, I will pause for her interjection if I have misquoted her because I did not write down what she read. She said that I said: 'How would members of the Liberal Party, who quite properly pride themselves on being champions of freedom and justice, feel if the Soviet Union made demands or requests on Australia in the same way as the United States has?' That is what she alleged I said. Senator Walters —I didn't go into that much detail, but yes. Senator CHIPP —I thank Senator Walters for acknowledging the substance of what I have just said as being correct. What I said was quite the opposite. I will quote now from page 134 of Hansard. I said: 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.'? Then I said: 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 thank honourable senators and you, Mr Deputy President, for your indulgence. I just make the note that this copy of Hansard has been available since 10 o'clock this morning. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(4.32) —I had not intended to speak in the debate on the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill introduced by the Australian Democrats because I spoke on 12 September last year when the Bill was originally introduced and my views, therefore, are on the record. However, after listening to the debate yesterday and particularly to the contributions from the Democrats, I felt compelled to make some brief observations. I also want to make some observations about what Senator Walters has just said. Senator Walters is one of the Liberals whom I described as Cold War warriors on foreign affairs issues. Unfortunately, I happen to be on her side this afternoon in opposing the Democrats' Bill. But in reality she is the worst sort of ally because it is her attitude of unthinking support for the United States of America that involved Australia originally in the Vietnam War. I put it to the Senate that what is good for the United States might not always be good for Australia. If one wants to be taken for granted and not to be advised one follows the line Senator Walters has been putting this afternoon. In fact, she has been guilty of quoting from only one side. She has been guilty of doing the very thing which she accused Senator Chipp of doing. The Democrats are clearly facing a dilemma on how to restate the anti-nuclear credentials of their Party. That is why Senator Chipp moved to bring the Bill before the Senate at this time. That is not to suggest that the views being pursued by the Democrats through this legislation are not genuinely held views. Clearly, the contributions of Senator Chipp, Senator Mason and Senator Haines demonstrated otherwise. The last election showed, however, that the Democrats have a clear rival for that section of the Australian community which is in support of the aims and objectives that are embodied in this type of legislation. I refer, of course, to the Nuclear Disarmament Party whose first senator will take her position in this chamber on 1 July of this year. The emergence of the NDP during the latter half of 1984 has put the Democrats in the position where there are now two parties competing for a minimal share of the vote-that is, the share required to elect one senator in each State. The harsh realities of this fact were brought home to the Democrats in Western Australia where Senator Jack Evans, an excellent senator in my opinion, was defeated. The Western Australian experience was almost repeated in my State of New South Wales as a result of the NDP clearly outpolling the Democrats in primary votes. Senator Mason was re-elected on Australian Labor Party preferences-a fact with which I am sure he is well acquainted. This need not, however, be seen by the Democrats as a permanent arrangement. In the context of the next election the situation could very well be different. The NDP may by then be an established political party with an identifiable party platform and the Labor Party could well direct its preferences to the NDP at the expense of the Democrats. In this last election we really had no alternative. I just want to mention in passing one of the great lies of the last election campaign, and that is that in New South Wales the Labor Party gave its preferences to the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia and therefore defeated Peter Garrett. This has been stated repeatedly by Garrett and is nonsense. Every time he has said that, of course, it received coverage by the media. But at the declaration of the poll when I pointed out that it was nonsense, of course my statement was not reported. The fact is that the ALP preferences elected Senator Mason. I intend to spell out the situation in much greater detail in the Address-in-Reply debate. The Liberal and National parties, in supporting the motion to bring this Bill before the Senate at this time, have also exhibited cynicism and a lack of principle. Of course, Senator Chaney was hoping that some Labor senators would support the Bill. However, as I stated on 12 September last year and as I repeat on this occasion, the Labor Party senators, like member of all parties in the Senate, have different points of view on a number of subjects. We debate various matters, vote on them at party forums and conferences and therefore adopt party policy. We have undertaken this procedure when determining matters such as those embodied in this legislation, the most recent occasion being, on the Federal level, our Party's 1984 National Conference. I therefore had to smile yesterday when Senator Chipp said: . . . 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. I remember well that at the 1983 New Zealand Labour Party conference David Lange strongly supported a motion that would have allowed nuclear-powered warships to visit New Zealand. Senator Chipp —What has that got to do with it? Senator SIBRAA —The interjection from Senator Chipp is: 'What has that got to do with it'? He was at great pains yesterday to point out how this point of view on these issues had changed over many years. I was also pointing out to him that perhaps only a few years ago Mr Lange held different points of view on this issue. Senator Chipp —So did your own Prime Minister. Senator SIBRAA —When I look back over a period, say, from 1966, I can see that I have changed my opinion too. In 1966 Senator Chipp was a Minister in a government that I was opposing because it was sending young Australians to fight in Vietnam. Senator Chipp has changed his views, and I accept that. Perhaps in 1966 I was not as critical of the Soviet Union and its role as a super-power as I am now. Senator Chipp —But I don't get your point. Why are you criticising Mr Lange for changing his mind? He is to be commended. Senator SIBRAA —I was not criticising Mr Lange. I was making a point about how he was prepared to speak at a conference with one point of view and then adopt another point of view later. That is the same sort of thing that Senator Ryan has been getting attacked for this afternoon. She is entitled to stand at a party conference and say what she likes. At this time I will turn to the Government's position in respect of visits by United States warships to this country, the matter specifically addressed in the Democrats' legislation. As honourable senators are well aware, it is not this Government's position to deny port access to visiting warships, regardless of whether they are nuclear-powered. We respect the view that our allies will not confirm or deny whether their ships are nuclear armed. It is the view of the Government that such a policy is clearly aligned with our obligations under the ANZUS Treaty. Of course, this view is not shared by David Lange and the New Zealand Government. However, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has advised the New Zealand Government of the views of the Australian Government and the Australian people on this matter. The Government has outlined, however, certain policies in respect of such visits. Our attitude can be summed up in the following points: First, visits will be for purposes such as crew rest and recreation and not for fuel handling or repair to reactor plant necessitating breach of reactor containment. Secondly, visits will be subject to satisfactory arrangements concerning liability and indemnity to provision of adequate assurances relating to the operation and safety of the warships while they are in Australian waters. Thirdly, movement of vessels must take place during daylight hours under conditions where visibility is not less than three quarters of a mile. Fourthly, navigational controls on other shipping will be applied during the time the nuclear powered ships are entering or leaving ports. Fifthly, there must be a capability to remove the vessel either under its own power or under tow to a designated safe anchorage or to a designated distance to sea within the time frame specified for the particular berth or anchorage and in any case within 24 hours, if an accident should occur; and finally, an operating safety organisation competent to carry out a suitable radiation monitoring program and able to initiate actions and provide services necessary to safeguard the public in the event of a release of radioactivity following an accident must exist for the port being visited. Honourable senators who have contributed to this debate, in particular Australian Democrats senators, have broadened the debate to include a questioning of the ANZUS alliance and its value to Australia, the role and functions of the joint facilities and the question of the Government's actions and attitudes towards nuclear disarmament and peace. I do not think it is inappropriate that such issues be raised in respect of this legislation, because visits by United States warships cannot be viewed as a single issue devoid of connection with those issues to which I have referred. Let me put on the record that this Government and, indeed, the Australian Labor Party are committed to the ANZUS alliance. Our commitment to it has been reaffirmed on several recent occasions. As honourable senators would be aware, the Government conducted an extensive review of the Treaty in 1983 shortly after we came to power. In the words of the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), the review has led us to a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of the alliance as fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign and defence policies. This was re-endorsed as recently as 12 February by the Cabinet and 17 February by the Caucus. Senator Chipp and Senator Haines have both attacked the substance and the form of the treaty because, they say, it is an inadequate guarantee of defence assistance in the event of an attack and on the basis that its requirements or obligations, such as ship visits, make us a nuclear target. This Government accepts, as indeed all previous governments have accepted, that the Treaty does not automatically guarantee that the United States come to our military aid if we were subject to attack. However, following the ANZUS council meeting in 1983 the Americans spelt out their understanding of the requirements for prompt and effective fulfilment of ANZUS. Secretary of State Shultz noted that in the United States view any armed attack on an ally would require and would receive from the other allies full and prompt fulfilment of the ANZUS security commitment including, if necessary, military support. In terms of obligations under the Treaty, the Government sees as integral the hosting of the joint facilities and allowing, when necessary, visits by ships. The Prime Minister made a detailed statement to the Parliament on 6 June last year outlining the role and functions of the joint facilities. These details are well known to all honourable senators and I will not take up the Senator's time by reiterating them this afternoon. Let me summarise, however, what I believe to be the most important functions of the joint facilities. Firstly, they contribute to the deterrence of nuclear war by enabling a timely knowledge of developments that have military significance, for example, the provision of early warning information from space satellites about missile launches. Secondly, they contribute to monitoring as part of verification of compliance with the provisions of arms control agreements, for example, assisting nuclear test ban monitoring. The Government accepts those roles and functions as legitimate. They fulfil our obligations in relation to our alliance relationship with the United States and provide, we believe, the only practical basis on which to pursue disarmament and peace. This is a view which is not shared, however, by the Australian Democrats. The Democrats are of the view that hosting the joint facilities and allowing nuclear powered or nuclear armed ships to visit Australian ports make us a nuclear target and hence should be removed and stopped on that basis. Senator Chipp —The Prime Minister says the same thing. He admits that. Your Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and Bill Hayden admit that we are nuclear targets. Senator SIBRAA —I admitted in the speech I made on 12 September that of course the facilities in Australia are nuclear targets. I accept what Senator Chipp says. However, I believe the Australian Democrats' view is naive. I believe it is a dangerous policy which ought not to be embraced by the Australian people. Yesterday Senator Haines gave Senator Chipp's sentiment new clarity. She espoused a policy which she says is 'Australianistic' but which is in fact an isolationist position. This Government rejects any suggestion that we can pursue disarmament questions in any meaningful capacity by opting out. Opting out of the policy of strategic deterrence would be inherently destabilising and in fact would increase the risk of nuclear war. Of course, opting out, or non-co-operation, clearly is contrary to a bipartisan policy of alignment for this country. The Foreign Minister has stated on several occasions that this country is not pacifist, not neutral and not non-aligned. We are committed to the alliance and accordingly must play our role. I therefore ask honourable senators to support the Government's foreshadowed amendment, which seeks to insert the following words: (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. I hope that amendment will have the support of the Opposition parties. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.48) —One of the annoying things about the debate on the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill is that what the Australian Democrats, the Nuclear Disarmament Party and some members of he left wing and various factions of the Labor Party-I am not certain who is in which faction at various times-are saying is not in dispute. They are saying that there must be no global nuclear war. We are all opposed to that. The debate should not concern the end-we all agree on the end-but should concern the means. They seem confused because they state that their means is the only possible way to achieving the end, the object-which object no one disagrees with. In fact, in my view their means would be strongly counter-productive. Let us establish a few things on which we can all agree. Firstly there can be no limited nuclear war between the super-powers. A nuclear war between the super-powers means it will be all-in very quickly. Secondly, with 50,000 nuclear weapons used in such a nuclear war there will be no place on earth to hide. It does not matter very much whether a particular place is a nuclear target; there will be no place on earth to hide. Surely it must be the aim of all of us to prevent the outbreak of such a nuclear war. As part of that aim the Australian Democrats have presented their Bill. Before I turn to the likely effects of the Bill on the possibility of nuclear war, let me state that such a Bill would, of course, have a very important secondary effect. It would destroy the ANZUS Treaty. There can be no possible doubt that if the Australian Parliament did what the Democrats want us to do it would mean the end of the ANZUS Treaty. Of course, the amendment moved by Senator Chaney emphasises that that is just what must not happen. We must retain the ANZUS Treaty because without it we and the rest of the world would be very much worse off. Of course, this whole business was precipitated by some very short-sighted and selfish behaviour by New Zealand. New Zealand does not matter much to ANZUS. New Zealand has never contributed anything that I have noticed to ANZUS. New Zealand's disappearance from the ANZUS would be no loss. However, we contribute to ANZUS and, in my view, the breaking of that alliance would be disastrous. The trouble is that the real danger is not that the ANZUS Treaty will be cancelled but that it will be allowed to lapse into nothingness as happened in regard to the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. That would in my view be very damaging for us. The fiasco of the MX decision, or non-decision, or whatever it was, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made certain that what was already a remote possibility-that is, a new bilateral treaty between Australia and America-has been destroyed. The actual decision by the Government, although irritating to the Americans, does not involve them in any great difficulty. It is perfectly possible to monitor the accuracy of a missile from surface ships. After all, that is what the Russians have done with at least 24 missile firings in the South Pacific in recent years. I have not noticed any flotillas of protest craft going into the designated impact area for the Russian firings as they are now threatening to do with the MX firings. There seems to be very selective indignation by some of the people concerned. The MX missile decision will cause irritation, worries about the sense of our Government and worries about the integrity of our Government, but it will not pose any great problems for the Americans. The Americans will nevertheless be very keen to retain what is left of ANZUS because it is very important to them. It gives great advantages to them. We should be realistic about the benefits contained in the ANZUS Treaty for the Americans because any valid, valuable treaty has benefits for both parties, and the ANZUS Treaty does have significant benefits for the Americans. Let us look at them. The first thing it provides is communication with their second-strike missile-firing submarines in the Indian Ocean. These submarines, with Poseidon missiles, are second-strike weapons. While on station they are effectively invulnerable. Their ability to strike a totally unacceptable retaliatory blow at the Soviet Union if it were to launch a first strike on the United States would make such a first strike extremely unlikely. There is no way in which one could send out missile firing submarines on prolonged patrols in the Indian Ocean unless one had some way of communicating with them. The North West Cape communications station provides that. It is a very strong deterrent against the outbreak of a global nuclear war. It makes a first strike by the Soviet Union very unlikely and therefore it is a great contribution to world peace and of great benefit to Australia. That, after all, is the justification for its being there. The second thing provided by the American stations in Australia is a warning capability in the case of a surprise first-strike firing by the Soviet Union or China. Again, the fact that it could not really be a surprise, and that a warning would be given in time to launch a counterstrike, reduces very much the chance of such a thing happening. Without that, of course, it might be an attractive option for them to attack. It is a very strong deterrent for them to know that they would not achieve surprise. That, again, is in the interests of the world, including Australia. The bases also provide an opportunity to monitor the test flying of new missiles. I am sure that everyone hopes that we will get arms limitation agreements between the super-powers. The only way in which those arms limitation agreements can possible be reached is for there to be effective monitoring of their implementation. There is no way in which an open society like the United States could enter into an agreement with a closed society like the Soviet Union without some arrangements for monitoring. I will give an example from history. With the best intentions, disarmament treaties of the 1930s did immense harm to the war-making capacity of the Western world, the free countries. One can make a case that they played a very great role in bringing on the Second World War. I will give one example of the problems caused by treaties entered into in good faith but not monitored. A treaty was entered into in 1931 to limit the size of battleships to 35,000 tons. In the open societies of the United States, Britain and France that treaty was, of course, followed. There was no way in which they could avoid following it even if they wanted to. But in the closed societies the Germans built battleships of 55,000 tons and the Japanese built battleships of 70,000 tons, which were immensely more powerful than the ships built to the treaty limitation. That did not have catastrophic consequences. It was very awkward and embarrassing, but a similar breach of a treaty on nuclear arms could be catastrophic. Therefore, there is no possibility of a treaty limiting new nuclear weapons unless there is some effective arrangement for monitoring adherence to it. We do provide the chance for such monitoring. People would have us throw it away. It is very important for disarmament and a very important contribution to world peace. In a different area, the importance of the ANZUS Treaty to the Americans is that by our geographical position we provide the possibility of a support area for American operations in the Indian Ocean and in the vital Persian Gulf area. For those reasons Australia and the ANZUS Treaty are very important to the United States. As I said at the outset, any valid and valuable treaty must be of benefit to both sides. So what is in it for us? It is not a guarantee of support. That is a straw man which has been set up and destroyed. It is obvious that no guarantee could ever be given. People say that because it is not what it never pretended to be-and no responsible person ever suggested that it was-therefore it is valueless. It does not provide a guarantee of support. No American government or Congress would give that guarantee. But it does provide the mechanism whereby if support is given to us in a moment of crisis, it will be effective. When the Americans last came to our rescue in 1942 we had no common communications systems. We had no common logistics. We had no common tactical doctrines. It was very much more difficult to co-operate with the Americans than it would be now. Under the ANZUS Treaty we have common logistics, common tactical doctrines, common communications and we exercise together frequently, so that if and when they come to our assistance, that assistance will be prompt and effective. It is a very important advantage of the ANZUS Treaty. It also provides us through the Treaty arrangements with the chance to send exchange officers on secondment to the American forces to keep up to date with techniques that are not yet needed in the Australian forces, so we are informed of what is going on. This, too, is of very great importance to the efficiency of our Defence Force. The value of the exchange of intelligence between Australia, the United States and others cannot be overestimated. Our country has very difficult strategic and tactical problems. We have small forces, large areas to cover and are part of a very turbulent area. Good intelligence is very important. Through the American connection under ANZUS we get that intelligence. We would not get it otherwise. Finally, and perhaps in some ways most important of all, we manage to save enormous supply overheads by being linked with the American logistics system through ANZUS. This saves us enormous sums of money in our defence vote. It is my estimate-I think I may be under-estimating-that if we wished to continue our present very modest level of defence effort and defence capability, without ANZUS we would have to at least double the defence vote to achieve a similar level of operational competence and capability. We receive this through ANZUS and it is a very great advantage to Australian defence. In the more important area of contribution to the prevention of nuclear war, the Democrats and others seem to think that if we can throw out all the American bases-all the ones that communicate with the second-strike weapons, all the ones that monitor the possibility of the launch of a first strike from the Soviet Union, all the ones that can monitor adherence to a test ban treaty or monitor of the development of new weapons-somehow we would be excluded or excused from the effects of a global nuclear war. That is sheer fantasy. As I said at the outset, if there is a global nuclear war, there will be no place on earth to hide. Surely, our aim must be to prevent the outbreak of such a war. The American facilities in Australia are all contributing to making it less likely that such a war will break out. To permit the presence of the American bases is in the interests of Australia and of the rest of the world. It is a contribution we uniquely can make because of our geographical situation. I think it would be an act of gross disservice both to the Australian community and to the rest of the world to act as the Democrats would have us act and try to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, to go into isolation and hope foolishly and hopelessly that we would in some way be exempt from the effect of a global nuclear war. The thrust of Senator Chaney's amendment is to stress the importance of ANZUS and of our linkage with America. It is aimed at reducing the possibility of a global war and at encouraging disarmament. They are very important points. It is interesting to see what is left out of what Senator Gareth Evans has foreshadowed as an alternative amendment. The two points in the proposed amendment are substantially the same, although slightly reworded, as Senator Chaney's amendment. But Senator Evans, for the Australian Labor Party, has left out the part of Senator Chaney's amendment which states: (1) The Senate is of the opinion that: . . . (b) unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. Do I take from the failure to refer to unilateral disarmament measures that the Government believes that such measures will not undermine the cause of peace? Is the Government in favour of unilateral disarmament measures? For some reason Senator Evans has foreshadowed an amendment which would have the effect of deleting that intent. I do not understand it. I have may suspicions about what is meant. I think it is a most undesirable amendment. If the Government really were to examine Senator Chaney's amendment, I cannot see what it could object to. I repeat that the purpose of the ANZUS Treaty, the purpose of our adhering to it and the purpose of our accepting the obligations we have as a treaty partner are to strengthen Australian defence, to make a significant contribution to the prevention of a global nuclear war and to encourage disarmament. These are noble objectives, ones which I believe all Australians should strongly support. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.03) —I wish to speak to the amendment moved by Senator Chaney to the original motion that the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill be read a second time. On 12 September last year I spoke on the original Bill. I believe that Senator Chaney and other speakers in the points of view they have put forward in this debate have actually succeeded in missing what seems to me to be a critical and crucial question, namely, whether or not in the exuberance of the debate the senators who have been proposing to oppose the Bill that the Australian Democrats have brought forward have gone beyond discussion of that Bill. I find that that is the case in regard to the amendment moved by Senator Chaney. These senators have gone beyond the subject of the Bill in such a way that I am forced to ask whether any senator proposes or supports the use of nuclear weapons. I believe that the criticalness of that question has been missed in much of the debate because on that question really hinges what type of activity we feel able and capable of undertaking as a country and as part of the human race. Is it the case that honourable senators are in agreement with Admiral Gayler, who was the former Commander-in-Chief of the United States Forces in the Pacific, when he made a statement three years ago that there was no sensible military use for any of our nuclear forces? I hope that every senator in this place would actually agree with such a statement. If they do agree with such a statement, they have therefore been arguing the absolute and crucial necessity to have forces which we have no intention of ever using. That argument displays the essential lack of logic in what is being put forward in opposition to our proposal. If honourable senators do not agree with that statement, presumably they are asserting, albeit should an unusual situation arise, that they will still ultimately support Australia's involvement in alliances that intend to use nuclear weapons. I am speaking quite specifically on this point because speaker after speaker in this debate has raised the question of intentions. For example, Senator Georges said that he would not vote for the Bill because he doubted our intentions. Other speakers, such as Senator Walters, have suggested that we have anti-American and pro-Soviet intentions. Intentions have been a focal point on which many speakers have hung their contributions to this debate. I wish to put forward my intentions and beliefs in this area. The stand that I am taking is one that I have taken for a long period, both in my political career and preceding it. In taking such a stand I do not believe that I am being disloyal to the Western alliance or to my country; rather I believe that this stand reflects the desire I have for the continuation of the human race. I believe that on an issue like the nuclear arms race we are all forced to take a stance. The stance that we take must be one that supersedes our allegiance to political parties and to various groups. My basic belief is that all nuclear war is immoral because I cannot perceive of any situation which could justify the obliteration of the human race. I believe, and I believe it is accepted by most people who have religious or moral beliefs, that the intention to commit an act is of the same moral quality as committing that act. To intend to use nuclear weapons is to intend to bring about the mass destruction of the human race. I believe this is immoral. Therefore, I believe that participation in any intention to use nuclear weapons-that, after all, is precisely what deterrence is; there is no intention to use nuclear weapons, there is no such concept-is an intention to commit mass suicide and mass murder. I believe that if each individual has eventually to confront this question he ought not to confront it on the basis of politics or partisan allegiances but he should confront it within himself, taking account of his moral stance. I quote from an encyclical letter of Pope Paul VI entitled 'On the Developments of Peoples' in which he said: While so many people are going hungry, while so many families are suffering destitution, while so many people spend their lives submerged in the darkness of ignorance, while so many schools, hospitals, homes worthy of the name, are needed, every public or private squandering . . . every financially depleting arms race-all these we say become a scandalous and intolerable crime. The most serious obligation enjoined on us demands that we openly denounce it. Those are true, powerful words which ultimately, if one accepts them, direct the stance that one may take in this regard, but the response to our Bill is that such a position is naive. Honourable senators who have taken part in this debate have already said that we are naive, and have said worse. I believe that it is even more naive to think we can continue a nuclear arms race that does not lead to the devastation of the human race. If there are any here who believe that, they should put it on record. I have been told in this debate by at least two honourable senators that disarmament in the face of apparent Soviet intentions is insanity. I cannot but observe that nuclear armament is itself the very antithesis of sanity. We must choose, first personally and then nationally, not to participate in this immoral race. Disarmament, personally and nationally, is the choice to stop this insane competition. We must bring ourselves up short in this frantic activity of destruction and examine the incredible state to which we have brought ourselves and the more incredible direction in which we intend to take the world. From a moral standpoint-I believe this is shared by every religious tradition I know of-there can be no justification whatever for the killing of millions of people, much less the extermination of the entire human race. The intention alone to wage nuclear war is an inconceivable sin. That intention can never be morally justified, and if we cannot morally use such arms or intend to use them, how can we justify having them? As Australians we have proclaimed to the world that we are prepared-reluctantly perhaps, but we are prepared-to kill tens and hundreds of millions of human beings. That is what we have said, reluctantly, but we are prepared to do that, and we are prepared to use nuclear weapons. That is what this Government has said, and it is this Government's official policy. In supporting deterrence, it has to be that. The logic of the argument requires it to be that, because there is no deterrent without intention and no moral stance that can separate that intention from the act. Further, we have now taken the additional step of enmeshing ourselves in the intention to undertake that act if the government of those people should attack us, and to contemplate the necessity of attacking it prior to any attack on ourselves. The suggestion that that cannot be contemplated is absurd. Not only has it been contemplated but it has been contemplated at the very highest level. We are all aware of the discussions that have taken place since the possession of nuclear weapons, both in the United States and in the Soviet Union, at various stages of contemplating such a pre-emptive use. Governments in such times are not likely to act rationally, morally or reasonably. I do not believe there is any moral or international law that can support us in taking a posture of enmeshing ourselves in that type of alliance. The Second Vatican Council made an interesting point when it said: Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and humanity itself. That is ultimately where one must stand. Initially, one must take a personal moral stance. On this matter we are not talking at the level of the type of metaphor that has been bandied about in this debate. We are not talking at the level of the schoolyard bully. If I may examine that analogy, we are talking about the difference between a punch-up and wiping out the entire school. Those analogies no longer hold, for the reason that we are not talking about conventional warfare. We are talking about something that is materially different-and it is different in kind, not just in degree. This is where constantly the arguments break down. Analogies are drawn as though this were a mere continuation of the Second World War. Senator Chaney, for example, raised the issue of Munich and, presumably, the issue of appeasement, as though that had a bearing on what is now a materially different situation. It is a situation in which there is no discussion as to where we will go afterwards, since there will not be an afterwards. The discussion must be on prevention. We will not get into a stand-off or a fight. We will merely get closer and closer to annihilation. I believe, as Senator Hamer put the matter in his contribution, that the argument revolves around not considerations of that type but rather the considerations on which he and I still disagree-at least I believe that they are the correct considerations-as to how one should move to prevent nuclear war. There are people in this place, who are relatively representative of the wider community, who feel that it is morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons. I am not one of those people. My political stance is informed by that moral stance I take. I put that on the record because the debate has been about what our intentions are in bringing in this Bill and that is my intention in supporting it. I believe that we are duty bound to take whatever steps lie within our grasp. We are not talking about moving a law to ban the Soviet Union in this area because we have no jurisdiction in that area. This House must be able to look at our actions and our activities. I am quite happy for any of those honourable senators who have raised what I consider to be basically a scurrilous and schoolboy debating point in that regard to look back through the speeches that I have made, through the Press releases that I have issued and through the speeches that I have given outside this place on my abhorrence not only of what the United States is doing but also of what the Soviet Union is doing. I make no distinction between those two because on a moral ground there are no distinctions to be made. I believe that that is where we must go and where we must look. We have brought forward a Bill aimed at what this country may do in that area. Senator Hamer said that it was 'cutting ourselves off'. I believe rather that what we were seeking to do was to link ourselves with like-minded people around the world. I agree that they are certainly not in the majority, but a number of countries have taken this stance and certainly people in every country wish to take such a stance. Since 1957 Denmark, a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation country, has refused to have nuclear weapons on its territory. India has not accepted the United States policy of refusing to confirm or deny whether nuclear weapons are on ships and hence does not accept United States warships. The Association of South East Asian Nations has agreed to create a nuclear weapons-free zone, banning the transit of all nuclear armed ships. All members of the South Pacific Forum, with the exception of Australia, want to adopt the same position as New Zealand. In other words, there are countries such as Australia which are not powerful and determinant in what will eventually happen, but which are countries, I believe, of good will, and which seek to say to the United States and to the Soviet Union that the insanity upon which they are launched is an insanity that involves not only them but also us. I agree with the point that Senator Hamer raised when he said that if such a war breaks out we will definitely be involved. Certainly one can look at the speeches that the Australian Democrats have made in this regard. We have never suggested that we would not be involved. After all, that is the point we are raising, that we are intimately involved. Because we are intimately involved it is all so important for us to take some type of stand, some type of step forward. It may be small and it may even be designated as symbolic, but it is a hope that it is a step forward. It is not anti-American. Senator Mason, when he spoke to the motion for the second reading of this Bill, said that he was part of that million people in New York who marched on this very issue. Last year I was in the United States at the Democratic Party Convention. The types of points that we have been proposing in this Senate were proposed by each major speaker on that platform. They were not successful and they did not have the majority support in the United States; nevertheless a significant group of people in the United States did vote for Mondale in the presidential election and he voiced in his speech at the Convention views identical to those we have voiced here, saying that that is where the United States ought be moving. The Bill is not anti-American. Indeed, it is a seeking of a new view and a new way. We can certainly disagree over whether or not these are the correct tactics, but they are certainly not seeking to divide us from the United States or from any other like-minded people in the world. The final point which I wish to make and which has been made before by my colleagues is that war, when eventually waged, may very well be waged at the initiation of governments, but is waged always on people. If we wish to whip ourselves into that paranoic state of frenzy in relation to the Soviet Union and want us to declare ourselves anti-Soviet Union, I wish to make the distinction, as I have made a distinction in relation to the United States, that the vast bulk of people in Russia, as in the United States, desire only to live out their lives in their own family and in their own work. They do not desire the destruction of any other country. I cannot say that that is necessarily the view of the octogenarian leaders, but then again in that country the people do not have any control over their leaders. We, in a democratic country, say that we are ultimately the representatives of the people and that our obligation extends to our own people, but I believe we also have a moral obligation to consider ourselves the representatives of people in the world. The actions which we take in this country and in our alliances will determine not only the fate of people in the geographical boundaries that we draw in calling ourselves Australians but also now the fate of the whole of the earth which, under this new nuclear regime, those boundaries in fact encompass. No longer can we permit ourselves to think in those insular terms; we must take that wider view. It is not presumptuous to take that wider view, as I believe it will be immoral not to take such a view. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.28) —I have listened with some interest to the speech just delivered by Senator Macklin and object to some of the inferences in that speech. He implied that some honourable senators in this place would advocate the use of nuclear weapons. I thought that at the outset of the debate, particularly in the speech that you contributed, Mr Deputy President, you made it quite clear that we are all against the use of nuclear weapons and that we are all in favour of bilateral or multilateral disarmament. It seems to me that the speeches that have been made by the Australian Democrats lean towards unilateral disarmament. I must confess that when I first heard of the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill being brought forward by Senator Chipp I found it almost unbelievable, until I heard his speech. He is a former Minister of State for the Navy and a Minister of the Crown in another area of responsibility. I can recall him, when I was in the House of Representatives at the same time, defending the ANZUS Treaty. I was going to look up the reference to it but the National Times of 8 February compared Senator Chipp's attitude now, when he derides the ANZUS Treaty as a con, with what Mr Chipp, as he was then in Parliament, said in 1969. He 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 on this side of the House who still believes that the ANZUS treaty is the most precious piece of paper in Australian archives. He went on to say other things. I just cannot believe that Senator Chipp could completely change his views in the way in which he apparently has, particularly in view of the fact that the Asia-Pacific region is a most significant region as far as Australia is concerned. The fact that since World War II the Soviet Union has conducted the biggest military and naval build-up in this region is quite significant. I heard Senator Walters quote from an article which referred to General Sejna, who was the Chief of Staff to the Czechoslovakian Minister for Defence. He wrote a book called We Will Bury You. Senator Walters quoted words that were used in that book by a most influential member of the Soviet hierarchy, Boris Ponamarev. He said, among other things, to his comrades: . . . you must understand that if we wish to control Asia we must first control Australia. It seems to me that this Bill poses a threat to the ANZUS Treaty and is a dangerous movement towards its destabilisation. Therefore I cannot support it. The Opposition has put forward an amendment to the second reading of the Bill proposing, I believe, a sensible approach; that is, that we support continued access for United States and United Kingdom nuclear powered ships and nuclear capable ships as that is vital for the maintenance of peace and an effective stable deterrence. Unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. Senator Hamer said earlier that it is not a question of disagreement with the proposition of nuclear disarmament; it is a question of the means by which we achieve that ultimate goal. Senator Macklin said that some of us may support the use of nuclear weapons. That is not true. I venture to say that no one in this chamber would support the use of nuclear weapons, but I think the following is an interesting question to pose and should be posed: If the United States had no nuclear capability, is it not reasonable to expect that other, more unscrupulous, countries would be tempted to use nuclear weapons and cause tremendous devastation and death that we would all oppose most emphatically? A number of articles have been written about this matter in recent times. An article in the South Australian News on the 13th of this month with the headline 'US warns of Soviet Viet base', referred to Cam Ranh Bay as the base port for 26 Soviet ships and a number of submarines, minesweepers and aircraft being capable of being launched for sea and air attacks. It said that the base posed a potential threat to the sea lanes in the area. We see other headlines, equally dramatic, referring to the Soviet build-up in the Pacific region. One article that I read with interest also was referred to briefly by Senator Walters. It draws attention to the fact that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been test-firing missiles into the South Pacific region for years without a word of alarm or protest from those who are horrified by either Reagan's immorality or Hawke's secrecy. The article suggests: In fact, the Soviet Union has recently test fired its SS18 (Mk 4), with a range of 16,000 km, and with 10 warheads, each 50 times more destructive than the Nagasaki weapon, into the vicinity of the Cook Islands. One can only admire the sangfroid of the anti-nuclear lobby, which uttered not a word of protest against the Soviet tests while publicly expressing horror at the Americans. Someone said earlier that the Greenpeace people certainly had not been sailing their ships into the areas off the Cook Islands to demonstrate against the Russian build-up in our region of the world. Senator Chipp —When did the Soviets last test near the Cook Islands? Senator JESSOP —Several months ago. The honourable senator should know this, if he has studied it. Senator Chipp —This year? Senator JESSOP —It was last year. As a matter of fact, I attended a very interesting conference in Fiji last year where I heard a paper delivered by Rear Admiral Robert Hanks, the Seventh Fleet commander in the Pacific region. This paper pointed to the importance of the Asia-Pacific region and the trade and the economic advantages of the countries in our region. Hanks also issued a grave warning about the build-up of Soviet interest in the region. He suggested that the Soviets were anxious to establish fishing bases throughout the Pacific region and, of course-- Senator Townley —You know what their fishing boats are. Senator JESSOP —Of course, as Senator Townley interjects, once the Russians establish fishing bases in those areas, they become de facto naval bases as well. Rear Admiral Robert Hanks, who retired a year or two ago, finished the paper by saying: Finally, let me just mention the southwest Pacific. As I've said, the ships operating out of Da Nang and Cam Ranh Bay now pose significant threats to Australia and New Zealand, and it's here that close naval co-operation and air co-operation among the ANZUS Pact Nations (Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.), it seems to me, is essential. Eventually I would like to see the same kinds of exercises recently undertaken. Such exercises were undertaken last year but, of course, these have now been placed in jeopardy by the action of New Zealand. He went on to say: The threats in this part of the world are manifold. The only way we can successfully counter them is through international co-operation. The situation in the Pacific region is quite alarming when we have regard to the numbers of Russian ships that are constantly patrolling that ocean. The Soviet's military expansion in the Pacific has occurred largely in two phases. This was referred to in the Bulletin of 4 September last year. In phase one, from 1965 to 1978, there was a dramatic increase in the numbers of naval vessels in the Pacific. The number of submarines went from 86 to 113 and the number of major surface combatants increased by 20. In phase two, from 1978 onwards, there has been a more qualitative rather than quantitative update. The Bulletin article stated: The United States naval commander in the Pacific, Admiral Sylvester Foley, said recently that while in the past the Soviet Pacific fleet has got 'the leftovers and cast-offs from other fleets, today it gets the most modern ships'. The fleet now has two of the Soviet Navy's four Kiev class carriers. The number of major surface ships has gone from 64 to 84. When one compares that with the United States naval presence, it is quite significantly greater. I believe in the ANZUS pact; I believe it ought to be strengthened. I certainly oppose nuclear war, as we all do. I support a multilateral disarmament program. I have pleasure in supporting the Opposition amendment to this Bill. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.40) —I understand that there has been agreement among all the parties and Senator Harradine that we should move to have a vote on this legislation tonight before the punch up. I have agreed with Senator Chaney to limit my remarks, which were going to be extensive, to three or four minutes. I want to make virtually two points. I am disappointed that my Bill is not going to get the support in terms of a vote of those honourable senators who have expressed agreement with it. They have expressed agreement with its purpose and even its clauses but they say, because I introduced it, because it is a Democrat Bill, they cannot vote for it notwithstanding the fact that is probably one of the most important Bills ever to be brought before an Australian parliament. Whatever their motives, whatever their reasons for saying that, I accept at this stage, and understand when it comes to a vote, that there will be six senators on one side of the House and all other senators on the other side. I make this appeal to honourable senators who said that they agree with the Bill: If they do not like voting for my Bill, they should bring in their own Bill and the Democrats will vote for it. I do not think we can be fairer than that. But I say this: We can give those honourable senators only four weeks to do so. If after four or five weeks they have not availed themselves of that opportunity, we will introduce another Bill in almost identical terms to the one that is now before the Senate. I do not think we can be fairer than that. Senator Tate, in his speech, introduced a very interesting element on the civil liberties aspect of clause 6. We take his point that anything that is a gross infringement of civil liberties should be amended accordingly. We will certainly agree with any amendment to clause 6 which is to Senator Tate's satisfaction and which is contained in a Bill introduced by those Labor senators who believe in the thrust of our legislation. If those Labor senators do not introduce legislation within four or five weeks, the legislation which the Australian Democrats will introduce will accommodate Senator Tate's wishes. I am grateful to those honourable senators who made an objective contribution to the debate and I commend the Bill to the Senate. I ask the Senate to vote against the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Gareth Evans. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It may be of assistance to the Senate if I explain the procedures which will now apply to the resolution of matters before this Chair. The original motion before the Chair is that the Bill be read a second time. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has moved an amendment to leave out all words after 'That' and to insert other words. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, has foreshadowed an amendment to the words proposed to be inserted by Senator Chaney's amendment. This amendment cannot be moved until after the Senate has decided whether to leave out the words proposed to be left out by Senator Chaney's amendment. The first question to be put from the Chair will therefore be that the words proposed to be left out by Senator Chaney's amendment be left out. If this should be agreed to, the next question will be that the words proposed to be inserted be inserted. At that stage Senator Gareth Evans's foreshadowed amendment may be moved and dealt with. I will now put the first question that the words proposed to be left out by Senator Chaney's- Senator Chipp —If the first motion is carried you will put the second motion that the words to be inserted be inserted? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —At that point Senator Gareth Evans's amendment to those words may be moved if he so wishes. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Chaney's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. McKiernan, J. P. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Elstob, R. C. Sheil, G. Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Teague, B. C. Grimes, D. J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hearn, J. M. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Vigor, D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is: 'That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted', to which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has foreshadowed an amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(5.53) —I move: 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.'. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.54) —I acknowledge that a number of honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have very kindly agreed not to speak this afternoon because it was agreed that we should bring this matter to a vote. I acknowledge that on our side Senator Teague and Senator MacGibbon were generous in that respect. I see that Senator Crichton-Browne is waving at me. I take it that he was also generous in his preparedness not to speak. I do not wish to delay the Senate for long, but we do face a procedure which, if it is not carefully explained, might be capable of being misquoted, not least by the Government. We now face a situation where the Government has moved an amendment to the amendment I proposed at the beginning of the debate. The amendment proposed by the Government is, of course, a watering down of what was put forward by the Opposition. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) rose in this place and said: 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 network of alliances that exist around the world are crucial from this point of view. They are a stabilising factor politically and in security terms. It is strange that at the same time the Prime Minister of the country, the Hon. R. J. Hawke, says that in approaching its responsibilities in these matters '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'. I remind the Senate that the Prime Minister of this country is on the record as saying that unilateral disarmament would not be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. Yet Senator Evans has moved an amendment which very carefully removes from what we are proposing to put to the Senate any suggestion that unilateral disarmament is to be avoided. It is important to understand that what the Government is seeking to do is to remove some important elements from the Opposition's motion, elements which make clear what we believe Australia's interests are and elements which we think are important to this debate. What Senator Evans is doing and what the Government is seeking to do is to remove the statement 'That the Senate is of the opinion that unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability' and the expression of concern by the Senate 'at the attempt unilaterally to place restrictions on the military forces of Australia and its allies'. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister of this country, when talking about bases and other matters, made a statement last June which certainly made it quite clear that the Government purported to reject unequivocally the attractive but unrealistic idea that unilateral disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. I wanted to make that explanation because the Opposition's position is as set out in the amendment I have moved on behalf of the Opposition. The present stance of the Government is to seek to water down that statement to remove any reference to the undesirability of unilateral disarmament, and that is not a view which can be supported by the Opposition. I want to make it quite clear and put it on the record that, insofar as the Government has purported to put forward a positive motion which is in accord in part with the views of the Opposition, we are, of course, accepting of that proposition. In other words, we firmly support the need for continued access by allied ships to Australian ports. We see that as a matter of fundamental importance to Australia. I want the Senate and the gentlemen upstairs to understand that what the Australian Labor Party is proposing to do is to weaken-- Senator Gietzelt —You will need to say it in words of one syllable. Senator CHANEY —It is good to hear Labor members saying: 'You will need to say it in words of one syllable'. I am aware of the warnings that were made by honourable senators opposite that they would be briefing the Press in a certain way. I make it quite clear that this attempt by the Labor Party to water down the motion should be seen for what it is. The fact of the matter is that this Opposition believes it is in Australia's interest that there should be access to Australian ports on the part of allied ships. The Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill proposes that that be denied. It is also the view of the Opposition that attempts to unilaterally weaken the United States of America are damaging to the security of the Western alliance and are damaging to our ability to advance world peace and disarmament. They are propositions which apparently the Government is not prepared to subscribe to in these votes. I make it quite clear that we oppose the amendment that has been put forward by the Labor Party. It is a watering down of the Opposition's position. We believe it is totally inconsistent with the view the Government purported to adopt last year. It is inconsistent with the words of the previous Attorney-General in this debate and it is inconsistent with the Prime Minister's statement of last year. We reject the amendment that has been moved by Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-In order to clarify matters on the record, should there be any doubt in anyone's mind as to what is going on, the reasons for the Government rejecting the term of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, were spelled out at length by me in yesterday's debate and may be found at pages 130 to 131 of yesterday's Hansard. The reasons in turn advanced by Senator Chaney for now rejecting the terms of my amendment, containing as it does explicit and unequivocal support for the ANZUS alliance, are a wholly unconvincing and implausible explanation of what can only be construed as a rapid retreat from commitment to that alliance on the part of the tories. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Gareth Evans's amendment to Senator Chaney's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Brownhill, D. Mason, C. V. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Parer, W. R. Chipp, D. L. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Evans, Jack Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Vigor, D. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Knowles, S. C. Coleman, R. N. Rae, PeterGeorges, G. Messner, A. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Chaney's amendment) be inserted. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Missen, A. J. Brownhill, D. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Hearn, J. M. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Evans, Jack Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Rae, Peter Coleman, R. N. Messner, A. J. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —The Senate having agreed to leave out all words after 'That', and having negatived the motions to insert words, the question now before the Chair is meaningless in that we are left with the simple word 'That'. I therefore do not propose to put any further questions to the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and Senator Harradine nominating senators to be members of certain committees. Motions (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following Senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 36AA, be appointed members of the respective Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees: Constitutional and Legal Affairs Senators Bolkus, Cooney, Hill, Missen, Puplick and Tate Education and the Arts Senators Colston, Hearn, Knowles, Parer, Reynolds and Teague Finance and Government Operations Senators Black, Coates, Jack Evans, Richardson, Short and Vanstone Foreign Affairs and Defence Senators Bolkus, Sir John Carrick, Hamer, McIntosh, Primmer and Scott Industry and Trade Senators Archer, Aulich, Brownhill, Childs, Coleman and Short National Resources Senators Boswell, Crichton-Browne, Devlin, Primmer, Townley and Zakharov Science, Technology and the Environment Senators Black, Foreman, Jessop, Jones, Townley and Vigor Social Welfare Senators Crowley, Elstob, Giles, Messner, Sheil and Walters (2) That the following Senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution re-appointing the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, be appointed members of that Committee: Senators Elstob, Harradine, Mason, Peter Rae, Robertson and Sibraa. (3) That the following Senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution reappointing the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, be appointed members of that Committee: Senators Cooney, Crowley, Haines, Missen, Scott and Tate. (4) That a Standing Orders Committee be appointed, to consist of the President, the Deputy-President, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition and Senators Cook, Kilgariff, Macklin, Peter Rae, Robert Ray and Robertson. (5) That a Library Committee be appointed, to consist of the President and Senators Colston, Devlin, Harradine, Maguire, Puplick and Walters. (6) That a House Committee be appointed, to consist of the President and Senators Bjelke-Petersen, Coleman, Knowles, Reynolds, Townley and Zakharov. (7) That a Publications Committee be appointed, to consist of Senators Archer, Brownhill, Colston, Devlin, Elstob, McKiernan and Townley. (8) That a Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances be appointed, to consist of Senators Sir John Carrick, Coates, Cooney, Lewis, Robertson, Vanstone and Zakharov, such Senators having been duly nominated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 36A. (9) That the following Senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with Resolutions reappointing the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes and the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes, be appointed members of the respective Committees: Animal Welfare Senators Jack Evans, Georges, Hearn and Scott Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Senators Bjelke-Petersen, Crowley, Giles, Haines, Walters and Zakharov Volatile Substance Fumes Senators Kilgariff, Reynolds, Robertson and Walters (10) That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, Senators Coleman and Watson be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings; (11) That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, Senators Cooney, Georges, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Maguire and Watson be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts; and (12) That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, Senators Foreman, Jones and Sheil be appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-Because of a communication difficulty that occurred between the Department of Trade and the Department of Resources and Energy during the preparation of the brief from which I answered Senator Richardson today, it appears that I inadvertently misstated the position when reading from that brief. I referred in general terms to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) having approved the rollover of last year's prices of certain non-coking coal contracts. The position is not as clear-cut as my answer suggested. Negotiations are still going on over a broad range of coal qualities and it is premature at this stage to be definitive about the final outcome of those commercial negotiations. What I should have said and what I say now is that with ministerial approval a company has already settled on a rollover basis. I hope that clarifies the record and will not cause any confusion. Senate adjourned at 6.18 p.m. The following paper was presented: Census and Statistics Act-Proposal No. 1 of 1985-List of Names and Addresses of Manufacturing Establishments for Department of Employment and Industrial Relations.