Wednesday, 27 February 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future. The presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression. Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Boswell (from 60 citizens) and Collard (from 133 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law: the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography, e.g. X-rated videos and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; that, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 79 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we strongly oppose the 'A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Jack Evans, because it will adversely affect sporting organisations and small businesses in the A.C.T., it reverses the onus of proof, and represents an unnecessary intrusion by Government into the private affairs of individuals and other groups. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 114 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ''X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/- discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Lajovic (from 221 citizens) and Scott (from 45 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: Upon evidence from within Australia and overseas, the introduction of Plant Variety Rights legislation would not be in Australia's best interests because: 1. Plant genetic resources should remain a public resource; 2. Australia's public plant breeding programmes could be undermined; 3. Such legislation may lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of commercial varieties; 4. There is reason to fear that choices of seed and other plant propagation materials may be restricted due to the controls placed on their use; 5. Plant Varietal Rights legislation could lead to higher costs for the grower, the consumer, the plant-breeder and the tax-payer; 6. Plant Variety Rights will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australia's plant genetic resources; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament ensure that it recognises the widespread public opposition to PVR and promote alternative means of royalty collection for plant breeders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 86 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators MacGibbon (33 citizens) and Short (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned taxpayers of Australia, respectfully show that we deplore the use of taxation funds to allow privileges and travel entitlements for homosexual staff members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, on the same basis as legally married couples. As taxpayers, we humbly request that this decision be reversed immediately and our taxation contribution be used for more urgent needs, such as defence, housing, education, roads, transport and social security benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 546 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore, the decision of the Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately enact laws to ban the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 1,722 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We deplore and oppose the decision of the Federal Government in legislating to allow the importation and distribution of hard-core pornographic video films and material into Australia and the social consequences of this action particularly for our children. We request the Federal Government to re-enact immediately the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and sale of this hard-core pornographic material, until the enquiry into the effects of the current legislation in relation to adults and children has reported to the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 771 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prevent an assets test applying to the rates at which certain pensions, benefits and allowances under the Social Security Act 1947 or the Repatriation Act 1920 are payable. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- (1) Joint Coal Board-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 20 (2) and 20 (3) of the Coal Industry Act 1946-the report also includes a report on the coal mining industry. (2) Department of Social Security-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 148 (1) of the Social Security Act 1947. (3) Commissioner for Employees Compensation-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 122 (1) of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. (4) Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee-Annual Report 1983. (5) United Nations General Assembly-Report of the Australian Delegation 38th session 1983. (6) A.C.T. Schools Authority-Annual Report &Interim Financial Statements-pursuant to section 63M of the Audit Act 1901. (7) A.C.T. Schools Authority-Financial Statements 1982-83. (8) Independent Schools (Loan Guarantee)-Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1969. Motion (by Senator Childs)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges: The question of what penalties, if any, might, in the Committee's opinion, be appropriate with respect to the serious contempts of the Senate constituted by certain publications in The National Times the subject of the Committee's Report, tabled on 17 October 1984 and adopted by the Senate on 24 October 1984. (2) That for the purpose of its inquiry and report: (a) the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to sit in public or private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives; (b) the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public; and (c) the Committee have power to consider the minutes of evidence and records of the Committee of Privileges of the previous Parliament. (3) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The PRESIDENT —I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business. Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Robert Ray for reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations-is this formal or not formal? Senator CHANEY —Not formal. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I just want to indicate to the Senate that the reason I called 'not formal' is that the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has just been reconstituted with substantially new membership. I think it would be useful if this motion were simply held over until the new membership of the Committee had a chance to look at it. I understand the motion flows from a recommendation of Estimates Committee A. It appears on the face of it to be an unexceptionable reference. But since the Committee already has several references before it, I think it would be useful if we at least had the opinion of the Committee as to whether this matter should be dealt with in this way. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Robert Ray relating to a proposed reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, be postponed till the next day of sitting. The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Aulich, I remind honourable senators that this will be a maiden speech. I ask that the honourable senator be extended the usual courtesies. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(10.08) —I move: That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: To his Excellency the Governor-General May it please Your Excellency- We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. First, may I congratulate you, Mr President, and your deputy on your re-election and pay my respects and congratulations to those who have sat in this chamber before us and to those who have been elected recently. From a perusal of the records I understand that something like 390 senators, that small number, have had that honour since Federation. As has probably occurred to many here, last week's ceremony, the opening of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, could be the last to be held in this particular Parliament House. It would be remiss if I failed to recognise the contribution of the architect, Walter Burley Griffin, towards the design and construction of this Parliament House that is now an instantly recognisable part of this nation's heritage. Like all Parliament Houses in Australia, it does reflect accurately and with integrity the aspirations of those people who commissioned it. I have often been in this Parliament House, sir, although, I must admit, never quite as close to you as I am now. During those visits I was always impressed with the beauty of Parliament House and it surroundings. I like the place as a living part of Australia's history and I will regret moving from here in a few years time. I mention this because I believe this chamber and its members should be the first to recognise excellence wherever it occurs, and for that reason I wish formally to record my tribute to Walter Burley Griffin. I also wish on a personal note to pay a tribute to those who worked to have me elected to this chamber. Given the vagaries of pre-selection systems, the numeracy required to be elected here and the thousands of candidates who have sought entry to this House, I think it is fair to say that many are chosen but few get the call. I also wish to pay a tribute to those who have managed to give me the chance to get the call; they have been mainly friends and supporters who have given me assistance and advice over a very long period. I must thank my wife and family for the way in which they gave me that assistance through the ups and downs of my relatively long political career as a State member of parliament, State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party and then a Senate candidate. I recognise also the loyalty and support of my former employer, the Tasmanian Teachers Federation, as well as the self-sacrificing work of my assistant and political colleague, Steve Daley. It is my hope that for once in politics this place will be a venue where a national debt is repaid with interest. My arrival here has been part of a resurgence of the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania-a resurgence which may not have been reflected accurately in the House of Representatives results but which certainly was reflected in a 9 per cent swing in Tasmania towards the Labor Party in the Senate in Tasmania on 1 December. I mention this because a large part of that swing to Labor in Tasmania was due to the return of traditional Labor supporters to the Party that some had temporarily deserted. It is the position of many of those mainstream supporters, possibly of both major parties, that interests me particularly as a parliamentarian. There is little doubt that out in the electorate a majority of citizens watch with a mixture of resentment and concern the way in which the political agenda is being rewritten by single issue groups, in many cases vocal and well organised. Those citizens also watch with concern the political parties which occasionally give in to those all or nothing campaigns that are generated by single issue groups. I in no way devalue radical or reformist viewpoints. They are essential to a healthy and a flexible society. However, in an age when the media are hungry to give single issue groups ready prominence, it is hard to escape the conclusion that we have approached a point at which decibel politics-that is, the politics of those who shout loudest and longest-is becoming the order of the day. I represent Australia's oldest political party, the Australian Labor Party, one of the few reformist parties in the democratic world which are capable of forming a government in their own right. I understand that only four current governments representing a similar part of the political spectrum have been able to form government without coalition anywhere in the world. That electoral record has been due to the way in which the Australian Labor Party has been able to blend reformist viewpoints or policies with those that are held by a majority of Australia's citizens. Twice now this Government has been given the mandate to implement a broad reformist program and it is the obligation of this chamber to debate constructively the implementation of that program. As was the case with nine other parliaments since 1949, the Government does not have a majority in its own right in this chamber, and we will watch with interest the approach taken by the Independent, the Australian Democrats and the Nuclear Disarmament Party to forthcoming legislation. The last Parliament saw a mixed reception for important Government Bills, including the emasculation of initiatives to recoup further taxation from bottom of the harbour participants. This session it will be difficult indeed for those who hold the balance of power to deny that the Government has a mandate to stamp out tax evasion in the most effective manner. The vast majority of Australians want action now to make everyone pay his fair share. Their views will no doubt be expressed during the forthcoming and long overdue review of Australia's taxation system. The Government expressed its basic policy on tax reform on 31 October 1984. The nine basic principles with regard to taxation reform were known prior to the election of 1 December 1984. The Government's re-election, therefore, must be a major factor in the minds of honourable senators when they debate tax evasion legislation that will be re-introduced into this chamber in the near future. Mr President, with your indulgence, I wish to expand a little on this question of mainstream politics and the fundamental attack being waged on that concept by the single issue groups mentioned at the beginning of my speech. I and other Labor senators from Tasmania represent a Senate vote of about 100,000 depending, as it were, on the vintage and the consumer response in any given year. Most of those we represent do not belong to an association or a society for the prevention of this, the protection of that or the development of so and so. Most work for a wage or a salary, some in difficult and uncongenial surroundings. Some, in fact, enjoy less occupational security than politicians. Most find it difficult to raise families and keep their heads financially above water, if the mean average weekly wage of $294 in Tasmania is anything to go by. Some, indeed many, work in industries for companies with names such as Comalco, Temco, EZ Industries Ltd, Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd and ANM Wood Products Pty Ltd. Some have been told by comfortable armchair critics that the companies they work for will soon be packing their bags and leaving the State. Indeed, one of our Senate colleagues from the Democrats, soon to take this place on 30 June, confidently predicted that one of Tasmania's largest employers, Comalco, would have deserted Tasmania by 1984. On 12 March 1980 Senator-elect Sanders, then a Democrat member of State parliament, predicted that by 1984 Comalco would be closing down to concentrate its production at Gladstone in Queensland. Unless I am suffering from some effects of a special Tasmanian time warp-I have heard reference to that in this chamber from time to time-it is now 1985 and that careless and simplistic prediction has not eventuated. Comalco is still in Tasmania, production has lifted, a new pot line has been installed, and the company is still employing people, most of whom do not consider Senator-elect Sanders their favourite flavour of the month. This is not the first time that single-issue Jeremiahs have written off the major employing industries in Tasmania. Much of what I have said, of course, holds true for the manufacturing sector elsewhere in Australia. The need to compete, the need to restructure, to increase downstreaming of the manufacturing base, is acknowledged. I pay tribute to the work done by my colleague Senator John Button, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in areas such as the motor vehicle industry. However, as caring parliamentarians, all of us have a responsibility to protect those who work in industries that are the subject of constant criticism and occasional real political attack. Mr President, this may well be the appropriate opportunity to remind honourable senators of the jobs involved in some of those much maligned development-based industries in Tasmania. The employment statistics for just six of those companies are as follows: Temco, 427; Comalco, 1290; APPM, 3095; EZ, 2670; ANM, 1400; and Goliath Cement Holdings, 480-in all, some 9362 jobs between just six companies, without making any effort to calculate the indirect employment results. That, in fact, is about 3000 more than the number of jobs offered by all the Queensland sugar farms put together. It is getting close to half of all the people employed in the steel industry in Australia, which is a significant part of Australia's manufacturing base. It is obvious, just from those direct employment statistics, that those major industries still make a significant contribution to the Tasmanian economy, a significant contribution indeed to the well-being of Tasmanian workers. Finally, Mr President, may I conclude by briefly canvassing one of the issues that forms part of the mandate given to this Government on 1 December 1984. I refer to the question of nuclear disarmament and the increasing concern voiced universally about the dangers of a continuing arms race between the super-powers. There has been an attempt to portray the Australian Labor Party as a party that has no will to bring about an end to the insane arms race that threatens us all. During the last election campaign the Democrats attempted to do so, until their mantle of calculated moral indignation was lifted from them in mid-election by the Nuclear Disarmament Party. In a chamber where proportional representation gives minor parties and single issue groups more than adequate representation, it is highly likely that we will see the Democrats attempt to wrest that mantle back from the NDP over the next three years. The Government will not hitch a ride on anti-nuclear bandwagons. To go down that track is too easy. We will work towards a nuclear arms freeze and eventual multilateral disarmament. Our work will be as a sensible, effective and independent ally of the United States. The Government sees no value in unilateral disarmament, antagonism towards the United States, or other fashionable fringe viewpoints. One of those fashionable viewpoints must surely be the concept of an isolationist policy aimed at distancing ourselves from those of our allies that have a nuclear capacity. It will be my intention to point out in all appropriate forums wherever I can the fallacy of unilateral disarmament and isolationism, to point out that it is not possible to separate the dangers posed by either conventional or nuclear war. This country cannot exempt itself from the consequences of nuclear war simply by withholding uranium from the rest of the world, keeping out nuclear ships, or declaring, for example, Brunswick Heads a nuclear-free municipality. All the experts now tell us that the nuclear holocaust, and the resultant nuclear winter will destroy all human life wherever it is. So in Senator Sir John Carrick's terms, cosmically it is irrelevant if New Zealanders, for example, refuse to let nuclear-powered ships into their ports. The New Zealanders will suffer the consequences of a nuclear holocaust, like everyone else, if the button is pushed. The button may well be pushed if one side or the other has a technical lead that far outstrips the other, or when one of the super-powers is in imminent threat of defeat with conventional weapons, especially if the other side is without a nuclear capacity. As an example-I believe we should always look to history-details of the relationship between General MacArthur and the then United States President Harry Truman are only now beginning to show how seriously the nuclear alternative was being considered in the darker days of the Korean War, at a time when one of the enemies, China, had no nuclear capacity. On 27 January 1954 General Douglas MacArthur gave an interview to the New York Times which was published shortly after his death. In that interview he indicated his secret plan, as he put it, for ending the Korean War at a time when the United States of America was in deep trouble in that conflict. I quote from his interview: Of all the campaigns of my life, 20 major ones to be exact, the one I felt most sure of was the one I was deprived of waging. I could have won the war in Korea- how often do we hear that- in a maximum of 10 days, with considerably fewer casualties than were suffered during the so-called truce period. And it would have altered the course of history. The enemy's air (power) would first have been taken out. I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria . . . He finished the interview by saying: . . . between 30 and 50 atomic bombs would have more than done the job. At a Press conference during the Korean conflict, MacArthur's position was put just as bluntly by President Truman. He was asked by Merriman Smith from the United Press whether the use of the atomic bomb was under active consideration. Truman, in his usual blunt way, replied: Always has been. It is one of our weapons. Further examples of the active consideration of a nuclear attack on an enemy not armed with nuclear weapons can be found at the time of the Cuban crisis in 1962. If people care to look at the diary of Robert Kennedy they will see how close the voting actually went on a decision to make a pre-emptive strike against Cuba at the time. The French, who were then beleaguered at Dien Bien Phu in Indo-China in the early 1950s, requested from the United States air support and the strategic use of nuclear weapons. The point I am making is that unilateral disarmament, or no nuclear capacity in the first place anywhere in an alliance, renders only one side-that is, the side without that capacity-more vulnerable if the other side retains its nuclear capacity. So those who call for unilateral nuclear disarmament are not reading history. My guess is that they may well be condemned to repeat it. Two statements express the Government's stand most clearly. I will quote from them. The first is from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who said in January 1984: We work unabashedly through international fora for arms control and disarmament, nuclear and conventional. Our involvement with the United States gives us a much greater claim to be heard on these matters internationally. There is much greater weight behind our declarations on this subject precisely because we are sensible enough to support the only effective nuclear restraint system at the moment, deterrence, but intelligent enough to worry about the escalation, the excessive armouries, to want something better and to work for it openly and energetically. The second is from the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Parliament on 6 June 1984. The Prime Minister said: We intend to continue to pursue these issues vigorously with both super-powers. If allies of the United States do not press their concerns about arms control on the USSR, the Soviet Leaders may be tempted to sit back and permit one-sided pressure to build in Washington. Mr Hayden's vigorous advocacy of these issues in Moscow and the response he was given by Mr Gromyko demonstrate our alliance with the United States is no barrier to Australia's voice being heard in the Soviet Union. Our position has been supported by the majority of Australian electors, by those electors who are concerned but respect the Government's policies propounded in the Cabinet decision of 22 November 1983. It may well be helpful to finish by reminding senators about those decisions. They were: Firstly, to promote measures to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race; secondly, to uphold the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; thirdly, to promote a comprehensive and verifiable ban on nuclear testing; fourthly, to develop the concept of a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific; fifthly, to support the achievement of an agreement to ban chemical weapons; sixthly, to support the process of negotiation and the achievement of balanced and verifiable arms control agreements; seventhly, to take an active role in pursuing arms control and disarmament measures wherever possible; and eighthly, to affirm Australia's readiness to join a consensus to hold an international conference on the Indian Ocean zone of peace questions. It is my sincere wish that these principles will be the principles that govern our actions in this chamber on all matters relating to arms control and disarmament. A majority of ordinary Australian electors clearly expect that to be the case. The PRESIDENT —Before calling on Senator Cooney to second the Address-in-Reply I remind honourable senators that this will be his initial speech in this chamber, and I ask that the honourable senator also be extended the usual courtesies. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.26) —Mr President, I second the motion so eloquently moved by my colleague Senator Aulich. Last Thursday His Excellency the Governor-General spoke to the members of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Sixty-second session of that body. The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia is defined in chapter I, section 1, Part I of the Constitution as consisting of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Constitution has established the Senate as one of the two Houses which legislate for the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a House of great power, as its history has shown-at times in the most dramatic of ways. It is incumbent upon it to use that power responsibly. I pray that I will discharge my duty as a member of it honourably. The Senate originally consisted of six members from each State. Those numbers were increased on 22 February 1950 to 10, and again increased last Thursday to 12, pursuant to the provisions of the Representation Act 1983. I am part of that increment and so are 11 others, they being Senators Puplick and Brownhill from New South Wales, Senators Sheil and Black from Queensland, Senators Vanstone and Vigor from South Australia, Senators Aulich and Devlin from Tasmania, Senator Short from Victoria and Senators McKiernan and Knowles from Western Australia. Having met them all, I say with respect, Mr President, that they are all assets to this chamber. I congratulate them on their election. I also congratulate Senator Parer, whose arrival in this chamber was by a route different from that taken by the other senators I have mentioned. My meetings with him leads me to say that he too will be an asset to this place. I have been elected to this place by the people of Victoria. I express my respectful thanks to them. My resolve is to serve them well. From the Wimmera Plain to the Monaro Fall, from the south Victorian uplands to the Murray lowlands, Victoria is a glorious State. Its people have contributed mightily to the history of this nation. I wish her well on her 150th birthday. May she flourish and grow while the Cross shines in the southern skies. I was elected to this place because of my endorsement by the Australian Labor Party. That is a party with a mighty history. It has now woven a rich tapestry over many decades. I am honoured to be a member of it in this place. It is conventional and proper for a maiden speech to contain expressions of gratitude to those who have helped and guided the maker of the speech over the years. I make that expression not only as a matter of convention and propriety but also as a matter of conviction. In this context I mention in pride of place my wife, Lillian, and my children, Sean, Justin, Jerome and Megan and my youngest daughter, Geraldine, now dead. My family has provided the most joyous part of my life and I intend hereafter to keep it as the most important factor in it. The child is father to the man. My parents nurtured my childhood and I acknowledge that. Unfortunately, that acknowledgement is posthumous. I thank my brothers and sister for their support over the years. I thank the friends and relatives who have helped and guided me over the course of my life. I thank those without whom I would not be here. I owe unpayable debts to such people. I have listed names in a note but I now discard that. Naming names expresses an order of priorities which can lead to offence. I hope that those to whom I owe thanks understand that and accept this general confession of indebtedness to them all. The week before last new senators went through a familiarisation process. It was highly successful. I recommend that it be made available to all new senators who may hereafter come into this place. I thank you, Mr President, for the part you played in it and, through you, Senators Kilgariff and Robertson for the parts they played. In that context, and again through you, Mr President, I express my gratitude to the Clerk, Mr Cumming Thom, and those who serve in his office. Their help has been mighty. Since I have been in the Senate the staff in this place has displayed such courtesy and willingness to help as to be almost prodigal. I thank them all. Last Thursday His Excellency told this Parliament: The Government believes that economic growth is not an end in itself, but a means to greater ends-a means towards the achievement of high social goals of equity and fairness. Economic management, economic growth and economic endeavour are not amongst the great aspirations of men and women. Rather they are parts of the vehicle to those aspirations. They have merit insofar as they enable the realisation of high purpose. The great aspirations of mankind have been expressed in the past by soaring words and inspiring actions. Three thousand five hundred years ago one of the towering figures in human history led a people into the desert in vindication of their right to freedom. His command 'Let my people go' had finally been heeded. Two thousand years ago the founder of one of the world's greatest religions proclaimed the community of the world's people and the entitlement of all to share in it with dignity and freedom. A great American leader 22 years ago told us of a dream he had where the whole human race could join in singing: 'Free at last! Free at last! Great God Almighty we are free at last'! People yearn for peace, freedom, equity and community. All people have a right to those things. On a map of the world there are blots where those rights are denied by the very governments whose duty it is to foster them. Torture, enslavement, murder and degradation are pursued as policies of state. Happily, Australians are free of those gross assaults by government. Unhappily, there are factors in Australia which inhibit people from obtaining that quality of peace, freedom, equity and community to which their humanity makes them inherently entitled. Those factors include poverty, insecurity in the work place, lack of power and devaluation of civil liberties. I make the following comments about those factors and hope to expand on them later in the life of this Parliament. Poverty is the lot of a horrifying number of Australians, unemployed and employed alike. City and country folk are afflicted by it. I give one example; a man who is a clerk. He is married with a dependant wife and two children. He earns $202.50 a week net which, after fares are paid, amounts to $188.50. If he were on social security benefits he would receive $191.30. The poverty line for a husband and wife and two children is $227.60. The shop floor, the manager's office, the small and large business houses, the farms are all vulnerable to job insecurity. It is a haunting spectre which the Parliament has struggled now for some years to banish. It is a crucial struggle, and while in this place I hope to join it worthily. A strong and growing economy can diminish and, hopefully, eliminate poverty and insecurity in the work place. It is for this reason that economic health and economic growth are part of the infrastructure that enables man-I use that term in its generic sense-to realise his great aspirations. A vibrant economy needs competent and committed workers and competent and committed managers. Analysis of the economic problems of Australia tends to concentrate on the deficiencies and costs of workers rather than on those of managers. There is much evidence that Australian manufacturing industry is managed at a journeyman level. If it were as well managed as our rural sector the economic problems may well be markedly reduced. Power corrupts; lack of power corrodes absolutely. People who are powerless to give at least minimum expression to their needs are at risk of being rendered hopeless, desperate, alienated, physically ill, mentally ill, or a combination of two or more of those things. Until recent times the Aborigines, the founders of the first civilisation in this country, were powerless, with results which there have been belated and at times meagre attempts to reverse. The unemployed, non-English-speaking migrants, particularly women, families in which poverty is endemic, all lack power and all suffer grievously as a consequence. The more they can be effectively equipped with power the more likely it is that their social distress will be abated and the community as a whole benefit. A sentiment becoming more pervasive in this society is that those who advocate the primacy of civil liberties weaken the fabric of society. In July 1983 Mr Frank Vincent, a leading Melbourne silk, in addressing the National Crime Commission conference in this chamber, said about civil liberties: We need to appreciate that those liberties must not be conceived of as standing in the way of an ordered and properly run society but represent the values of that society and the value of that society. The Victorian Bar has been and is a strong one. It has had many outstanding counsel over the years. Amongst the foremost has been Mr Laurie, of Her Majesty's Counsel. He had particular sensitivity to the issue of civil liberties. At the height of the Cold War he appeared as successful counsel in the Australian Communist Party and Others v. the Commonwealth and Others. But for that case and the subsequent referendum, Australia would now be a less democratic and a more repressive society. Courage to undertake an unpopular action, willingness to suffer financially for principle, marked powers of persuasion, and the character of a true man were qualities he showed. They are priceless qualities and most worthy of emulation. Freedom, community and dignity for all would be close to realisation if such qualities permeated more widely. I am now a back bench parliamentarian. It is a worthy and honourable role. Members of the Tudor and Stuart parliaments would find that role familiar and the presence here of the Ministry and shadow Ministry strange. I am proud to sit on the outside edge of the legislative horseshoe of this chamber. Parliament has been much affected by the drawing from it of the Ministry. There have been advantages and disadvantages in that. One disadvantage has been the weakening of Parliament's status as a bulwark against executive power. There is today, as there has always been, a need to temper executive power, and accordingly, that weakening is a matter of regret. Mr President, may I through you thank all honourable senators for the courtesy with which they have listened to my maiden speech. I appreciate that hereafter I must expect a more robust response to my words. I hope I can give and, in particular I hope I can take, with grace. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.40) —I congratulate Senator Aulich and Senator Cooney on the presentation of their maiden speeches. They were both certainly well up to the standard that we expect in this place. I wish them well and assure them that I look forward to entering into debate with them in the chamber, perhaps in a more robust manner, as has been described by Senator Cooney. I also take the opportunity to congratulate the other newly elected senators and commiserate with those who were not elected. I wish the other newly elected senators well in the presentation of their maiden speeches and I look forward to debating with them in this chamber. As has been said by both of the Government senators who have spoken in this debate, last Thursday the Governor-General opened the Thirty-fourth Parliament. The Governor-General, knowing what the Government had prepared for him to say, might well have been advised immediately to have closed it. The Speech that the Government had prepared for the Governor-General was long on rhetoric and short on leadership and action. The most important things about it were the things that it did not contain, rather than what it did contain. The result of the Government's program is that already at the beginning of the session the Parliament is looking for things to do. On many occasions, apparently, we will be talking about issues in general instead of legislation in particular. The sorts of things that the Governor-General's Speech, which was prepared by the Government, did not address were, for example, nuclear issues. It demonstrated once again the problems which the Australian Labor Party has in office in regard to the defence of this nation. Seeing that New Zealand is having massive problems with Mr Lange at present, let me mention the problems which Victoria is having with Mr Cain. Of course, Mr Cain has promoted the same sorts of matters which Mr Lange has been promoting. He has said that there will be no visits by any warships to Victorian ports. The Government, instead of using the Speech to tell Mr Cain where to get off, did not bother to mention anything about it. Of course, we have apparently been advised through the back door today that the Premier of New South Wales has changed his mind on the subject since there has been a change of government. It had nothing to do, of course, with the situation in Victoria. But it is interesting that Victoria now stands alone as the one State which prohibits the entry of American warships into its harbours. That is the sort of problem that Victoria has with its Premier. Another example that I will refer to at some length is Federal-State fiscal relations. The Governor-General's Speech did not bother to mention anything about this major problem that the nation faces at present. The first major concern in regard to present Federal-State financial relations is the question of the so-called soft overseas loans which the States have been taking out without any insurance to hedge against the possible fall of the value of the dollar. The consequence of the current fall in the value of the dollar appears to be that this nation has had about a $1,000m capital loss simply because the States have been allowed to take out these loans without any control being exercised by the Federal Government. A most recent example was the loan of 150 million yen taken out by Mr Cain in Victoria in recent weeks. That loan was taken out in yen at a time not only when the Australian dollar was falling and may fall even further but also when it is estimated by those who are involved in monetary estimates that the yen will probably rise. What that will cost the State of Victoria and the taxpayers and the people of Victoria in increased prices as well as in taxes is almost unbelievable. The Premier of Victoria, elected on a promise of keeping down taxes, undertook that taxes would not rise, but, in fact, increased taxes by about 55 per cent. He undertook not only that taxes would not rise but also that charges would be held at their existing level and that some charges would fall. What has happened in Victoria is that charges and taxes have increased enormously. Yesterday in the Age, a journalist by the name of Tim Colebatch wrote an article giving some figures worked out on his own calculations. I must say that I have been reading Tim Colebatch's reports throughout the Victorian campaign and I think that everybody would acknowledge that he is certainly not on the side of Mr Kennett and the Liberal Party. Yesterday the figures in the article revealed much of the truth of what Mr Kennett has been telling the people of Victoria. I will quote from Mr Colebatch, who said: Mr Kennett is right in pointing out that Victoria's public debt has expanded greatly under Labor: by 48 per cent in money terms. He went on: The real increase in the net government debt (not counting inflation) has been . . . He then gave an estimate of the monetary increase and continued: . . . an increase of 16.3 per cent The article contained a graph on which was disclosed the enormous increase in real terms in the net debt of the Victorian Labor Government in comparison with that which the Liberal Party had been able to achieve when in office. Mr Colebatch went on to speak of State taxes in real terms. He said: Everybody knows that taxes, fares and charges have risen faster than inflation, taking a bigger bite out of our pockets. Notwithstanding Mr Keating's claiming that inflation is being held down by this Government, the truth of the matter, as everyone who does any shopping knows, is that government debt has increased enormously and the cost of paying it will come out of our pockets. Mr Colebatch went on to give some figures. He said: . . . I calculate that total State taxes have risen in real terms- real terms, not monetary terms- by 14.5 per cent under the Cain Government . . . On any realistic measure, then, the rate of tax increases has been higher under Labor than under the Liberals. That comment was a response to the charges which Mr Cain has been making that increases under Labor have not been any greater than they were during the last three years of the former Liberal Government. Mr Colebatch gave the lie to Mr Cain's charges. I will quote him once again when he said: On realistic measure, then, the rate of tax increases has been higher under Labor than under the Liberals. Finally, he went on in this article to include an excellent graph showing how spending has risen in real terms in Victoria and comparing spending in Labor's term in office with that of the Liberal Party in its last three years in office. He said: The total net government spending figures, shown in the graph, reveal a big increase . . . He gives monetary figures and values. I will not bother to read those out. It is much easier simply to look at the percentages. He referred to: . . . (26.7 per cent) in constant . . . dollars. In other words, this is a 26.7 per cent increase in real terms in spending under Labor as opposed to spending under the Liberals. He continued: This is certainly a big increase in real terms. The 26.7 per cent increase compares with a 3.3 per cent increase in the last three years of the Liberals. I do not deny that he went on to say: But much of this spending was not initiated by the State Government. It is simply Federal programs flowing through the State system. He pointed out how difficult it was to apportion how much of that increase in expenditure flows from State Government or Federal Government extravagances. The truth is that both State and Federal Labor governments remain big-spending governments-and big-spending governments are big-taxing and big price-charging governments. The coming election in Victoria is all about whether its people will continue to allow the Victorian Labor Government-a government which has increased all these taxes and charges in the way it has in the past three years and which has carried on with the financial lack of integrity-to remain in office, or whether the people will take the alternative offered to them by Mr Kennett. That alternative will allow the people of Victoria to be given their own opportunities to stand up for themselves and will lead to a withdrawal of government from so many areas in which Mr Cain at present has it involved. I refer to some of the things Mr Cain has done in his term of office. For example, he has increased the number of public servants by about 12,000; he has given the teachers very substantial pay increases to pay them back for their contribution to his campaign. Mr Cain also has milked the reserves of statutory authorities. Those authorities, instead of having massive reserves as they did under the Liberal Government, are now all bereft of money and looking overseas to borrow funds. Mr Cain is now seeking to attack the workers compensation insurance funds in Victoria. One has only to ask what will happen to those moneys when he gets his hands on those funds-and he will do so if he returns to office. Let us examine the problems of Victoria. It is a disaster area. For example, over 15,000 people in Victoria are awaiting elective surgery in the public hospitals. That waiting list has arisen from a combination of interference by Mr Cain and Mr Roper, the Victorian Minister of Health, in the hospital system of Victoria, and the socialisation of that system under which patients are forced to go to public hospitals instead of being able to go to private hospitals. It is also connected with the activities of the Federal Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, and his same socialist policies which are forcing the people of Victoria out of the private hospital system into the public hospital system. The public hospital system is unable to cope with the disastrous increases in the numbers of people seeking elective surgery. The result is to be seen in the enormous waiting list of 15,000. Once a person has decided to have surgery, it is no good his being told 'that's only elective-you can wait a long time to have such surgery'. A person waiting for surgery once he has decided to have it is concerned, upset and worried about it, no matter what type of surgery is involved. However, 15,000 Victorians are waiting for such surgery and are being held back by the hospital system as it stands in Victoria at present. Nursing homes are another disaster area in Victoria at present. Thousands of elderly people are waiting to move into nursing homes. Up to January this year not one new nursing home bed had been opened in Victoria since the Federal Labor Government came into office. What is the position in Victoria in regard to education? A recent article by Mr Greg Sheridan in the Australian points to the lies that are being taught to our children. Is it any wonder that parents are making huge sacrifices to opt out of the Government's education systems throughout Australia and are seeking to move into private education systems? This is occurring because of the disastrous education systems set up under Labor governments, and in particular by the Labor Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, who is present for this debate. Education in this nation is a disaster. I believe that there is now a growing realisation of that fact by the young who are revolting against the system. When they come out of the education system with degrees and enter employment, many young people ask: 'Why do I not understand these things? I am supposed to have a degree, yet I appear to be poorly educated, compared with those who went through the education systems of private schools or the education system of Australia a decade or so ago'. Returning to the subject of State loans, I quote an article written in the Australian by Mr Keegan following an examination of the increased taxes imposed by the Victorian Labor Government under Mr Cain. Mr Keegan said: This is an unenviable record but it begins to look like mere peccadillos alongside Victoria raising an unhedged 10-year $150 million yen-denominated loan in Tokyo a couple of weeks ago . . . We are told that Victoria's US-denominated loans make NSW borrowings look like the work of an austere financial genius. Don't worry, brush it under the carpet pending the election and later soak electors with a raft of new taxes. That is the position in Victoria. In order to cope with this disastrous financial bungling by the socialist-dominated Cain Government in that State, there must be increased charges for gas, electricity, petrol and rail services to meet the funds squandered on foolish loans and spending frenzies. As Mr Keegan said: Voters this side of eternity should do something about it. I have spoken at length about Federal-State relations because they are so vital to our economy but so rarely considered. This Government apparently sees no need to do anything about Federal-State financial relations, or any need to do anything about State regulation and control of economic activity. One has only to instance the milk war in Victoria. Victoria is one of the most efficient producers of milk in the world. Dry land dairy farming-there is no need for irrigation and such methods-produces great quantities of milk. However, dairy farmers are being deprived of their markets because of the State's interference, control and regulation of the markets and total disregard of section 92 of the Constitution. Recently one Victorian agricultural economist said: 'What Victoria needs is an agreement similar to the closer economic relations agreement which Australia has with New Zealand'. He thought that there should be a closer economic relations agreement between Victoria and New South Wales. How right he is. That barrier being put up at our borders 85 years after we adopted a Federal Constitution containing section 92 is a national disgrace and something that this Federal Government should get off its tail and do something about. This country has major problems. Is it any wonder that we had an early election back on 1 December 1984? We really should be running up to a May election this year. That should have been the earliest date for the election, Mr Hawke having promised that his Government would serve its full term of office. Even acknowledging that because of the problems of the Senate he might have had to have an early election rather than run the full term of his office, the election should have been held in May 1985. Now that the figures are being revealed and the predictions that we made about the economy are coming true, our explanation as to why Mr Hawke had an early election is being proven day after day. The economy of this country at present is in an absolutely disastrous situation. We have the money blow-out. I quote from what Mr Terry McCrann, the business editor of the Melbourne Age, said on 27 February: The January money supply figures released yesterday by the Reserve Bank confirm that the Federal Government lost control of monetary policy in the first half of the financial year. Already the Federal Government has lost control of monetary policy in this financial year. We have interest rates certainly on the way up. We have real problems coming with inflation, and the resulting fall in the value of the dollar will create enormous problems for this country. Let me continue with some of the major problems that this Government has to face and about which we heard nothing in the Speech prepared by the Government for the Governor-General. Let me talk about union power, for example. The Public Service was faced with a Government which right from the word go revoked the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. So the Public Service of this nation was given the opportunity to show its credentials by a government which stepped in and said: 'All right, we will disarm ourselves of the power which the Liberal Government held over the Public Service of this nation'. What has been the result of that? The result has been strike after strike and disastrous control of funds so that the moneys are not flowing to the Government. At a time when the dollar is falling in value the Federal Government is in an absolutely pitiful situation, left bereft of funds by a Public Service depriving it of money. The revoking of the CE(EP) Act by this Federal Government has been shown to be a disaster. What is the Federal Government going to do, if anything, about taking control of its own Public Service? According to the speech prepared by it, to which I am responding today, it will do absolutely nothing. This Government has once again demonstrated in its dealings with the Hospital Employees Federation and the Builders Labourers Federation that what is needed in this country is militancy. Militancy by the trade union movement is the only thing that this Federal Government takes any notice of. Instead of trying to negotiate with reasonable and moderate unions this Government takes no notice of any moderate and reasonable union activity. It waits until such time as some strong and militant action is taken and then proceeds to try to settle the dispute at that stage instead of at the earlier stage. Of course, that is a major problem which ought to be faced by this newly-elected Government, but in fact no steps have been proposed to face up to that problem. I simply say that that is probably because this Government does not have the courage to stand up to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the militant unions that it represents. What a disaster the accord is proving to be. There was an economic recovery, mainly brought about by the drought recovery, the weakening of the world recession, the American recovery and the wages pause in the last 12 months of the Fraser Federal Government. They were the reasons for the recovery. For the first 12 months of the accord, as a result of the Fraser wage pause, wages were kept down, but now the Government is faced with a situation where the accord is going to feed wage rises into the system at a time when the employers of this nation simply cannot afford to cope with further wage rises. As Mr McCrann states in his comment on 14 February this year in the Melbourne Age: The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the level of industrial disputes provide sobering evidence that the costs of the much-vaunted Prices and Incomes Accord between the Labor Party and the ACTU have far outweighed any benefits. He points out that, notwithstanding the absolutely terrible cost the accord has been to this nation's economy, the truth of the matter is that it has not controlled industrial disputations and in fact the situation is now that the cost of the accord far outweighs any benefits that it might have had. Of course, as members on this side of this chamber and of the other place have been saying ever since 1983, the accord is a disaster and will continue to be a disaster. Another matter which I think is of major concern to this nation is the effort being put into increasing the share of the cake rather than into increasing the size of the cake. We have big business and big unions seeking protectionist policies and lobbying both State and Federal Governments for a larger share of the profitability and the gross domestic product of this nation rather than getting together and working together to increase the profitability of the organisations. Too many resources of this nation are resulting in these lobbyist-political shenanigans instead of working to increase the growth of the domestic product of this nation. By that I mean that instead of a company getting together with its employees and working out ways and means whereby they can increase productivity and thereby increase the wages of the employees and the profits to the shareholders, what they do is send lobbyists to Canberra or to the State capitals to try to get some protection or some sort of advantage from the Government. We have people involved in trying to rip off the tax system. We have governments, State governments in particular, ripping off the people with price increases, and I have already made a long reference to the actions of Mr Cain in Victoria in that area. All of these actions and activities are directed towards ripping out the profitability and the heart of this nation rather than working to increase the productivity of the nation. America has succeeded in its economic recovery because of the determination of the American people to increase the profitability and the productivity of the nation, instead of increasing their share of the limited cake available. Finally, let me just say that all of these problems have resulted in a public awareness around the world of Australia's problems, actually brought on by the MX missile crisis focusing attention on Australia. The world has had a good look at Australia. It has had a good look at the Hawke Government and has seen how weak it is. The result has been this massive fall in the value of the dollar. That is the result of the world inspecting our dollar, looking at our country and saying: 'Well, a country that goes on the way that Australia is going on at the present moment clearly cannot have a strong dollar'. The dollar has fallen badly on the world markets and I have great difficulty in seeing how it will recover. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Senator Sheil, I do not think we class this as a maiden speech for you, do we? Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.09) —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It would be nice to be classed in maiden company again but I understand that an old war horse like me could not expect anything like that. I must say that Senator Lewis has left me reeling with his startling revelations about the situation in Victoria. I just hope that message has got through to the proper place where it can do a bit of good. However, I too would like to congratulate Senator Aulich and Senator Cooney on their maiden speeches in reply to the Address. I thought they were thoughtful and interesting speeches and I would like to congratulate them, not only on their election, but also on their speeches. I also congratulate the other newly-elected senators to this place, plus all those who were re-elected. In addition, I pass on congratulations to the President himself for instituting the expanded orientation course that all new senators had available to them before the session started. It really was a knock-out. It provided information to new senators that would normally take them four or five years to glean. It was well worth while. I thank all the officers of the various departments of the Parliament, from the Clerk of the Senate down, and including the staff of the Records and Table Office, Hansard, the Parliamentary Library and other departments. Everyone was really marvellous to us, up to and including the Real Estate Institute of the Australian Capital Territory, with which we had a very helpful interview. A couple of things that came out of the orientation course had me worried. One was the new and peculiar sitting hours. It seemed fairly obvious to me that the sitting hours would interfere with the committee work of the Senate. As the Senate's committee work expands and because it is really the life-blood of the new work in the Senate, I would not like to see anything that attenuated the work of our committees. I understand that somebody is looking into this and I would be quite happy to make a submission on that because our committee work is what makes our Parliament tick in a big way, particularly with the new system for the review of Bills, which can be done very quickly. The other thing that upset me a bit was to find out that a new edition of J. R. Odgers's book Australian Senate Practice has not been published since about 1976. I hope that someone is working to update that book because it is the prime authority on just about everything that goes on in this place and I would not like to see it lapse. However, I had better turn to the Address-in-Reply. Initially, I turn to Medicare and the health issue. I have a feeling of deja vu, almost, in having to address the Medicare issue because when I was first elected to this place I had run an enormous campaign, storming up and down Queensland fighting against Medibank. When I was finally elected after a long count I came here to find myself in Opposition. At that time the Whitlam Government was in office and it had forced a joint sitting of the Parliament to ram through Medibank. It took years to whittle away and finally get rid of it. Actually, we got rid of it just as Mr Fraser lost his election. Now I am fighting another campaign against Medicare, which is bigger and worse than Medibank ever was, and I find myself back in Opposition again. That is why I have this feeling of deja vu. If persistence is worth anything, I have the persistence to keep fighting. Honourable senators can see what is happening to health care. Senator Lewis mentioned what is happening to health care in Victoria, where private hospitals and nursing homes are all in trouble. We can see what is happening in New South Wales, where we even have doctors resigning from service. These sorts of schemes have been tried all around the world. The only thing they have in common is that every one is a failure. Why we have to persist with this sort of thing I do not know. Our scheme is modelled on the Canadian scheme. Canadian doctors have had nothing but strikes in almost every province since its introduction, so there must be some reason other than the people's health for bringing it in. The logic of it is unbeatable. If we promise people free health care at the point of delivery-I think they are the words the Government uses-we create an unlimited demand for medical services. Of course, the Government has only a limited budget with which to satisfy these unlimited demands for service. Indeed, as the demand goes up and we spend the money the two diverge. They cannot meet. So we have dissatisfaction in the hospitals-among staff, doctors and patients. Everybody is dissatisfied. People become dissatisfied because the Government has to restrict the service. It is the only way it can possibly run such a health scheme. All national health schemes have to be restricted schemes. So it is a false promise to say that people can have free health care services at the point of delivery. They cannot; the Government has to have restrictions, regulations and controls. Those are the sorts of things that the doctors revolt against. They will not accept them, so they just resign. I am not the only one to hold this view; it is also held by doctors on the other side. I remember that Dr Everingham said that no government could afford to provide fully fledged government health services. I think Dr Dick Klugman also said that it was a dream incapable of fulfilment. I agree with that. It is impossible to have a totally government-funded health service because such a service must be restricted. Health care falls into four easy divisions-medical research, education, preventive medicine and curative medicine. It is obvious that the more the Government puts into the research, education and preventive medicine, the less it will have to put into curative medicine. It is in curative medicine that private enterprise can really come to the rescue and take the load off the Government. We in Queensland have a free hospital system. When private medical insurance was allowed, with gap insurance, the people settled at about 50:50. Fifty per cent were happy to go to public hospitals and fifty per cent wanted private insurance. I think that is a very amicable separation of the people. They are willing to trade their time waiting in outpatient clinics and their privacy for free health care. The Government has to take care of the workers' compensation cases. There are many people on the pension of whom it needs to take care, including Veterans' Affairs patients. It needs to provide teaching material. Many people are quite willing to sacrifice their privacy and their time in order to have free health care, but half the people want and go for private medical insurance. This is what we obviously should go for. I remember that when I made my maiden speech here I gave the cartoonists of the major dailies a fortnight's fun when I said that I disagreed with the Robin Hood principle of government under which we take from the rich and give to the poor. I did then and I do now. I remember saying at the time that no matter how well we thought of Robin Hood, he was still a hood. Thinking about it subsequently, I thought the Sheriff of Nottingham, who one could say was representing the government, was not such a nice guy either, but we cannot fix a situation by having all crooks. If the sheriff was a crook and Robin was a crook the situation in Sherwood Forest was pretty bad. What is happening is that we have this Robin Hood-type of government and everybody is trying to cheat the Government in order to make ends meet. Senator Ryan —Not everybody, fortunately. Senator SHEIL —Well, a fair number of them are trying to get around to that. If honourable senators opposite think that they will stand at the next election on their record, they are welcome to do that. There are plenty of records they can stand on: Record spending for a start, record taxes, record deficit, record debt and, probably, record devaluation of the Australian dollar. I would say that it is not the best record to stand on. I am sure that we will get into the detail of all that later. I am particularly interested in defence and maintenance of law, which I would say are fundamental functions that governments should perform. We have had an enormous defence rundown, not only in personnel but also in materiel and morale. On top of that, we have been undermining our treaties with New Zealand and the United States of America and doing things that make one feel ashamed, such as refusing to service the Invincible. I think just about all real Australian's were ashamed that we would not look after that vessel when it was disabled. I listened to what was said yesterday about the closing of our ports to nuclear-armed or propelled ships. What was said made me feel ashamed. We should not be doing things like that. I think people have been carried away by a lot of emotional claptrap. Senator Sir John Carrick made a wonderful and sensible contribution to the debate yesterday. We have had the experience of a nuclear war and unilateral nuclear disarmament. The people of Japan did not have the bomb during the last war. Indeed, two bombs were needed to force that country to surrender. Those nuclear explosions did not lead to the nuclear winter that people talk about. They certainly killed a lot of people, but they led to a quick finish to the war. I am sure that without the balance of terror under which we have been living we probably would have had a war 10 years ago. I see the run-down of our defence forces as a desperate situation. The forces do not have enough fuel to carry out their exercises. They do not have enough ammunition to practise. This situation must be most demoralising to the personnel who are trying to man our defence forces. I would now like to say something about the maintenance of law. Our judiciary seems to be shot through from top to the bottom, from the High Court to the magistrates courts. I do not want to say a lot about this matter because court cases are pending. However, the people's confidence in the judicial system must certainly be undermined. It is most important that we have confidence in the administration of our laws. If we denigrate our legal system we undermine the very fabric of society. The Government must address the fundamental issue of the maintenance of law. Senator Lewis made a powerful contribution to the debate on education. I think that education has come under the same threat as have private hospitals. I think it is the object of this Government to get rid of private enterprise as best it can. In the case of medicine it is doing this by withdrawing gap insurance. It has made gap insurance illegal. It is forcing doctors to accept contracts that are able to be varied by the Minister without reference to the doctors. It is categorising hospitals. In the case of education, of course, the Government is using straight out financial strangulation. My side of politics would see the expansion of the private schools system as the desirable goal. We do not want to see the private school system eradicated and the number of public schools expanded. As I said, I thought Senator Lewis's contribution was very good. In my view, people seem to believe that unemployment is a disease. It is not a disease. Unemployment is a symptom of a disease, and the disease is high taxes and high fixed minimum wages. The only way that the trade unions can get the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to act is to create a dispute. The unions have to create a dispute by making unrealistic demands in order to activate or trigger the Commission. I think the Commission has got punch drunk from these recurring requests. It has handed down terms and conditions that have made it unattractive for employers to employ anybody. I think that we now have employer resistance. It is almost as if the courts hated employers. Conditions such as holiday loadings, severance pay, redundancy pay and high penalty rates make it unrealistic for employers to employ people. It is a sad state of affairs that employers have been clobbered to such an extent that they feel hostile towards employing people. I am happy to make my contribution to this Address-in-Reply debate. I listened carefully to the Governor-General's Speech. I also listened carefully to the legislative program that the Government hopes to implement to bring about its objectives. I have my own view. I think I will just watch that program with the highest of hopes and expect the worst. If I do that I am sure not to be disappointed. Debate (on motion by Senator Ryan) adjourned. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(11.26) —I foreshadow that, on behalf of the Opposition, I will be moving the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Sugar Amendment Bill 1985: At end of motion add ', but the Senate notes with great concern the plight of the industry generally and the communities dependent on the industry because of the failure of the Hawke Government to honour its pre-election promises to assist the depressed sugar industry'. The Bill is merely a machinery piece of legislation to give effect to the five-year agreement which the Queensland and Federal governments entered into and which was signed on 28 June last year. The agreement actually runs from 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1989. The first agreement of this kind was actually entered into in 1923. In 1927 it was recognised that there could be legal problems in that the agreements which were being entered into had no complementary Commonwealth legislation, mainly because trade and embargoes were under Commonwealth influence. So, since 1927 similar pieces of machinery legislation to the one now before the Senate have been introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament. This legislation proposes a marginal easing of the embargo. Might I say, again, that this will be done by agreement. This step has been taken not to reduce any effectiveness of the embargo but mainly to ease administrative difficulties. Clause 16, particularly clause 16 (2) (a) of the Schedule, deals with the easing of the embargo in respect of small packages and small consignments. This has been done because at times speciality sugars, which have been allowed in in small packages, could have been part of larger consignments in large containers and held up as they went through Customs. The Commonwealth and Queensland governments and the industry realise that this is a waste of resources. The Opposition welcomes the fact that an amicable arrangement has been entered into to produce this sensible agreement. The Schedule to the Bill also mentions sugar rebates. The domestic rebate is to be discontinued. However, the export sugar rebate is to be continued, with minor changes. I might add that none of the rebates will cost the taxpayer anything. The cost is borne entirely by the industry. I would now like to turn to the amendment and the concerns that many of us, particularly my National Party of Australia colleagues in Queensland, have about the future of the sugar industry. The sugar industry directly employs about 20,000 people. I suppose indirectly, working on the 5:1 formula which is generally accepted, about 100,000 other people are employed in some way as a result of the industry. I am thinking here of people who provide machinery, repairs, fertilisers, fuel and all the rest of it. Twenty years ago the sugar industry produced 1.99 million tonnes of sugar from 14.4 million tonnes of cane from 9,000 farms. Today 3.5 million tonnes of sugar are produced from 25.5 million tonnes of cane from 6,200 farms. The sugar industry, as well as all the other primary industries, has not been sitting idly by as the cost structures gradually increase. The sugar producers, as well as all the other primary producers, have become more efficient. The problem is: What is the use of becoming efficient on their own farms if the on-costs past the farm gate are such that they become uncompetitive? That is the problem facing the sugar industry. It is the problem that has been facing all the primary industries to date. They have become efficient where they can be efficient, but the costs that are beyond their control-such as transport, handling, shipping and so on-have accelerated. That is one of the problems which the Government has not addressed. Centralised wage fixing is proving to be a disaster in this area. The sooner this nation recognises that the wage fixing structures have to be exposed to market forces in this country, the sooner this country will be better off and the sooner we will become competitive again. Until that time we will be in all sorts of dire trouble. Many of the people who produce goods are not making money out of them and are, in fact, losing money. Despite that fact, 40 per cent of our export income comes from primary producers. Those producers are completely susceptible to market forces. Yet the wages structure in this country is not susceptible to market forces. Thus we see these massive increases in on-costs and the other problems that are facing this country. We are on a long, slippery slide from which we will not recover. Many people will be hurt unless we take some serious action in the near future. Another problem facing the sugar industry is the European Economic Community and its surpluses-subsidised surpluses. Our producers, who are operating in a market situation, are afforded very little protection today. They receive nowhere near as much protection as the manufacturing industries receive. The protection afforded to the manufacturing sector has decreased, but not to anywhere near the extent as that afforded to primary producers. A subsidised surplus-I believe it is an accumulated surplus-of about 11 million tonnes of sugar is sitting in the EEC. This subsidised surplus is causing all sorts of problems on the world market. The Industries Assistance Commission says that our primary produce has to be priced on a world market basis. That is a ludicrous proposition when the EEC is holding surpluses, large surpluses and subsidised surpluses, in all sorts of primary produce. This means that the world market price bears no relationship to the actual cost of production or what the product is really worth. Such IAC reports are rather silly. The IAC has submitted such reports not only on the sugar industry but also on other industries such as the dairy industry. The sugar industry faces massive EEC subsidised surpluses and the possibility that they will be dumped on our traditional markets. Despite all the problems confronting the sugar industry today, 3.5 per cent of the gross value of our rural production and 4.6 per cent of our total export income still come from sugar. For many years the sugar growers of Australia subsidised the domestic market. That fact seems to be lost on some of the detractors of the industry. For many years the export prices were higher than the domestic market prices. As a matter of fact, the Australian consumer is still in debt to the Australian sugar grower for those many years of high subsidisation. In the 1983 election campaign the Labor spokesmen made many promises. They went to north Queensland and promised underwriting. One of their promises was in part: . . . in the current crisis, to give sympathetic consideration to an industry loan to the established Queensland and New South Wales industry. In the 1984 election campaign there was an almost unprecedented demonstration by the sugar growers in Queensland. Twelve hundred people came from as far north as Mossman by bus and train to Brisbane to voice their concern. The response of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was in part: I undertake on behalf of the Federal Government to you and to the industry that we will undertake a financial commitment to assist you on the basis that the review-which is accelerated as a result of co-operation with the State Government-move towards drawing up an overall package which is going to result in a strong and viable industry. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, in a Press statement on 18 January, which was after the election-the Government won, of course-made no specific reference to the loan but did say in part: As the Prime Minister has indicated to the Queensland Government, across the board assistance such as was raised before by the industry has shown to be overly expensive, undirected and largely ineffective in helping those growers most in need. Senator Boswell —That is a contradiction of his first statement. Senator COLLARD —It is indeed. But one statement was made before the election and one was made afterwards. What could we expect? That is the way the Labor Government is treating the sugar industry and it is indicative of its attitude to primary industry as a whole. As I said, primary industry is still one of our main trade exporters and major income earners at a time when we have a parlous balance of trade problem. At one stage the Prime Minister went to the Bundaberg area and suggested that sugar growers should change from growing sugar cane to growing vegetables. Honourable senators know how well that went over. That conversion has occurred in some areas, but we run the risk of flooding the market with vegetables and nobody winning. That was the Prime Minister's immediate reaction to the problems he saw there. His abysmal lack of knowledge of the industry and its problems is now well and truly on the record. I venture to suggest that if he returns to north Queensland it would certainly not want to be for the purpose of talking to the sugar growers. They do not want to hear all his promises again. He should go with his friend the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) and do some game fishing. The only time he will get any enjoyment in north Queensland is if he goes off-shore and catches a fish or two. Senator Button —I suppose they would go in State Government boats. Senator COLLARD —I should imagine that if he wanted to go fishing he would not pay for it himself but try to wheedle one of the few State Government boats. While I am on the subject, I should mention that the State Government should start buying boats because north Queensland is not well protected by the Australian defence forces. Now that Senator Button has mentioned it, there was the promise of extra patrol boats in Cairns. That promise has not come to fruition. Whichever way the Prime Minister goes, I think that he would be safer doing some marlin fishing off-shore than talking to sugar growers. The industry in Queensland is not sitting still and resting on its laurels. The University of Queensland has done a lot of work to find other products for this most efficient industry. In conjunction with a small Queensland firm called Queensland Science and Technology, it is looking at two processes-one called sucrotech and the other called biowastech. I welcomed the answer by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, as I indicated to him yesterday, regarding the 150 per cent tax deductibility for research and development by private firms. I think that will help the further research and development of these two processes in Queensland. Sucrotech provides ethanol from sugar. Biowastech turns sugar juice and waste or effluent from any of the production processes into high protein stock food. The firm Queensland Science and Technology, in considering the pricing, considers that with cross-subsidisation within these manufacturing processes-that is, the production of sucrose, fructose, ethanol and high protein starch food-ethanol could be produced on an economic basis. One thing that the falling dollar has done for us-there has to be a brighter side to every dark situation-is to bring the price of fuel up to a level where the production of ethanol can become economical, and this could be the way out. With the methods developed by the University of Queensland the production of ethanol could be a great help to the sugar industry as well as to our balance of payments position. Senator Button —What is the market? Senator COLLARD —The market is what the Federal Government would like to make it at the time. Up to 20 per cent ethanol could be added to petrol without having to change any of the settings on an engine. If we could produce ethanol at a price which is feasible, and we are getting to that because of the falling dollar and the increased price of fuel, providing the Federal Government does not want to put an excise on it-no country that is producing ethanol in the world today has put government excise on it-it has been worked out, using the sucrotech and biowastech processing methods, that we could return to the producers $20 per tonne of cane produced. As I have said, the industry is not sitting still and crying. All it wants is the same treatment that is meted out to everybody else in this country. It wants recognition of the way it has subsidised the consumer in Australia, and it also wants help. I welcome the announcement of the Minister yesterday of the 150 per cent tax deductibility for research and development because it will help these small firms. If we can get these things on line the sugar industry will probably have a brighter outlook than at present, certainly more than it has under the Hawke Labor Government. I formally move: At end of motion add ', but the Senate notes with great concern the plight of the industry generally and the communities dependent on the industry because of the failure of the Hawke Government to honour its pre-election promises to assist the depressed sugar industry'. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.42) — The Sugar Agreement Bill 1985 is a relatively innocuous Bill. It deals with the ability to import into Australia the types of sugars which will not in any way affect the viability of our sugar industry, and it is accepted by the industry as being a reasonable proposition. However, the Bill covers only this minor change when we should be discussing the much more widespread problems that the sugar industry in Australia is facing today. It is Australia's second most valuable export crop and its fourth largest agricultural export earner. It is an extremely valuable industry, an industry, one would have thought, which would have been a high priority for the Government in terms of any legislative program. Senator Collard, in his speech, essentially said that the problems in the sugar industry were the fault of the Hawke Government. I think that is vastly simplistic. The Government has very little to do with the problems that the industry faces and they certainly do not stem totally or in large part from the management of the Australian Labor Party Government. My problem with the Labor Government is that it has not done anything to confront the problems that are there, but it is not the source of those problems. The source is essentially outside Australia's control. One of the problems is the failure of the international sugar agreement of 1972 because the European Economic Community was never a party to that agreement. The two year extension, after the agreement expired in 1983, failed essentially because the United States of America was not in a position to continue as a party to the agreement, particularly in regard to import quotas that it imposed at that time. In effect, that amounted to a withdrawal of the United States-a very large part of the market-from that international agreement. The sugar industry then went into a rapid decline. The extraordinary situation is that until three years ago the Queensland National Party State Government was urging growers to increase production, a situation which I found incredible at the time. I expressed that view in speeches I made in the Senate as far back as 1981 and which were recorded in Hansard. One of the first speeches I made was on this very subject. At that time sugar was commanding its highest price ever on the export market. But to read that price as being a long term operation for the sugar industry was to live in a fool's paradise. One could see the problems of the rising stocks, particularly the overproduction of beet in the EEC. Given the fact that on an average beet production would average at least two good crops out of every four, we could see that from 1981 onwards we were heading towards a massive world overproduction, and that is what we have now. We have something like 100 million tonnes and, of course, world consumption does not meet that. In fact, it has never met anything like that. In a market situation, with massive oversupply and consumption not increasing, we are going to run into problems. But that is not the only difficulty. The problem is very much in parallel with people looking at the problems in education, forgetting that between the good old days and now television has been invented. We now have a different international situation in relation to the consumption of sugar. Corn derivatives in the United States now constitute 36 per cent of the sweetener market, particularly in soft drinks and the processing of food. The artificial sweetener component has to be taken into account in any understanding of the international sugar situation. We cannot put aside those developments and expect to continue to sell our sugar, high quality though it may be, to an ever diminishing international market. We knew that three, four, five years ago under the Fraser Government, which took absolutely no action, and the Hawke Government has not taken any either. Two moves have to be made; one of which has to be a short term move to support the sugar growing areas in Australia, which extend basically from Grafton in New South Wales to Mossman in north Queensland. The interesting thing is that all of the coastal areas between those towns depend almost totally on those regional sugar economies. Without sugar those towns cannot exist. Town after town on the Queensland coast relies basically on a sugar economy. I think the unemployment situation illustrates the problem we are running into. Between September 1983 and September 1984 there was a 3 per cent decrease as a whole throughout Australia following some of the successful economic moves made by the Hawke Government. In the sugar districts there was a 16 per cent increase. That is the difference, and that is what is occurring. Translating that into people and costs, we are looking at in the order of 30,000 people being directly employed in the sugar industry in Australia. Given the normal multipliers in our economy-certainly those multipliers work more in the sugar industry because, as I have explained, it is very much a regional economy-based industry-we would be looking at in the order of 200,000 people being dependent on the sugar industry. If we take 12,000 people from that 200,000-that is not a large percentage, it is not the percentage growth that occurred from September 1983 to September 1984-the cost of those 12,000 people being without employment in the sugar industry is $120m. I put that figure of $120m for two reasons: Firstly, the Government is quibbling about putting money into the industry in the short term. It will be putting money into the industry, all right, but it will be going to the unemployed in those areas to the tune of $120m at least within the next 12 months. It would seem to me to make eminent sense if, instead of spending $120m in unemployment benefits, we spent one-tenth of that in keeping those people in employment in the short term. Senator Collard has already explained that the industry has put in far more than that since it began operating in Australia. The export price we have managed to receive for sugar has propped up the domestic sugar price, certainly since 1948 and probably before that. Only in recent years and only on a couple of occasions that I recall within that intermediate period has the reverse been the case. So the sugar industry has a very good moral claim, and I suggest that it has a very strong financial claim for that short term assistance. However, no government will put that type of money into a short term operation unless it can be assured that the longer term situation will be brighter. It just does not make sense-it certainly does not make economic sense-to prop up any industry in the short term if, in the longer term, it does not have bright prospects. Instead, we must seek some type of rationalisation for the industry. After all, that has been suggested on and off by a variety of people, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). A restructuring of the industry has been suggested. Various industry groups have suggested driving people out of the industry, and there have been a number of other suggestions, all based on the notion that the industry has nowhere to go. I dispute that the industry has nowhere to go. The industry could have an exceptionally bright future, but it cannot have a future which is a continuation of the past, as it were. That is no longer operative. Not only are trade associations such as the EEC and countries such as the United States developing alternative usages or creating excess stocks but also a number of our traditional markets are moving to self-sufficiency. There are a whole host of reasons why we are never likely to move into that boom situation again. I do not believe that the sugar market is cyclical. It was in the past but it is no longer and will not be in the future. Those who keep proposing the notion of a cyclical operation in the sugar industry are just not looking at the facts as we have to face in today's world. Where is the sugar industry in Australia to go? It has to look at alternative usages. That is the only way out; otherwise we have to go along with the doomsday predictions and wind down the industry. In a speech I made on 15 October 1981 I raised the problems of this industry. I remind honourable senators that that was when Mr Fraser and the Liberal and National parties were still in government. I raised the problem of a researcher at Queensland University. He is the same researcher who is responsible for the types of operations Senator Collard was suggesting today. He berated the Labor Government for doing nothing much about the research situation. I raised this matter in 1981 with the Liberal-National Party Government and it did absolutely nothing. Let us hear about the kettle calling the pot black. At that time I raised the problem of Professor Doelle's research money being withdrawn and the fact that when he asked why that research grant was being withdrawn he received a letter stating, basically: 'We do not have the money to tell you why your research grant has been withdrawn'. The rundown of research grants by the Fraser Government was horrific, and that has not stopped under the Hawke Government. The reason I raise this matter is that Professor Doelle is now in a situation of having some support from private industry to get a pilot plant operational for his sucrotech process. Essentially, the usefulness of that process is not simply in its ethanol production. It is an exceptionally efficient way of producing ethanol. There is interest in this process also because it is able to join together the ethanol and the fructose operation-the high sugar concentrate. If one looks particularly at the soft drink industry to see the type of product we are looking at, the dramatic effect of the introduction of such a technique into the Australian industry will be apparent. I will come to that point in a moment because there was an interjection by Senator Button or Senator Collard and I think it is important. Let us say that we can use those products. How much sugar cane would we need to grow to be able to satisfy, for example, Queensland's need-just one State-in a 20 per cent mix of ethanol and petrol? We would need to grow twice the current Australian crop. I think that is staggering. It means that in a research development we have the possibility for using any amount of Australian sugar, moving to open up production on the Ord, and actually using the Burdekin Dam for its original intention. People can raise the argument that it is an untried technology, an untried method, and indeed it is. I am not saying that it will work and I am not giving a 100 per cent guarantee that it will work. This industry is important to Australia. How much money are we prepared to put up to test that importance? What would be a reasonable amount of money? Would it be the amount of money we are spending on the yachting challenge in Perth? Would $8m be a reasonable amount? A figure of $8m seems to be a reasonable proposition. If we had put up $8m when I first raised this mater in 1981 that process would have been well and truly tried and tested and could have been in commercial production, if it had proved successful. As it is, we still have only about $1m available, not from government sources but from private industry, and we still have at least a two-year lead time, as well as probably one growing season on top of that. The person who has worked on this research is loaded down with teaching duties at the Department of Microbiology at the University of Queensland. That is what we really call using Australia's inventiveness and talents to the full, is it not? The very person who could now be working full time on the best possible long term outlet for our sugar in this country cannot even get down to research and has not got the dollars to be able at least to try it out. One would have thought that in terms of venture capital it would be worth putting that money in just to test it out and just to see whether it worked, because the results could be so staggering for us. Fructose, in terms of its use, is no problem at all. We could even export it. There are no problems in terms of any development we might have in that area. However, in terms of ethanol production there is a difficulty. In Australia we are not geared to its usage in the quantities we have been talking about here; certainly the quantities I have been talking about. I acknowledge that fact. Here in Australia we are now moving to the use of lead free petrol. Lead free petrol is low octane petrol. The simplest, most efficient-certainly the most cost-efficient-way of moving that petrol back to high octane is by adding ethanol to it. That is the simplest way of doing it. It is a tried method used in other countries. No new understanding is needed for that. However, in Australia we are doing the opposite. We are re-gearing our motor vehicles to take care of the lead free petrol instead of looking at the alternative of developing our own ethanol industry. I admit that until recently it has not been cost-efficient. I am not claiming that it was. Ethanol production is one of the things that the Australian Democrats have been promoting very strongly. We have always acknowledged the problem of costs. That problem of cost is no longer there. We are now confronted with the fact that we cannot move our sugar and that there are enormously rising costs in the sugar industry. We are confronted with the destruction of regional economies throughout this country and the consequent enormous cost to the Government not only of export dollars but also of additional expenditure in the social security budgets. Therefore, I think if one considers that package one is absolutely staggered that we have not put money into research for alternatives. The proposition I put forward in 1981-I remember being supported at the time by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan)-was in terms of the absolute need for money to be spent on research. I think I have now been able to show where, in one case at least, that money, if it had been forthcoming under the Fraser Government in 1981, could have gone and how it would have put Australia, and a large number of people in Australia, in a far more viable position. To do that we have to believe in our own capacity. We have to believe in our own people and put money into research in the hope that it will bring long term benefits to this country. Politically it is better to throw a few dollars here and there as bribes for electoral purposes. I admit that that is great. In the short term a dollar here and a dollar there might buy a few votes. Ultimately Australia will continue on the downward slide. All governments and all political parties have to call a halt to that short term operation. We must all now agree that unless we put money into research this country does not have a bright economic future or the possibility of maintaining the standard of living which we all now enjoy. It is as simple as that. The amounts of money necessary for the process I am talking about are absolute peanuts in terms of the national Budget. To establish a complete research facility, to release the researchers who would be necessary and to bring quickly the necessary fermenting plant on stream would take approximately $8m. That is the amount we have offered to Western Australia for the America's Cup challenge. I put to the Senate that if I had only $8m and I had to choose I certainly know where I would want to spend that money. I would want to spend it in the long term interests of this country. I would want to spend it on the people of this country and on an industry that has given so much to this country. I believe that the sugar industry deserves this short term support and the research funds to look at the possible alternative usages. It deserves that type of support from this Government. It deserves that support from any government. I believe the dereliction of duty not only of this Government but previous governments in this area has led us to where we are today. Blame, once apportioned, might be very fulfilling but not terribly useful. I believe we now need to go forward. I believe this Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) must, as a matter of urgency, see what type of government support can be provided for testing not only the ethanol fructose method at Queensland University but every other possible outlet for our sugar. It is only with that type of drive, energy and immediate support that the sugar industry in this country can look forward. I do not believe the sugar industry should have to put up with threats of having to scale itself down, farmers having to get off the land or regional economies being wound back. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.08) —In speaking to the Sugar Agreement Bill 1985 I must say that the sugar industry has been, and I hope always will be, a great Australian industry. However, it is an industry in trouble and, as a big industry, it is in big trouble. The aspect which I wish to look at concerns the fact that the problems of the sugar industry are symptomatic of problems in the production industries generally and in the food industries in particular. That is what really matters. The importance of the sugar industry to Australia has to be clear to all. We have had a listing of the various problems that the industry faces and we have had some suggestions from previous speakers as to what might be done. I am not sure, having listened to those speakers, that that is where the problem lies. One honourable senator implied that it was a socialist problem. I do not necessarily go along with that. I think it is a social problem. I will come back to that later. We must face the reality that in all developed countries the consumption of sugar in sugar form is declining and that it is likely to continue to do so over the following years. At present the undeveloped and underdeveloped countries are increasing their consumption of sugar. Not only are they increasing sugar consumption but they are increasing sugar production. There is a drive around the world for countries to become self-sufficient not only in sugar but also in a variety of other products. Australia, incidentally, has also been successful in that we have undoubtedly become the major producer in the world of equipment used for the production of sugar. We have become so good at it that we have even sold our equipment to all of our competitors. We are making them far more able to compete with us on a price basis than they ever were before, or than they ever would have been without our equipment. Until 10 years ago, or perhaps less than that, it would have been absolutely unthinkable that the sugar industry could have faced the crisis that it is now facing. We have the problems of declining consumption, overproduction and lack of international marketing. The point I return to is that the present problems are absolutely mammoth. But the history of the sugar industry over a period has been very good. It has been well managed and well organised and, in regard to marketing and security, other primary industries have a very considerable amount that they can learn from the sugar industry. Governments, incidentally, should also see the applicability of this to other industries. The prohibition of the import of foreign destabilising sugar has been of great interest and great value to the sugar industry and its development, stability and profitability in Australia. I hope that this Government and a future Liberal government will also see the applicability to other industries of what has been appropriate for the sugar industry. Australia generally needs to consider the fundamental needs of its productive sector and the food producers in particular. More and more overseas countries are producing food and more and more of them are reserving their local markets for their own producers. Australia must surely be the only country in the world that is watching its food producing industries gradually decline and run the risk of disappearing. If Australia has a desire to remain self-sufficient in food production, it must follow this policy through in regard to a range of other food products. I am not talking about questions of efficiency, locational suitability, aptitude, state of mind or anything like that. We need to remember that in Australia we can produce a range of food products as economically and efficiently as any other country in the world. We should be doing it so that at least we can feed our own people. I will mention one or two industries that at present are worth considering. What about products such as asparagus, mushrooms, peas and beans, avocadoes, dried fruit, citrus fruit and citrus juice, or berry fruits? We are just watching those industries disappear from Australia. What worries me is that the dairy industry is following and now the sugar industry is following. It is all very well to consider propping up the sugar industry at this stage. But we are providing aspirin, and that is all. I believe that the whole problem is much more deep seated and requires a lot of attention other than just providing aspirin. Australia simply cannot get to the stage of being dependent upon other countries to provide its food. Every time we bring in products that destabilise Australian production, we lose something Australian forever. We usually lose Australian jobs, Australian capital investment and specialist knowledge. While the number of people involved in the sugar industry seems to vary according to who is speaking, the figures that were provided to me showed that there were approximately 6,000 sugar farmers and about 100,000 people directly employed in the industry. If we let the situation get out of hand by allowing the industry to disperse and disappear, what will happen to those people, that capital, that knowledge and all the things that go with it? I willingly acknowledge that support can lead, and in some cases has led, to industry inefficiencies. But it does not have to do so, and with reasonable planning and reasonable management it will not. Industry generally, when confronted with circumstances of this nature, is perfectly capable of facing reality. In return for industry maintenance it can operate at a price and at a production level that is appropriate. Surely, the producers of food in Australia deserve national support. I think it was in today's Age that I noticed a large advertisement bearing the name N. L. Gallagher, asking the Victorian Government to support the producers of food, namely milk, in Victoria. I believe that at last we are on the right track. If we could get people to support the producers of food in the same way as they support the people who are on wages, we would have no problem in this area. But at present it is left to the producers of food to balance the national budget. It seems that the Government expects the producers of food to be the people who control the degree of inflation, the cost of living, or both. I was interested to see in one of the annual reports that were before the Senate yesterday a graph which showed that in 1973 food had a price index of 138. By 1984 food had risen to 404-an increase of 292 per cent. In 1973 wages had an index of 175, but by 1984 had risen to 750-a rise of 428 per cent. In other words, the index for wages, which are a direct cost in production, rose 68 per cent faster than the index for food. Of course that will have a destabilising effect on production costs; of course it makes us less competitive with overseas producers; and of course it reduces the profitability of the people in Australia who are trying to feed the people of this country. But one cannot control costs in one area without controlling costs in the other. That is why I say that it is a social cost and not a socialist cost. The country as a whole has allowed our wage system to get ahead of our productivity system. Until we can bring those two systems back together, the food producing industries of Australia, and any other productive industry, must be set to decline. As one who has a minor involvement in food production, I do have some knowledge of the business, the people involved and their problems. They deserve to be paid an appropriate return for what they produce. In return, of course, they must apply appropriate constraints to production. This is, of course, noticeably absent in the European Economic Community and in other countries in which, in many cases, the minute any backing or support is given by government, production goes up and a surplus situation ensues. We do not want that to happen. I will be looking to the Government to produce similar legislation in support of other food producers. I am not asking for anything that is not appropriate for the sugar industry to be done for similar industries. I was pleased to note that the Governor-General's Speech specifically stated that the Government was committed to the 'achievement of high social goals of equity and fairness'. As the Government has made that pledge in the Governor-General's address, I certainly trust that it will be carried through to the food producers of Australia generally and, in this case, to the sugar industry. I support the legislation. I trust that it will be just one of the ways in which the Government will seek to look after the sugar industry. I noticed that the Governor-General in his Speech referred to the Government's plan to 'restructure and revitalise the industry'. I trust that this legislation is one of the methods that the Government will use to start on its program but I concede that it will not in itself put the sugar industry right. The point that I wish to make most strongly is that the sugar industry's problems are symptomatic of the problems in all the productive industries, in particular the food industries. I believe that if we are to restore these industries to a reasonable level it will have to be done on the basis that they get a reasonable return for reasonable production. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.21) —The Senate is debating today the Sugar Agreement Bill 1985 and so far some very worthwhile contributions have been made to the debate. Senator Archer covered the problems of primary industry as a whole, and Senator Collard emphasised the problems that the Queensland sugar industry was going through. Senator Macklin gave us an academic speech on how the sugar industry could be saved. But the problem, as I see it at the moment, is that the sugar industry has reached a state of absolute crisis. Over 1983-84 farm incomes fell on average to $5,622. Some 70,000 cane growers grossed $1.1 billion worth of export earnings in 1981. In 1983 that figure had fallen to $617m, nearly half the earnings of 1981. Over the last 10 years the sugar industry has earned over 4.6 per cent of Australia's export income. We have been told of the varying jobs available to those whom the sugar industry directly employs, and the spin-offs would account for many thousands of other jobs. In fact, the whole of north Queensland, with the possible exception of Townsville, depends very heavily on the sugar industry. One has only to go into north Queensland towns, as I have in the last three or four weeks, talk to people in small businesses, to cane farmers and to anyone else living there and to see and experience what is happening to those towns. It is not a pleasant sight. Small businesses are hurting, families are hurting and farmers are going bankrupt and out of business. I think that already 5 per cent of the farmers are in an irretrievable position. If this situation is allowed to go on any longer, that 5 per cent figure will grow to 10 per cent, 15 per cent, and so on. So I urge the Government to provide some immediate aid and help. In 1983 the Government promised an underwriting scheme. That was a pre-election promise. That commitment made by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, was not brought forward, and it has not been implemented. Meanwhile, the sugar industry is still going through a rough period. I wish the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, were here because this Government has provided $176m to the steel industry by way of aid and $150m to the car industry-that is a total of $326m-while the plight of the Queensland cane farmer has been basically ignored by this Government. I will say that the Federal Government has given the sugar industry $16m, but I believe that it was embarrassed into taking that action because the Queensland Government had given twice that amount. The Queensland Government certainly has not the resources that the Federal Government has, but it acknowledges the problems of the cane growing industry and of the sugar farmers far more than this Government does. I am looking at the speakers list and at this stage I point out that it does not appear that any Australian Labor Party senators will join in this debate. I think that is a shocking indictment of the Labor Party and particularly the senators from Queensland. Senator Reynolds, who lives in the north of Queensland, should be in here putting her Government's position to the farmers, the rural producers and the sugar producers of Queensland. Senator Robertson —They were asked to stand down so that four of your Party could speak. Senator BOSWELL —That is no excuse. Here we are at the beginning of the session and people are already being asked to stand down. Senator Robertson —So that the Bill can be passed. Senator BOSWELL —That is no good, because the people want to know what your Party thinks on the sugar industry and what it is prepared to do. Senator Robertson —We put up the Bill. Senator BOSWELL —This Bill goes so far, but it is a token offering. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! There are too many interjections. I suggest to Senator Boswell that he address the Chair. Senator BOSWELL —The Queensland Government has given $30m to the sugar industry. Ten days before the last election, the Primary Industry Minister, Mr John Kerin, told the cane farmers at a meeting at Giru, which is slightly south of Townsville, that the answer to the sugar industry's problems was a fixed floor price. That was very good thinking and, of course, the Queensland Cane Growers Association, the Proprietary Sugar Millers Association Pty Ltd, the Australian Sugar Producers Association, and the co-operative millers agreed with him. The producers formulated a policy that would implement a minimum floor price the sugar industry could live with. That price was $240 a tonne. That is the break-even point at which producers can produce sugar and remain viable in the industry. It would require $80m to service that floor price. This is what the sugar industry wants. It is appealing to the Government for $80m to implement a floor price. If that floor price were put in force, I believe that the sugar industry would not be profitable but would be viable. People would be able to stay on their farms. The farms would be able to support the towns. Farmers certainly would not be able to live high on the hog, but at least they could stay on their land. The Minister told the sugar industry that he was not prepared to grant any assistance to the industry until after the sugar growers organisations completed a review of the industry. The earliest date at which the results of this review could be released is November 1985. The sugar industry cannot wait another 12 months. It cannot wait even another three months. The situation is absolutely desperate at the moment, and the sugar industry must have help in the immediate future. The Labor Government promised an underwriting scheme in the 1983 election campaign, and this has been ignored. Eleven days before the last election, it promised the floor price scheme. It is now becoming increasingly obvious that once again the Government is trying to wriggle out of this proposal. I quote from a Press release from Primary Industry Minister, John Kerin: As the Prime Minister has indicated to the Queensland Government, across the board assistance such as was raised before by the industry has shown to be overly expensive, undirected and largely ineffective in helping those growers most in need. As Senator Collard pointed out in his speech, that is a complete contradiction of the Government's election campaign promise. The promise made before the election in 1983 was broken. Now, in 1985, soon after the election, another promise has been broken. The sugar farmers' patience is running out. As I mentioned before, 6 per cent of the sugar farms are unviable at the moment. On top of the collapse of the international sugar market, people in the industry are facing increasing farm-gate costs. Over the last four years-they have risen by 39 per cent. On 22 November 1,200 cane farmers joined a cane train from Mackay to Brisbane where they sought and were granted a meeting with the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke. The Prime Minister said then: I undertake on behalf of the Federal Government to you and to the industry that we will undertake a financial commitment to assist you on the basis that the review-which is accelerated as a result of co-operation with the State Government-move towards drawing up an overall package which is going to result in a strong and viable industry. The sugar growers put four points to the Prime Minister. They asked that the Federal and Queensland governments get together at ministerial and official level and for the State to co-operate with the Federal Government in accelerating the review of the sugar industry. To this date there has been no meeting between the Federal Government and the Queensland Government. I believe that there is to be a meeting in April. Secondly, the growers asked for significant financial assistance from the Federal Government once the review is considered to be progressing towards a viable result. The review will take about 12 months before it is completed. Therefore, I urge the Prime Minister and the Government, before that 12 months is up, to implement the floor plan proposed by Mr Kerin. Thirdly, the growers asked that plans be put in hand for an international meeting on the sugar industry. I understand that the Prime Minister took such a step on his recent overseas visit. The fourth requirement by growers was that the Prime Minister become personally involved in negotiations nationally and internationally once the election was over. I stress that these negotiations should be conducted at head of government level rather than lower down in the echelons of the Public Service. It cannot be emphasised enough that if these four points are not implemented immediately, the sugar industry will go down the drain. This will happen not because the industry is inefficient, because everyone acknowledges that the sugar industry in Australia is the most efficient producer of raw sugar in the world. The sugar industry is facing a crisis because inefficient countries in the European Economic Community are heavily subsidising their sugar production on the international market. The viability of the sugar industry will depend on this Government's actions within the next six or seven months. If the Government does not implement this floor plan, it will have a number of serious effects. Cane farmers will not plant because they will not be able to afford the petrol, diesel and other farm costs. Sugar mills will close because they will not have the throughput necessary to keep milling costs down. Harvesting contractors will go out of business and their harvesters will be repossessed. Small business will go to the wall and the whole industry will slide to a point where it will take 20 years to recover, if it can recover at all. The sugar industry has given a great deal to Australia. In the last 10 years its exports have earned $300m. Surely with the industry in its hour of need, and this is now its hour of need, this Government can come forward to offer some type of assistance. In the same way that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, has assisted the car industry and the steel industry, I urge him to offer support to the sugar industry, because it is such a viable industry to Australia. It provides many jobs, it keeps many Queensland towns and many northern New South Wales towns such as Grafton viable. Therefore, to let the sugar industry slide into oblivion would mean that for the next 20 years people in Queensland towns, as well as northern rivers towns in New South Wales, would suffer terrible effects. If the Government fails to stand by the sugar industry and does not acknowledge its present position, it will invite an attack by the EEC countries-countries which are heavily subsidised-on every one of our primary industries. Our industries will be picked off one by one. The dairy industry will be next, then the beef industry. The EEC will subsidise its production and target in on our markets and in that way Australia will be damaged. I plead with the Government to stand up for the primary industries of Australia. Those industries are now under attack as they have never been before. If the Government does not stand up for this industry and bring in the $240 a tonne base floor price, the EEC countries will attack our sugar markets one by one until we have no market left. The whole industry will be wiped out. It is no good suggesting, as did the Prime Minister-I acknowledge that he probably made the suggestion in good faith, but with little understanding of the industry-to the 6,000 or 7,000 farmers remaining in Queensland that they should produce vegetables. That does not get to the basis of the problem. It shows that the Prime Minister does not understand the problem. If that suggestion were to be implemented, Australia would have such a glut of vegetables that not only would the cane industry be made bankrupt but also the horticultural industry would find itself equally bankrupt. Therefore, I urge the Government to back up the sugar industry. It has been good to Australia and deserves the support of the present Government. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(12.37) —The Sugar Agreement Bill which the Senate now has before it is a machinery measure which legitimises the five-year agreement reached between Queensland and the Federal Government and which was signed on 28 June last year. The Bill is of great concern to all sugar growers. Because sugar growing is so important to the economy of Queensland, this matter is of great concern to all Queenslanders and, overall, to the people of Australia. If Senator Robertson had told me that some Labor members wanted to speak to this debate, I would willingly have withdrawn. However, this is an important debate for Queensland sugar growers and I wanted to make known my point of view. We have heard some very good speeches in this debate and Senator Boswell put the case most convincingly. I imagine that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will want to do something for the sugar growers when he reads Senator Boswell's remarks in Hansard. Senator Collard also put forward a strong case for the ailing sugar industry, which needs financial assistance. As Queensland produces 95 per cent of Australian sugar, one can see why this matter is so vital to Queensland. I wish to draw attention to a number of matters. In real terms, world prices for sugar are at their lowest level since records were kept two centuries ago. At risk are the growers themselves and also the local economies of such major centres as Cairns, Townsville, Bundaberg, Mackay-the towns right up the Queensland coast-and towns in northern New South Wales where sugar is grown. Because the European Economic Community is dumping its product on world markets, Australia's competitive ranking in world sugar markets has been severely diminished. One can add to the problem the matter of changing dietary fashions. These days it is popular to say that they will not have sugar in their tea, or that they will not use too much sugar because it is bad for them. I am sure dentists must be very upset, because people will not need to go to the dentist so often if they do not eat so much sugar. It is a sad trend for our 7,000 sugar growers and for those centres that rely on sugar for their prosperity. Those areas are under real threat and have great cause for concern. Even though in the past the sugar industry has provided this country with a massive export income-this matter was mentioned by Senator Boswell-that income is now in real trouble. However, I am pleased to say that the Queensland Government has provided positive assistance to the sugar industry in several areas. It has given $15m towards carry-on finance in 1983-84 under the rural adjustment scheme; $5m for carry-on finance to cane growers in 1984-85; $10m of special Treasury loans to six co-operative sugar mills to assist short term debt servicing commitments in 1982; $175,000, which was half the cost of a review of the sugar industry; and $800,000 towards the interest components to raise the first delivery from $160 to $180 per tonne. This assistance amounts in all to just on $31m. Prior to the Federal election in 1983 the primary industry spokesman at the time, Mr John Kerin, who is now the Minister, made the following statement: The worsening crisis in Australia's sugar industry demands urgent Federal Government attention. I pledge a Labor Government to giving the sugar industry first priority in the large line of primary industries neglected by the previous government. I cannot say that I agree with that latter statement. The statement continues: Labor will sympathetically consider any request for an industry loan and/or an underwriting scheme. The Federal Government has now given to the sugar industry almost $16.5m. I am sure that the sugar industry is grateful for that assistance, but it certainly needs a great deal more. That amount was for carry-on finance and debt reconstruction. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that every year the Federal Government receives $32m from excise on Queensland's potable spirits alone. That is a lot of money the Federal Government is receiving every year. I feel that more money could be given by the Federal Government to help our sugar industry. The industry itself has recognised the need to change direction somewhat and in so doing has set up the sugar industry review program to chart the course of the industry into the next century. It is one of the most efficient industries in the world but, even though the industry has taken this step, it is probably not enough. The world market price for sugar is now below the cost of production, and Sir Roderick Proctor, the Chairman of Bundaberg Sugar Co. Ltd, said: . . . the world market price for sugar was at present below the cost of production for 'even the most efficient cane or beet producers, It is very difficult indeed for the sugar producers to keep going under those circumstances. I believe that the rising costs of production are to be discussed at a meeting in March between the Government and farm groups, but it does not help to solve the problem now. I am sorry that this Labor Government seems to be running away from its commitment to aid the troubled sugar industry. When 1,200 cane growers descended on Brisbane last year to voice their concern to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) he said that he would undertake a financial commitment to assist them on the basis of a review. It is all very slow. These reviews take a long time and in the meantime the poor sugar farmers are going to the wall. When I was in Bundaberg prior to the last election I was met by women holding placards; they were the wives, who were terribly upset. I suppose that they were in a similar position to the milk producers in Victoria at present. Senator Robert Ray —Did they have a permit? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Senator Robert Ray ought to know all about that. I think it is very important that some action be taken urgently about this matter. Mr Kerin, in a Press statement on 18 January last, made no specific reference to a loan to the producers, but he did say: As the Prime Minister has indicated to the Queensland Government, across the board assistance such as was raised before by the industry has shown to be overly expensive, undirected and largely ineffective in helping those growers most in need. Mr Kerin apparently believes that subsidies encourage use and waste, lead to an inappropriate mix of inputs, maintain overproduction, reduce incentive to minimise costs, represent an artificial improvement in one industry's competitive position at the expense of other industries, tend to get capitalised into land values and fixed assets, and can lead to an inappropriate industry structure. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In light of the Foreign Minister's statement of 13 February that the United States of America would inform Australia of any move to restrict the flow of intelligence to New Zealand, I ask: Has Australia received advice from the United States of the list of measures which the United States proposes to take as a response to New Zealand's ban on United States ships? Is he aware of the statement made only hours ago by Mr Lange in Los Angeles that the United States has told him that it would be stopping the sharing of intelligence information of a raw military type? Did Mr Lange say that this constitutes an end to the United States-New Zealand defence relationship? What are the implications for Australia? Senator BUTTON —I did hear something of Mr Lange's statement in the United States. I assume that the suggestion implicit in Senator Chaney's question about the contents of that statement is correct. In answer to the question generally, the Government sees this as primarily a matter between the United States and New Zealand. Irrespective of what might eventuate between the United States and New Zealand there will be no reason for a diminution in the flow to Australia of United States origin intelligence. It is a long-established principle, as I understand it, in intelligence exchanges between countries that a recipient of intelligence undertakes not to pass that material to any third country without the authorisation of the originator. Australia has always scrupulously observed such undertakings and will continue to do so. Australia will, whatever the outcome of the contretemps between New Zealand and the United States, maintain active intelligence co-operation with New Zealand, based on materials of Australian origin and reflecting the close relationship between the two countries. I repeat that our understanding and practice as a government have been that material obtained from a third country is not sent to or exchanged with another country without the consent of the originating country. Senator MAGUIRE —Does the Minister representing the Attorney-General have any information on bankruptcy levels in Australia in 1984? If so, how do they compare with the 1983 levels? Are there any major differences in the trends in the various States? Senator GARETH EVANS —I happen to have with me in my Attorney-General's brief some of the bankruptcy statistics. They bring very good news for nearly all Australians, except the people of Queensland who continue to suffer under the special influence of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. The figures are these: In Victoria, a drop of 22 per cent from 1,248 in 1983 to 973 in 1984; in Western Australia, a drop of 25 per cent from 816 to 613; in South Australia, the figures for which also include the Northern Territory, a drop of 16 per cent from 871 to 730; and in Tasmania a drop of 7 per cent. In New South Wales the figures are about even, although the 1984 figure is some number less-1,172 as against 1,195. But Queensland brings up the rear with a startling and very worrying increase of 27 per cent from 742 in 1983 to 938 in 1984. That is a 27 per cent increase in bankruptcies as compared with the drop of 22 per cent in Victoria, 25 per cent in Western Australia and similar figures elsewhere. I think I should dwell on these figures for a moment for the benefit of honourable senators and particularly of listeners in my State of Victoria. These figures show beyond any doubt the vital role that is being played by the Government of Premier John Cain, in co-operation with the Hawke Government, in revitalising the business environment in the State of Victoria. The drop of 22 per cent in bankruptcies is the second successive drop in bankruptcies in Victoria. It clarifies what all the other figures show. All those living in Victoria, as Senator Missen and others will testify, know personally that the Cain Government's policies of sound economic management, of generating growth through co-operation with the private sector, and of streamlining and modernising the public sector have all paid off. It is evident that bankruptcy hits small businesses, the self-employed, the unemployed-individuals across all economic sectors. Bankruptcy can create difficulties for families, friends, suppliers to business and purchasers of goods from the bankrupt. A reduction in the number of bankruptcies is a very important achievement to monitor and to record. It is not an overnight wonder. It is something that can be achieved only by sound and responsible economic management of the kind that we have seen, particularly in Victoria. It is in profound contrast to the record of misery and maladministration under the previous Liberal Government in that State. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence to reports from Los Angeles today, already referred to by Senator Chaney. Noting the answer of Senator Button, I ask: Has the United States Government requested Australia to support its decisions by restricting the flow to New Zealand of that part of the intelligence it receives which derives from United States sources? Senator GARETH EVANS —I congratulate Senator Vanstone on her maiden question, but I am afraid that I can do no better in answering her than refer her to precisely what Senator Button has said and let her draw her own conclusions from that. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister aware of recent reports indicating increased abuse of the human rights of Palestinian civilians living under Israeli military occupation, in particular the critical situation at Dheisheh refugee camp near Bethlehem, and of the call by the Israeli League for Civil and Human Rights for immediate pressure to stop attacks on the residents? Further, is the Minister aware of a report by the International Commission of Jurists concerning the torture of Palestinian prisoners at La Faraa prison? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am familiar with some of the reports to which Senator Primmer has referred. I will refer his question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek an early response. Senator COLLARD —The Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence will be aware of the reported decision of the United States of America to advise New Zealand of severe cut-backs in the fields of defence co-operation and intelligence sharing already alluded to in two previous questions. Coming as it does on top of cancellation of recent ANZUS naval exercises because of New Zealand's refusal to accept nuclear-powered or capable ships in its ports, does the Government believe that this most serious development spells the death knell for the ANZUS alliance as we have known it? Does the Minister agree that the crisis situation which now prevails is an indictment of the Hawke Government's failure to become really involved and to play a mediating role at an early stage in the dispute between two of Australia's closest traditional allies? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, the Government does not believe that any of the recent developments have signalled the death knell for ANZUS. The ANZUS treaty relationship is a complex one with a number of different dimensions. While it is the case that the kind of peacetime co-operation that is envisaged under Article II of that treaty has been subject to some stress as a result of recent developments in New Zealand and in New Zealand's relationship with the United States, that clearly does not in itself touch upon the operation of Article IV, which is the danger clause, nor on a number of aspects of that relationship. As I will make clear, to the extent that I have not already done so, in the urgency debate which is to follow Question Time, Australia is anxious to maintain and, indeed, to strengthen the ANZUS alliance. We do not believe that it needs review. We do not believe that renegotiation is either a realistic or a desirable option. We will continue to work hard to preserve the alliance in all its delicacy and in all its complexity, which is in marked contrast to the blundering, ham-fisted approach which has been demonstrated by Mr Peacock and Opposition spokesmen who have been profoundly insensitive to the independent and sovereign status of New Zealand and to the delicacy of the interrelationship involved in that treaty. Our approach, by contrast, has been cautious and entirely appropriate to the mature relationship that ANZUS in fact represents. Senator DEVLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. News reports from Tasmania indicate that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is having considerable difficulty in negotiating reasonable conditions relating to the transfer of staff from the formerly Commonwealth funded community employment home help program for veterans in Tasmania to the State's home help scheme. What is the present situation with the transfer? Will the 10 women concerned be assured of further employment? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that there are some difficulties associated with the transfer of the initiative begun by the Government in respect of the innovative home help scheme which was begun under the community employment program and administered by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis. That scheme came to an end because it had a limited duration. However, because of the success of the scheme, it was made a Budget item. This means that what began as an experiment is now part of the ongoing programs of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Negotiations have been conducted with all the States with a view to the States taking over the operation of the scheme and the Department of Veterans' Affairs buying the services from the State organisations. A measure of agreement has been reached in all States with the exception of Tasmania, where numerous conferences have been held since we began the process of having the matters dealt with in a decentralised way within the State organisations. One meeting was held in November and another one in January. A problem that emerged was that the State could not provide the same level of service. Tasmania refused to give a guarantee in respect of the future employment of these women who had been specially selected and are currently employed under the CEP funding. The Commonwealth is happy to continue funding to the service as it has proved to be very beneficial to veterans. The service is subject to cost-benefit analysis and provides employment as well as assisting veterans to stay in their homes. Of course, the Commonwealth is not interested in establishing a separate organisation to that which is already being provided by the States for non-veterans. However, the appropriate Tasmanian Minister has said that legislative constraints would bar any direct transfer of women currently employed by the Commonwealth to the State Public Service. One of the matters of principle upon which the Commonwealth is insisting in its discussions with the States is that the women be transferred from Commonwealth to State employment so that what was begun as an experiment will result in permanent employment for women who have carried out their tasks in every circumstance very admirably. We are insisting in the negotiations with the Tasmanian Government that those principles, which have been accepted in all other States, should apply and that, therefore, the Tasmanian government should take legislative action to ensure that that process is continued in Tasmania as, indeed, it is in all the other States. We recognise that a Tasmanian Act makes it difficult for such persons to be transferred. Nevertheless, there are arrangements under which personnel employed by States have been transferred to the Commonwealth. That principle should be applied in this case. We believe that the Tasmanian Government has a responsibility to find a solution to the problem and to provide continuing employment for those who were involved in the initial scheme. Senator MACKLIN —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. During the debate on the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill last year the Minister promised dramatic improvements in the waiting time for veterans who apply for pensions. Is it not the case that there has been no improvement and that the Department expects that there will now be no improvement probably until 1986 and that, indeed, in some veteran categories times are likely to be longer rather than shorter before their pensions are processed? Senator GIETZELT —It is a fact that the Senate passed legislation which was designed to change and rationalise the existing determining system which deals with the repatriation Acts and that as from 1 January that system came into full time operation. Appointments were made in September-October last year. Training courses were engaged in and the new officers are carrying out their responsibilities. It is true that there are some difficulties in getting the system fully operational. However, those difficulties vary from State to State. I was informed yesterday by the Secretary to my Department, that for example, the scheme is working very very well in New South Wales and that we are ahead of our schedule in respect of overcoming a backlog of over 25,000 cases in the existing system. I think one of the difficulties is that the advocates who present the case on behalf of veterans to the new single determining officer system are often not aware of the fact that the system removes the restraints that hitherto existed and in fact removes many of the obstacles to the pension applications being dealt with in the way in which they should be. It is no longer the case that the system operates in an adversary situation. Some of the delays that have taken place are not the result of the system itself but of the failure of many of the advocates to appreciate the changes that are inherent in the legislation. What I have said is not a criticism of the advocates; it is just that they have not adjusted to the new system quickly enough to appreciate that the Government's objective is to get the system operating so that an application by a veteran who desires a pension or an increase in a pension will not be subject to a year's delay. We believe that the objective of reducing that time to three months will still be met during 1985. Senator AULICH —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen the latest figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics dealing with new fixed capital expenditure? What do these figures reveal about the state of manufacturing investment in Australia? Senator BUTTON —Of course I have seen the figures; otherwise Senator Aulich would not have asked me the question. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures deal with new fixed capital expenditure and reveal that there was a solid recovery in business investment in the December quarter. I notice that there are no more grins on the faces of those on the other side of the chamber. They are against an increase in fixed capital investment. There are gloomy faces on the other side. Senator Chaney —How do they compare with the figures for June 1983? Senator BUTTON —I am coming to that, Senator. Do not get excited. New fixed capital investment in real terms rose by nearly 4 per cent to be 9.4 per cent above the levels recorded in the December quarter 1983. Investment in new building and structures in the year to December 1984 increased by 16.8 per cent in real terms. The figures for manufacturing investment are also heartening, to those on this side of the chamber at least. Senator Lewis —How do they compare with the figures for 1929? Senator BUTTON —They are very heartening and if Senator Lewis listened to them even he might be encouraged. Investment in manufacturing rose in December 1984 to be 12.4 per cent above the December quarter of 1983. Senator Chaney —What about the June quarter of 1983? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney keeps asking about the June quarter of 1983. The June quarter of 1983 is terribly important to him. I feel I should reiterate that the December figure of 12.4 per cent was above that for the previous year. The improvement in the December quarter figures is reflected in expectations for 1984-85. Investment in manufacturing is expected to be 18 per cent above the 1983-84 level. The December quarter preliminary survey also features 1985-86 expectations data and these point to a substantial rise in new investment of 24 per cent for 1985-86 over 1983-84. The figures on the investment front are good news for most people. The Government will maintain the direction in economic and industry policy which has helped to produce those figures. Investment figures are a reflection of improving confidence in the Australian economy generally. That process has been going on since at least June 1983, which is of so much concern to Senator Chaney, because that was when he was still recovering from the election result of 1983. This country has been recovering for two or three years now. Senator Chaney —The figures are still lower than they were in June 1983. Senator BUTTON —So what? If Senator Chaney wants to refer to the 1982 figures he is welcome to do so. Perhaps I should remind him that when his Government went out of power there was rising inflation, rising unemployment, rising interest rates and declining investment. Perhaps Senator Chaney has to be reminded of those figures because they are very important in terms of what has happened since. I can understand the gloom on the other side of the chamber about these matters because just as members of the Opposition are concerned to undermine the ANZUS alliance by the silly questions that have been raised here today, so they are concerned at this stage to undermine rising confidence in the Australian economy. Of course, their efforts to undermine these things are very much influenced by declining ratings in opinion polls in respect of the Opposition's performance. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence. I refer the Minister to Premier Wran's concession, now somewhat belated, that the question of visits by naval vessels to the port of Sydney is a matter for the Federal Government. Does the Victorian Premier, Mr Cain, also concede that the matter is one for the Federal Government and the State governments should not place restrictions on such visits? In view of the fact that no nuclear-powered ships or ships capable of carrying nuclear weapons have visited Victoria since 1982, will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, give an unequivocal guarantee that such vessels will have access to the port of Melbourne, subject, of course, to the normal safety guidelines to which he referred the other day in answer to a question from me? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Victorian Premier has repeatedly made it clear publicly that he accepts totally that the Federal Government has constitutional power to control visits by nuclear warships to Australian ports. Victoria has been declared by the State Government to be a nuclear free State, but only in relation to those matters over which the State has constitutional authority. I am sure that any question that might arise in the future about a visit of a nuclear ship in Victorian waters or Victorian ports would be resolved by reference to those principles which Mr Cain has acknowledged. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question. In view of that information, does the Federal Government concede that, in light of the attitude of the Victorian Government, there should be a discouragement of visits by nuclear-powered ships or ships capable of carrying nuclear weapons to the port of Melbourne? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing to add to my previous answer. Senator TATE —Has the attention of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women been drawn to the formation of the Sisterhood is Global Institute late last year? Has that Institute outlined the degradation of women in such countries as Iran, where virgins are raped before execution; in China, where the Government concedes an epidemic of drownings and other murders of girl babies; and the Soviet Union, where the average woman has about a dozen abortions because of lack of contraception? What is the Australian Government doing through international forums to protest about the subjugation and degradation of women? Will the Government find out which of the various degradations of which I have spoken are the policy of foreign governments and consider appropriate action analogous to our dealing with the apartheid regime in South Africa? Senator RYAN —I am advised that an article in the Age of 16 February this year headed 'When women's liberation is a matter of life and death' raised allegations of violence against feminists in countries such as Iran and also other issues mentioned in Senator Tate's question, including issues in China, Russia, and I am advised, Aboriginal child mortality in Australia. The article draws upon a book entitled Sisterhood is Global which has not yet been published in Australia and which, I am advised, appears to contain a mixture of truth and dubious allegations against governments. Its theme is that women's global vision is the politics of the twenty-first century. Clearly, its aim is to raise the consciousness of governments which will be participating in the Nairobi End of Decade for Women Conference and to have those matters addressed. The Institute to which Senator Tate referred in this question was established to consider programs over the United Nations Decade for Women and to present a case for feminist action to advance into areas where governments would not be prepared to go. In response to Senator Tate's question about the attitude of the Australian Government to such issues, the Australian Government strongly supports international initiatives to raise the status of women and, of course, we are an active participant in the Commission on the Status of Women which is the focal point in the United Nations system for the examination and discussion of status of women issues. We are, of course, active supporters of the other United Nations human rights bodies which examine allegations of torture and similar human rights violations. Justice Evatt is the Australian expert on the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This Committee examines breaches of the Convention. Next week Australia will have a three-woman delegation attending the Commission on the Status of Women which is currently preparing for the End of Decade for Women Conference to be held in Nairobi in July. Following that exercise, more information about the allegations and the action that the Australian Government will be able to take will be available. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the paper from which she quoted. Senator Ryan —Yes. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows his answer to a question by Senator Aulich regarding his selective use of figures on business investment. Is it a fact that, as reported, last week the Prime Minister embarked on a ring-around of leading exporters, pleading with them to repatriate funds to prop up the feeble Australian dollar? Did he consider that one man's plea, even from one so high as the Prime Minister, could influence international market forces, or was this just another example of what has become painfully familiar to most Australians; that is Mr Hawke's being naive and panicking and stumbling in the face of a national problem? Does not the plight of the dollar and Mr Hawke's pathetic attempts to rectify it make a farce of his acceptance of an invitation to tell Canada how it should be done? The PRESIDENT —Order! Once again, I remind honourable senators to keep their questions as brief as possible. I ask Ministers to do likewise in respect of their answers. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether the Prime Minister engaged in a ring-around of exporters, as Senator Walters suggested. I will find out. I would not regard it as normal if he did. It is probably much better than the previous Prime Minister's habit of ringing newspaper proprietors in the middle of the night. I would think it is a far more productive activity. I will find out and obtain an answer to the question. Insofar as Senator Walters's question was predicated on a reference to my selective use of figures, there is nothing selective about the economic recovery which has taken place under this Government. It is continuing, and the investment figures are a growing and strengthening sign of confidence in that recovery. There is nothing selective about that at all. As to Senator Chaney's interjection in relation to the June 1983 figures, to which Senator Walters perhaps was referring, insofar as there was a flutter up in investments in June 1983, I expect that reflects only a sigh of relief by the investment community that we had finally got rid of the Fraser Government. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether he has seen the claim by Dr Denis Mackey that repetition strain injury was invented two years ago as a 'bit of a joke', that 'aches and pains of everyday life have been translated into RSI and floated to a gullible community as a workers compensation claim', and that 'the myth of RSI is at present a stage of amusement for the medical profession'? Does the Minister agree that Dr Mackey is just being mischievous and is in effect accusing many general practitioners and specialists of misdiagnosing, and that such an attitude by a member of the medical profession could inhibit sufferers of RSI from seeking early treatment at the risk of permanent injury? Is it possible for the Minister to estimate how many other doctors in the community may be seeing RSI victims and dismissing their complaints as malingering? Senator GRIMES —I have no way of quantifying the information Senator Coates asked for in the latter part of his question, nor have I any information from the Minister for Health on that matter. I will see whether there is any information of that type available, but I doubt very much that there is. Dr Mackey is well known to Senator Coates, me and a few other people. He is many things, but an expert on RSI he is not, although I suppose he is entitled to his views, like anyone else. He is a prolific writer of letters to newspapers on all sorts of subjects, from political philosophy to Medicare and economics. His pet hates in life seem to be, in some order of magnitude: Public servants, the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and the Australian Medical Association. He is quite catholic in his interests and dislikes. Senator Tate —Catholic? Senator GRIMES —I apologise, Senator Tate, I was not referring to your religion. I think therefore that not too many members of the medical profession will take Dr Mackey's letter very seriously. As Senator Coates says, it could have unfortunate effects in the treatment of the people who have what has come to be known as repetition strain injury. Among Dr Mackey's remarks was the statement that RSI was just an Australian phenomenon. In fact, although the incidence seems to be very high in this country, particularly in the Public Service, there is a substantial body of literature on this syndrome in Europe, in medical journals in the United States of America and, of course, in Australia. At the moment an Australian Public Service task force, headed by Mr Des Linehan, is in the process of hearing submissions from various government departments, professional organisations, individuals and others such as unions, on this very subject. All the indications, I believe, are that RSI is a widespread condition, not only in Australia but also overseas, in which physical, psychological, management and ergonometric factors play their part. Quite clearly, whatever the cause, it is a major occupational health problem in Australia. The Government and the Department of Health are aware of the issues involved. We are taking steps to examine the problem in depth as a matter of priority. I suggest that the best thing Dr Mackey can do to back up his views is to offer to give evidence to the task force of the Public Service Board. Any evidence he has can be examined by that body and we can see whether he has anything useful to contribute. I make the final comment that it has been a general belief in the medical profession that propositions of the type Dr Mackey has put are best put forward in a scientific way and in a way that can be examined by the medical profession and others who have to deal with the problem. In most cases it is believed that seeking publicity in what is euphemistically called the popular Press or through letters to newspapers is neither scientific nor sensible. I can only assume that what Dr Mackey is up to is what he is often up to, and that is to get his name on the front page of as many newspapers as possible in this country. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I seek clarification of the Government's decision not to provide the logistic support requested by the United States of America for its MX testing, despite the deterrent importance of the MX. Are we to understand from the Government that until the first week of February it was the view of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence, and the Ambassador for Disarmament that the nature of Australian support requested by the US was such that rejection of the request would remove Australia's credibility with our ally, especially with regard to disarmament and arms control? More specifically, why then was it that during the first week of February the Prime Minister unilaterally decided to reject that request? I say 'reject' notwithstanding the fact that the US was finally forced to withdraw the request. Senator BUTTON —I do not remember the exact dates to which Senator Teague referred in his question but, yes, it is true that four Ministers in the Government decided, at an early stage, that the agreement entered into by the Fraser Government to provide logistic support for the MX tests should be carried out, subject to some modification of the terms of that agreement. I think it is important that we understand what were the terms of the agreement as entered into by the Fraser Government. The only public announcement about the terms of that agreement was made by Mr Sinclair on a PM program one night, when he was asked about the agreement. He said: 'Yes, we agreed to that. It was like arranging to play tennis. We said: ''Let's have a game some time. We will fix the time and place at a later stage''.' The agreement was as sloppy as that. It was just like agreeing to play tennis, in the words of the former Minister of Defence in the Fraser Government. It is true that four Ministers agreed to that. The Prime Minister did not unilaterally change his mind, as suggested in Senator Teague's question. He decided that in consultation with a number of colleagues. All this is a matter of public record so I do not know why Senator Teague, unless he belongs to the ranks of Senator Withers and never reads newspapers, regurgitates these things during Question Time in the Senate. Insofar as it was a unilateral rejection, as it was put, the facts are clear. By the time the Prime Minister reached the United States, the United States Government had reached a decision on this matter. Senator Missen —Face-saving-that is all that was. Senator BUTTON —Face-saving on whose part? Either on the part of the United States Government-- Senator Missen —Your Prime Minister. Senator BUTTON —Is that so? So the United States of Government went out of its way to save the Prime Minister's face? That is all right. So what? I doubt whether the United States Government would go out of its way to save the face of the Opposition of this country. When the Prime Minister arrived in the United States a statement was made by Mr Shultz on the United States Government's attitude, and that statement has been read into the Senate Hansard. They are the facts of the matter, and I would have thought that everybody would have been aware of them, except perhaps Senator Teague. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. Putting aside the Minister's personal references, because this is a matter of importance. I ask for clarification. When it meant overriding the long term security of Australians, by what process did the Prime Minister assess the representativeness of the minority views being put to him by his Party along these lines? Senator BUTTON —Of course the question contains a value judgment that the decision overrides the long term security of Australians. That is the view to which Senator Teague is entitled. It is a view of the ANZUS alliance which was consistently put by Liberal governments over a number of years-that is, if one does anything which is different from the United States, if one advocates any policy which is different from that advocated by the United States, one is in breach, as it were, of the treaty of friendship which this country has with the United States. That attitude to the United States alliance cost 500 Australian lives in Vietnam. I can remember being in the Senate when honourable senators now sitting on the other side of the chamber were arguing with vehemence when in government that it would do something for the people of Afghanistan if we boycotted the Moscow Olympic Games. Does nobody read the newspapers now? Is nobody on the Opposition side concerned about the people of Afghanistan? What did that action do? They are the sorts of things in respect of which there is a possibility to exert a slightly different view from that expressed over time by the United States Government. To say in question, as Senator Teague said, that we are overriding the long term security of this country is not a view which this Government does not accept and which Mr Shultz and the President of the United States do not accept. Senator ROBERTSON —Mr President, my question is addressed to you. I must preface my question by saying that I have been approached by a number of constituents concerning the costs involved with the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. Are you in a position to be able to provide the Senate with the information which has been requested of me? The PRESIDENT —I have been supplied by the Department of the Senate with some figures which I do not have immediately available, but I shall obtain them and give the honourable senator a reply. Senator MESSNER —Can the Minister for Community Services confirm a report in the Australian Financial Review of 6 February that the Government was considering a special interdepartmental committee report on occupational superannuation which indicated that it had reached substantial agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on the extension of superannuation as part of the forthcoming wage case? In view of the significance of this report and the ramifications for the income security of retiring Australians, given that they have been subjected to two years of anxiety and confusion, will the Government table this report so that it can be studied in some detail? Senator GRIMES —Yes, an interdepartmental committee was looking at occupational superannuation. Yes, there is a report which the Government has been looking at. I did not see the report in the Financial Review. I certainly know nothing of any agreement with the ACTU concerning the extension of occupational superannuation as part of any wage case or wage settlement. I will seek an answer to that question from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. As to the matter of tabling such a report, it is not the custom to do so. I will discuss that matter with the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who is the Minister Assisting the Treasurer and who has had a particular interest in that matter. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs. In the report of the Kirby Committee to Review Productivity and Innovation Programs, which is considering labour market programs, it is stated that although the number of community youth support scheme projects now exceeds the number of Commonwealth Employment Service officers, the distribution of CYSS projects is inequitable. These people are very confused about their role and constantly anxious about their future. The report recommended that they be developed into a new Australian youth service. Can the Minister say whether the Government is considering an alternative to CYSS? If so, what form will it take and how will it be established? Senator BUTTON —I am not able to comment fully on the detail requested by Senator Foreman. However, the Government is conducting a thorough examination of the recommendations of the Kirby report, including, particularly, the proposals for training and upgrading of training facilities and schemes. An announcement will be made about that in the not too distant future. I assume that the examination of the Kirby report will include an examination of some of the difficulties with CYSS projects to which Senator Foreman has averted in his question. I will seek further clarification from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs and provide Senator Foreman with a more detailed answer as soon as I can. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Given that Australia's monetary supply is running substantially in excess of budget, a heavy trade imbalance, a burgeoning Budget deficit, a lower exchange rate, high government borrowings and average weekly earnings increases running in excess of those of our major trading partners, does the Minister expect inflation to rise in the medium term? On what rationale does the Treasurer base his conclusion that interest rates, after payment of current tax obligations, will not rise? Senator WALSH —I did not hear the early part of that question, but I think I got the substance of it satisfactorily. There are references to the current account deficit, the Budget deficit, the falling value of the dollar and so on. The bottom line of the question seemed to be whether, as a result of all these factors, inflation was likely to rise or remain stable in the medium term. Of course, it is undeniable that a sustained fall in the value of the Australian dollar will have some effect on the consumer price index, although, as I explained the other day, import prices are a minor component of the CPI regimen and even changes in import prices are not normally entirely passed on to the CPI. The answer to the question is no, inflation is not likely to rise in the medium term because, by April, we will have gone through a 12-month period in which here has been no increase in wages. It is expected that there will be an increase of the order of 2 1/2 per cent in April. That will have a far more significant impact on the consumer price index and, to the degree that the nominal interest rate is not influenced by the CPI, therefore no effect on interest rates. Senator Watson seems to be labouring under the misconception that, because the price of the Australian dollar has fallen, necessarily interest rates will increase and has clearly failed to understand a major reason for the decision to float the Australian dollar; that is, with a floating dollar it will not be necessary to increase interest rates in order to protect the value of the currency. In short, the outlook for the CPI and interest rates over the medium term-I do not think anybody can sensibly make predictions beyond the medium term-is that there are not likely to be any increases, as the Treasurer has said. Indeed, I would suggest that there is the possibility of some reductions, in marked contrast to a situation which prevailed when this Government came to office just under two years ago when inflation was in double figures, unemployment was in double figures, economic growth was negative and the country was in the midst of the deepest depression that it had known in the previous 50 years. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which refers to the recent concern over the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus and the in vitro fertilisation program and the artificial insemination by donor program, is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister able to confirm that special precautions are now used to screen donor sperm and ova for AIDS? Can the Minister say what effect the AIDS dilemma will have on those frozen embryos already in storage which were developed from donor sperm? Are precise records kept so that tracing can occur of both the individual donor and where that donor's gametes are placed within either of the two programs? Senator GRIMES —Some concern has been expressed over the possibility of the AIDS virus being transmitted through the in vitro fertilisation program and the artificial insemination by donor programs. A study in the United States of America of some 10,000 artificial inseminations by donors using frozen semen has found no cases of the transmission of AIDS by this route. Obviously the risk is there hypothetically but we do not think it is very high. Nevertheless, the medical profession and the various authorities have taken steps to develop safeguards. The introduction of precautions has varied between the States because of differences in their artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation programs. It is also limited by the availability of the AIDS screening test from research teams. I cannot give details of the various steps that have been taken in each State, but, in general what happens is that donors of semen are being required to sign a declaration similar to that signed by blood donors, stating that they are not members of groups with a high risk of AIDS. Where the research teams are able to make tests for antibodies to the AIDS related virus available from their limited supplies, semen donors are also being screened by this method. The donor is screened again some months later before the semen is used. In some cases frozen semen donated before 1980, which can be presumed to be uncontaminated, is in fact used. Similar precautions are being instituted for donors of sperm in in vitro fertilisation programs. I understand that donor ova are not used in these programs. If donor embryos are used the donors will be screened for antibodies for AIDS. In all the in vitro fertilisation programs in this country precise records of donors are kept. So I believe that the precautions that have been taken in all the States are in fact rigorous in their attempts to ensure that this possible transmission of the virus will not occur. Senator KILGARIFF —Is the Minister for Finance aware of criticism concerning lengthy delays in the processing of proposals to the Foreign Investment Review Board, and does the Minister accept that such delays will lead to a reduction in the amount of foreign capital available to encourage development and provide much needed employment opportunities? Can the Minister say whether the reports of processing delays are fair and accurate, and if they are, what steps are being taken to facilitate speedier processing of those proposals? Will the Minister provide statistics showing the number of proposals put to the Foreign Investment Review Board over the past two years and the time it has taken to process these proposals? Senator WALSH —I will just sort out some of the factual confusion. This question, because it concerns the Foreign Investment Review Board, ought to have been addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, which is me as it was in the previous Parliament. I do not have any knowledge of recent complaints about delays but it is quite possible that there are complaints but without my being aware of them or of the length of time for which particular applications may have been held up. Senator Kilgariff suggested that some action should be taken to expedite the processing of these applications. I suppose that is not a bad idea, but I hope he is not suggesting that we should expedite foreign investment by the means employed by the former Chief Minister of the Territory he represents. This expedition of foreign investment included the expropriation of property and the illegal advancing of bridging finance by the Northern Government to the foreign beneficiary of the property which had been expropriated from the previous owner. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Resources and Energy seen the article by the political commentator Maximilian Walsh published in the Sydney Morning Herald last Monday, 25 February, which criticised the proposal to introduce a system of cash bidding for the allocation of petroleum exploration rights? Of the off-shore petroleum exploration areas released recently, how many are for work program bidding and how many will be awarded on the new cash bidding system? What are some of the difficulties encountered with the existing program bidding system? Will the introduction of the cash bidding system result in a reduction of funds available for petroleum exploration? Senator GARETH EVANS —Of the 14 exploration areas in the north-west Australia off-shore region that were released in February nine are for work program bidding and five are for cash bidding when the legislation is in place. The nine areas available for work program bidding are spread around the adjacent areas of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Ashmore and Cartier Islands. All of the remaining five areas released for cash bidding are in the adjacent territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands and as such are solely within the Commonwealth's responsibility. The five cash bidding areas are those which have been identified as the most highly prospective of the new areas. It is the Government's view that cash bidding is a more economically efficient method than any work bidding system for allocating exploration rights, particularly when, as is likely to be the case here, competition is high. In applying the existing work program bidding system there are very real difficulties for highly prospective exploration areas. Some recent experience in the Gippsland Basin illustrates that difficulty. Three permits were offered recently in that area and a total of 29 applications were received. Those applications represented a whole variety of exploration philosophies, and it became necessary in making the allocation decision to consider factors that went beyond those which the normal best bid approach would have taken into account. Of the three permits that were actually granted in the Gippsland Basin releases one was in fact surrendered after completion of only one-third of the work program proposed; we understand another permittee is now looking for a farm-in partner to assist in further drilling and the third applied to reduce its overall program. Therefore, there can be no guarantee that even with the most careful attention to the criteria appropriate to work program bidding we can get it right. The central question in the criticism advanced against cash bidding, which no doubt we will hear again in this chamber when the legislation is debated later this session, is whether the introduction of this system will reduce the overall funds available for exploration. There are two important points to consider in responding to that criticism. I acknowledge the very great policy interest that this matter properly generates. I will put it as quickly as I can. The first point in regard to the cash bid permits themselves is that the permittee is free to undertake the most commercially viable exploration program he can devise. In deciding to bid for a permit a company will design an exploration program which will adequately assess the petroleum potential of that permit and the company will estimate the expected returns from that program. If the company also happens to hold a permit in a less prospective area it may well be that the payment of a cash bid for the good acreage will reduce funds, at least in the short run, for the exploration in the other area. While it thus may be necessary for some companies temporarily to divert funds in this way or divert them from other company activity this does not mean that the company will neglect petroleum prospects which are less prospective but still attractive. One other point which is constantly neglected is that a decision to pay cash for a permit is identical to a decision to farm in to a permit, as Senator Durack, when he masters this aspect of his shadow portfolio, will no doubt appreciate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister, who has made a particularly long answer, to wind up his answer. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, in both cases the company pays a premium, be it in cash or in exploration commitment. A decision to pay such a premium is a normal and common commercial decision. It is interesting to note again-- Senator Durack —Will that be done in Australia? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to bring his answer to a conclusion. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I find it interesting to note-I hope Senator Durack will also-that since 1980 in the 100 or so off-shore permit areas released there have been at least 50 such farm-in agreements. The funds for these farm-in arrangements obviously form part of a company's exploration budget. Again it may result in some short term diversion from exploration activity elsewhere. But if prospects are expected to be profitable they will not go undrilled. Cash bidding systems of various kinds are extremely common overseas. It is a system which allows for certain very sensitive and difficult decisions to be made by the operation of market forces. I conclude, Mr President-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. You have asked the Minister several times to draw his answer to a conclusion. He seems to be deliberately trying to talk out Question Time. I ask you to sit him down and enable an Opposition senator to ask a question. The PRESIDENT —The Leader of the Opposition would know that I am not in a position to shorten the Minister's answer. But I have made a request to the Minister and I would ask him to see whether he can comply with the request. Senator GARETH EVANS —I conclude, as I said I would, as Senator Chaney was getting to his feet, by expressing the hope that journalists like Mr Walsh and those companies whose views he advances-not to mention those of members of the Opposition-would have just a little more confidence in the operation of those market forces whose virtues elsewhere they so routinely espouse. Senator Chaney —Would the Minister table the paper? Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course. Senator MISSEN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the program for cultural co-operation, a cultural agreement entered into by the Soviet Union and Australian governments on 19 December 1984. I ask: Firstly, whether the agreement refers to an academic exchange program between Leningrad University and Melbourne University, when in fact the exchange program operates with Monash, not Melbourne, University; secondly, whether, as is apparent from such errors and also from its language structure and other intrinsic evidence, the document was drafted by Soviet Russian sources; thirdly, whether any advice was sought by the Australian Government from Australian citizens with experience or background in Soviet areas as to the proposed terms of the agreement; and, fourthly, whether the Australian Government is aware that the agreement, with its detailed requirements for promotion of the Russian language, has given great offence to the 40,000 Australian citizens of Ukrainian origin and other national and cultural groups who have suffered under Russian imperialism. Senator GARETH EVANS —I ask Senator Missen to put that question on notice. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 27 February, from the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- 'That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need to reassert that Australia's participation in ANZUS and the western alliance is- (a) vital to our defence; (b) a major contribution to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence and the preservation of peace; and (c) a means of increasing Australia's influence in disarmament negotiations, and to unequivocally reject the attractive but unrealistic idea that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race.' Yours sincerely, FRED CHANEY Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the motion supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.03) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to reassert that Australia's participation in ANZUS and the western alliance is- (a) vital to our defence; (b) a major contribution to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence and the preservation of peace; and (c) a means of increasing Australia's influence in disarmament negotiations, and to unequivocally reject the attractive but unrealistic idea that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. In Australia it has been possible to forget from time to time that the primary objective of a national government must be to ensure the nation's security. We have been able to overlook that because for much of our history we have not felt ourselves under threat and the world has seemed to be a reasonably secure place for us. But I think that over the last few months we have been dramatically reminded that the framework within which we have seen our national survival remain intact is a framework which has been threatened. I suppose that in the modern world, too, it is necessary to say that the idea of national survival is not merely a matter of defence; it is also a matter of the maintenance of peace throughout the world. There does seem to be a good deal of common ground in this chamber and in the community that Australia's peaceful existence is dependent upon the existence of peace elsewhere. The threat of the wholesale destruction of the world by nuclear war is a threat which is taken very seriously in Australia and, indeed, around the world. It is often possible to tuck that primary concern out of the way and to worry about the more immediate, usually economic, concerns such as unemployment, strikes, interest rates and the many issues that hit our hip pockets. I have brought forward this motion of urgency this afternoon because we have had a sharp reminder of the prime concern that we should look to our country's security. There have been two triggers which have led me to bring it forward. We have had a Question Time in which again we have heard bland assurances that all is well with ANZUS and all is well with Australia's relationship with the United States of America. It is quite extraordinary, when one examines the tone of the answers which were given by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, to realise that today the Prime Minister of New Zealand, speaking in Los Angeles, has said that the United States would be stopping bilateral defence exercises, that it would be stopping the sharing of intelligence information of a raw military type and, in his words, 'this constitutes an end to the United States-New Zealand defence relationship'. We have had bland assurances from Senator Evans that all is well, on a day when the Prime Minister of New Zealand has suggested that the United States-New Zealand defence relationship has ended. That is the first trigger. We see that as a most significant event, and an event which proves that the sorts of assurances which Government Ministers have sought to give over recent weeks are simply ignoring the harsh realities of what is happening. The second trigger, though, is the attitude of the Government yesterday to the amendment moved by the Opposition to the motion for the second reading of the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill which was brought forward by the Australian Democrats. We sought in that amendment to make clear some of the fundamental points which we believe should have had bipartisan support and which, because of the statements of people like Senator Evans, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), ought to have been common ground in this Parliament. There ought to have been common ground on all of the points that we put forward; namely, that there should be continued access by the ships of our allies, whether nuclear powered or nuclear capable, because that is an important part of the Western world's defence alliance, and that there ought to be agreement that unilateral disarmament measures can only undermine the cause of peace and contribute to instability. That is, after all, what the Prime Minister said when he addressed the Parliament last June. There ought to have been concern at the attempt by the Australian Democrats to lead Australia down the path of putting unilateral restrictions-that is, one set of restrictions-on the United States without regard for the need of the United States to balance the armed might of the Soviet Union. There ought to have been support for the view that disarmament measures should occur only as part of a mutual and balanced reduction of arms with effective verification and compliance. Again, according to the words that the Government has used in this place and elsewhere, there should have been general acceptance of the view that Australia's influence in disarmament forums is dependent upon our continuing to help in the maintenance of an effective deterrent. The fact is that the Government has used words very much in those terms, and yet it voted against that amendment. Senator Georges is in the chamber on this occasion. He can be well pleased with that result, even if the people of Australia cannot, because undoubtedly it was the presence of people like Senator Georges and Senator McIntosh which prevented the Government from voting in accordance with the pious expressions that we have heard from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and others. Instead, what we had from Senator Evans was a play on words. I will not quote from Hansard, but a reading of Hansard shows the pathetic weakness of the reasons he put forward for seeking to water down that amendment. Today's developments in relation to New Zealand expose the folly of the quite ridiculous assertion that one can have a one-sided alliance, that one can have one's cake and eat it, too. That is really what is being defended by members of the Australian Labor Party. That is what is being defended by the Government when it supports what New Zealand has been doing. One cannot have one's cake and eat it, too. If one is a member of an alliance, one must be prepared to bear the responsibilities of it as well as to take the advantages which it brings. We have had a whole lot of shillyshallying about where we stand with respect to ANZUS and the visits of warships. This has continued up till today. It is very easy to lose sight in this debate of the fundamental importance of ANZUS to Australia, to New Zealand and, indeed, to the whole world. Restricting my comment for the moment to the advantages of ANZUS to Australia, I wish to remind the Senate of what Mr Hayden had to say on his return from the ANZUS Council meeting held in Wellington in July 1984. Mr Hayden, in response to questions asked on that occasion-this is particularly pertinent, given the statement that Mr Lange has made today-pointed out that quite apart from the direct protection which ANZUS might give against threats, the benefits of ANZUS 'come in many other directions as well as the security undertakings that are provided in it in the event of problems'. He continued: They come for instance in the effective eyes and ears of the support we get, the sharing of intelligence information which is important to a small country like Australia. We make our contribution and share it and we get a share of the contribution from the United States and New Zealand. Secondly, we have access without any problems to some of the most advanced military technology which the Americans produce. Now, America doesn't provide that access for a great number of countries in the world, and that's important to a country like Australia where, because of small numbers, quality is important. Those are the views that Mr Hayden expressed last July. They support the first leg of the motion which we have moved today, namely, that the ANZUS alliance is vital to our defence. That is a matter which ought to be beyond argument in this chamber. I wish also to refer to something that was said by Mr Hayden early this year-indeed, only a few days ago. He said: The only effective arrangement against nuclear war at present in operation, is the system of deterrence. That proposition, again, is part of what we have put before the Senate today. I will quote the supposed view of the Prime Minister and honourable senators will find some reflection of his words in the words of the motion which we have moved in the Senate today. I refer to a statement, made in June last year, which related to the whole nuclear issue and that of bases and facilities in Australia in which the Prime Minister said: In approaching this responsibility, the Government unequivocally rejects the attractive but unrealistic idea that unilateral disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. Those are the words of the Prime Minister taken from a paper in which he was talking about the risk of nuclear war, and he purports to put himself squarely in the camp of those who reject the unrealistic idea that unilateral disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. One might ask, having heard those quotations from Mr Hayden and Mr Hawke, why it is therefore necessary to bring forward this matter of urgency which asserts things which are common ground. Senator Gareth Evans —Hear, hear! Senator CHANEY —I note that the Attorney-General nods. He says, in effect: 'Why should that be necessary?' Senator Gareth Evans —The former discredited Attorney-General! Senator CHANEY —I thank the Minister. What the former discredited Attorney-General is suggesting is that there should be no need to bring this matter forward because it covers common ground. He says that the Government agrees with the propositions in this motion. The important thing to note is the sequence of events which have given rise to doubts about these questions, events which are thoroughly in the hands of the Government and its Party, the Australian Labor Party, events which demonstrate that there are concerns which at the moment ought to be at the heart of the concerns of every Australian. The fact is that this Government, the Hawke Labor Government, does not live up to its word. It is a fact that doubts have been raised; they have been raised continuously since the Government came into office. It is a fact that the New Zealand-United States arrangements have been-again, I use the words of Mr Lange reported on Australian radio today-'drastically scaled down'. Those words preceded his comments that this situation constitutes an end to the United States-New Zealand defence relationship. That is a fact and it cannot be papered over in this debate today. It is a fact that impinges on Australia. It is a fact that impinges on the responsibilities of this Government and of this Parliament. I list-certainly it is not an exclusive or total list-some of the matters which have given rise to doubts in the Australian community and in the minds of our allies in the Western world. One of the doubts, of course, was first raised by the actions of Mr Cain, the Premier of Victoria who shortly will cease to be the Premier of Victoria. He, of course, is in many respects the captive of the Left in his own State. He set out to say that nuclear-capable ships or nuclear-propelled ships should not use the port of Melbourne. That was as long as July 1982, before the advent of the Hawke Government. Mr Cain had to be instructed in his duties by the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. The Premier of Victoria sought to take out of the hands of the Federal Government its ability to admit the ships of its allies to Australian ports. Indeed, he even made a statement that as far as he was concerned it was a provocative act on the part of the United States to expect the USS Goldsborough to visit Melbourne. That matter was cleared up by the Fraser Government. It was cleared up then because we had a Government that had a clear policy in those areas. It was Mr Cain in Victoria, who first exposed the preparedness of the Labor Party to put at risk what Federal Labor Ministers now say is a fundamental part of our ANZUS obligation, namely, the visits of ships of our allies to our ports. That proposal was described by that well-known Melbourne newspaper, the Age, as 'compounding nuclear folly'. I think that is a very good description of Mr Cain's contribution to this essential area. The problem was compounded by another State Labor Premier, Mr Wran, who only today has stepped back and said that perhaps visits of allied ships are the responsibility of the Commonwealth. The fact is that Mr Wran has sought to interfere with the freedom of Australia to co-operate with the United States and other allies in the exercise of its strategic and defence responsibilities. It has been compounded-- Senator McIntosh —Tell us about Gorton and New York. Senator CHANEY —The doubts which exist in Australia have been compounded by Senator McIntosh's branch of the ALP in a way with which he is in complete agreement. I notice that Senator McKiernan is sitting next to Senator McIntosh. Perhaps both honourable senators are in complete agreement with the efforts of the Western Australian branch of the ALP to reduce Australia's ability to co-operate with the United States. We all know that this branch sought at the Federal conferences of the ALP to bar admission of United States ships to Australian ports. Senator McIntosh told us in debate in this place only in the last day or so that he regretted having lost that argument and that he was hopeful of winning it next time around. What more could be done by Senator McIntosh to cast doubts on the future of the ANZUS alliance and our ability to co-operate in it? Worst of all, these doubts have been compounded by the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, who cannot resist throwaway lines about not being a messenger boy for the United States and who cannot resist showing off, trying to be tough and saying as he did in Geneva: 'We will have the power to remove American access to bases and that will be our bargaining chip'. What a wonderful way for Australia to behave-not to discuss the matter with our allies but to raise it in a way which simply curries favour with the Left faction of the ALP, does something to establish Mr Hayden's internal reputation within that party and has nothing to do with Australia's long term national interest. Senator Georges —You give us more evidence. Senator CHANEY —We have just heard some sort of response from Senator Georges. It needs to be remembered that Mr Hawke and Mr Hayden were in active disagreement on that issue in August of last year. The Prime Minister had to rush to plug widening gaps in ANZUS. That was how his action was described in the Australian Financial Review. Back in August 1984 there was a serious difference of opinion between the two most senior members of the Government about the extent to which we should be co-operating with ANZUS. When we see that sort of behaviour on the part of the Foreign Minister, how can we expect others in the free world, the Western world, those who are part of the Western alliance, to take Australia seriously? Doubts have been compounded by the then Minister for Defence, the present Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who in his refusal to co-operate with the British with respect to the visit of HMS Invincible left another scar on Australia's reputation as a nation which stands behind its responsibilities. More recently, these doubts have been compounded by Senator Susan Ryan, who finds conflict between two basic elements of the Government's policy. We find that for Senator Ryan there is serious conflict between the desire to promote disarmament and the desire to be part of the free world's deterrence system. We in the Opposition do not see that as a conflict. That is not claimed to be a conflict by the Government when it makes its official statements. Yet, one of the most senior members of the Government can make such a claim and ask for the revision and review of ANZUS. Again, more recently, doubts have been compounded by people who, if I may use the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), were described as 'long-tongued fourth graders'. Two of those people come from this chamber. Of course, they are not interested enough in this subject to take part in this debate. But we all heard Senator Peter Cook and Senator Crowley-- Senator Georges —Wait a minute. We are not allowed. Senator CHANEY —I thank Senator Georges very much. He has exposed the structure of the debating list of the ALP. The Labor Government is not prepared to let its long-tongued fourth graders loose in this debate. Senator Crowley no doubt has been banished to the afternoon tea room, along with Senator Peter Cook. We will not be hearing the long-tongued fourth graders this afternoon, but the important thing is that this is not an amusing matter because the long-tongued fourth graders are heard outside Australia as well as within it. They are heard as people who will destabilise this Government and its approach to the fundamental issues. It may be amusing to Senator McIntosh, who wants to turn the world on its head, but it is certainly not amusing to me to see these fourth graders with their long tongues interfering in national security. Most recently the doubts which have arisen in Australia and elsewhere about our commitment to ANZUS and our preparedness to play an active and proper part in the free world and to pursue peace in a responsible way in line with the Government's own rhetoric have been compounded by Senators Georges and McIntosh, who in debate in this place made clear that they adopt a fundamentally different approach to the problems which beset Australia in this region. They have made it clear that they will be doing everything they can to produce what I would describe as a unilateral approach to disarmament. The Opposition has continually warned the Government of the folly of the New Zealand approach and of the fact that Australia has responsibilities in this area. Today, one has the situation that, in the opinion of the New Zealand Prime Minister, there has been a substantial rift created within the ANZUS alliance and an end to the defence co-operation between the United States and New Zealand. With the doubts that have been raised by the Government and its minions over Australia's approach and responsibilities, we believe that there are serious doubts about the future for Australia and we call upon the Senate to support this motion of urgency. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.22) —It is difficult to understand why the Opposition has brought forward this motion at all, let alone as a matter of urgency. Labor's support for ANZUS is complete and unequivocal. In every contribution to every debate on the subject since Parliament has resumed, and in every answer to every question on the subject, that has been made clear. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made it clear, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has made it clear, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has made it clear, and certainly I have made it clear in this place that that is so. All of us have been speaking not just for ourselves but for the Labor Government and for the Labor Party in government. The Cabinet made clear its position on 12 February with a statement in the following terms: Federal Cabinet today reaffirmed Australian Government policy on the basic issues of the Australia/U.S. Alliance, ANZUS Treaty and on disarmament and deterrence. Then a little further down: There was also general agreement that both the Australia/U.S. Alliance and the need to do all in our power to ensure the maximum possible progress on disarmament were essential to Australian foreign policy. That language picks up the theme of the review of the operations of ANZUS, which was conducted in 1983 and which led Mr Hayden in reporting upon it to the Parliament on 15 September in that year to say: The review has led us to a firm and unequivocal affirmation of the Alliance as fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign and defence policies. Caucus of the Labor Party made its position clear on 19 February when it endorsed specifically the terms of the Cabinet decision of 12 February. So the situation is that Caucus, the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, has also reaffirmed Australian Government policy on the basic issues of the Australian-United States alliance, the ANZUS Treaty, and disarmament and deterrence, and has done so without any dissenting voice at all. Not only is there no doubt about the Labor Government's position and the Labor Party's position, but there is also no doubt whatever that there is complete understanding and acceptance of our position in the United States. That could not have been made clearer than by the United States Secretary of State, George Shultz, who issued a Press statement on 20 February, a few days ago, in the following terms: I am pleased by the announcement of Prime Minister Hawke of Australia on 19 February that his Cabinet has reaffirmed Australia's support for the ANZUS Alliance and for the full responsibilities that the Alliance entails. We note that the Prime Minister described ship visits and U.S./Australian joint facilities as continuing fundamentals of the Australian/U.S. Alliance relationship. We welcome these reaffirmations of Australia's commitment to its ties with the United States. With this degree of clarity and certainty about the Australian position and the United States's understanding of it, why then is the Senate debating this urgency motion, which calls on us yet again to reaffirm that commitment? The reason cannot be any confusion shown by the words or actions of a Labor government. It can only be because the Liberal-National Party Opposition feels a compelling need today to set its own credentials in order, following its extraordinary behaviour yesterday in voting against the Labor Party motion that was moved in this place. I read that into the record to remind you, Mr Deputy President, and others in this chamber how incongrous and extraordinary it was. The amendment in question was in the following terms: 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. The Opposition in this place voted against that, as it did against the second paragraph, which reads: 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. Despite all the rhetoric, that particular proposition, obvious and self-evident as it may seem, was voted against by the Opposition yesterday. It is obvious that the Opposition is in complete disarray on the question of ANZUS. For all its rhetoric, it is not committed to keeping that very delicate trilateral relationship intact. There is further evidence for that proposition. Senator Chipp —There is another reason. Opposition members realise that their amendment yesterday let your left wingers off the hook, so they are trying to redeem the situation. Senator GARETH EVANS —They can redeem themselves to their hearts' content today, because we will be supporting quite cheerfully the terms of their motion, and let there be no doubt about that. The other reason for the disarray that is evident in the Opposition has been the example set by their Leader, Mr Peacock. His blundering, charging, bull-at-a-gate approach to the New Zealand issue and to the New Zealand Government has been the kind of behaviour over the last few weeks calculated to tear apart not only Australia and New Zealand bilateral relationships, but the whole delicate interrelationship between the three treaty powers. (Quorum formed) I am not surprised at that diversion called by Senator Chaney because the Liberals do not like the unpalatable truth that Mr Peacock's approach to the whole question of New Zealand and ANZUS has been utterly and thoroughly destructive of the relationship and designed to do nothing less than to wreck it. His behaviour has been properly described by the Prime Minister as reckless, shallow and posturing. The Senate has had another demonstration of that today in Senator Chaney's contribution to this debate. The Australian Labor Government's position on the New Zealand question is that, respecting as it does the sovereignty and dignity of New Zealand as an independent nation, we have seen it as not our business or our role to be heavying anybody or making public judgments about positions taken by our treaty partners. We want to maintain the closest possible relationship with both our treaty partners and this is the role we will continue to play. It is the only possible role for alliance partners, but it is a role that seems to have been very much misunderstood, whether through ignorance or folly I am not sure, by the Opposition and by its Leader. What is the justification for ANZUS that makes us happy to endorse the kinds of sentiments, unnecessary as they are, contained in this motion? There are two basic reasons and they are reflected both in the terms of this motion and in the Hayden statement of 1983 to which I earlier referred. The first is that ANZUS is fundamental to our national security. That is something which has long been very well understood by the Australian people. It has been the traditional centrepiece of the debate about ANZUS. It was this aspect of the relationship that was particularly considered in the 1983 operational review of ANZUS, given that it was a generation old and that a generation had elapsed since the treaty was entered into, with all the innumerable changes in the world and in regional and defence issues and situations during that time. I cannot do better than again quote in that respect the findings of the 1983 review so far as national security is concerned, but, given the shortage of time which I am forced into by that quorum call, I seek leave to incorporate the relevant passages into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- It is in Australia's interests to maintain the ANZUS Treaty. Although concluded in very different circumstances the ANZUS Treaty has continuing relevance. It supports Australia's security in current and prospective strategic circumstances and reflects a coincidence of strategic interest between Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. This coincidence of interest provides the basis for co-operation which yields substantial benefits for Australia's defence effort and which affords substantial benefit to the U.S. also; The provisions of the Treaty have been a significant factor in the development of consultation and co-operation with the US and provide a firm basis on which US military support could be sought in the event of major threat to the security of Australia (or New Zealand). While the provisions of the Treaty do not define precisely the nature of the response which partners might provide according to their constitutional processes in the event of attack or major threat, the Treaty has significant deterrent value; ANZUS has facilitated the development of valuable co-operation in defence matters with benefits much wider than the scope of the Treaty's provisions; The Treaty provisions do not derogate from Australia's right of national decisions in foreign and defence policy matters. Senator GARETH EVANS —The second aspect of the justification for ANZUS is perhaps something that needs to be spelt out by me at some greater length because it has not been as well appreciated and has given rise to a belief in some quarters that there is something inconsistent about our membership of and continuing support for ANZUS in the context of our simultaneous support for peace and disarmament. As I have been doing in recent days, let me try to spell it out again. ANZUS is important not only for immediate Australian national security reasons but for what it contributes to, and what it enables Australia to contribute to, on the larger world security scene. There are a number of different ways of putting this. In the first place, ANZUS is the vehicle through which Australia demonstrates its commitment to the larger Western alliance. As Mr Hayden put it in 1983 and a number of times since, Australia is neither neutral nor non-aligned and ANZUS is proof of that. The importance of that commitment is that it contributes in a very direct way to the achievement, paradoxical as some people seem to continue to find this, of peace and disarmament. I spelt out why this was so at some length in debate on the Chipp nuclear ships Bill a couple of days ago in discussing different possible approaches to the avoidance of nuclear war, the mutually assured destruction or MAD I approach, the mutually assured defence or Star Wars or MAD II approach, and the approach of common security. I explained then, and I state again now, that it is only the common security approach that offers hope, common security involving, as it does, at its very essence, the possibility of moving the superpowers, in a way that no other approach to this issue is likely to, towards that downwards spiral or divestment of nuclear arms which we all want to see occur. The very essence of the common security approach is the existence of a stable and secure network of bilateral and multilateral alliance and treaty arrangements whereby both the nuclear super-powers can confidently abandon that upwards spiral of expenditure, which they are currently locked into by the present philosophy of the arms race, and embark on that downwards spiral of arms shedding which is the only way we are ever going to secure ultimate nuclear disarmament. The second way of looking at the advantages of the alliance relationship in the larger global context is that a side benefit of our participation in these alliance networks in general, and more particularly the ANZUS alliance, is that they give us some influence, some clout with our major ally in the peace and disarmament process in a way that would not be the case were we to be simply standing wistfully on the sidelines. The fruits of that influence may be slow to appear and may be slow on occasion to ripen, but they are there. Australia is a crucially important player on the world multilateral disarmament stage, and I say that notwithstanding the churlish and inaccurate article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald a couple of days ago suggesting to the contrary. There is something special and especially worth preserving about the ANZUS relationship which is important in generating that influence with our major treaty partner. The reason for the influence that Australia enjoys is that, in the excellent words of the Canberra Times editorial this morning, ANZUS is 'a special relationship of trust and mutual respect among long-standing if relatively unevenly contributing mates'. The third role that flows from our alliance relationship, although not flowing directly from anything in the ANZUS Treaty itself, is our contribution to world strategic stability through our hosting of the United States-Australian joint facilities in this country. It is a necessary part of the common security approach that in the short run, while getting people and super-powers to the point where they feel that they can confidently embark on the disarmament process, it is the case that a continued emphasis on deterrence is an indispensable part of that process, as much as we might wish otherwise, with all the dangers that are associated with any doctrine of deterrence operating in practice. There is no doubt that the joint facilities, especially Pine Gap and Nurrungar with their early warning and verification roles, are a crucial part of the West's deterrent capacity. The point was made again in Mr Hayden's 1983 statement, and I quote from the relevant passage: None of these activities-- referring to the joint defence facilities at North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar-- involves a specific ANZUS obligation, and they are in any case bilateral arrangements as New Zealand is not involved. While the agreements establishing the joint defence facilities do refer to ANZUS in their preambular paragraphs, they are not a necessary consequence of ANZUS itself. However, the facilities clearly represent an important reflection and instance of the shared interests which the Treaty embodies, and the Government regards this form of co-operation with the United States as of unique value. As the Prime Minister and I have indicated on several occasions recently, the contribution made by the joint defence facilities to deterrence of nuclear war fully justifies any risks that might be seen as arising from our having those facilities in Australia. In addition-- here he picks up the point I was making earlier about the kind of influence that is associated with an alliance relationship of the ANZUS kind-- the operation of the joint defence facilities gives us some moral standing in the position we intend to take more actively in the United Nations and other international fora in support of arms control and arms reduction. In short, whether one approaches this from the point of view of straightforward traditional considerations of Australian domestic security or whether one approaches this from the much larger, and in many ways more difficult immediately to grasp, context of foreign defence policy generally and the pursuit of peace and disarmament on a world scale, there is in both respects a crucial role for ANZUS and the alliance relationship represented by ANZUS to play. There are no paradoxes, there are no inconsistencies, in this position and it is a position that we, the Labor Party in government, will continue to espouse. Our consistency of commitment to ANZUS has been and will remain complete. Our commitment to ANZUS remains obvious. The only thing that has not been obvious in this debate is why the Opposition should have thought it necessary to bring the motion on at all today. The kind of speech we heard from Senator Chaney contributes very little to our understanding or appreciation of the issues. It has, however, for which I and the Government are duly grateful, given as yet another opportunity to add to the long list of earlier opportunities to put on the record our own complete commitment to the ANZUS Treaty and to the ANZUS relationship and our determination to ensure that it survives, is maintained and strengthened, notwithstanding the difficulties that are presently being experienced in one sector of its operation. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.40) —No matter is more important to a national government than the security of the country. That is why we are debating as a matter of urgency Australia's participation in ANZUS and the Western alliance. Senator Chaney in his introduction talked about the way ANZUS is vital to our defence, how it makes a major contribution to the stable deterrence under which the peace of the world is kept and its assistance in increasing Australia's influence in disarmament negotiations. Senator Gareth Evans was quite correct when he said that it should not be necessary for this chamber to debate a matter of such fundamental importance. Regrettably, it is necessary because of the ambivalence and political incompetence of the Australian Labor Party, as the Federal Government for the time being, in looking after Australia's interests in this field. It is also necessary because the alliance is under active attack by the Australian Democrats, the Nuclear Disarmament Party and other people of that ilk. Senator Chaney, in his address, listed some of the ALP blunders in international relationships which have caused the United States-Australian relationship to be strained. It is no oversimplification to say that we are well down the path of being viewed by the United States of America as being very much in the same category as New Zealand. There is an equivalence between Australia's position and that of New Zealand. Senator Sibraa —Rubbish! Senator MacGIBBON —If it is rubbish, as Senator Sibraa says, would the Government invite any ship of the Unites States Navy to enter the harbour of Melbourne or Sydney? The two largest ports of Australia are banned to ships which might be nuclear powered or nuclear armed. If that is not an equivalent position to the harbours of Auckland and Wellington, I want to know what is. Then we had the dreadful dishonesty of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) reneging on an agreement with respect to the MX tests, which I will come to later. In any discussion on the security of Australia the starting point must be the central importance of the United States alliance. We need to recognise that the state of that alliance has been compromised by the actions of the Labor Party. It is a matter of amazement to me that from time to time it is suggested that we might have a choice between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is no choice at all when we get to that position. This country stands behind the United States as an alliance partner. There never has been the need for a Solzhenitsyn in the United States because there never has been a Stalin who put millions of his countrymen to the sword. We support the United States as we support the other nations of the Western alliance-because they are the great democracies of the world. The difference between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the difference between a totalitarian regime and a democracy. Let us have no more of the talk of the moral equivalence, which flows so frequently from Mr Hayden's tongue, of the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The United States alliance is formalised through the ANZUS agreement. A great deal of misinformation is put about, particularly by the Democrats, as to what the ANZUS Treaty provides. It is often misrepresented by quoting Article III, which states that the parties will consult. The critics of the agreement say that consultation is not an effective guarantee. The operative part of the ANZUS Treaty is Article IV. Article IV states very specifically: Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. That is as tight and as binding a commitment as it is possible to write in a treaty between democracies. I have confidence in it and the Liberal and National parties have confidence in it. ANZUS brings us many advantages. Mr Deputy President, you have listed those advantages on many occasions. One on which I want to touch briefly, because it is a consequence of the break with New Zealand, is the exchange of intelligence information. Australian defence practice is based, under Labor, on a no-threat doctrine. It is as alive and well today as it was in the Whitlam years. The only difference is that the Government has left out the 15 years. It still believes that there is no threat to Australia today and that is the reason why it downplays its interest and its involvement in the defence of this country. If it did not believe that there was no threat to this country, why would the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) have appointed someone like Mr Dibb to inquire into the Defence Force structure, a move which puts the important decisions which are overdue in the Department of Defence back two or three years until the subterfuge of this report is presented to the Government? I come back to this business of intelligence in relation to the no-threat doctrine. I do not believe in the no-threat doctrine, but for those who believe in it the acquisition of adequate intelligence in a military sense is absolutely vital. Proponents of the no-threat doctrine believe that we will have five to 10 years to deal with a threat as it emerges. We will not get that information from reading Time magazine; we will get it only through sophisticated military intelligence, intelligence that is beyond Australia's resources. So the provision of intelligence through the ANZUS pact is absolutely crucial to the doctrine we hold at present. We are looking in the years ahead at a difficult decade for Australia. It might be true that in the last 10 or 20 years we had no threats at all, but in the next 10 years Australia will be living in a region which will be dramatically different from what it was. I do not have time to do more than touch on a few points. In New Caledonia, France is behaving in much the same way as Portugal did over Timor. In Vanuatu the Cuban legation has been accredited to the Government of that country. The problems of the Papua New Guinea border will deteriorate through the next decade. We face the certainty of a changeover of power in Indonesia. While we can assume that the new President will come from the Army, Indonesia has yet to demonstrate that that power will be transferred in a rational and responsible way. There has been a rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Malaysia. In 1978 Vietnam signed a treaty of friendship and co-operation with the Russians and embarked on a war that is still running six years later, invading and conquering Kampuchea. In the Philippines the Marcos regime is failing and no one can foresee what will happen there. There is a very active Communist Party in the New People's Army there. We have the flashpoint of Korea with the irrational North Koreans. Above all, in our region now we have had a massive Soviet buildup. Soviet numbers have more than trebled in the last 20 years. Over 130 SS20 nuclear armed missiles are now deployed in the Asian sector. We have the largest Russian naval fleet in the Pacific. We have the most expensive of all conventional warfare capabilities, an amphibious assault capability, in the Soviet forces in this region. It is against that background that Australia's needs have to be assessed. We have to develop our own defence capabilities, and very much a part of that is the American alliance. A stable deterrent is an essential for peace. It is a fact of life that for 40 years we have lived under the nuclear umbrella, we have lived in a nuclear age. For people such as Senator Chipp to say that ANZUS is now a nuclear alliance is nonsense. We were in the nuclear age years before the ANZUS agreement was signed. We live under a policy of nuclear deterrence-mutually assured destruction, as Senator Evans said. Hopefully, we may be able to move away from that in the future. If the promise that is enshrined in the strategic defence initiative is fulfilled we might get a purely defensive capability and not have to argue that we will destroy one another to maintain peace. Part of having a stable deterrent involves the MX missile. The MX missile, had it been called Minuteman 4 to replace the existing Minuteman 3, would have attracted no comment from the empty-heads and the peaceniks around the world. All the MX does is lift a design that is 15 to 20 years old up to parity with what the Russians have, and parity with the Russians is an essential part of a stable deterrent. The MX, despite what is said by Mr Hawke and his colleagues in the Labor Party, is not a first strike weapon any more than a club is a first strike weapon. For the MX to have a first strike capability the numbers that are required by the United States would have to exceed by a considerable factor the 5,800 warheads at present in the Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is a fact of life that in nuclear war one does not get involved in a partial first strike. It is a total involvement. To propose a first strike capability for the MX there must be far more ordered than the 20 or 40 that are being talked about at present. It was a great act of cowardice for Mr Hawke to back away from the agreement with the United States. This has had a tragic consequence on the relationships between Australia and the United States. The Americans now look at Mr Hawke with a very dubious and jaundiced eye. It is an act, of course, that will result in a leadership challenge to Mr Hawke within the life of this Parliament. It will certainly lead to a chain of events that will see Labor out of office at the end of this term. The United States, as the custodian for the Western world, is not in the business of a la carte alliances. We are in an alliance with that country and we have to do our part. We do not carry much in the way of risks. The joint defence facilities occasion much comment from the far Left. The best that could be said about their comment is that it is based on ignorance and at worst on rank cowardice. Those defence facilities provide the West with early warning of missile launches. They provide communication capabilities. I would like to quote Mr Paul Wolfowitz on this matter. In a speech at Pennsylvania State University he said: The simple truth, as clearly and forcefully enunciated by Prime Minister Hawke on June 6 in Parliament in Canberra, is that these facilities contribute to arms control, effective deterrence, mutual security and to stability in global strategic relationships. Verification, early warning and the ability to control our nuclear forces and communicate with them are critical to both stable deterrence and to arms control. Those facilities are very essential to Australia and to the achievement of the goal of peace. Finally, I would like to say something about the need to stand by the Western alliance. The classic way to attack people is to isolate them, to break them up into groups. We must support the United States. We cannot tolerate the left wing members of the Labor Party who are banned from speaking here through the proper channels in the Senate going public, as have Senator Cook and Mr Hand, and being reported in the world Press. Such articles are damaging Australia's position in respect of its support of the ANZUS alliance. The position was very well put in an article by Coral Bell which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald this week. I would like to quote her final paragraphs. She said: The main impact of the well-intentioned anti-nuclear movement so far is minor damage to the Western alliance structure. That in turn can only push Washington towards 'go-it-alone' policies, and encourage Moscow towards intransigence, as policy-makers there wait to see what comes of it. And nothing could be more dangerous to the prospects of arms control and prudent crisis-management than a combination of American unilateralism and Soviet intransigence. The old maxim that the road to hell is paved by good intentions has seldom been better exemplified. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(3.54) —The Senate is debating a matter of urgency moved by the Opposition that reads: The need to reassert that Australia's participation in ANZUS and the western alliance is- (a) vital to our defence; (b) a major contribution to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence and the preservation of peace; and (c) a means of increasing Australia's influence in disarmament negotiations, and to unequivocally reject the attractive but unrealistic idea that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. Mr Acting Deputy President, I hope that I am not misquoting Senator MacGibbon, who has just concluded his speech, but I think he said that the Australian Labor Party and the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, had put forward a choice between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. If that is what he said, I reject such a statement totally. I think it is nonsense. The Labor Party does not oppose the thrust of this motion. The Opposition is well aware of this fact. While we do not oppose the motion, we certainly question the motives of the Opposition in raising this issue again today. As all honourable senators are aware, the issues raised by the Opposition today were extensively canvassed in yesterday's debate on the Australian Waters (Nuclear-powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill which was introduced by the Australian Democrats. However, since the Opposition has seen fit to raise this matter again we on this side of the Senate are more than willing to participate and put our case and policies to the Australian people. During yesterday's debate the Opposition was hoping, as it is now, that it could pin the 'anti-American-anti-Western alliance' tag on this Government. I intend to use the opportunity presented by this debate to explode again that type of line the Opposition is pursuing and constantly putting forward. The National Conference of the Australian Labor Party held in June 1984 carried the following resolution in respect of the ANZUS alliance. It states that a Labor government will: Co-operate with the United States and New Zealand within the context of the Australia, New Zealand and the United States (ANZUS) treaty. Recognise the need to ensure that its provisions do not derogate from Australia's right of national decision-making in foreign and defence policy matters or its duty to provide for its own security to the extent which its resources allow. Labor rejects and condemns attempts by successive conservative governments to use the ANZUS treaty to justify their failure to pursue an effective and self-reliant defence policy, and their failure to pursue an active and independent foreign policy with the alliance. The problem with the Opposition parties' approach to ANZUS can be summed up by what I said of Senator Walters's speech yesterday-that is, that the worst sort of ally is one who gives unthinking and uncritical support for the United States alliance. As I said yesterday, that is the type of thinking that involved this country in the Vietnam war. The point I am making is that what is good for the United States is not always necessarily good for Australia in the field of foreign policy. For example, it is probably in America's best interests, as perceived by it, for conflict to continue in Indo-China. However, it is certainly not in Australia's best interests. I believe that the United States policy of constructive engagement with South Africa is not in Australia's best interests. The failure of the United States to push for a peace settlement in Namibia is opposed by the Australian Government and so it should be. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), during a Press conference in Washington, said: I strongly put the position that we are not an aligned country which had to agree, or did agree with every single aspect of the policy making and decisions arrived at. . . Now that is the strength of the relationship between two great sovereign, but allied democracies-that is that you share certain basic perceptions. As I have said in this place on several occasions, this Government is committed to the maintenance of the ANZUS alliance. Our commitment has been reaffirmed on several recent occasions. As honourable senators would be aware, the Government conducted an extensive review of the Treaty in 1983. Senator Evans referred extensively to this review in his speech today. That review took place shortly after we came to power. In the words of the Foreign Minister, Bill 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 in a statement which said: Federal Cabinet today reaffirmed Australian Government policy on the basic issues of the Australia/United States alliance, ANZUS treaty and on disarmament and deterrence. It went on to recognise that the Australia-United States alliance needs to ensure that the maximum possible progress on disarmament is essential to Australian foreign policy. The role of the joint facilities is raised in part (b) of the urgency motion which refers to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence. Our platform states in regard to the defence facilities: Labor will- Ensure that the presence in Australia of foreign or jointly owned, controlled or operated bases and facilities does not involve a derogation from Australian sovereignty. The platform goes on to state: Labor will- Not oppose the use of Australian bases and facilities by allies in war-time, or in periods of international tension involving a threat to Australia, or insofar as they are involved with verification of treaties, agreements, and understandings on disarmament and arms control, such as the various SALT accords; provided Australian authority and sovereignty are unimpaired; and provided that Australia is not involved in hostilities without Australia's consent. Since the Opposition raised the issue of these joint facilities in the context of the motion before the Senate this afternoon, let us put on the record once again the role the facilities actually play in the policy of deterrence. At this point I remind honourable senators that it was this Government, the Hawke Government, that made the definitive statement on the role of the facilities. I refer, of course, to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 6 June last year. The Prime Minister took the Australian people into his confidence by explaining the role of the facilities and their part in the policy of deterrence. In contrast, the Liberal and National parties, when in power, lied to the Australian people about the joint defence facilities and their purpose. The editorial in the Australian Financial Review of 12 June last year put the matter of this deception extremely well. The editorial stated: The most important thing about the statement which the Prime Minister made last week about the U.S. communications bases is that it served, together with statements of the Foreign Affairs Minister, to bring the debate about Australia's role in the world power balance into some kind of perspective. The worst thing about the way in which the discussion about the bases have been conducted, and was conducted under the last Government-- that is, the Fraser Government-- was that it permitted and encouraged the Government and the bureaucracy to lie to the Australian people. The last Government lied, by omission, about the bases, the bureaucracy has tried to continue this line even up to the present, and has prevented the Government from giving as clear an account of the role of the bases as could have been done. The editorial went on: The real argument, then, is about the strategy of nuclear deterrence and whether Australia, by contributing to increasing the efficiency of the U.S. communications and surveillance system, increases the effectiveness of deterrence and so decreases the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. The lies and duplicity of both our allies and our own defence establishment and governments in the past have served to prevent proper public debate about this central issue. Let me summarise the most important functions of the bases. Firstly, they contribute to the deterrence of nuclear war by enabling the 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. I now turn to part (b) of the motion put forward by the Opposition this afternoon. It states that Australia's participation in ANZUS and the Western alliance 'makes a major contribution to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence and the preservation of peace'; and that it is also 'a means of increasing Australia's influence in disarmament negotiations'. Further, ANZUS and the Western alliance 'unequivocally reject the attractive but naive notion that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race'. We on this side of the chamber do not oppose those sentiments. As a matter of fact, our Party platform on disarmament and the joint facilities-this policy was adopted at the July 1984 National Conference of the Australian Labor Party-states: Labor upholds the principles of disengagement and disarmament. Labor will work towards meaningful detente and effective measures of arms control. Labor will support and where Australia can be a party, take initiatives in bilateral and multi-lateral negotiations for global and regional arrangements. To these ends, Labor will use Australia's influence as an ally of the United States. Labor will- Support moves to enhance the capacity of the UN Security Council to pre-empt conflicts and facilitate initiatives under Article 99 of the UN Charter. Support implementation of a program for disarmament based on the proposals contained in the Palme Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament Security issues entitled 'Common security-a programme for disarmament'. Further, the resolution on disarmament which was carried at the 1984 National Conference included the following statement which is relevant to this debate: As the Palme Commission also recognises, total nuclear disarmament will not come either quickly or by unilateral action, but only by negotiation and agreement. It is therefore imperative that while the Government pursues vigorously the goal of total nuclear disarmament, it should also support in the interim the most stable nuclear balance attainable. The Government should oppose all technological developments and strategic nuclear doctrines which destabilise that balance. For this reason, the Government rejects doctrines of nuclear war-fighting and limited nuclear war: nuclear war cannot be limited and cannot be won. I think those sentiments would be supported by the Opposition parties in this chamber. It is obvious that the statement clearly rejects any support for unilateralism. That is the policy of the Government and that is why I have put it on the record this afternoon. Members of the Opposition have again this afternoon expressed doubt as to the effectiveness of Australia's present role in ANZUS. I think honourable senators are entitled to know what their complaints on Australia's participation are. Recently, the American Secretary of State, George Shultz, praised Australia's involvement. He said: I am pleased by the announcement of Prime Minister Hawke of Australia on 19 February that his Cabinet has reaffirmed Australia's support for the ANZUS Alliance and for the full responsibilities that the Alliance entails. Senator Walters —It should not have been necessary. Senator SIBRAA —Is the honourable senator suggesting that somebody wrote that for him? He continued: We note that the Prime Minister described ship visits and U.S./Australian joint facilities as continuing fundamentals of the Australian-U.S. Alliance relationship. We welcome these reaffirmations of Australia's commitment to its ties with the United States. That statement was put forward recently by Mr Shultz, the United States Secretary of State. I would think that as there is no major disagreement between the arguments put forward by the Opposition and those put forward by the Government this afternoon this issue will not even go to a vote. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I draw the attention of the Senate to the presence in the gallery of former Whip and former senator, George Poyser, from Victoria. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.07) —I will disappoint Senator Sibraa. He can bet on it that there will be a vote on this question this afternoon because the Australian Democrats will ensure- Senator Sibraa —I did not say all the Opposition parties. Senator CHIPP —We are not an Opposition party. We are a party that does not believe virtually one word of what has been put down. Before Senator Sir John Carrick, a Liberal senator from New South Wales, follows me in this debate, may I make the point that in debates such as this, which are so serious and which affect the possible survival of humankind, the survival of the human race in Australia, only accurate statements should be made. Yesterday Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Walters, Senator Jessop and Senator Hamer made a grossly inaccurate statement to score a point off the Australian Democrats. Honourable senators will notice that I said 'inaccurate'. Senator Sir John Carrick —I have a copy of Hansard here. Senator CHIPP —I have too and I will quote Senator Sir John Carrick in a moment. I did not say 'misleading', because I would never accuse any of those four honourable senators of deliberately misleading the Senate. At page 139 of Hansard-I will help Senator Sir John Carrick-he said: Much mention has been made by Senator Chipp of the MX missile. I wonder why the Democrats have never mentioned the SS18 and the SS19 Russian missiles, which in recent months have been tested regularly in the Pacific over the same range, around the Cook Islands and close to New Zealand. That statement was made by Senator Sir John Carrick, Liberal, New South Wales, a former Minister. It is obvious that the four honourable senators had the same source material because their statements were in almost identical words. One reason the Democrats have not complained about the latest test by the Russians in the South Pacific was that it was in 1975, and it would have been extraordinarily difficult for the Democrats to have protested about that because that was exactly two years before our formation. I ask Senator Sir John Carrick, when he follows me, to declare his source. I would like him to go further and deny that his source is a person called Santamaria or of that group. Senator Sir John Carrick —I deny that now, but he is a very reliable person. Senator CHIPP — Thank you. It would be fair for Senator Sir John Carrick, instead of championing Mr Santamaria, to challenge me for my source. Senator Sir John Carrick —I am not challenging you at all. Senator CHIPP —The honourable senator would do so at his peril because I have a document in my hand-which I will ask leave of the Senate to table, dated 27 February 1985, which is today-which is a direct communique from the Australian Joint Intelligence Organisation. It states, among other things: Since March 1975, however, all Soviet rocket missile tests have been to declared areas in the North Pacific. Senator Sir John Carrick —Why did you not comment on the North Pacific? Senator CHIPP —All I did was simply point out yesterday that those four Liberal senators, acting on whatever information they had, made a gross inaccuracy, perfectly innocently I am sure. In important debates such as this I ask people such as Senator Sir John Carrick, a senior statesman of the Liberal Party of Australia, up to whom, if I could use a Churchillian expression, a lot of people look for guidance, to be accurate. Yesterday he was clearly grossly inaccurate and grossly in error. We have denounced the Soviets every time they have indulged in any sort of infamy. I was the only senator who, during the condolences on the death of Joseph Stalin, took the opportunity to condemn that man for the butcher that he was. The Democrats were outspoken, and I earned the wrath of Senator Georges at the time. Senator Georges —You have got the wrong cove. It was not Joseph Stalin. Senator CHIPP —I did it to Brezhnev as well. I was one of the first to join the Liberals in denouncing the Soviet's entry into Afghanistan. I will not wear this cheap debating trick that some Liberals are trying to put on the Democrats, that we are anti-American and pro-Soviet. It is absolutely absurd. The first part of this urgency motion states that ANZUS is vital to our defence. We say that that is absurd. It is not vital to the defence of Australia and the region. Does anybody here believe that the United States would come to our aid in a regional conflict? Senator MacGibbon —Yes. Senator Lewis —Yes. Senator Sheil —Yes, my word. Senator CHIPP —Do Senator Sheil, Senator Lewis and Senator MacGibbon really believe that, if there were an incursion by the Indonesians into Papua New Guinea or if the Filipinos invaded New Zealand, the United States President of the day would commit troops or arms to defend New Zealand or Australia? If they believe that, I ask them to say so. So they believe that the President would then go to Congress to get its approval to ratify his action, which he has to do under ANZUS? If they believe that, please say so, because I do not think even a Liberal would put forward the insane proposition that the American Congress, after what happened in Vietnam, would approve the commitment of troops in the jungles of Indonesia, the Philippines or anywhere else outside America. I think it is absurd. We do not believe it is vital to our defence. How could ANZUS be vital to Australia's defence? Can we look for one moment at what Australia has given to ANZUS or to the Americans and what we have received in return? I will tell honourable senators what we have given to the Americans. We have given 24 precious pieces of Australian soil so that they can build their bases, over most of which we do not have control and some of which are nuclear targets. That is not Don Chipp or the Australian Democrats saying that the bases are nuclear targets; the Soviets say that they are. The Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Hawke, says they are. The Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, say that we are a nuclear target. Senator McIntosh —And the Russians say it. Senator CHIPP —I said that the Soviets say so as well. Another thing we have said to the Americans is: 'Yes, we will be a nuclear target in the name of ANZUS.' Without consultation we have been tied to the United States' infamous Star Wars program, the strategic defence initiative. In the name of the American alliance Australia has wasted most of its 2.9 per cent of the gross domestic product devoted to defence on equipment which is not used to defend Australia and the region but to fit in with the United States global foreign and defence objectives and needs, not Australia's objectives or needs. In the name of ANZUS Australian governments have agreed to monitor the testing of the MX missile, a first strike weapon. Senator MacGibbon —Nonsense. Senator CHIPP —Well, the expert on defence, Biggles MacGibbon, says: 'Nonsense'. I would have thought that a weapons delivery system, which is capable of holding 10 nuclear warheads, each of which could be 20 times more destructive than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, and each of which is aimed at hard headed silos, not towns, could not be anything else but a first strike weapon. I disagree with him there. This Government has stated that it is against first strike weapons, but it agrees to monitor the testing of the MX missiles. The MX has been denounced by such people as that 'rampant left winger', Barry Goldwater. He says that it is a monstrous crime against humanity. That other 'rampant communist', William Colby, the ex-director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has also denounced it as being against humanity. Admiral Noel Gaylor, former Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Forces, has also denounced it. What defence has Australia received in return? I ask people who are listening to this debate, not the people in this chamber who have closed minds, what we have given to the Americans and to ANZUS. Ask yourselves out there: 'What have we got in return?' Have we received any guarantee of defence from the United States? There is not one word in any treaty that says that if Australia is attacked America will come to our aid. I challenge any Government or Opposition member to point out an article or series of articles that gives us that commitment and protection. It is not even a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation-type agreement. Even the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament in 1982 agreed with us on this. The next point in the motion is that ANZUS has been a major contribution to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence and the preservation of peace. That is one of the suggestions as to why we should support it. It has not contributed to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence and I defy anybody to prove that it has. Can anybody remember that distinguished American, Robert McNamara, the then Secretary for Defense, subsequently the head of the World Bank and a most distinguished human being, saying in 1961: 'People of the world, don't worry any more. We have now reached the stage of deterrence. There are 1,000 bombs between the Russians and us, so we can destroy each other. There is no need to build any more. We have now reached the stage of mutually assured destruction, so don't worry. That is it, 1,000 bombs'. Mr McNamara said that in 1961, and he was supported by Kennedy. Today there are 50,000 bombs, the average size of which is 30 times more powerful than the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima and which killed 200,000 people, and we are going to build 20,000 more in the next 10 years. So do not give me this rubbish that ANZUS or anything else has brought about the preservation of peace or an effective stable deterrence. The very statistics give the lie to that. Robert McNamara, the creator of the theory of deterrence, now disowns the theory as worthless. Senator Walters —Of course he does. We have not had a nuclear war. Senator CHIPP —If Senator Walters believes that she is a greater expert on foreign affairs than the great Robert McNamara who created the theory of deterrence and who says that it is now worthless, and if she, the Liberal Party and the Government say that it is still an effective policy, let them do so in the face of such expert advice. I will end my contribution on a chilling note. Senator Chaney talks of peace. We have 50,000 bombs. We do not know what advice has been given by the military to the masters in the Kremlin. We are now beginning to find out, because America is a democracy, what advice has been given to various Presidents by the military in the United States. I disclose this: The world renowned physics professor, Professor Corceau, using the Freedom of Information Act in the United States-the thirty-year period having elapsed-has recently obtained documents from 1954. Those documents reveal that the United States President considered, on the advice of his military, launching first strikes on the Soviets on a number of occasions in the past. Five times in 1954 the United States President was advised by his military advisers to launch a first strike. Is this called stable deterrence? I remind honourable senators that 1954 was the year when the French Army was surrounded in collapsing Vietnam at Dien Bien Phu and when Anthony Eden flew to Washington to plead with Eisenhower not to bomb China. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard an extract from the Joint Intelligence Organisation report which I read earlier and which contradicts the statements made by the four Liberals about whom I spoke. Leave granted. The document read as follows- MISSILE TESTING IN THE PACIFIC (U) 1. (U) This information is supplied in response to an oral request from Dr Gee. 2. (U) Since 1960 the Soviet News Agency TASS has issued 49 announcements declaring the short-term closure of some 72 areas in the Pacific for the testing of long-range rockets or space boosters. Thirteen of these announcements, closing 21 areas, have been made during the last five years, the last occurring during December 1984. In the first fifteen years of long-range rocket tests to ocean areas the USSR announced only five closures in the South Pacific. Since March 1975, however, all Soviet rocket/missile tests have been to declared areas in the North Pacific. At least thirteen missiles have been launched to Pacific Ocean impact areas since 1978. Often some of the areas near the Kamchatka Peninsula are used concurrently with declared areas in the Central Pacific for the impact of depleted upper stages of multi-stage rockets. In recent years closure announcements, which cover a period of up to ten days, have been notified by TASS some five to seven days prior to becoming effective. Frequently launchings to the area occur on the first day of the closure and the areas are reopened to shipping immediately afterwards. 3. (U) In contrast, China has announced the closure of only two areas (one in the South Pacific) for the testing of long-range rockets since May 1980. Probably three rockets have been launched to these areas, but only one rocket impacted in the declared South Pacific area. Senator CHIPP —I just repeat that five times in 1954 the United States military clearly recommended nuclear options. We must assume that the Russians have done the same, which indicates the falsity of mutual deterrence as a concept. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I have a point of personal explanation. Senator Chipp quoted Senator Sir John Carrick. I just want to quote what I actually did say and give the reference. Referring to Senator Chipp, I said: He did not say that the USSR had testfired 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. My reference for that was the office of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.24) —The Senate is debating an urgency motion moved by the Opposition stressing the vital nature of the ANZUS Treaty, stressing that that Treaty is vital as a deterrent to prevent war, whether it be major conventional or nuclear war, stressing that the Treaty increases the influence of Australia in working towards disarmament and saying unequivocally that unilateral attempts at disarmament are wrong and a failure. Today I want to put this matter forward with a sense of urgency because I believe that there are no fewer than 10 very urgent reasons why this motion should be carried. The first reason is that, on the words of the New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Lange, today, the tripartite nature of ANZUS is finished. He says: This constitutes an end to the US-New Zealand defence relationship. That means that the three-sided relationship no longer exists, on his unilateral say-so, as I understand it. The matter we have to face is whether the nature of an ANZUS Treaty between America and Australia can be sustained on a bilateral approach. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has said recently that he would worry about such a thing because the Americans may demand that we give more to the partnership than is already being sought now under the terms of the Treaty. The very first point is that we have a crisis. My first point is that New Zealand, by creating this crisis, has in fact destroyed the tripartite nature of ANZUS. Mr Lange has now said so. What a crazy situation it is, however idealistically one should look at it, when a country can say: 'You cannot come into our ports but I am willing to take my ships on the high seas and take part in exercises with your ships regardless of whether they are nuclear propelled or nuclear armed'. Such exercises must contemplate nuclear warfare. To say that shows how ludicrous the situation is. Once access to the ports was denied to United States ships that was a severe breach of ANZUS. In fact, we have had a first reason for grave anxiety and grave peril. The second point I put forward is the abject failure of Australia to keep not only the spirit but also the letter of the Western alliance and, indeed, of ANZUS. There has been breach after breach of ANZUS. We had the classic situation recently of the Government, which had made a decision in its Cabinet committee that it would provide refuelling facilities for aircraft monitoring MX missile tests, breaking its word. I said recently in this place that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and his Government knew what was right and did what was wrong. There cannot be anything uglier than that situation. In fact, we know that although the Australian Labor Party is saying that the ports of Australia are open to the American ships the fact is that they are not. The fact is that the Invincible could not be repaired because the Government could not in fact ensure that the civil workers would repair it or let it out of the dock. So what Senator Gareth Evans says and what in fact happens are two completely different things. That must be understood. Mr Cain, who has an election on Saturday, wants to exclude the ships from Port Phillip. Today Mr Wran is doing double somersaults to try to keep the ships out of Sydney Harbour. This is the Government which says that it is keeping faith with ANZUS. The third point is that the Government has now institutionalised factionalism. It now has three factions with secretaries to take the minutes and, in fact, is three different governments. There are three different decision-making processes and nobody can know where the decisions will come from. I come to my fourth point, which is that this Government cannot be trusted in foreign affairs matters. The simple fact is that this Labor Government cannot give or maintain any firm assurances to its allies. That is the fundamental fourth point that must be kept in mind because, in fact, the Government has failed to maintain any firm assurances. It gave an assurance, made a decision, knew that that was right and then had to climb down from that because the factions got together with their numbers. Senator Robertson —It sounds like wheat to Russia with your mob-just the same as you did. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am glad that Senator Robertson acknowledges the force of what I am saying. Another serious matter is the fact that the Australian Democrats have unequivocally rejected ANZUS. Their own words yesterday or the day before were that it is valueless and not worth a damn. For the time being at least, a significant number of honourable senators are rejecting ANZUS as such. It is a completely fallacious argument but one which has changed the face of debate on foreign affairs matters in Australia. Senator Chipp —Thank you for your compliment. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It has changed the face of debate because the arguments, whether put sincerely or to get votes, in fact are wrong and are humbug. I come to the next point. Senator Chipp mentioned the Russian tests in the Pacific. Senator Chipp —South Pacific. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It does not matter whether they were in the South Pacific or the North Pacific. If indeed in recent times they were not in the South Pacific-I will correct that when I get the information finally-it is beside the point. The fact is that in recent times the Russians have been testing long range SS18 missiles in the Pacific. These missiles are bigger and nastier than the MX missile. They are aimed to do much more first strike damage. There has not been a whimper from the Democrats or the Australian Labor Party. Let us not quibble whether the testing is in the North Pacific or the South Pacific. The fact is that we have had an admission because the very paper that Senator Chipp tabled proved that those tests were recently held in the Pacific. Of course, Senator Chipp does not deny that. We do not hear a murmur from him about that matter. There is the failure of the Hawke Government on the single biggest issue-- Senator Chipp —Is that your total answer to misleading the Senate? Is that the only thing you have to say about misleading the Senate? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Chipp in classic style is trying to shout so loudly that the arguments will not be heard. There will be many opportunities for us to destroy the Democrats' arguments in this place. My sixth point is that the major area of destabilisation in the world today-let the Democrats and Australian Labor Party deny this-is the gross megatonnage of Soviet bombs in hard silos on the Soviet mainland. Sixty per cent of the entire nuclear destructive force of the Soviets is in hard silos in the Soviet Union. This is three times more in megatonnage than the United States of America. The United States has nothing to touch it. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has a major first strike capacity. There has been no mention of this by the Australian Labor Party or the Democrats. The only weapon that can be a deterrent to those missiles is the MX missile. What are the Australian Democrats doing in this situation? They are attacking the MX missile and not the disproportionate number of missiles in hard silos in the Soviet Union. This is, to the degree, ludicrous and incongruous and is a distortion of a Goebbels kind. I will come to that in a final point which I will make later. My seventh point concerns the opposition to the strategic defence initiative. Let us not forget that in regard to the MX missile Senator Gareth Evans has said: 'We really have not made up our minds'. They have not made up their minds because they have not yet worked out the numbers. On Mr Hayden's own assessment, the strategic defence initiative is one of very high morality. Its aim is to put aside the deterrent and to stop war. The only argument is whether technically, after research, such a proposition will succeed. What is being argued is that there should not be the research by the Americans. Nobody has said that we should stop the Russians who are cheerfully continuing with this research. I find this selective morality the essence of nonsense. I come now to my eighth point and to what I find is the ugliest situation. This was referred to by Senator Chaney who reminded us that in August last year-about the time I was to be in Geneva-Mr Hayden made a speech in Geneva to the effect that if the Americans did not get down to the hard business of practical armaments reductions we would do something about the bases in Australia. I will tell the Senate of the circumstances in which he said that. It is incredible that anyone would make such a statement. First, listening to that speech we could think that it was the Americans who did not want to engage in arms reduction talks. We would have thought that it was the Americans who were not offering to cut armaments. Of course, the history of the matter is that the Americans proposed the strategic arms reduction program suggesting that the number of arms be cut by half or even more. The Americans wanted the Russians to come to the negotiating table and substantially reduce armaments. The Russians would not come to the table or cut arms. However, who were the Labor Party and Mr Hayden going to punish? They were going to punish the Americans. What kind of corruption of morality is that? I make it abundantly clear: Whenever either the Democrats or members of the Australian Labor Party say that we are doing an enormous favour at our peril to the Americans to have the installations here in Australia I think that this is the quintessence of nonsense. Everybody in the Labor Party who has spoken has said that the fundamental need is for proper monitoring, surveillance and verification. They have said that this is the essence of the need for obtaining peace. How do we get these? We get them in one way; we get them with the satellites and their base stations. Where are these base stations? They are in Australia. Where are the greatest institution for deterrence and the greatest institution prospectively for peace? They are in Australia. Who benefits as much as anybody else? The Australians do. Despite this we crassly suggest that we will bargain. We are prepared to bargain the peace of Australians. We suggest that somehow or other we will chase the Americans off our shores. I cannot think that there is anything more disgusting in itself than that kind of twisted morality. We heard Senator Gareth Evans today say that he did not know why we were debating this matter-that we agree. I have given and will continue to give ten points of major disagreement. Let us look at the Democrats and the perils of their retreat to isolation. Senator Haines gave us a picture of Australia withdrawing from this nasty nuclear business and somehow building up its own defences so that we will be able to resist the world at large. The Democrats have not said how many billions of dollars this will cost and whether they will take this money from the areas of health or education. The suggestion is stupid because everybody knows that it is not possible for a country to defend itself today in a conventional war because conventional wars lead to nuclear wars. Finally, my tenth point is that every time someone seeks to weaken the Western alliance deterrent this encourages the Soviet bloc. In fact, inadvertently or otherwise, in regard to the Indian and Pacific oceans which wash Australia's shores what we are doing as a result of this form of corruption is helping the group that may be-I hope it never will be-our only visible opponent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.39) —This debate is untimely and inappropriate because I believe honourable senators would have been well served to listen to the ordinary common sense of the Australian people over the next few weeks and months and allowing debate in the general community to mature somewhat so that we, as democratically elected representatives, could listen to the voice of the Australian people and gather some new thoughts rather than be locked into inflexible postures so early in the life of this Parliament. Nevertheless, the motion is before us and I find that it is flawed because it takes too simplistic an approach to the necessity to secure Australia's independence and freedom amongst the free and independent nations of the world. Of course, we in Australia value that association with the democracies, not only in the Western alliance but in various other parts of the world, which are arrayed against and in confrontation with the totalitarian regimes and authoritarian despots who control the lives of people and the armed forces in so many parts of this world. It is unfortunate to try to lock us into an inflexible posture so early. I find, in particular, the idea that a partnership is not a treaty between sovereign nations but somehow an association in which we, being a minor partner, must be servile, something that I as an Australian do not want to accept. I believe that drawing a line on occasion, such as with the testing of the MX missile, does not threaten our alliance with the United States. The United States President has said that it has not threatened it. Does Senator Sir John Carrick say that the conservative Government of Canada, which stated in the first week of February this year that it would refuse to have United States nuclear weapons on its soil, or to co-operate in any part with the strategic defence initiative, is undermining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation alliance? No one has said that that action, that drawing of the line, is undermining, threatening or undercutting the NATO alliance. The fact is that one can draw the line, and sometimes one is politically compelled by the morality of a situation to draw the line. What is at fault in this motion, or at least not adequately expressed, is the idea that the ANZUS alliance was ever meant to bear the sort of weight which the Opposition parties in the chamber today are asking it to bear. It was constructed as a reaction to Australia and New Zealand seeking to counter the rearming of Japan. The United States, which wanted the rearming of Japan, agreed to counterbalance that by entering into an association with, and thus nullifying, Australia and New Zealand, which had historic and very real reasons for fearing a rearmed Japan. But to say that that sort of treaty should now bear the weight of the whole confrontation between those nations which are linked with the United States against those linked with the Soviet Union is, I think, to ask too much of it. To say that it is vital to our defence is to speak too narrowly of those things which are vital to our defence. There are other factors. Our relations not only with the Western alliance but also with the non-aligned nations are very important. What about our relationship with Indonesia? Can anyone deny that the fostering of relations with Indonesia in a non-servile way is very important to our future security? Of course it is, as is the fostering of relations with India, the leader of the non-aligned nations, a country which now, thank goodness, has a strong agricultural base and a growing industrial base. Our relations with India are just as important to our future security. The visits of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to China are just as important to our security when one looks forward to the turn of the century as are his visits to Washington, London or wherever else he might visit. There are other ways to pursue the very vital relations which we need to foster for our defence. To put all the eggs in the ANZUS basket, to ask it to bear all the weight, is, I think, to take too narrow a view. To equate defence with armed forces ready to go into combat-whether our own armed forces are in alliance with others-is to take too narrow a view. There are diplomatic, trade and other steps that we need to take, not only with members of the Western alliance but also with members of the non-aligned nations. That will help to secure our independence and integrity as a nation. How many people in this chamber have read the ANZUS Treaty? The preamble to the Treaty states: Desiring further to co-ordinate their efforts for collective defence for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific area. Article VIII states: Pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific . . . In other words, the terms of the ANZUS Treaty recognise that the arrangements are transitional and they are meant to be a step towards devising a more comprehensive regional security arrangement. We, as senators, should not be stagnating in the terms of a treaty drafted in the circumstances I have outlined. We should not be discarding these historically important expressions of our relationship with the United States. They are important; I do not say that the Treaty should be abrogated. But it should be subsumed within a wider Pacific regional security arrangement, so that all the national states within the Pacific and on the shores of the Pacific can be linked in a mutual arrangement to secure our security. As I say, the motion puts too much reliance on the ANZUS Treaty. It asks it to bear a weight which it should not have to bear. In any case, it does not take sufficient notice of the fact that the ANZUS Treaty is meant to be a step towards something more comprehensive. I believe that we will be doing Australians of this generation and future generations a great service if we can move beyond-not abrogate, but move beyond-the ANZUS arrangement to a more comprehensive expression of our security arrangements in the Pacific. In talking about stable deterrence, many members of the Opposition seem to think that if one speaks of deterrence, one has said all that needs to be said, as though just because it is a deterrence it is morally right. There are moral limits to deterrence. Senator Macklin quite rightly pointed out, for example, that to deter by threatening and intending to devastate innocent civilian populations-populations which are subjected to totalitarian regimes, by the way, and have had no part in voting for those regimes in a democratic fashion-with massive destruction is immoral and places a limitation on the sort of deterrence which one can undertake. That has been stated by all of those who have any interest in the 'just war' theory and of course, as Senator Macklin pointed out, by the Catholic Church at Vatican II. The United States Catholic bishops, who would not be the most notorious group of left wingers to be found in any particular meeting hall around the world, have issued a statement called 'The Challenge of Peace'. It is a pastoral letter of the National Conference of United States Bishops on these issues. They state: . . . criteria demonstrate that we cannot approve of every weapons system, strategic doctrine or policy initiative advanced in the name of strengthening deterrence. They state that, on the contrary, those decisions by governments require public scrutiny, and that is what they undertake. In undertaking that scrutiny they say, for example-and Senator Chipp was correct in this regard-that if deterrence is to be permitted at all, sufficiency, enough to deter an adversary, is adequate and the quest for nuclear superiority, which is implicit in much of present preparations, is to be regarded as immoral. I am trying to say, in the short time allowed, that merely to conjure up the word 'deterrence' is not to justify every step taken in adding to the arsenals of destruction. The final part of the motion that we are asked to approve this afternoon, and which with some reluctance I go along with-as I say, it is totally inadequate in expression of the fullness of the considerations that this chamber should undertake-unequivocally rejects the attractive but unrealistic idea that unilateral nuclear disarmament would be an effective way to bring about an end to the arms race. Senator Chaney —They are Bob Hawke's words. Senator TATE —Yes, it is true. But to talk of unilateral nuclear disarmament stirs such emotions that I am afraid it may blind those in decision-making positions among the super-powers-the masters of our destiny in these matters-to the possibility of taking unilateral initiatives as a sign of good faith, to encourage multilateral or bilateral and verifiable disarmament. There is a danger that, in conjuring up all the emotions that are aroused by terms like unilateral disarmament, one may cut off the possibility of a sign of good faith being offered by one side by way of a unilateral initiative. It may be a pause in the escalation of a weapons system; a decision not to deploy a particular weapon; a decision not to move towards the production of a particular weapons system; or a decision not to undertake research which would otherwise be within the capacity of the nation. Having said that-and wanting to encourage some signs of good faith-I say that the Australian Labor Party does not support the idea of unilateral nuclear disarmament. It believes that unilateral disarmament would not reduce the risk of war; in fact it may enhance it. Certainly, unilateral nuclear disarmament does not itself empty the arsenals of destruction. Even if it occurred it would still leave horrendous weapons of the so-called conventional type in those arsenals of destruction. Of course, the political intention and will to use those destructive armaments is at the core of the prospect that we are confronting the destruction of humanity's civilisations, cultures and history on this planet. I do not suppose that the people of Hiroshima or the people of Dresden would have been too concerned about whether the extinguishing of the lives of families or the consuming of habitations by fires was triggered by the splitting of the atom or the dropping of some so-called conventional incendiary device. The fact is that destruction of human life, whether by conventional or nuclear arms, is to be abhorred. There is no doubt that there is a difference of scale in the possibility of global nuclear warfare, but let us not think that by unilateral nuclear disarmament one would automatically bring about a moderating of that political will to kill which lies at the heart of the problem we are confronting. In my view, we should be asking the super-powers to take some steps that would indicate their good faith. Had the Soviet Union shown a capacity, when confronted with what it perceived as a crisis in Kabul, to react in any other way than by invasion, had the United States shown a capacity, when faced with the problems in Central America, to do anything other than mount covert operations against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the world would have had indications that the super-powers had learnt that there were means other than military force to try to deal with what they perceived as destabilising problems near their borders. I believe that we should be asking the super-powers for such signs of good faith. We should be asking for unilateral initiatives on behalf of one or of both. We should try particularly to use our new position on the United Nations Security Council-a very responsible position-to encourage such moves. The fact is that Senator Chaney's motion talks of unequivocally rejecting this and unequivocally condemning that. Would it not have been better to speak of unequivocally supporting the resumption of the talks in Geneva and unequivocally applauding the super-powers for eventually coming to the table for negotiations. I know the Socialist International is taking steps to go to both Moscow and Washington to encourage these developments. I hope that Bill Hayden is on that delegation. I believe that what we need from this chamber, and what future generations of Australians would thank us for, is not a closing off of the options for development beyond ANZUS by way of regional security amongst Pacific countries, not a closing off of the moral assessment of the limits of deterrence, not a closing off of the possibilities of coming to agreement but a gathering of all our resources, in the diplomatic and trade arenas, using our voices in forums such as the United Nations Security Council and other places to encourage the super-powers. I would have much preferred that Senator Chaney's motion be drafted in such terms. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.54) —The time allowed for this debate is two hours and I understand that there are still some eight minutes remaining. It is quite clear from the debate we have had that the Senate is dealing with matters of great national importance, and we believe it is now time for the matter to come to a vote, as is provided for in the consideration of an urgency motion. It is obviously open to us on this side to move that the question be now put, but we do not want to go down the track of moving the gag motion. In view of the debate that has taken place, I invite the Senate to proceed now to a vote. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Georges. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(5.55) —We cannot proceed to a vote because I now have the call and I wish to make a few comments. I will comment firstly on what Senator Peter Baume had to say. It is not necessary that we go to a vote on such matters. A couple of days ago I made some unkind criticisms of Senator Chipp relating to people being forced to take positions on this very vital issue. My view is that, as Senator Tate suggested, this debate should continue and no doubt will continue, in the Senate for some time. It reminds me of the great debates on Vietnam, that took place in the Senate when honourable senators from both sides indicated just how strongly they felt about the issue. Those debates took place over a number of years until, finally, through the educating process of debate, we came to a common understanding. This did not really show up in the votes, but there was a common understanding that the Vietnam war should come to an end, that we ought to be out of it, and that in the first place we were wrongly involved. This debate is similar. It is an important debate and the motion before us is an important one. It could have been amended but it has not been. It has been debated and various people have put their points of view. Senator Chipp —The Standing Orders say you cannot amend an urgency motion. We checked that out. Senator GEORGES —That is possible but, if that were the case, we should not come to a vote on it. Senator Peter Baume should have moved that motion to put the question because he has now put me in the position of having to decide whether I should complete my remarks by three minutes past five. It is not a responsibility that Senator Baume ought to have put on me. Senator Peter Baume —Old friends. Senator GEORGES —That is exactly what you have done. Senator Chaney —Always let your conscience be your guide. Senator GEORGES —My conscience being my guide leads me into strange places. I think Senator Chipp indicated that the other night. For that I shall have to pay the consequences, not in this place but somewhere else, but I am prepared to face up to that as well. Senator Chipp —You were put in gaol. You went there for your principles, which we all admire. Senator GEORGES —Yes, but sometimes we are placed in a position and have to accept the leadership and sometimes we do it in a hesitating and cautious way. Senator Chipp —Do not criticise others for doing what you did. We are trying to give a lead. Senator GEORGES —If this debate continues, as I think it will continue in the Senate for some time, you might even establish your own sincerity. I am not being- Senator Chipp —You are coming very close. Senator GEORGES —You could establish it and you could even convince me. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think it is the general desire of the Senate to see this motion brought to a vote. Whilst the conversation between Senator Georges and Senator Chipp is interesting to them, I ask you to ask Senator Georges to address the remarks he wishes to make to the Chair, in the hope that he will conclude them. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I call Senator Georges. Senator GEORGES —Let me get away from the conversation with Senator Chipp and look at the motion before the House. The motion states: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The need to reassert that Australia's participation in ANZUS and the western alliance is- (a) vital to our defence . . . I would have thought that we could have debated that issue at another time and, perhaps, in line with what Senator Tate was proposing, we could have amended that motion to this effect: 'That in the opinion of the Senate: the following is a matter of urgency: The need to reassert that Australia's participation in ANZUS'-that is, if it needs be reasserted, with a proper understanding of what ANZUS is about-'and other alliances'-not just the Western alliance-'is vital to our defence'. If we had such a motion before us I doubt whether there would be much disagreement. Paragraph (b) of the motion refers to 'a major contribution to the maintenance of an effective stable deterrence', on which there is considerable disagreement. As several speakers have indicated, stable deterrence no longer exists. We are talking about terms of the past and those terms need to be re-examined. Deterrence has now proved to be not relevant, not possible. In fact, it is even dangerous to think in those terms. Yet here we are trotting out these terms, as we always do, some 12 months behind world opinion and, for that matter, world knowledge. We still talk in terms of deterrence. I suggest we could have dropped that passage and referred instead to 'a major contribution to the maintenance and preservation of peace, and a means of increasing Australia's influence in disarmament negotiations'. By including the word 'deterrence', one makes of the matter far more than one should and something which cannot be accepted and which would require considerable re-examination. The last three lines of the motion could be deleted without any real diminution of the proposition. I expressed the view that this debate will not go away. This debate should not be brought to a crisis point at which we have to vote and in relation to which some of us find ourselves in positions that we do not want to be in. We must recognise the reality that we face in this place. People should not be imprisoned in particular positions because of party disciplines on this vital matter. I suggest there not be a vote on this matter. We have expressed our view that it is a matter of urgency. Some of us have expressed reservations, some of us may have come to common agreement but we are going through a process of educating ourselves on this vital issue. On 31 March this year the Palm Sunday rallies will show increasing concern in the community and that concern cannot be ignored. No political party can ignore that concern and it will do so only at its peril. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under Sessional Orders for consideration of an urgency matter has elapsed. Motion (by Senator Peter Baume) proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the question being put forthwith. Senator Chipp-On a point of order. The Democrats would be prepared to support that motion, but in fairness to Senator Georges, who feels so strongly about the matter, I would be prepared, with the concurrence of the Senate, to give him an extension of time. I think that would be only fair in the circumstances. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is a motion before the Chair that Standing Orders be suspended to permit a vote. I cannot have another motion. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(5.03) —The Government expected such a suspension of Standing Orders. I point out that what happened this afternoon is a repetition of what happened on the matter of public importance last week, when the Opposition decided at that stage, without notification to anyone on this side, to add someone to the list to get the final word. If we cannot do anything else on this side, we can count, so we will not be dividing on the matter of suspension of Standing Orders. The fact that the Opposition has gone to the extent of moving to suspend Standing Orders in order to get a vote on an urgency motion, and the fact that Senator Chipp and his colleagues are supporting it, demonstrate what Senator Tate and others on this side have said before: This motion of urgency is a stunt and will be recognised as a stunt. I suppose it is not the last stunt we shall have in this place. I daresay Senator Chaney or someone will now rise to his feet and beat his breast and impress on us how important they think the motion is. We recognise it as a stunt, as I believe will most people in the community. Senator Chipp —What you did to my Bill yesterday was not a stunt, is that right? Senator GRIMES —If Senator Chipp wishes to interject in that way, perhaps we should have a few more debates in this place when people do not speak in the measured, thoughtful tones of Senator Georges, but in which we all speak in the abusive, provocative terms used by Senator Chipp and in doing so demonstrate from the Hansard of last year's policy speech the hypocrisy of the sort of nonsense Senator Chipp goes on with in this place. We shall not oppose the suspension of Standing Orders, because it is futile to do so, but the fact that this motion has been moved demonstrates that this whole urgency motion is in fact a stunt. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.06) —It was always the understanding in this debate that this matter would come to a vote. There were discussions on that matter between the parties in this place. Senator Grimes —As there was about the matter of public importance. Senator CHANEY —That is absurd because there is no vote on a matter of public importance. The fact is that if there is any stunting going on in this place, it is in the gyrations of members of the Australian Labor Party. They try to pretend that nothing is happening when it is evident to the whole of Australia that there is a great deal happening which is not in Australia's interest. The fact that we wish to bring this matter to a vote is because we are deeply disturbed at the lack of resolve on the part of this Government and the lack of its sense of the national interest. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.07) —I have no objection to the matter going to a vote. My problem with these sorts of urgency motions is the question of whether they give sufficient time to develop arguments at length. Senator Tate —Hear, hear! Senator HARRADINE —Senator Tate says: 'Hear, hear!' I would have liked to take up a couple of points Senator Tate made in regard to the moral questions. I believe that he selectively quoted from the Vatican Council. I would be happy to debate the matter at length with Senator Tate, Senator Macklin or anybody else. I did not raise this matter of the Vatican Council. It was raised by Senator Tate and Senator Macklin, but I would be happy in an extended debate to go over with them the moral issues. I have considered those issues very carefully over a number of years. It is on the basis of that consideration that I am happy to vote for this motion so that we may vote on the urgency motion. On that basis and on the basis of the consideration of those moral issues I support the urgency motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 60 —— 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. Carrick, Sir John Maguire, G. R. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Missen, A. J. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Puplick, C. J. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Scott, D. B. Evans, Gareth Sheil, G. Foreman, D. J. Short, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Harradine, B. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Vigor, D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —by leave-I move: That leave be granted to the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing to meet during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 27 February 1985. By way of explanation, the Committee has to meet to consider the revised and additional estimates for the Department of the Senate for 1984-85, which have to be approved by the end of this week, and other matters relating to Senate Estimates. It has not proved possible to arrange a meeting at which members can be present outside the sitting hours this week. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Elstob)-by leave-agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, and to enable the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare to complete its inquiry into children under institutional and other forms of care and its inquiry into Australia's retirement income systems, the Committee consist of 8 Senators, 4 being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 4 being Senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate relating to membership of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare advising that they have nominated Senators Cook and Bjelke-Petersen to be members of the Committee. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Bjelke-Petersen and Cook, having been duly nominated in accordance with the Resolution of the Senate of this day, be appointed members of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to take this opportunity of saying a few words about matters dealt with in the report of the Joint Coal Board. This report is concerned with the operations of one of Australia's most important industries, namely, the coal industry. The performance of that industry in recent years has been remarkable and, of course, last year it achieved the distinction of making Australia the largest exporter of coal in the world. Coal exports rank as the highest single export earner for Australia. Those twin factors emphasise the major importance to Australia of this industry. We should be very pleased indeed with the performance of the industry and the great investment in and development of it in recent years. However, as is well known, the industry is going through a difficult period at present. There has been a decline in world market prices and there is strong competition from other export suppliers of coal particularly, of course, in our principal market, Japan. These factors are creating very serious problems for the industry. These problems are certainly not assisted by the well known level of industrial disruption which has been occurring in it such as the two rail strikes in the Hunter Valley in recent months. Australia's reputation as a very reliable, credible supplier of coal is one of the very important factors in the development and success of the industry. This is a matter of great concern to the industry. It is somewhat disappointing that the report before us does not in fact examine to any extent the impact of these industrial disputes. The New South Wales Coal Association has written to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to seek an urgent reference to the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems of the problem of industrial disputation and the effect it has on the coal chain. Thirty-four unions are represented in the Hunter Valley from the mining of the coal to its final export through the port of Newcastle. I hope that the Government will take note of those concerns and show a little more consideration of these problems than the Minister showed in answer to questions yesterday when he was more intent on scoring political points against the Premier of Queensland than he was on giving full recognition to and an indication of Government concern and Government action in relation to the industrial disputes that have been created in that industry, particularly in New South Wales. I also hope that the Minister will better serve the industry for which he is responsible than he did with the sort of answer that he gave yesterday to another question which, as he said, gave him the opportunity to demonstrate some more of his new-found learning in his portfolio. I think the answer indicated that he was more intent on demonstrating than learning, as he put it, than demonstrating that he had the interests and concerns of the industry at heart. In the course of that reply he made a very serious mistake about which he had to make a personal explanation. If he took a more serious interest in the concerns of the industry rather than trying to score political points and to demonstrate his technical knowledge of some aspects of the industry, I think he would better serve the industry. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. First, I commend the officers of the Department of Social Security for this most comprehensive annual report for the year ended 30 June 1984. Certainly, it covers a most significant period of change in the Department of Social Security. Probably one of the most significant areas of change and development from the Department's viewpoint was the introduction by the Government of the assets test, commencing first in 1983. It is interesting to note that the report reveals quite clearly the significance of the assets test to the staffing and funding of the Department and the administration that was involved as a result of its introduction. In fact, the report points out that at the end of February 1984 there were 1,518 assets test staff of whom 1,252 were new recruits. It then goes on to point out that as a result of the Government's bungling and changing of mind and the appointment of panels of review and so on most of those had to be placed into other jobs in other parts of the Department. Indeed, 345 were temporarily lent to other organisations such as the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Electoral Office, the Departments of Communications, Housing and Construction and other departments in order to keep them occupied while the Government was fiddling around making up its mind as to whether it would go on with the assets test or otherwise. The report finally points out that there were about one thousand staff remaining on stream at the end of June 1984 when the assets test was sent down in the final form which has now been the subject of legislation. We are unclear as to how many are still required on the development phase of the assets test but all indications are that the Government is still employing quite large numbers of people to operate this system which, it claims, will affect only very small numbers of pensioners. Another matter to which I refer is the prosecutions that have been undertaken by the Department in recent times. It is significant that the three biggest areas in which prosecutions have been undertaken are those of the widows pensions, supporting parents benefits and the unemployment benefit. The numbers that are indicated for the age pension, the invalid pension and so on are quite small by comparison, but those three areas stand out very significantly. It seems to me that the Government could institute an inquiry into why it is that fraud appears to be so rife and rampant in those three areas. Granted, there are significant numbers of people on the unemployment role and that obviously of itself lends credence to the point that a greater number would be taking advantage of the system, but I do not think we can use that argument in the case of the supporting parents or widows pensions. It seems that there is a need for the Government to tune up its methods of inquiry and prosecution in particular areas if such large numbers of prosecutions need to be launched after the event. Another matter to which I refer is that of invalid pensions. There has been a very significant growth in the number of invalid pensioners during this last financial year. In fact, it has gone up by about 9.2 per cent. That is a very significant rise when one realises that unemployment rates have fallen over the same period. I understand from evidence given to the Estimates committee dealing with the Department of Social Security that this has resulted from ministerial direction for a more lenient approach to be adopted to medical examinations in some States, particularly New South Wales, for the purpose of determining eligibility for the invalid pension. Finally, the report gives us a rundown on the attendant care pilot project being undertaken at present, which appears about halfway through its examination. I am looking forward very greatly to the information that might come forward on that. I hope that by the time the next annual report is completed and presented to the Parliament we will have a full explanation of progress and some idea of what the Government intends to do after that. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.30) —I take this opportunity to comment that this is the last report we will have from the Department of Social Security in its old form. Since the period covered by the report the Department has been split into two departments. One, the Department of Social Security, will deal with income maintenance and cash payments. The other is the Department of Community Services, of which Senator Grimes is the Minister. The former Department of Social Security had grown to be an enormous department of state. I recall that one of the first questions I asked the then Director-General, Mr Laurie Daniels, OBE, in 1975 was why the Department had doubled its staff numbers in the three years prior to 1975. He said it was simply because of the growth of work and the development of the income security system. We find that staff numbers and expenditure in 1975 have more than doubled a decade later. There was an enormous growth in every aspect of the work of the Department. The Department of Social Security, which was formed during the period of the Whitlam Government, was formerly known as the Department of Social Services. It remains for me to say that the Department has been served by talented Directors-General and dedicated staff. I hope that a satisfactory role will be found for the new Department of Community Services as a result of the splitting of the old Department of Social Security. The Department of Community Services will have to find the proper role for the Commonwealth, in terms of modern government, in dealing with community organisations, State governments and local governments. I hope that the Department will be involved in the development of welfare programs to deal with a wide range of disadvantaged people, that it will develop and provide programs for the elderly in the community, children's services, disabled people, and all the things that have, over the years, been developed by successive governments. It would seem to me that there is a real challenge for the new Department to find a proper role for the Commonwealth to play in these matters. It needs to ensure that there is not an overlap or duplication of services and that there is some integration of services. I note that the report of the Social Welfare Policy Unit, which I received in recent days, indicates that during the last year the unit developed a number of major analytical studies on which I am sure the Department can draw when it looks to the development of its new programs. The co-ordination of programs covered by the Department of Community Services is a need that must be met with some precision because there is expectation in the community of some integration of, for example, nursing home care for elderly people. A variety of services have been developed for a whole range of disadvantaged people and some direction will be needed. If that direction is to be given at the Commonwealth level, obviously it will be done by the new Department. The new Department might also have a role to play in determining in what way the services will be provided. The new Department of Social Security is an enormous Department that will deal with income maintenance and cash payments. I know that there has been increasing interest in the installation of stratplan resources to enable that Department to give an efficient and effective service. I simply use this opportunity to pay my tribute to those people who have served in the Department of Social Security, the report of which is now before the Senate. I wish them well in whichever of the two departments they now find that their career takes them. I hope that the person who is selected to fill the position of head of the Department of Community Services is someone of experience and sensitivity. I hope he will be a person who can be relied upon to work at all levels of government and with the community and that he will gain the respect that past Directors-General with whom I have been associated have enjoyed throughout the whole Australian community. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.35) —Like Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, I wish to use this occasion to pay tribute to many of the officers who made the Department of Social Security what I think was a very fine Department. As one who had less time with the Department of Social Security than did Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle-I was Minister for something over two years-I learned to have very great affection for it and for the officers who serviced it. I think that the splitting of the Department of Social Security, notwithstanding that it is an occasion of some regret at the passing of something we have known and enjoyed working with, is in fact a positive step. I must say that it was my hope that, had we been returned to government in 1983, we would have undertaken the same sort of division in the Department. I had discussed it with both my senior officials and the Prime Minister of the day. It was something which I think was to be done after an election rather than in mid-term. The massive size of the Department, and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has already referred to the huge growth of the Department over the last decade or so, and the very great variety of its duties make the split something which may work to the advantage of the Australian people. I also want to use this occasion to mention a significant problem which I suppose now is within the province of the Department of Community Services. This is not a problem that is imposed by politics; it is a problem which is imposed by the realities of divided areas of administration. For many years now we have had closely related but separate responsibilities vested in departments such as Health and Social Security. The aged care area is a very good example of that. The consumers and the volunteer groups who are operating in the field can face a confusion of departments-perhaps several State departments, a department of community welfare, a department of health and several Commonwealth departments, each bearing some responsibility in their area but only for specified programs. All that is understandable, but it does give rise to very great difficulties for people when they find that they do not fit precisely within the responsibilities of any particular organ of Government. I mention, as simply one example of what is I think a continuing problem, the Australian Huntington's Disease Association of Western Australia, an organisation with which I have had some contact over the past half year or so and in respect of which I have had some correspondence with both Senator Grimes and Dr Blewett, the Minister for Health. I understand that in developing the home and community care program, the Government is trying to ensure that there is some greater co-ordination, some single body responsible for the range of programs that already exist in that area. It still appears likely that, if the experience of the Australian Huntington's Disease Association of Western Australia is any guide, there will be people who find difficulty in fitting within the parameters of the established programs and who, as a result, may find themselves in very great difficulty. When I was Minister for Social Security I remember visiting a new establishment in Melbourne which was under the auspices of the Methodist Central Mission, which I think is now known as the Central City Mission. The Mission was dealing with people who were suffering from Huntington's chorea. I think any one who visited that establishment would be struck by the very difficult task which people working with sufferers of the disease undertake. It is a very great affliction and a very difficult area in which to work. I must say that I felt great admiration for the Central City Mission which was performing this work. The Western Australian Huntington's Disease Association is tackling the problem in a different way, but a way which I think is quite interesting and certainly is being of very great help to the people who are attending its facility. The Association asserts that it is not providing assistance on the basis of medical care but, rather, it is providing social assistance. It is adopting practices which are aimed at maintaining the ability of sufferers from that disease to communicate-something that is very fundamental-as well as ameliorating the general condition. I simply want to make a plea for the new Department to focus on the particular problem of worthwhile organisations which do very important work in the community but which simply do not fit the categories of programs available and which are forced to go from door to door, from department to department, trying to find an appropriate avenue. There is some chance that the Association I have mentioned may come within the new home and community care program. I certainly hope so. I am sure that these problems will continue to arise. I hope that the new Department, in its administration of this area, will take into account very carefully the significant problems that organisations face in trying to do a job which fits into sometimes narrow legislative boundaries. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make some comments about the 1983-84 annual report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. As it was a matter of interest to me, during the last sittings of the Estimates committees I took up the issue of accident injury, and in particular repetition strain injury, among Commonwealth public servants. I did so because of my interest in occupational health and safety and other matters of health. I found that this report caught my attention. Therefore, I felt I should make some comment about it. It is interesting that the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation was established under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. Many of the compensation claims are settled in a fairly straightforward manner by the many officers who are delegated to this task throughout Australia. The first issue with which the report deals is the need perhaps to change the administrative structures of dealing with compensation claims. Currently planning is underway to look at bringing the processing of compensation claims under the direct control of the Commissioner rather than through the 800 or so officers who have this delegated responsibility throughout departments around Australia. Also underway is a joint management review which will make recommendations on more efficient and effective means of administering and achieving the objectives of the Act. I am sure that that review will look at ways in which the time for claims to be heard and dealt with can be shortened. Consequent upon that, there is the increased need for the training and development of officers to improve communications and contact with claimants. I will make a brief comment about that later. The other point to which the report alludes is the examination of workers' compensation that has been underway throughout many of the States. The comment is made that inquiries have been held or are proceeding in each of the States and Territories, with the exception of Queensland. Some of the States have already made their reports. The report alludes to the significant way in which compensation problems and the whole question of workers' compensation in this country are currently under very extensive review. The Commonwealth's compensation scheme differs from State and Territory schemes in that there is no requirement for the departments to collect revenue or finance. The payments are made from the departments' normal appropriations. The Commonwealth and the States face enormous difficulties, under their schemes, in administering the Act properly and in addressing the issue of claims, in particular the problems consequent upon human injury and accident. They include rehabilitation, adequate support and health care during the compensation settlement. They also have to deal with the human loss as a result of such injury or accident. It is interesting to consider the number of claims. Over the last 10 years there has been an increase in the number of claims. The report indicates that there has been an increase from 35,000 cases in 1974-75 to 54,776 cases in 1983-84 with, of course, a consequent increase in expenditure. The graphs indicate that claims and expenditure in the Australian Public Service are not growing exponentially at all. A significant number of people were covered under the Act in 1983-84 and a considerable number of dollars was spent. I do not believe we can rest easily on those results. Finally, I allude to the paragraph headed 'Cases Arising from Exposure to Ionising Radiation'. The point is made that during the last 12 months two reports have been made to government on the subject-the Kerr report and 'The Indoctrinee Force: A Note on Radiation Levels Experienced by its Members in the Buffalo Series Tests Conducted in 1956 at One Tree and Marcoo at the Maralinga Range, South Australia'. To 30 June 1984, 154 claims for compensation under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act had been lodged. Six claims had been accepted, 81 claims had been denied and three claims had been withdrawn. I think it is quite interesting to note that brief paragraph in the report. I am quite sure that people following with interest the outcome of the Maralinga inquiry and the consequences of the atomic testing will be interested to note that. No doubt the reason for six claims being accepted would be worthy of fuller examination, as would the reasons why 81 claims were denied. I suspect that will be of interest to the people following that case. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.45) —I take this opportunity to make some brief comments on the report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. I, too, noted the number of people who had been dealt with in the past year. As someone who administered the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act for five years, I took interest in the growth over recent years in employees' compensation in the Commonwealth Government. Over the years there have been a number of ways in which these figures have been examined, but they all point to a significant cost to the Government as a result of employees' compensation throughout the Australian Public Service. This leads me to say that there is a great deal of interest in employees' compensation, as was said by the preceding speaker, Senator Crowley, all around Australia. In particular, there is a very solid interest in Victoria at the moment with the proposal of the Victorian Government regarding workers' compensation. The proposal of the Cain Government with regard to workers' compensation has alarmed a number of people in that State. It has alarmed those who look to a diversity of workers' compensation programs to cover their particular needs. The Government's proposal virtually to nationalise workers' compensation through the State Government Insurance Office, thereby depriving employees of the opportunity to go before the courts to test their claims, and to give workers access to workers' compensation, which system has developed over a number of years, is of great concern in that State. I am aware that there is concern of a political kind as we go into the State election next Saturday. This sort of concern has been developed fairly strongly in recent weeks by the insurance companies, but also enormous concern has been expressed by the legal people in that State because they are aware of the withdrawal of rights which people presently enjoy. There is enormous concern by those people who may at some time in the future require to be covered by workers' compensation. On my understanding of the proposal of the Victorian Government, it seems to be just a recycling of the Whitlam Government's proposal for a national compensation scheme, a scheme which was dealt with by the Senate in 1974-75. It was exposed through a Senate committee that the Woodhouse scheme which was to be introduced by the Whitlam Government was not to be tolerated, particularly by the trade union movement. I have been surprised that there has not been more public comment by the trade union movement in Victoria in recent weeks as the Cain Government's proposal came to be understood as one that was similar to that proposed as a national compensation scheme by the Whitlam Government in 1974-75. At present, people have access to the courts to test their claim and to seek remedies and employers have various types of insurance to cover their risks or the particular needs of their employees. There is concern that this provision is to be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of Government papers has now expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —by leave-During the Thirty-third Parliament, the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade commenced an inquiry into the development of closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand. Before the Senate rose for the 1 December 1984 election, the Committee tabled its first report relating to this inquiry. This report listed a number of issues pertinent to the inquiry as at October 1984 and discussed the future direction of the inquiry. It also made a number of first-round recommendations. The Committee is now in a position to continue with the inquiry and will commence a full examination of the issues raised in its first report and any other issues that may have arisen since. During the autumn session of Parliament the Committee will undertake a number of public hearings and endeavour to report back to the Senate before the winter recess. Finally, Mr Acting Deputy President, I want to place on the record the Committee's sincere wishes to Senator Coleman for a full and speedy recovery. We all look forward to her early return to the Senate, and in particular to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-The Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment has resolved to resume the inquiry into new technology and employment under the terms of reference first given it by the Senate on 15 June 1984, namely: The adequacy of current mechanisms to investigate and monitor the introduction and current application of new technologies, and the need for a national technology assessment system better able to provide information and advice in relation to: (a) effects on unemployment, manpower planning and industrial relations; (b) extent of Australian control of technological change; and (c) policy planning for the purpose of encouraging, or directing technological change in Australia. A large number of submissions have already been received by the Committee, and a program of hearings is planned to commence soon. We hope that through the consideration and discussion of the evidence the inquiry receives, the following general issues will be highlighted: the community concerns, such as about unemployment, in relation to an unmonitored acceleration of technological change; the problems of actually knowing what is happening in the field of application of technology; the problems and potentials for providing advice and analysis, at a sufficiently early stage in a phase of technological change, to prevent the worst negative effects from occurring; and the potential for encouraging particular directions in technological change, including through support for research and development, which may be revealed in the discussion, of the possibility of monitoring the introduction of changes and identifying trends. Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Senator Jones: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator JONES(Queensland)(5.55) —The report on land use policy in Australia brought down by the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, was presented to the President of the Senate in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 18 October 1984, together with the transcript of evidence. The following is an extract from the letter which I presented to the President at that time: The evidence taken during the Committee's inquiry revealed a far from satisfying state of affairs in the development and conservation of Australia's land resources. There is unquestionably a need for policies on land use to be co-ordinated nationally by State, Commonwealth, Territory and local governments. The Committee, on taking up the inquiry into a national land use policy, noted the recommendations of the previous Committee in 1977 in its report entitled 'Woodchips and the Environment'. The evidence taken at that inquiry showed very clearly that there was a real need for a national land use policy. Because of the involvement of the Committee in bringing down that original report this Committee decided to hold a further inquiry into land use in Australia and to bring down the report which I presented to the President on behalf of the Committee on 23 January 1985. The Committee found that little action had been taken by the previous Government on the recommendation of the original report that a national land use policy should be established. Because of this lack of action the Committee felt that, after looking at the evidence before it, it should list specific issues in relation to a national land use policy, and we tried to develop in the report a proposition that could be put before the Government with some hope that it would be acted upon it in a realistic way by the government of the day. That report is now before the Government and it is with a great deal of confidence that I, as Chairman, and I am sure the other members of the Committee, including yourself, Mr Acting Deputy President, are waiting to see what the Government's response will be. When the Committee began taking evidence at public hearings one of the problems it faced was that evidence tended to deal with specific issues in relation to rainforests, conservation, mining or some particular land use. That emphasised to the members of the Committee that we really needed to look at the problem more in a national context, and that is what we tried to do. We tried to bring down a proposition and a recommendation that would allow the Government to set up the machinery to bring about a national land use policy. Another problem the Committee faced was the constitutional right of the States to handle land matters within their boundaries. The Committee took a great deal of notice of the fact that the Commonwealth can be only an advisory body in relation to what happens in the States. I think that proposition was recognised by the States. They recognised that the Commonwealth could only advise on setting up a national body. The co-operation and cohesion between the States, as well as the submissions given, allowed the Committee to draw up its recommendations to put before the Government. Because of the good will shown by the States and the Commonwealth towards the Committee, I believe that the material in the report will go a long way towards the setting-up of the national land use policy that members of the Committee believe we need in Australia. Land is probably one of the greatest assets that this country has and it should be looked at from a national point of view. One of the other propositions the Committee looked at was that the Commonwealth, through the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, should set an example to the States. It is not good enough for the Commonwealth to say that action should be taken by the States and not take action itself when it has the power to do so. We believe that if the Commonwealth acts clearly in demonstrating to the States what should be done and if it is willing to undertake certain things within its Territories, it is reasonable to ask the States, acting in a spirit of co-operation, to do something within their own boundaries. I think it is worth mentioning also at this stage the details in relation to submissions the Committee had before it. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment on land use policy has finally been brought down. We actually began the inquiry on 5 June 1981. Of course it is now 1985; so it has been a long, hard inquiry by the Committee. I must at this stage thank the members of the Committee-Senator Townley, who is the Acting Deputy President at the moment, Senator Jessop, who was the Deputy Chairman, Senator Mason, Senator Reynolds and Senator Foreman. I believe that the exacting work of the Committee, the dedication shown by the Committee members and the non-political way in which we looked at the issue before us allowed us to bring down a very firm, solid and reasonable report to which I believe the Government should respond. That being said, I think one would have to acknowledge the work undertaken by the Secretary of the Committee and the other members of the Staff. I thank Robert King, who is the Secretary of the Committee, and Peter Roberts, who was the Secretary of the Committee during the Thirty-second Parliament. I thank also the former and present research officers, Derek Synnot, Lyn Willson, Max Lane and Judy Middlebrook, and the Committee's steno-secretaries, June Fallick and Ms Maureen Rockey. Our thanks go to all those people for the way in which they provided the Committee with services and allowed us to undertake the number of public hearings we undertook and to receive the amount of submissions we received during the course of the inquiry. The Committee received in the vicinity of 240 written submissions. In addition, we received evidence on these matters at public hearings in Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Alice Springs, Darwin, Hobart and Canberra. Over 3,400 pages of evidence were taken from the witnesses. Altogether the Committee heard evidence from 145 witnesses. These include technical experts, State Governments, Commonwealth departments, environmental organisations, farming and commercial organisations, legal experts and representatives of several other interests. As a result of these inquiries the Committee recommended in the report the establishment of a Standing Committee on Land Use by the Australian Environment Council. Other relevant ministerial councils, the National Conservation Strategy for Australia Task Force and the Australian Survey Office should be represented on this Standing Committee. The Committee has suggested some areas of concern. I will not cover all the areas but I am sure other members of the Committee wish to elaborate on the Committee's report. These areas included the drafting of a national land use policy statement following the guidelines outlined in the report; the necessity of a land use co-ordinating council to give effect to a national land use policy; land use management issues; and the compilation of a manual and central registry of land use information, including an inventory of Commonwealth land. I think that last point is worth mentioning again. It seems that a lot of information in Australia is available to various departments, various State governments and the Commonwealth in relation to land use in Australia. But there also seems to be a scattered amount of information. There is no one central point where we can gather that information and very quickly make an assessment of land or land use. I think the Committee to be set up together with the government and a central information centre will go a long way to help develop the national land use policy in the future. I recommend the report to the Senate. We wait with a great deal of expectation for the Government to respond to the report. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.05) —I am very glad to add my comments on the land use report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment for a number of reasons. The first is that this topic is obviously important and has been long overdue for major study. The second reason is more personal in that after seven years I have finally parted company with the Committee. My colleague, Senator David Vigor, the Australian Democrat senator for South Australia, will take my place on that Committee with distinction, I am sure. I would like to place on record the interest and challenge the Committee has provided to me under the chairmanship of, first, Senator Don Jessop and, secondly, Senator Gerry Jones. I confess that I shall miss the good company and mental stimulation of journeys and meetings of that Committee which is rightly at the cutting edge of government policy in an area where scientific and technological change are major elements of society. They will become increasingly so as time goes on. This report is, of course, just a beginning. But I thought it especially useful because it has been very much concerned with practicalities, as Senator Jones has said. It has been aimed consciously, I believe, at a level much lower and more attainable than an ivory tower. This is, of course, the best possible result of committee work-to be practical above all things and to put forward what is possible. All of us become fond of asserting what should happen. It seems so easy to reform the world until one gets down to the details and takes into account all the human and other circumstances involved. Having said that, I would like to look more to the future. The Committee, in discussing an approach to the land use inquiry, rightly perceived soil conservation as a major problem in Australia. I do not know of anyone who is at all informed in this area and who would not take that view. The trouble is that the matter of soil conservation has, like road accidents, become a kind of cliche. As a result, nothing effective is being done about it. The solutions, such as they are, do not even begin to address the scope and enormous size of the problem. On Monday I spoke very briefly about this matter but I would like to develop it a little further because I think it is of tremendous importance to this country and, indeed, to this Committee. It is a fact that all of us in this world depend for our very lives and continued existence on a very thin, fragile mantle of top soil which is a product of centuries, perhaps even millenia, of natural processes. Without it we would all be dead, and quickly. With increasing numbers of human beings and the loss of top soil we have taken definite steps closer to malnutrition, even starvation. It is on that level of importance that we ought to make our judgments. We will need, among other things, to change our views and our social attitudes in many respects. An important point is to recognise the relationship between the animal world, of which all human beings are a part, and the plant world. This was strikingly brought home to me some years ago when I visited the city of Shanghai where all the sewage of the city is processed and used as fertiliser on the fields of the surrounding communities which are, indeed, the food bowl of that great city. The process is carried out in a manner to which I believe no one could object. There is no danger to health, no odours and no problems. The entire process is carried out efficiently and cheaply. Indeed, the process has a certain elegance, a certain appropriateness, which is in full accord with the symbiotic nature of this planet's life forms and which we ignore at our peril. It is those among us who, like the Government of New South Wales, are spending millions of dollars, and propose to spend millions of dollars more, on piping sewage further out to sea who are the truly indecent and perverse protagonists in this argument. The fact that that process has so often resulted in raw sewage being deposited on Sydney's surf beaches is unpleasant enough but it is not the worst element. The worst element is that this process in effect shifts huge quantities of our rare resources of topsoil out to sea and wastes them permanently. As food is grown on the land and human wastes resulting from it are not returned to the soil, so the soil is diminished. With very few exceptions our whole approach to the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage in Australia has been to aim for the lowest capital and operating costs within the constraints of health and inoffensiveness and a certain prejudice which is not at all in accord with modern thinking and our understanding of the true nature of the planet's welfare. There are two prominent exceptions to this rule-Melbourne's Werribee sewage farm and the Bolivar sewage treatment plant near Adelaide. In summer the Werribee farm produces over 200 megalitres of raw sewage a day to apply to 4,300 hectares of red-brown, silty, clay loam. Besides providing effective sewage treatment, as many as 15,000 head of cattle or 50,000 head of sheep can be fattened on that farm. That is, of course, a practical and useful result. Quite a large proportion of Adelaide's milk supply comes from a dairy farm irrigated with unchlorinated secondary effluent pumped from the Bolivar treatment plant outfall to water about 300 hectares of fodder crop. This Bolivar effluent also is used successfully to irrigate wine grape crops. We must return to the realisation that sewage is a valuable resource. Every year in this country our population of 15 million produces sewage containing about 54 million kilograms of nitrogen and 57 million kilograms of phosphorous, the vast majority of which we cannot be bothered reclaiming. Until the mass introduction of the water closet in 1810 sewage was rightfully considered to be a very valuable resource. There were lengthy debates in Westminster about whether landlord or tenant owned the tenant's sewage. From then on household waste was discharged into municipal sewers along with storm water. Soil drainage found its way into the nearest waterway. Understandably, this created havoc with the quality of the water, to the point where one person wrote a letter to the London Times in 1868 using river water as ink. Steps had to be taken, and indeed they were. Most sewage was disposed of in one of two ways. Either it was dumped in the sea through sewage outfall pipes built along the shore or it was recycled on sewage irrigation farms. Even with the lack of technical knowledge at that time concerning sewage treatments, the sewage farms were remarkably successful. In 1873 members of the British Medical Association attended a gala luncheon at the Romford sewage farm. The menu included trout caught in the stream below the outfall, beef from cattle raised on sewage grass, milk and cheese from sewage-fed cows, vegetables grown on the farm and effluent served in crystal decanters. Of course, there are problems associated with the recycling of sewage. For sludge to be used safely and effectively, it must be carefully monitored and industrial waste disposal must be stringently controlled. However, even with current levels of heavy metals and complex industrial organics, which are not severe in less heavily industrialised areas, sludge would have a monetary value ranging from $10 to $50 a tonne, depending upon its nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium levels, when sold as fertiliser. Indeed, 10,000 tonnes of granulated, heat-sterilised sludge from the Bolivar treatment plant is sold annually to market gardeners, orchardists and home gardeners. Life depends to a large extent on the carbon, nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus cycles remaining unbroken. We have ignored that fact for too long and it must eventually catch up with us. Quite soon we will run out of the petroleum needed to make artificial nitrate fertilisers and the phosphate mines will be exhausted. We must start planning for that day before it comes. Because of that we cannot continue to tolerate the purblind, stupid, wasteful approach of governments such as the Government of New South Wales, which sees the answer to this problem as taking a valuable asset and spending millions of dollars putting it further and further out to sea. Their motivation is almost impossible to divine. I will quote very briefly from Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, interestingly enough written over one century ago. He wrote: All the human and animal manure which the world wastes, if returned to the land, instead of being thrown into the sea, would suffice to nourish the world. Those piles of ordure collected at street corners, those carts of mud jolted at night through the streets, those frightful barrels of the night-man, those fetid streams-do you know what they are? They are the flowering field, the green grass, the mint and thyme and sage, the game, the cattle, the satisfied lowing of the heavy oxen at night, the perfumed hay, the golden wheat, the bread on your table, the warm blood in your veins, health, joy, life. I commend those words to the Government of New South Wales. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(6.13) —I am very pleased to support the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment in the presentation of the report on land use policy. As the Chairman said in his speech, it is a rather difficult matter to come to grips with because a lot of the matters canvassed in the report come largely under State and local government jurisdiction: In 1977, when the Committee presented a report on wood chips and the environment, we pointed out that there was a clear need for a national land use policy, with the Commonwealth Government primarily playing a co-ordinating and supportive role to the State and local governments. The Minister of the day, the Hon. Ian Wilson, did not agree entirely with the recommendations of the Committee. In the debate on the Government response to the Committee report I disagreed with the Minister, who said that the initial approach on national land use policy must come from the States. I disagreed because I believed that it was an area of great national concern in which the initiative could come from the Federal Government for discussion at the appropriate Commonwealth-State forum. I said a number of other things, but I pointed out quite clearly in conclusion that State governments must remain free to formulate their own policies and priorities within the general framework of an agreed national policy. I think that is the spirit in which we approached the inquiry with which we are dealing now. The Committee fairly quickly recognised, as pointed out on page 5 of the report, that current policies, or lack of them, have led to wide scale land misuse and degradation. We have listed the adverse effects flowing from that. The first point concerns the soil erosion which has resulted from clearing, overgrazing, burning and cultivation. As Senator Jones quite properly pointed out, and I think Senator Mason also, our topsoil in Australia varies in depth from about four inches, in the old terminology, to a few feet. Once we remove that topsoil, which contains all the nutrients, there are great difficulties in regenerating the soil quality. We pointed to the degeneration of rivers and streams caused by pollution, including pesticides and turbidity; by cultivating watersheds and stream banks; salinity of land and water as a result of irrigation and flood irrigation in particular; and the replacement of native vegetation with introduced species. Of course, that is quite evident in the River Murray system, which is of great concern to South Australian senators. We are on the end of that drain-I often refer to it as an effluent drain-which emanates as far away as Queensland. Some 22 per cent of the River Murray water comes from Queensland. Of course, a lot of irrigation is done in New South Wales and Victoria and a lot of pollution finds its way into the river system. Senator Lewis —Most of it comes from Queensland. Senator JESSOP —Quite a lot could emanate from Queensland. It is an interesting point to make that water knows no State boundaries and therefore it is a national problem. I have said this for years, and I am glad to say that at least one State government-the Tonkin Liberal Government in South Australia-recognised that and advocated that a national approach ought to be adopted with the establishment of a national water resources policy. All of these things impinge one on the other and highlight the significant national interest the Committee has tried to bring into focus in this report. In the report we went on to suggest that the removal of rainforests caused by clearing for agriculture is a problem in some areas. There is a loss of productive land as a result of erosion, salination and encroachment from urbanisation and hobby farming. We have tried to come to grips with the major problems, I think it is important that the Government pays due regard to our recommendations. We also had some evidence from the Central Aboriginal Land Council at Alice Springs. Here again I think we have to ponder whether we are going the right way in respect of land use in Aboriginal areas. I was concerned that the Central Aboriginal Land Council consisted of about 75 members, represented about 54 tribal groups. There are 120 to 130 tribal groups in that area, which suggests to me that perhaps the views of all the Aborigines in that area are not being taken into account. I think it is important to see whether proper and adequate consultation is being effected. We suggest that a way of bringing together the States, with the Commonwealth operating in a co-ordinating role, would be to draft a national land use policy statement. We have illustrated that suggestion in greater detail at page 32 of the report. The recommendation states: To direct the joint Commonwealth-State effort to standardise and improve the accessibility of land-use information, as part of a national information network. In this computer age it would be quite useful and important to have a central data base into which any people interested in land use matters could plug in and get the information, whether it be a local government matter, a State matter, or one involving a Commonwealth or State department. Senator Jones has highlighted that point in his questioning of witnesses throughout the inquiry. It seems to have met with general approval. The recommendations continue: To consider the need for and possible composition of a permanent national land use co-ordinating council. The Standing Committee should report to the Australian Environmental Council on this within 12 months of the finalisation of the National Land Use Policy. The final part of the recommendations reads: To carry out analysis, interpretation and comment on matters of broad concern in relation to land management. The Committee also pointed to the need to involve not only bureaucratic experts from the State and Commonwealth, but also the community and interested people from industry, the farming areas and so on, so that we can obtain a proper view expressed by all those who are interested in this important matter. This is, I think, the eighteenth report that has been presented since about 1945, drawing attention in various ways to the need for a national approach to this problem. I believe that unless we do something in a constructive, sympathetic way with the States, Australia will face a crisis from the year 2000 onwards, because our water resources will be fully committed by then. We must look now to the solution to make sure that our natural resources, and our land management policies, are such that we can look forward to continued prosperity in the years to come. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Senator Colston: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.24) —On 21 February I moved that the Senate take note of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on a national language policy. The Committee's report was presented to the President of the Senate on 11 December 1984 pursuant to a resolution of the Senate of 9 October 1984. The Senate originally referred the question 'The Development and Implementation of a National Language Policy' to the Standing Committee on 25 May 1982. The reference lapsed when the Parliament was dissolved on 4 February 1983. The new Committee decided to continue the inquiry and I informed the Senate of this decision on 10 May 1983. Public hearings on the reference were resumed on 20 May 1983 and completed on 31 October 1983. Public hearings were held in all States, in Canberra, Darwin and Alice Springs. The Committee's unanimous and comprehensive report covers several broad and complex areas of inquiry. The terms of the Senate's reference list 12 different areas, ranging from the use of English in Australia to the special language needs of the deaf and other persons with disabilities. The Committee has reported on all of these areas. In all, the report contains 117 recommendations which, taken together, provide a sound basis for the development of language policies in Australia. The first of the Committee's two major findings is that language policies in Australia should be developed on the basis of four guiding principles. These are: Competence in English; maintenance and development of languages other than English; provision of services in languages other than English; and opportunities for learning second languages. The second major finding is that language policies should be co-ordinated at the national level. National co-ordination should be the responsibility of a national advisory council conferred with advisory, co-ordination and policy research functions. I shall now describe the structure of the Committee's report and mention briefly some of its specific recommendations. Naturally, these recommendations are consistent with the major findings I have just outlined. The report consists of 15 chapters. The major philosophies underpinning the report's recommendations may be found in chapter 1. The second chapter sets out statistics on language use in Australia. Then follow five chapters which deal with English language issues. A further seven chapters deal with the other matters for inquiry which were identified in the reference. The final chapter is a summary of the Committee's recommendations. I consider a detailed exposition of all of the report's findings is not a practical proposition because of the scope of the report. I intend, however, to present a brief resume of the report, chapter by chapter, highlighting some of its most significant recommendations. Chapter 2 of the report sets out statistics on language use in Australia. The figures show that 2.4 million Australians first spoke a language other than English. In addition, about 80 of what could be termed immigrant languages and 150 Aboriginal languages are spoken in Australia. The statistics, however, must be used with care. One significant reason is that comparable figures have not been collected on a regular basis. It is impossible, therefore, to determine how language use has changed over time. The Committee has found, therefore, that more detailed statistics on language use should be collected on a regular basis. It has recommended that questions on language use should be included in future population censuses. Chapter 3 is concerned with the use of English as a national language. The Committee has made five recommendations in this chapter, including one for the establishment of a task force to recommend on the reform of the language of the law. The Committee considers that reform in this area is urgent and important because the communication of legal rights and obligations is adversely affected by the use of what could be termed 'legal English'. Chapters 4, 5 and 7 respectively, deal with the teaching of English as a mother tongue, as second language and as a foreign language. The Committee has made a total of 25 recommendations in these chapters. One of its main findings is that the teaching of English to native speakers of English should be improved. The Committee has proposed that all teachers, not just teachers of English, should undertake special courses in English language skills either in their pre-service training or in service, The current training of English specialists, which often produces good critics but indifferent English teachers, is not appropriate. The Committee supports current Commonwealth programs for the teaching of English to new settlers. It found, however, that there are several matters of detail relating both to the adult migrant education program and English as a second language programs which are in need of reform. Its 16 recommendations in this area should, if implemented, extend the coverage and improve the outcomes of these programs. The Committee's investigation of the teaching of English as a second language indicated that there is scope for further development in the teaching of English to private overseas students. Such development would be to the mutual advantage of Australia and of developing countries in the Asian-Pacific region. The Committee's recommendations for the streamlined granting of student visas and the maintenance of English teaching standards in Australian institutions would help achieve further national development of the Australian EFL industry. The Committee also investigated adult illiteracy in Australia. Although statistics on illiteracy are not altogether reliable, it appears that there are about 430,000 adults who are native speakers of English, who are functionally illiterate. The Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth Government mount a campaign to promote adult literacy. A national committee should be established for this purpose, consisting of representatives of the Commonwealth and State governments, professional bodies and voluntary organisations concerned about illiteracy. In chapter 8 of the report, the Committee has dealt with Aboriginal language issues. The Committee has found that of the original 260 Aboriginal languages spoken in Australia, 50 have died out and another 100 are dying. Only about 50 are in a relatively healthy state. The Committee considers that Australia has a special obligation to foster and develop its unique, indigenous linguistic heritage. The 17 recommendations in this chapter are directed at the urgent need for recording and describing endangered languages and at ways to preserve and develop the use of living languages. The Committee has recommended, therefore, that there be a continued and expanded support for bilingual education programs in schools. The study of Aboriginal languages in schools and tertiary institutions should also be promoted. The Committee has also recommended that appropriate English tuition be provided for Aborigines who want to learn that language. Increased translator and interpreter services for Aborigines are also needed. In chapter 9 the Committee discusses the language needs of persons with communication handicaps. Topics covered include language support for the education of the deaf, the blind, the physically and intellectually handicapped and those with speech and language deficiencies. The provision of communication aids, the need for early intervention and remediation are discussed. One major recommendation in this area is that special support services for the language disabled should be established within at least one Australian university or college of advanced education. The Committee also inquired into Australia's language needs for diplomacy, trade and defence. In this area, the Committee found that there are serious language deficiencies in Australia's foreign service. It has recommended changes to departments' recruiting policies which should put more emphasis on candidates' language abilities. The Committee has also recommended that more resources be made available for language tuition for officers already employed in the foreign service. The time left at my disposal does not allow me to go through the remaining chapters. I would, however, suggest that the end of a good book is always worth reading. I hope that those who are interested in this report will follow the other chapters through. At this stage I wish to thank other members of the Committee for their work during the long and complex inquiry. I also express my appreciation of the work done by members of the previous Committee. I am sure that members of the Committee join with me in thanking our staff and our advisers for their assistance during the inquiry and in the drafting of the report. The assistance of the Committee Secretary, Mr Terry Brown, was invaluable. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.33) —The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on a national language policy is important in that it is the result of a very major inquiry on the part of the Senate. It is pleasing for me to say that it has been the most substantial and pleasurable inquiry out of the many inquiries with which I have been involved. It took the Committee some 2 1/2 years to complete the report and some ten senators were involved in the inquiry. I had the privilege to initiate the inquiry and to gain the Senate's support to undertake it. But my chairmanship of that Committee was interrupted by the March 1983 election when, happily, my successor, Senator Colston, who preceded me in this debate, picked up the value of the inquiry and added his energy and insight to ensure that the report appeared in the form in which it has been presented to the Senate. So this inquiry has been a genuinely bipartisan exercise, and with its unanimous conclusions it is a genuinely bipartisan report to the Senate and to the Australian community. I wish to join with the Chairman, Senator Colston, in thanking Mr Terry Brown and the other members of staff involved in helping us with the inquiry. Some ten members of the staff were mentioned in the introduction to the report. I wish especially to acknowledge the almost unparalleled co-operation the Committee received from the Department of Education, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and indeed from many other government departments, as the issues relating to language resources and language policy reach widely across all departments. Even more, I wish to acknowledge the some 230 submissions that we received. These were undertaken by professional bodies from around Australia, with enormous care and comprehensiveness, according to their expertise. I refer to submissions from those involved in the language profession, for example, teachers of English-English as a mother tongue, English as a second language, English as a foreign language. Methodology and English curricula were an important part of the submissions we received. I refer also to the Ethnic Communities Council. A special conference was called in Canberra, very much with the support of the Committee, involving hundreds-indeed, 2,000-of representatives from all around Australia, who put to that conference consolidated views that were then presented to the Committee. Submissions were received from people involved in interpreting and translating, in specialised language skills relating to languages for the deaf and for others with disabilities, including specific learning disabilities. The question of adult literacy was also dealt with. Each one of those areas of language expertise was very well represented in the submissions we received. I mention also the submissions from experts in Aboriginal languages and submissions on the language needs of those who serve Australia overseas in the areas of trade, defence and foreign affairs. The information and the arguments that were put in the submissions we received regarding the great variety of language resources and language needs in Australia were of enormous benefit to the Senate Committee. I believe that the value of this report, as a text for the next half-generation at least, lies not least in the enormous resource base on which it has relied. In the coming six months we will look to those groups I mentioned to respond to the report and to submit their assessment of it to the Commonwealth Government, in particular to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) so that the Commonwealth Government can then specifically respond to the 117 recommendations that encompass the wide variety of areas that I have described. We look to these language experts to underline and emphasise those points in our report that they think really ought to be emphasised and to give them some sense of priority in their submissions to the Government on how the Government should respond to this report. From the Senate Committee's point of view, I know that we have conscientiously place great significance on the recommendations we have brought forward. We hope that they will all be warmly and positively acted upon by the Government, but not only by the Commonwealth Government. The impact of the findings of this report will relate to State governments, to teaching institutions and, not least, to language professionals involved in very many areas. I hope and trust that it will not be the fiat of a Senate Committee finding that will lead to action, but rather the argument and evidence we brought together that will carry weight with each individual Australian in his or her own professional area of work. In this sense I believe that we achieved our task in this report, which gives focus, an integrated vision and a sense of direction to language resources and language needs in Australia. As Senator Colston said, the report contains 15 chapters and 117 recommendations. In the three or four minutes left to me in this debate, I cannot even begin to describe them even in the summary form put by Senator Colston. Therefore, I shall make only a few general remarks. I shall focus on the majority of Australians who speak English at home and who know only the national language of Australia. It is not necessary for me to emphasise that one of the foundation findings of the Committee was that English is, always has been and always will be the one national language of Australia. The Committee expressed support for complementary principles, such as the need to encourage the maintenance and development of other languages that are being spoken by Australians alongside the first priority of competence in English. Further principles were that the teaching and learning of second languages should be encouraged, and that in certain appropriate areas services should be provided by government and others in languages other than English. Those principles come together in conjunction with our commitment to English as the national language of Australia. Ninety per cent of Australians see most of their language needs and resources related to the national language, English; but 9 per cent of Australians speak at home languages other than English, and many chapters of the report are directed at that area. It used to be the case in Australia, particularly in the 1950s, that immigrant families, and even Aboriginal families, would tell their children to learn English. Therefore, at home those immigrants would not speak Czech, Polish or German, and the Aboriginal families would not speak Pitjantjatjara or whatever the language was. The strategy was to the effect that there is one national language. It was said that if a person wanted to get on in employment or in education he or she must concentrate on English. But the theme asserted in the report is that the vision should be set higher. The children of immigrant and Aboriginal families, and indeed of all Australians, should be encouraged not only to be 100 per cent competent in English but to strive to maintain to the highest degree their own home language and in that way to be bilingual. However, one does not want to undermine English and its importance. I have been able to indicate in demographic terms only two of the major groups with which we are concerned. I regard the 15 chapters in the report as significant findings in all these areas. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.44) — On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I congratulate the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on a report that is both comprehensive and useful. The elements contained in the report cover each of the areas which have been of concern to those, including the Democrats, who have been seeking a comprehensive national language policy. It is often thought that such a policy may have little impact on most people's lives, but a reading of the report will show the attention directed by the Committee at the economic and social importance of language in terms of Australia's internal operations and our relationship with other countries in our region. I do not wish to canvass any of the conclusions in the Committee's report because I hope that later this year-after the various groups in the community have had a chance to read and digest the report and to comment upon it, as the Committee requested-the Senate will have a comprehensive debate on the Government's response to the report. The Government should be congratulated on its efforts in the last Parliament to bring forward its response to reports as rapidly as possible. I think that in almost every case the Government managed to produce responses to reports within a very short space of time. That is vitally important in the interests of the reports themselves and of senators who devote so much time, energy and effort to their compilation. It is probably even more important from the point of view of those groups in the community who make detailed and comprehensive submissions to Senate committees. Such groups would not wish their efforts, time and energy to be wasted. Only when government responds rapidly to those reports can we maintain our bona fides with the wider community and convince people that we are engaged on an important task rather than a mere fill-in. I found of particular interest in the report the Committee's concern about the Aboriginal languages of Australia. It is interesting to speak of a national language and of the fact that that language is English. However, one must remember that our native languages, of which many still exist, have been in use for hundreds of thousands of years and are still used as the language of the home and everyday activities. Those languages are immensely important to linguists and to our heritage. They are also important in the preservation of many Aboriginal cultures embedded in those languages. I was pleased at the attention directed by the Committee at those matters in seeking to ensure that the Government's attention, and it is hoped some resources, are directed to that area. The other point I wish to mention relates to teachers of English as a second language. This is a matter not for Commonwealth action but for State action. Many States, particularly New South Wales, face difficulties in getting ESL teachers to be seen as permanent operating employees of the education departments. All too often the provision of such teachers in this country is seen as a luxury. If it is to remain our strong policy-I hope it is-to welcome people from various countries around the world to come to Australia, to make their homes here, to bring their families here and to develop Australia as a truly multicultural country, we shall have to have concomitant policies in other areas. One of the most important of those must be to provide adequate language teachers in our schools for the children of those families that come here from non-English speaking countries. I am particularly aware of this factor because my children attend a school the dominant population of which comprises migrants who do not have English as their first language. I know that that particular school in my home State of Queensland is now under pressure. It has lost a number of teachers and is facing difficulties. For example, in my daughter's class eight children out of 30-odd do not speak a word of English, and there are no assistant teachers to support the ESL teacher in her task. I believe that situation should not be countenanced in Australia in 1985. The ESL teachers are vital because without their support-let it be understood that that support can be provided only if we provide security for those teachers-the normal classroom teachers will find their task overwhelmingly difficult in dealing with the educational needs of not only those migrant children but also of the children who have English as their first language. The situation is enormously difficult. The teachers' attention is divided, their resources are depleted and, indeed, their energies are sapped. I believe the Committee's report in this area should be closely looked at by the Government. I believe that those problems have been raised clearly by the Committee in its report and that the Government has to pay close attention to them-not only this Government, which ultimately does not have the responsibility for many of those decisions, but also State governments. I will be very interested in the responses of the State education departments to this Committee's report, because I believe that in those responses we will see the bona fides of State governments to undertake their fair share of the work that has to be done in this area. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Senator Giles: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.52) —I spoke on this report the other day and I am now speaking in continuation. I will not go over that ground again, but will just reiterate that there is a problem in Canberra with the number of nursing home beds for the frail aged. I have placed the facts on the record. I appreciate that the Government is short of funds-we keep hearing that-but let it work on a proposition to make it attractive to other people to put money into nursing homes so that beds can become available in this Territory in particular. Let it get on with the establishment of the now twice-promised Office of Aged Care and spend some time working out whether the money presently being spent in the area of caring for the aged is being spent wisely or whether adjustments should be made. The elderly are virtually powerless when they get to that stage and I think we need to make an effort to see that they are cared for in the best possible way and in the best possible conditions. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(6.53) — Just briefly, I compliment the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes on this report. I believe that the private nursing homes industry in Australia is an integral part of aged care and should be given every encouragement to continue. I was interested in the demographic information here which indicated that the number of people aged 65 and over in Australia is going to increase quite significantly over the next few years and that by the year 2021 they will represent 15.8 per cent of the population. I was also interested in the need for more nursing beds and I want to remind the Minister, for Community Services, Senator Grimes, of my comment concerning the rest home situation in South Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend the High Court Justices (Long Leave Payments) Act 1979 and the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act 1979 to provide for pro rata payment in lieu of long leave to Judges of the High Court and other Federal courts, who retire with entitlement to a pension under the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 although not having served for 10 years, and to exclude Judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court from the scope of the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act. The two Acts now being amended were enacted following Parliamentary pressure for legislation to regulate payments to retiring Judges in lieu of long leave. The effect of these Acts is that Judges of the High Court and other Federal Judges are entitled to a maximum of one year's salary on retirement in lieu of long leave not taken, subject to a requirement of a minimum of 10 years service as a Judge. Entitlements under the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act extend to office holders who have the status of a Judge of a court created by the Parliament. In 1981, the Judges Pensions Act was amended to provide that a Judge who, upon reaching a mandatory retiring age, is required to retire before serving the 10 year qualifying period for a pension will be entitled to a pro rata pension after 6 years service. No change was then made to the legislation providing for payment in lieu of long leave not taken. Consequently, we have the situation that a Judge who is forced to retire before reaching 10 years' service, either because of reaching a mandatory retiring age or because of invalidity, has no right to payment in lieu of accrued long leave. This is out of step with other long leave schemes, for example that applying to Commonwealth employees under the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976. Further, the absence of any pro rata entitlement to payment in lieu of long leave is a disincentive to older persons accepting judicial appointment. The effect of the present Bill is to ensure that a Judge who retires on pension before having served for 10 years, whether because of invalidity or having reached a mandatory retiring age, will be entitled to a lump sum payment in respect of accrued long leave. Thus, for example, a Judge who retires in the circumstances mentioned after having served for 7 years and who had not taken long leave in that time would be entitled to 70 per cent of his or her annual salary. These are special cases. The Government believes that 10 years should otherwise remain as the qualifying period in the normal case both for payment of pension and of a lump sum in lieu of long leave not taken. The approximate cost of the proposed amendment in this financial year (1984-85) will be $61,00. The approximate cost in the next financial year (1985-86) will be $110,000. Unless an eligible judge retires on invalidity grounds, there are no anticipated costs in the following financial year. The effect of the definition of a Judge in the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act is to apply that Act to Judges of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The conditions of service of these Judges are now a matter for the Northern Territory Government, consequently the definition is to be amended so that it does not include Judges of that Court. The Act will, of course, continue to apply to Judges of the Federal Court who also hold Commissions on the Northern Territory Supreme Court. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(6.57) —I briefly refer to a booklet entitled Nuclear Weapons-Their Effects and Your Protection. This booklet is published by the Department of Defence Natural Disasters Organisation. As a person who has taken an interest in the question of nuclear weapons, it is a matter of concern to me that this organisation has published a booklet which I strongly disagree with and which I think has a very one-sided approach to the whole problem of nuclear war and what Australia should do. I am particularly concerned because I believe the booklet distorts the position as far as a balanced view on nuclear war is concerned. I am particularly offended by a sentence in the introduction of the booklet which states: Knowledge of the potential hazards of nuclear weapons explosions will also help dispel the more hysterical or exaggerated notions held by many people. I believe that we should not attempt to hide the horror of nuclear war, nor should we pretend that, with good civil defence, the concept of limited nuclear wars is acceptable. I do not intend to go through the book at great length. I will give some examples to draw the Senate's attention to what I believe is a very one-sided approach to the problem. I respect the people who are involved in the national disaster area, the many people who participate voluntarily in times of stress in our community, but I think that they do not adequately or completely understand how horrible nuclear war will be. As it is the most important issue that humanity faces, I refer to page 28 to illustrate some of the sorts of things contained in this booklet. Under the section headed 'There will be survivors' at 5.1., it states: Australia is fortunate. In the event of global nuclear war, we would not have the risk that northern-hemisphere countries have of being at the centre of conflict or being blanketted with fallout. As a member of the Australian Labor Party I know that our disarmament policy is very clear when, under the disarmament resolution, we say: The threat of nuclear war is a threat to the existence of humanity. If it should occur, no country will escape the devastating consequences, the full extent of which are incalculable, but are likely to go beyond the immediate effects of nuclear explosions to include a climatic catastrophe of monstrous proportions. That is the Labor Party position, which, I suggest, is a very sound and common sense one based on information that is available in the world. It is scandalous that a committee dealing with this matter could ignore the whole question of the nuclear darkness which, it is now accepted, will occur as part of the problem. In fact, recent studies indicate that assertions such as this are no longer valid. Far from the implications here that people in the southern hemisphere need not be affected by nuclear explosions in the northern hemisphere, work by analysts such as Crutzen and Birks writing in 1982, indicate that far from the effects of nuclear war being contained, they may well be catastrophic globally. This conclusion has been confirmed by detailed calculations by Turko and others. Briefly, the assumption that nuclear war-that is, in the Northern Hemisphere-is the northern hemisphere's problem, and not ours, has lost credibility. This conclusion is repeated in other sections of the report. In paragraph 6.1 of Part 6, under the heading 'Some Nuclear Misconceptions', the report states: It would be catastrophic but there would be survivors. Nuclear war in every country of the world would never occur. Many countries would not be affected by the explosions. Given the rate of decay of radioactive fallout . . . Here the report completely ignores the nuclear winter concept which, especially in the last two years, has been accepted by more and more scientists. The report minimises the real danger we face. This is an attempt to promote the idea that people should start burrowing into the ground in the belief that they can save themselves by very primitive nuclear shelters. It is common sense that, for a person to survive in a nuclear war, he or she will have to have the most sophisticated and expensive fallout shelters, far beyond our present resources. Political parties across the board agree, and honourable senators in recent times have indicated this in debates in the Senate, that the main emphasis must be placed on organising a controlled disarmament. I think every political party accepts that great emphasis has to be placed on that matter and that that is a solution to the problem. I do not intend to get wound up into a speech on that issue, which has been canvassed, but I feel that it is necessary to draw attention to the report. I ask honourable senators to look at it and to agree with me that it is inadequate. Certainly, as far as I am concerned it does not reflect the views of the Government. I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is at the table, also to examine this report. I certainly hope that it will be carefully examined. It should be debated in the Parliament. I believe that people agree with me, and indeed I think experts throughout the world agree, that the answer has to be nuclear disarmament. In one section of the report there is a reference to people being treated. This is another example of the stupidity of the people applying the ordinary concept of disaster to nuclear warfare. At a medical seminar in Sydney in November 1983 Professor Beverley Raphael, who has specialised in disaster work and who did psychiatric work relating to the bereavement of the Granville train disaster victims and the bushfire victims, pointed out that it was impossible for people to be adequately treated. She said that the trauma of nuclear warfare would be such that we could not expect the medical and health workers to continue in their work of repairing people in the way they did in the Granville train disaster, say, where almost all the resources of a whole country were exerted in one area. That is just another example of where those responsible for this report have relied on the experience of the relatively small disasters we have had in this country and applied the same sort of logic to the holocaust of nuclear war. I ask the Minister to examine this report. I hope she will make sure that there is a debate in the Senate on the issues I have outlined. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.05) —The matter I raise in the Senate tonight concerns not only the people of the Northern Territory, whom I represent in this chamber, but the many people from all over Australia, and indeed the world-all those national and international travellers-who visit the Northern Territory. In the Territory tourism continues to flourish as one of our major industries, with thousands of people coming every year to see the spectacular beauty of northern Australia. They come too to see possibly Australia's most famous landmark, Ayers Rock, which, with the Olgas, is incorporated in the national park. There is also Kakadu National Park and the magnificent Katherine Gorge. They too have problems associated with Federal control. Honourable senators will remember that in Kakadu National Park, because the Koongarra and Jabiluka uranium mines were not allowed to develop, the Aboriginal people of the area, who were relying on royalties to bring about their own development, found that no money would be coming from the mining industry. They were promised funds from the Federal Government for tourist accommodation, international hotels perhaps, which would bring about employment, but this has not occurred. The problem at Katherine Gorge lies in the Aboriginal land rights area. The gorge itself is under claim. It is not those problems that I wish to discuss tonight; I merely point them out. Visitors arrive in the Territory by a variety of means. Some fly to the Territory, arriving at either Alice Springs or Darwin airports. Some come as far as Alice Springs by rail, taking the famous Ghan journey. Unfortunately, at present the line goes no further than Alice Springs, but hopefully the Federal Government will honour its 1983 election promise to build a railway from Alice Springs to Darwin. All Australians will then be able to enjoy a comfortable rail journey from one end of the Territory to the other. In fact, it will be a trans-Australian railway which will enable people to travel from the south to the north. Investment in Alice Springs tourist facilities has made huge strides recently. While private enterprise and the Northern Territory Government are investing heavily in the area, the Alice Springs Airport continues to be a blot on the landscape. This is another Federal responsibility. The terminal building at Alice Springs Airport is overcrowded and uncomfortable. The tarmac is not only overcrowded with aircraft, it is also dangerous. I can well imagine a person crossing the tarmac and being tangled up with a taxiing aircraft or one whose engines are running. The main airstrip of the airport is quite insufficient. I suggest that the Federal Government should get together with the Northern Territory Government to bring about some very necessary upgrading to protect the investment of private enterprise in the area. The Ayers Rock national park is managed under the auspices of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which is a Commonwealth authority. Most people will be aware that the Rock has been promised by the Federal Government to the Aboriginal people. This too is a controversial decision. There are many who feel that all national parks should belong to all Australians and that the Aboriginal people should participate in a board of management. Another suggestion that has been made to us in connection with the management of the national park is that the old abandoned motels, which are very much in the news now and which are located at the base of the Rock, should be demolished and the area restored to a bushland environment. It is suggested also that the Aboriginal camping areas should be cleared, in keeping with the aim of restoring the area to bushland, and that the Aboriginal people should be provided with a separate homeland base lease under which decent facilities such as housing, sewerage and water facilities would be made available. However, that is another concern. The matter with which I wish briefly to concern myself tonight is the road which runs from the border of Yulara-that is, Ayers Rock-to the Olgas within the national park. This road is within the national park and, as such, is once again the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. Yulara is a town on a separate Northern Territory lease and is adjacent to the national park. It is administered by the Yulara town management authority which comes under the auspices of the Northern Territory Government. To date, some $150m has been spent there in developing accommodation at all levels for both the interstate and international traveller. It is unique in Australia and a project that not only the Northern Territory people but also all people of Australia can be proud. The road system to Ayers Rock-that is Uluru-has been well planned and a modern black ribbon highway circles the Rock. However, I am concerned with the extremely poor condition of the road within the park which runs some 18 to 20 miles to the Olgas. It is a hazardous road upon which to travel and numerous accidents have occurred because the road is not properly formed and is poorly maintained. It is an unsealed road upon which vehicles, including vehicles towing caravans, have often overturned or literally fallen apart. The cost, in terms of wear and tear on the tourists' vehicles, is enormous. Tour operators frequently complain bitterly of the damage to coaches which travel the road. To date I am unaware of any fatalities on the road. However, I have no doubt-hopefully this will not happen-that on the law of averages there will soon be not only a serious accident but also a fatality. We could perhaps see more than one fatality if the accident involves a coach. These days coaches carry a large number of people. From advice I have received from the Government, I understand it is intended to put the matter of upgrading the road before the Joint Committee on Public Works for a review of the project. While I would have been satisfied to see this done two years ago, I now feel the road has deteriorated to such an extent that the level of upgrading presently proposed will not suffice. The Commonwealth has been very remiss in not accepting its responsibilities in this area. This year I am told that there is to be $100,000 made available for maintenance. Because of the poor condition of the present road this $100,000 will disappear within two or three weeks of construction work. There will have been little improvement and what little will have been done will deteriorate rapidly. The Mount Olga road will remain what it is today-a trap for the unwary and even a trap for the wary motorist. I urge the Government to heed the calls of the tourist operators who have protested so vigorously at the condition of the road and the danger it poses. I call on the Government to take urgent action on this road before a fatality occurs. It appears to me that the Federal authorities, in putting the project to the Public Works Committee at this very late stage, are merely using a device to put off the expenditure of funds on this road. I believe this is most unfortunate. While the Federal Government insists on controlling the Rock and the Olgas within the surrounds of the national park it looks in other directions when there is a call for hard cold cash. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(7.14) —I wish very briefly to congratulate Bishop Geoffrey Maine on his ordination as Bishop for the Australian Armed Forces. The ordination took place at St Christopher's Church, Manuka, today. He has taken on a very demanding task, to provide pastoral care to members of the Armed Forces of Australia. I also wish to take the opportunity to commend a group of young Canberra people who conducted a prayer vigil on the steps of the church at the time of the ordination. This group is known as the Catholic Social Justice Work Group. Many of these young people are living in communities and are sharing their income and a common life. I believe they are very well motivated. I commend their manner which is non-violent, and, as I say, prayerful. Their message was that the church needs to think again about the symbolism of its association with the Armed Forces through the presence of chaplains, in particular through the taking of rank and equivalent status, insignia and so on, which to some extent identifies to the outside eye chaplains quite closely with the structure of the forces. Of course, it is the symbolism which is so important. I am in no way undermining or questioning the pastoral role of such chaplains. I believe a valid question has been raised by these young people and any such change, as is mooted by way of perhaps differentiating the manner of payment and the status of military chaplains within the forces, should be undertaken by way of consultation with the Government. The Government might think it appropriate to initiate some such discussions. I have found it difficult over the years to reconcile the presence of school cadets in Christian schools. I think that young adults are at a sensitive stage in the formation of their views about issues of war and peace while they are at school. To combine and confuse, to some extent, the emergence of qualities of leadership and the enjoyment and the sharing of camaraderie in cadets with the very preliminary training in some of the martial skills once again raises questions about the sort of training to which we should expose our young adolescents at a time when their consciences should be being formed. I trust and I expect that Bishop Maine will bring his considerable abilities to bear on the provision of moral guidance facing members of the military forces. I do not mean merely of a private character but of a character which we debated in this chamber this afternoon-the large issues going to the very discharge of their military obligations and the moral limits on the waging of war. I say to the young people who made this vigil that they have shown, by their demeanour and by their message, that some very relevant questions have to be addresses. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(7.17) —I draw attention to the not unimportant circumstance that motorcyclists are dying unnecessarily because of brake systems which fail to perform in wet weather. Tests carried out in the United Kingdom show that asbestos brake pads, which are the type fitted to most Australian motorcycles, take as much as five times longer to stop the vehicle in wet weather than in dry conditions. I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to seek from the relevant Minister an immediate investigation into this matter. It is a fact that investigations in Britain have been delayed because of the opposition from the industry, but that situation ought not to be tolerated in Australia. There is also a need for urgent point of sale information for current owners on how to minimise water in brake pads while riding, as a stop-gap measure. Last year 389 people died on motor cycles in Australia. The number of people hospitalised in 1983 was 5,021. This is an intolerable number of human lives which have been wasted on the roads. Unfortunately, as far as I can establish, there is no comparison by road research organisations of accidents on motor cycles in wet and dry weather. Therefore, I have made a suggestion to various organisations, including the New South Wales Traffic Safety Bureau, that they should take those statistics. However, at the moment we cannot say how many people are wasting their lives because of what could be a preventable design fault. A person using a machine fitted with the offending asbestos brake pads will come to rely on its stopping readily in dry conditions. The first time that person rides the bike in really wet weather it will overrun its normal stopping distance. With various types of asbestos pads, the overrun is unpredictable. In some of the tests carried out in the United Kingdom the overrun was so bad that the vehicles ran off the test track completely. This unpredictability of stopping distance can only lead to accidents, most of which in the case of motorcycles are notoriously fatal. The situation is all the more serious because there has been since 1979 an alternative which performs equally well in dry and wet conditions. The alternative is sintered metal disc brake pads which are fitted as standard by one manufacturer I know of-Kawasaki-but initial inquiries from my office indicate that the majority of motorcycles on Australian roads are fitted with brake systems which can be a death trap. A number of manufacturers, apart from Kawasaki, have, through their own actions, recognised that a problem exists. Some companies use sintered metal brake pads for racing models only. Other manufacturers are now using a combination of asbestos and metal dust, mostly copper, in their brake pads. The copper content increases with the size of the bike. Unfortunately, this was found by the tests not always to be effective. In this context, I urge manufacturers to advise clearly at the point of sale that extra care must be taken when riding motorcycles with asbestos brake pads in the wet, especially in very wet weather, when the pads tend to become saturated. Motorcyclists must learn conscientiously to dry out their existing brakes in wet weather riding as a stop-gap measure or risk their lives on a small disc of wet asbestos. The British tests were carried out by the British Government's Transport and Road Research Laboratory, a highly reputable authority. The findings showed that both the sintered metal and asbestos pads would stop the vehicle within 35 metres at 48 kilometres an hour in dry weather. Under wet conditions the sintered pads still stopped the bike within 35 metres, but the asbestos pads took up to 200 metres more. Construed into typical road conditions, these results must mean death or serious injury not only where emergency braking is required but even under normal brake requirements from a careful rider. I have suggested that bodies such as the New South Wales Road Traffic Accidents Research Bureau should now collect statistics for motorcycle deaths in wet and dry conditions. I have written the Bureau a letter to that effect. Unfortunately, I know of no independent research in Australia into the effectiveness of motorcycle brakes. Finally, the matter arises of the standard, the design rule, which deals with this problem. As I have said, sintered metal brake pads became available in the United Kingdom only in 1979. It is a fact that Australian Design Rule 33.5.16, which is the design rule dealing with wet braking, has not been reviewed since July 1980. It is extremely unlikely that this rule takes into account the fact that a better product is available. Australian Design Rule 33.5.16 concerns itself with the rate of recovery of brake pads under wet conditions. It does not specifically compare different types of brake pads, nor does it canvass guidelines for materials of manufacture. I ask the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is now at the table, to see that this matter is taken up as soon as possible in the interests of road safety in this country. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(7.22) —I did not hear most of what was said, but I will ensure that the matters which have been raised by the various speakers are referred to the relevant Ministers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.23 p.m. The following papers were presented: Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determination of Fees. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act-Direction under sub-section 42 (2). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Why have the extradition proceedings in Ireland against Robert Trimbole failed. (2) What immediate and further steps is the Government taking to procure Mr Trimbole's extradition to face the numerous complaints against him. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) At this stage, it is not correct to say that the extradition proceedings have failed. By a decision of Egan J. of the Irish High Court, Mr Trimbole was released from custody on the grounds that the original arrest (before extradition proceedings began) of Mr Trimbole, by Irish police for an offence against Irish law, was illegal and that that arrest tainted the subsequent extradition proceedings. The extradition arrangements between Australia and Ireland and 15 Australian warrants of extradition were all upheld specifically. The Irish authorities have appealed the decision on the arrest to the Irish Supreme Court as a matter of urgency. The appeal has been heard and judgment is expected soon. (2) As my first answer indicates, the Government took all action possible at the earliest time to procure Mr Trimbole's extradition. You may be assured that the Government is taking all further steps available to it to secure Mr Trimbole's return to Australia to face the charges you refer to.