Thursday, 22 August 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: Foreign Military and Intelligence Facilities in Australia To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Chipp (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament: The petition of the undersigned shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and to end the other anomalies existing in the sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled support a change in existing legislation so that this tax be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate without any exemptions whatsoever. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 272 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the proposed disastrous cuts to funding of early childhood services show total disregard for children's development in their formative years, and for women's employment prospects. These cuts must be reversed immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Maguire (from 76 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack (from 290 citizens), Knowles (from 300 citizens) and Townley (from 74 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth that: This government having already imposed on the aged community, assets and income tests, has now further selectively imposed a freeze on the patient subsidy of residents in Victoria private sector nursing homes. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should lift the freeze on nursing home benefit levels. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Robert Ray (from 561 citizens) and Short (from 415 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Government did not honour its promise to consult with veterans before introducing the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should-oppose any sections of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill in which would have the effect of reducing veterans' benefits and particularly that section which seeks to change the onus of proof. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 76 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: (1) Imports of frozen peas from New Zealand and elsewhere have increased from 4.8 per cent of the Australian market in 1979/80 to an estimated 20 per cent in 1984/85-from 2.2 million Kgs to 8.0 million Kgs. (2) As a result of these escalating imports, in 1985: Growers are faced with cuts of up to 30 per cent both in contract tonnages and prices; hundreds of jobs in the processing industry will be lost, with many hundreds more under threat in downstream industries; millions of dollars will be lost from sensitive regional and State economies. Your petitioners therefore request that the Australian Government: (1) Reject the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission Interim Report on Frozen Peas that no assistance be provided to the industry. (2) Support the proposals made by grower organisations and trade unions for import restrictions and other measures of support for the Australian frozen pea industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85 per cent of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. allieviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care. 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985. 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Jessop (from 264 citizens) andMessner (from 342 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: 1. the Ethiopian government has refused to distribute any of the aid it receives from overseas among the great majority of those who live in the northern Ethiopian provinces of Tigray and Eritrea; 2. five million of the seven million starving in Ethiopia live in the above two provinces; 3. aid can, and has been, successfully sent directly to the peoples of Tigray and Eritrea, using Australian non-government organizations and thus avoiding the corrupt hands of the Ethiopian government; Humbly petition that the Senate call upon the Government to redirect its foreign aid away from the Ethiopian government towards the peoples of Tigray and Eritrea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 101 citizens) and Short (from 123 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the Federal Government's petrol price increase will have a widespread and adverse effect on the people of the Northern Territory and other outback areas of Australia; That the Territory's mining and pastoral industries will suffer as a result of the price increase; That the Territory's tourism industry will suffer as a consequence of increased air fares flowing on from the petrol price rise; That the already high cost of freight to Territory residents, business and industry will increase even further because of the fuel factor of freight charges; That the price increase will generally disadvantage the people of the outback, to whom petrol powered vehicles and equipment are a necessity. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Federal Government to give further consideration to the people of the Northern Territory and other outback and isolated regions of Australia in the matter of this petrol price rise. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 556 citizens). To the President of the Senate in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth. They strongly oppose the increases in the price of fuel, which is one of the main items causing the increases in the Cost of Living in Australia today and also the upward inflationary trend. Australia produces 60% of the required amount of crude oil necessary to supply our nation's own requirements, and is boasted as being the cheapest produced in the world, therefore the Australian consumer of this commodity instead of being so heavily taxed should receive more benefits than those of the foreign oil consortiums. Extra taxes required to fill the coffers of the government, to use as they see fit, should be collected from the foreign oil consortiums without recourse to the Australian citizens. The world parity pricing of Australian crude oil was introduced when the local crude oil production was in its infancy, and the imported overseas product was at a world record high. With the promise that the pricing would be reduced in keeping with the falling of the world market price of crude oil, this also has been the failing of Hawke Government's pre-election to office promise. In introducing the world parity pricing the Federal Government bent over under pressure from the foreign oil consortiums. The Petitioners hereto request that the Hawke Federal Government immediately introduce and put into action a fuel price reduction policy, even if it means that the Government builds its own refineries. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 1,488 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: (1) That the recent mini-budget formulated by the Commonwealth government contains substantial cuts for pre-school services. (2) That such cuts are detrimental to the interests of the children undergoing pre-school education and to the interests of their parents. (3) That reductions in expenditure in this area represent a misallocation of priorities with respect to government expenditure. (4) That we demand the restitution of previously announced levels of funding to the pre-school sector of education. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 33 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That we are concerned at the proposed withdrawal of Federal Funding from pre-school education. This is 20 per cent of the pre-school budget. Thus it will be difficult to maintain existing programmes and impossible to provide pre-school education for those children not receiving it now. We urge the Commonwealth Government of Australia to maintain this funding. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 443 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That we deplore the possibility of radio-active waste being dumped or disposed of in Australian waters. Your Petitioners therefore pray: That the Environment Protection (Sea-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1985 be passed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gareth Evans (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax, Hidden Death Tax described as `Capital Gains Tax after death', Gift Tax, Increased Company Tax, Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 101 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners urgently request the Honourable Senator Grimes, Minister of Community Services, to include Communication Aids on the equipment list funded through the `Provision of Aids for Disabled People' program. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen (from 135 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 113 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That as a direct result of the adverse economic position in which members of the Sugar Industry find themselves, they request that a meeting be convened with representatives of the major sugar exporting countries of the world (Australia, Brazil, Cuba and the E.E.C.) to initiate meaningful negotiations to reach agreement on world sugar on policy and price. Further, that both the State and Commonwealth Governments be requested to provide across the board assistance measures for Cane Growers by way of a guaranteed minimum average price as previously requested for Raw Sugar Production within Mill Peak in the 1985-86 Season. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to have urgent talks commenced at international levels to formulate a new Internation Sugar Agreement to be based on the existing production levels of the exporting countries adjusted by whatever percentage necessary to reduce the difference in World Sugar Stocks between supply and demand to within 25 per cent. Your petitioners most humbly pray that further the direct assistance to Cane Growers should be on a per ton of cane basis so as to bridge the difference between the price of cane actually paid and the price which Cane Growers would receive at the Sugar Price of $240.00 per ton 94NT. And further that unless financial assistance is provided in the short term the long term viability of many efficient producers will be sacrificed. If this happens the very fabric of communities along the north-eastern coast will be destroyed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 745 citizens). Petitions received. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that this day, 22 August 1985, is the 500th anniversary of the death of King Richard III, last Yorkist and Plantagenet King of England, cruelly slain by his usurping enemies on Bosworth Field; (b) acknowledges the great achievements of that monarch as a reformer of the law, a wise administrator, a patron of the arts, a bibliophile and promoter of the publishing industry; and (c) convinced of his innocence of the charges laid against him by Tudor propagandists, commends his memory. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending on 30 June 1986 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending on 30 June 1986 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1986 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the Year Ended 30 June 1985 be referred to Estimates Committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the Committees consider Proposed Expenditure and Departmental Expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by resolution of the Senate of 22 February 1985. (4) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Friday, 11 October 1985. 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. Contempt of Court-Statement by the Attorney-General. 2. The Law Reform Commission-Report No. 26-Evidence-Volume 1 and 2. 3. National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation-Annual Report 1983-84. 4. Australian Tobacco Board-Annual Report 1984-Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965. 5. Future Directions for Commercial Television-Report-Vol. 1 &2. 6. Operations of the Registered Health Insurance Organizations-Annual Report 1983-84. 7. Cost Allocation Review (East-West Airlines Operations) Limited-Report by the Independent Air Fares Committee. 8. Official Establishments Trust-Annual Report 1983-84. 9. Remote Commercial Television Services-1st Report. 10. Australian Postal Commission-Service and Business Outlook 1985-86-Report. 11. Australian Telecommunications Commission-Service and Business Outlook for 1985-86-Report. 12. Asian Pacific Regional Trade Law Seminar-Report-Held in Canberra 22-27 November 1984. 13. Human Rights Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 29 (1) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 14. Legal Aid Task Force-Final Report. 15. Creating Children-A Uniform Approach to the Law and Practice of Reproductive Technology in Australia-Report by the Family Law Council. 16. The Australian National University-Interim Annual Report 1984-Pursuant to section 33 (3) of the Australian National University Act 1946. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to end financial assistance under the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act 1980, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Grimes, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act 1980 to terminate the operation of the subsidy scheme under that Act on and from 1 October 1985. The Government's decision to terminate the LPG subsidy was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his statement on 14 May this year outlining Government expenditure savings. This subsidy was originally introduced for a three year period from 1980 and later extended in a modified form to alleviate the impact of the sharp increases in the price of LPG at that time and to allow consumers time to adjust to changing price trends for LPG. In the longer term consumers would have the opportunity to convert to more readily available alternative fuels such as natural gas and electricity. The decision to abolish the subsidy is therefore consistent with the original intention of the subsidy which was to provide temporary relief to consumers facing rising prices for LPG. Since its review of pricing and subsidy arrangements in 1984 the Government has been concerned at the high cost of this subsidy and the continuing situation whereby subsidised consumers of LPG are being more favourably treated than consumers of other competing fuels. Abolition of the subsidy will remove a distortion of the demand for energy that has been created by the encouragement of LPG use in areas where alternative energy forms of lower real cost might have otherwise been used. The average household user of subsidised LPG is expected to face a once-only price increase of around 3 per cent but all LPG consumers will continue to benefit from the price stabilisation measures introduced last year. These measures, which provide for the Minister for Resources and Energy to determine the wholesale price for LPG, were introduced to eliminate the frequent price fluctuations facing consumers as a result of movements in exchange rates and world prices. The effect of this policy is that LPG consumers are currently enjoying substantially lower prices than would otherwise be the case. To minimise the impact on consumers, the subsidy has been allowed to continue through the winter months, the period of peak demand, until 1 October 1985. Its termination at that time will also reduce the impact upon consumers who may have made investment decisions based on the current arrangements. Financial Impact Statement The abolition of the subsidy on and from 1 October 1985 is expected to save the Government about $3.5m during the remainder of the 1985-86 financial year. This saving would have amounted to an approximate $6.8m in the full 1985-86 financial year. I commend the Bill to the Senate Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to declare the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of the Parliament, its members and committees. Bill presented by Senator Macklin, and read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.12) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege 1982-84 and as a member of the Senate Privileges Committee whose report is currently before the Senate, I have been part of the majority in both cases urging that the Parliament declare its position on privileges in accordance with the powers granted to it by the Constitution. I am aware of the Bill introduced during the last session by Mr John Spender, member for North Sydney, who was Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I am introducing a Bill on the same matter though not in the same format as his Bill. I have done so to provide an alternate legislative formulation of the recommendations of the Select Committee. I have made some additions and modifications to the recommendations of the Committee, particularly with regard to the definition of `proceedings in Parliament', the unauthorised publication of in-camera evidence the immunity granted members from arrest. I have also taken into account the recent judgment of Mr Justice Cantor in the New South Wales Supreme Court with regard to the immunity of parliamentary proceedings from examinations in cases before the courts. In general, the Bill preserves the existing law and changes it only to the extent necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. I have made no attempt to restate an existing law where it is not changed. The substantive clauses are as follows. Clause 3 provides definitions to shorten the language of the Bill. It anticipates the use by the Parliament of modern methods of information storage and communication by defining `document' to include such methods. Clause 4 preserves the existing powers, privileges and immunities under section 49 of the Constitution, and provides that they are not diminished, except to the extent that they are expressly changed by the Bill. Clause 5 abolishes the category of defamatory contempts as recommended by the Committee. The only way of doing this is to make unlawful any penalty imposed for such a contempt. Clauses 6 and 7 provide that the Houses may impose a fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months or less or limited fines as recommended by the Committee. Unpaid fines may be sued for in the courts by a person appointed by a House for the purpose. Sub-clause (3) prevents both a fine and an imprisonment being imposed for the same offence. Clause 8 abolishes the Houses' power of expulsion as recommended by the Committee. It is so worded that it would not affect the power of the houses to suspend their members. The word `place' instead of the more common `office' is used to conform with the wording of the Constitution. Clauses 9 and 10 provide that a warrant for imprisoning a person for contempt is to state the offence and that the High Court may make an unenforceable review of any imprisonment of a person by a House, as recommended by the Committee. Instead of involving the Court in questions of what are contempts or breaches of privilege, sub-clause 10 (2) would focus the attention of the Court on the Question of whether a particular offence obstructs or interferes with parliamentary proceedings. Clause 11 provides a definition as recommended by the Committee, but not the same definition. The Committee recommended a definition adapted from that recommended by a British committee. The British definition has a number of defects: It is limited to defamation proceedings; it unnecessarily relies on the concept of acts done ``in the presence of such House and in the course of the sittings''; it contains definitions best dealt with in separate provisions, and it is confined to particular named documents and particular classes of persons. The definition in the Bill is more comprehensive. It deals not only with the question of members' correspondence with Ministers as recommended by the Committee, but with other communications between members, such as speeches at parliamentary party meetings or committees. Clause 12 provides qualified privilege, based on the defence of fair and accurate report, of reports of proceedings of the Parliament. It is substantially in the form recommended by the Law Reform Commission. The Committee recommended that absolute privilege be provided for the limited publication of tabled papers. Since the standing orders of both Houses provide that all tabled papers are public, it would seem to be more rational to provide absolute privilege for any publication of a tabled document, and this is provided for in clause 13. Clauses 14 and 15 make it an offence to attempt to improperly influence a witness or to injure a witness because of his evidence. Clause 16 makes it an offence to publish without authorisation evidence taken in camera. Because the courts have delineated the boundary between civil and criminal matter in such a way that there is very little likelihood of a person being arrested in a civil matter, the immunity from arrest in civil matters is virtually worthless. This clause grants immunity to all matters punishable by less than a fine of $5,000 or 12 months imprisonment. The period of 12 months imprisonment has been proposed because conviction for an offence punishable by more than 12 months imprisonment disqualifies a member under section 44 of the Constitution. Clause 17 would attempt, therefore, to deal with the problem of members being kept from their parliamentary duties by proceedings under state laws. Clause 18 limits the duration of these immunities as recommended by the Committee. Since these immunities are a matter of objective law, the only way of so limiting them is to provide that they do not have force or effect except at the times recommended by the Committee. Clause 19 covers the application of laws to Parliament House. As a matter of law, all laws of general application apply in Parliament House just as they apply elsewhere in the jurisdiction, unless they are inconsistent with parliamentary privilege under section 49. Thus a person, including a member, who commits a criminal offence in Parliament House, say an assault, may be prosecuted and convicted in the normal way. Words or actions are immune from the criminal law only if spoken or done in the course of ``proceedings in Parliament''. There have been persistent expressions of doubt about this, however, partly due to an old and discredited English court judgment, and the Committee recommended that the doubt be resolved. Clause 19 attempts to do this in the most economical way and is not limited to any particular law. The phrase ``a property owned and occupied by the Commonwealth'' has been used since this phrase has been the subject of judicial interpretation. Clause 20 restores the law to what it was thought to be before the judgment of Mr Justice Cantor. Under that law, it is still possible for evidence of parliamentary proceedings to be admitted in court for limited purposes, such as to prove a material fact. Sub-clause (2) makes it clear that evidence taken in camera and not published by a House or a committee may not be admitted in court for any purpose. Without this provision it might be thought that the courts are not subject to the general prohibition on the unauthorised publication of in camera evidence. Clause 21 provides for proof in court of proceedings in committees in so far as it is necessary for the purposes of the Bill. It is not necessary to provide for proof of any proceedings in the Houses because the Journals of the Senate and the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives are already admitted as proof of proceedings in the two Houses. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 21 August. House of Representatives alternative amendments- (1) Clause 10, page 4, after proposed new sub-section 33F (2) insert the following sub-section: ` ``(2A) In nominating a person for appointment as a member of the Board referred to in paragraph 34 (1) (d), the Committee shall have regard to the requirement that at least one of the members referred to in that paragraph is to be a wheat grower.'. (2) Clause 11, page 10, lines 16 and 17, omit proposed new paragraph 34 (1) (d), insert the following paragraph: `(d) 4 other members, each of whom has had extensive experience at a high level in finance, marketing or grain movement logistics and at least one of whom is a wheat grower.'';'. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.18) —I move: That the alternative amendments be agreed to. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1985, as honourable senators know, is concerned primarily with the restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board and the establishment of the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee. The Government proposed that the Australian Wheat Board comprise 11 members; a grower chairperson and a Government member selected by the Minister plus five grower members, one from each mainland State and four members with specialist skills, all nine of whom were to be selected by the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee. Under the Government's proposal growers, including the chairperson, were in a majority on the Board, occupying six of the 11 positions. The growers also had a majority on the Selection Committee. The Bill was introduced in the Autumn sitting and passed with amendments, one of which was to reduce the number of specialist members on the Board from four to three. The Senate did not agree to a subsequent amendment passed by the House of Representatives to restore to four the number of specialist positions on the Board on the ground that the growers selected by the Australian Wheat Board Selection Committee did not constitute a Board majority. The Government is firmly of the view that to protect the Government's underwriting and the growers' interests, the Australian Wheat Board needs to comprise members with appropriate specialist skills to guide the Australian Wheat Board's operations. The Australian Wheat Board is involved in funding and marketing a wheat crop worth around $3 billion annually in an increasingly complex financial environment and in a depressed and increasingly depressed world market. It was not considered sufficient to rely on three members to provide guidance to management. Consultation has since been held with the Australian Wheat Growers Federation to resolve the issue to the extent of the grower majority on the Australian Wheat Board and it is now proposed that the 11-member Board will include one grower who also satisfies the criteria for selection as one of four specialist members in addition to the other five grower members and the grower chairperson. This proposal is incorporated in the amendments before the Committee at the moment. The amendments have the support of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation and meet the Government's requirements. I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.20) —The Opposition supports the current amendment as moved by Senator Grimes. This is one of those situations in which legislation was put up by the Government without real consultation with the wheat growers. That legislation did not meet the desires of those primary producers. The Opposition moved amendments and we then had a stand off situation in which the legislation went to and from both chambers. The legislation was returned to this chamber with a rather unique form of words involving a double negative. One had to look at the wording closely to determine which way one would vote. Be that as it may, a compromise has been reached. If that compromise had not been reached I think we would have seen the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) as the biggest wheat seller in the world. Senator Grimes —We might have been better off. Senator COLLARD —Maybe, but I think he would have had his work cut out bearing in mind all of the other duties that he has on his shoulders and the primary industry problems with which he is faced. However, that is the way we were heading. I suppose that politics, like other things, is the art of compromise. We have reached the stage now where discussions, which, I might add, should have been held before, have taken place. The Government would not have been in the situation it found itself in if proper consultations, not only with the wheat growers but with other primary industries, had been conducted. The compromise is that the wheat growers will basically still have control on the Australian Wheat Board. I think that this arrangement is pretty essential because they are marketing their own product and the Board is funded by levies from wheat growers. The wheat growers were adamant that this should be the case and the Opposition concurred with their view. The compromise reached is that one of the four members with special expertise who will sit on the Board will be a wheat grower. That arrangement meets the demands of the wheat growers. As I said, the Opposition supports this amendment. I might just add that we are talking about attracting people with special expertise to assist with the marketing of wheat. However, the Wheat Board, like all other statutory authorities, comes under Public Service guidelines. This can be rather restrictive when one is looking for top people who probably can command twice the salary offered by the Board if they work for private enterprise. This not only applies to the Wheat Board but also to all other government authorities. We will have to look at this situation some time in the future. However, I just make that point. One could hardly let the opportunity pass without commenting on the deplorable situation concerning the Grain Handling Authority of New South Wales which is causing a loss of markets and a resultant loss of money to wheat growers. Some work has to be done and the GrainHandling Authority really has to get its act cleaned up. Some of the Authority's employees, who are among the highest paid workers in Australia, have gone on strike over ridiculous claims. They are not only damaging themselves but also are damaging Australia's reputation as a wheat growing nation and as a supplier. They are damaging the incomes of the primary producers of this nation and are certainly enhancing our reputation as an unreliable supplier of primary products and many other products. As I indicated, discussions have taken place and a compromise has been reached. As a result, the Opposition supports the amendment. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.24) —The history of this Bill goes back to last year when there was a general discussion of the marketing of wheat in Australia. The Government introduced into the House of Representatives the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill which involved the restructuring of the Australian Wheat Board. In discussions that I had with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), after Mr McVeigh, the Opposition spokesperson on primary industry, indicated that the Opposition would support the Bill, I indicated that we were unwilling to give our support on the basis that the Australian Wheat Board was going to be restructured in such a way as to take away the grower majority. Subsequent to those discussions, the Minister moved amendments to his own Bill in the House of Representatives to defer the consideration to a time that I in fact had put to him-that is, towards the end of this year-to provide for discussions between the Minister and the industry itself. So I cannot agree with Senator Collard that there had not been any discussions with the industry. There were quite extensive discussions with the industry when the Bill was introduced. He said that the Government maintained the line it had maintained last year, and refused to budge. When the Bill came into the Senate the Opposition parties and the Australian Democrats refused to accept the grower majority being taken away. I think this amendment is a fairly good example of lateral thinking whereby everybody's face is saved. In fact, four experts will be appointed, as the Government wished, and there will be a grower majority, as the Opposition and the Australian Democrats were looking for. It is a way out of the problem which I think members of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation are very happy with. Certainly in my discussions with them they have expressed that feeling. We are happy to support this amendment and hope that this might augur well for other Bills about which there has been disagreement-presumably, the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill. I look forward to some lateral thinking with regard to that. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(10.26) —In supporting the remarks of the two previous speakers I would like to make the point that it will really be up to the Commonwealth and State governments to make sure that the trade union movement is responsible at the waterfront so that our wheat products are able to be exported at the right and proper time. The loss to our wheat industry over the years has been rather staggering when one thinks of its importance to the country. That has all been caused by actions at the waterfront. I believe that it is up to both the Federal and State governments to make sure that the export of our wheat is done in a proper way. I think, it is also good that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has now agreed to allow the amendments to go through. It is good that the growers who produce the crops and who have been under such strain and pressure over the last few years because of growing costs will now have a say in their own industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 21 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Peter Baume had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert `the Bills be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (a) ownership of the Uluru National Park to be vested in the Northern Territory, subject to (i) an agreement ensuring effective Aboriginal involvement in management of the Park, and (ii) adequate and appropriate portions of the Park being vested by freehold title in Aboriginals for the purposes of living areas; (b) a right of entry to all persons subject to protection of sacred sites and the Park; and (c) the Agreement to be entered into between the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the Land Council not to come into effect until approved by the Parliament'. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.28) —The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, in effect, gives to the Aboriginal community the area defined in the Act as Uluru. The other Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, leases that land back to the community as a whole. Senator Peter Baume, Senator Reynolds, Senator Macklin and Senator Puplick have spoken before me. I indicated yesterday that I agreed with the excellent sentiments put forward by Senator Reynolds and Senator Macklin. I think that in this instance the judgment of Senator Baume and Senator Puplick is wrong. As Senator Baume has come into the chamber I should perhaps say that he has a very proud history in this area because as a Minister he contributed greatly to the advancement of Aboriginal people. I think the same can be said too of Senator Chaney, who, particularly as he comes from Western Australia, also has a proud history in this regard. But on this occasion I think their judgment is wrong in opposing this legislation. I would like to comment upon a couple of points which were raised yesterday. Senator Baume said with some feeling that he and his party had no doubt that the Aboriginal people are the most disadvantaged people in the community, and that is so. It is in that light that we should have regard to what Senator Puplick said. Senator Puplick does not feel that we should bear any guilt, as it were, for what our ancestors may have done to the Aboriginals. There is some point in that but, on the other hand, it does not mean-I am sure that Senator Puplick did not intend it to mean-that we should not now do something about the situation that has been created by our ancestors. As he said in regard to Richard III, it behoves us to do something about the past. As Senator Puplick courageously put forward this morning, in opposition to the ills visited upon Richard III by the Tudors-- Senator Peter Baume —Beware Henry Tudor! Senator COONEY —Yes, Henry VIII clauses-we should try to restore in some way the balance that has been upset in the past. I wish to comment on a couple of points which have been put forward. It has been said that the rock belongs to Australia as a whole. That is probably true. The same could be said about anything. I suppose the Sydney Opera House belongs to Australia as a whole. It really does not follow that by saying that a particular feature belongs to Australia as a whole some Australians cannot have particular rights in regard to it. That is what has to be remembered here. It has been said that Uluru has significance to all Australians. I am sure that is correct. I have been there once. One can see that Uluru does have some sort of attraction to everybody who goes there. It is a magnificent area. On the other hand, to non-Aboriginal Australians it does not have the religious, social and cultural significance which it has for Aborigines. Therefore, that area ought to be marked. What better way of marking it than by giving that land to the Aborigines by way of legislation which enables the land to be leased back to Australia's as a whole? People visiting the area would be able to see that Australians do occupy that area, do enjoy it and do walk over and around the Olgas. The attitude which they evince perhaps indicates what the argument is all about. Most Australians treat the rock as a tourist area. The Aborigines treat it as an area with religious significance. What harm would it do to give the Aborigines a special right, as it were, over the area? Why not? When I visited the area I went round with an Aboriginal elder, Tjimawa. He was certainly a very eloquent witness for the special relationship that Aboriginal people in that area have with the rock. I was impressed by what he had to say and what he had to show. That is the argument. Of course all Australians have a regard for the rock, Uluru and the Olgas. They have an attraction to all Australians but the Aboriginals have a regard for the area which is above and beyond that which most other Australians have. It is that special relationship with the area that the two Bills which are before us seek to address, and address properly and correctly. As I have said, the legislation does not take away the use and the enjoyment that people as a whole in Australia can have of the rock. Senator Puplick raised the question of photographs. As a general principle, people cannot object to photographs being taken. However, people can object to photographs being taken if, in some way, they breach or flout a right or entitlement that those people might otherwise have had. As I understand from having been there, the objection that the Aborigines in the area have to photographs being taken is that in some way they impinge upon their religious, cultural or social beliefs. When the taking of photographs is seen in that light it takes on a different aspect and no doubt people can appreciate and accommodate that. I have already mentioned restorative justice, about which Senator Puplick spoke. I take it that Senator Puplick did not intend that we do nothing about it; all he meant was that it must be seen in perspective. We hope that this legislation deals with the whole matter in perspective and meets the needs of the Aboriginal people. If one looks at the history of Aboriginal people under various governments one sees that the apparent differences between parties over these pieces of legislation are not as great as they may otherwise seem. The argument is about the means of redressing the injustices that have been done to Aborigines in the past. It is about the best way to accommodate their religious, social and cultural beliefs. As I have said, in the past these matters have been addressed by some great Ministers. This legislation can be seen as machinery put into operation by this Government to accommodate a need that everybody sees, but apparently there is a difference in how people see that need being met. In my view this legislation is a great achievement; it is something that should give great heart to the Aborigines in that area and to Aborigines as a whole throughout Australia. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(10.38) —The purpose of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985 is to transfer the ownership of Ayers Rock to the local Aboriginal community. I rise to oppose this because I deny the right of this Government and this Parliament to give away the foremost symbol of Australia to one small group of Australian citizens. It might be hard for a Western Australian to admit that a part of Australia outside her own State has special significance, nonetheless it is true that Ayers Rock has special significance and it is true that our natural or man-made environment encapsulates our feeling for this country. For those who have never journeyed to see it-I have seen it-it is a national symbol of pride in this country that too often lacks emotional focal points for genuine Australian feeling. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, claims the feeling applies only to Aboriginals. I disagree. The actions of the Hawke Government in regard to Ayers Rock have therefore caused great dismay among people in our capital cities who previously thought that the land rights argument was of no concern to them. The Australian Labor Party is busy telling us that we will still have access to Ayers Rock through the leasing-back arrangements made by the Aboriginal community to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. This does not alter the principle that something that is very special to the entire Australian community should continue to be vested in ordinary public ownership, as is the case with any other national park. It also raises the question of the equity of the annual payment to the Aboriginal community as part of the leasing arrangement. I shall deal with this matter later in more detail. All the assurances by the Minister look threadbare in the eyes of many Australians when they read that Val Doonican was forbidden to make a recording on the rock. As recently as 18 March the Melbourne Herald was banned from taking photographs at Ayers Rock and publishing them. Australians will not tolerate this arrogant censorship of their own national heritage. Actually to go to Ayers Rock and see signs stating `You cannot take photographs' because there are sacred sites as well as homes in the area which cannot be photographed, is nothing short of absurd. Moreover, it a censorship which may owe as much to zealous officials of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and to non-Aboriginal, even non-Australian, community advisers than to the local Aboriginal people themselves. If the excuse is made that this community was reacting to unfavourable publicity from theWillesee current affairs program I can remind the Senate only that in a democratic society we have to learn to live with intrusive and sometimes biased media reporting. However, that can never justify any community or agency limiting full access to Ayers Rock. Even if the Aboriginal Australians living near Ayers Rock had a long history of settlement in that locality I would still argue that ownership of a national asset should not be vested in this one group. However, it is emerging that these people do not have a true traditional link with this area but settled there in recent decades in response to the development of tourism. These people comprise members of several tribes with no necessary long historical link with Ayers Rock. In 1947 William Little first suggested that Ayers Rock become a national park. He stated that there had been no permanent Aboriginal settlement in the vicinity during the previous 30 years. According to the Brisbane journalist, Peter England, the original owners, the Jankuntjatjara, migrated southwards in 1917 under pressure from the Pitjantjatjara people. The people with the best claim to be traditional owners of Ayers Rock are those in a small community in South Australia known as Antakirinja Incorporated. The handover of Ayers Rock well illustrates the historical shams made to serve as the keystone of the Australian Labor Party Government's misguided Aboriginal policy. Whether more and more Australians, overseas visitors or media groups will suffer some denial of access to the national symbol remains to be seen. What is certain is that one limited community will receive a financial windfall from the payments through the leasing arrangement. Truly, what was once a slogan of the extreme land rights activists `pay the rent' has now become a reality under the Hawke Government. Australians will ask why as taxpayers they should meet the cost of allowing access to a place that any Australian should be free to visit for any legitimate purpose. The local Aboriginal community will receive $75,000 each year as a direct grant and about $20,000 as a 20 per cent share of park entrance fees. While it may sometimes be reasonable to ask Australians to pay such fees for the upkeep of their heritage, it should not take the form of rental to a favoured group of their fellow citizens. Let me be clear, I do not begrudge public assistance to this community which, like many others, suffers from poverty, poor health and inadequate education. What I object to is any kind of special payment based not on the community's need but purely on the fact that it lives near Ayers Rock. From a position of simple equity we must ask why this community should obtain payments that other Aboriginal communities elsewhere in the Northern Territory, in the north of Western Australia or anywhere else for that matter do not enjoy. Other such communities may have far greater need for assistance but do not have the possibility of enjoying some benefit from the tourist dollar such as that which will inevitably accrue to the Ayers Rock community, with or without this favoured treatment. If it is argued that this leasing payment is, in effect, compensation for disturbance to a traditional lifestyle we are forced to return to the point that these people have settled at Ayers Rock in response to tourist development. We cannot be expected to believe that in the absence of tourism they would return to a hunter, gatherer existence. This community is in the same position as that of Aboriginal land owners who are able to demand and enjoy mining royalties because of fortunate mineral discoveries. In Western Australia, even the ALP has been forced to retreat from the contention that any group should enjoy such a privilege. It was stated last year by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) in a letter to his colleagues in the ALP: In the long run, mineral rights will have to be clawed back from the Aboriginals in the Territory and I believe that this move will have the support of all those Aboriginal people who do not have any minerals on their land. I suggest that there is an exact analogy between mineral rights and this special leasing payment. In the same letter Mr Campbell attacked the decision to hand over Ayers Rock to the Aboriginals as `an example of extreme tokenism' that would only attract the hostility of the general community. Sadly, this is proving correct; yet we can hardly blame the Aboriginal people at Ayers Rock for taking privileges offered to them by a Minister of the Crown, at the urging of white advisers. The anger of the Australian people should be focused squarely on the politicians in the ALP and the Australian Democrats who support these policies and the zealots who pursue them at the grass-roots level. We should, however, recognise that Aboriginal Australians are the victims and not the instigators of these disastrous policies. Rare as it may be, I agree again with Mr Campbell's statement that policies towards Aboriginal Australians should be based on their socio-economic needs rather than on supposed cultural requirements; not on a policy that seeks to salve the conscience of the guilt-ridden middle class. He also referred to the `mediocre white lawyers who have grown fat on land rights'. That is a clear recognition of the pernicious role of non-Aboriginal activists, whether motivated by self-interest or misguided idealism. I am only sorry that Mr Campbell did not back up his sentiments by voting with the Opposition when these Bills were debated in the other House. These Bills are not an isolated example of tokenism and inequity. They are part and parcel of a declared policy to divide the Australian community on racial grounds and that will result before long in uniform land rights legislation. It is a policy based not on the carefully perceived needs of a disadvantaged section of the Australian community but on the warm inner glow of collective guilt. It exalts Aboriginality at the expense of common Australian feeling, even to the extent of trying to imprison Aboriginal Australians in their own past. The perpetuation of unjust tribal laws cannot be separated from the ALP's land rights policies just as those policies cannot be divorced from these two Bills. Heavy-handed and unfeeling assimilationist policies of the not too distant past can never justify the current overreaction that now tries to prevent Aboriginals from sharing in the broad stream of our national life. In attacking the philosophy behind this legislation I cite two people who cannot be dismissed as either right wing conservatives or as being self-interested. The first of these is the late author Shiva Naipul, born in Trinidad of Indian descent, and hardly a white supremist. In an article in the New Republic of last April, aptly entitled `Aborigines: Primitive Chic in Australia' he made some observations that are highly relevant to this debate. The Northern Land Council barred him from territory under its control merely because he had remarked that Aborigines had not created a culture as sophisticated as that of the Chinese, Indians, Greeks or Egyptians. Significantly, this banning occurred on the advice of non-Australian anthropologists and a lady of mixed race claiming to act in the name of the people. On his comment `You run a police state' the women replied `Yes, and we are proud of it'. It is sad to think that a man who had travelled extensively around the world, visiting some countries that are less than democratic, should encounter his first banning order in Australia. It illustrates also why we in the Liberal Party should be concerned at any possible denial or limitation of access to Ayers Rock and why we are concerned at the activities of those who profess to speak in the name of Aboriginal communities. Mr Naipul gave us a vivid description of one such community adviser whose mind was rigidly closed to any considerations that might shake his view and belief. He said: Like all cultists, his behaviour was erratic, veering about as devotional duty dictated. You could never tell what he was thinking, because by his own admission he didn't think a great deal. A slave to his emotions, he merely served. No matter how sincerely such people protest that they are truly the agents of Aboriginal communities, they are clearly exerting an influence. Without any unkindness, Shiva Naipul also pointed out how the most aggressive exponents of Aboriginal separatism seemed to be people of mixed race rather than tribal Aboriginals. Policy makers are guilty of ignoring the basic truth that `either the Aboriginal is or is not a citizen of Australia. And if he is'-which is the case-`he must face the consequences'. I submit that this view of a perceptive outsider sums up the whole situation. In trying to make Aboriginals something more than ordinary citizens, we will only make them something less, as we did in the days when they had no right to vote or to be reckoned as Australian citizens. These Bills are just one more step in this whole destructive process. Inseparable from the Hawke Government's land rights policy is the preservation of Aboriginal tradition, including their tribal law. It is the right of all Australians to decide how much of their traditional culture they want to maintain in accordance with the law of the land, and it is not up to governments to dictate. It is another matter for a government to give special legislative recognition, implicitly or explicitly, to the traditions of one group of Australians in their entirety. A warning was given in 1980 by none other than the Hon. Mr Justice Kirby of the Australian Law Reform Commission, drawing on the experience of the noted anthropologist the late Professor Strehlow: We cannot give recognition to a system of law that depends foremost upon principles of secrecy. It is a system of which the full knowledge is confined to a small group of elders and from which women are excluded. Traditional law is based upon religion, and when this evaporates into something rather less we are left with something of diminishing validity to the Aboriginal communities themselves. We should not in any way further the creation of `a legal no-man's land between white and black society in Australia', leading to a kind of synthetic adaption of both systems that some people will manipulate at will. On the one hand there is a danger that some Australians will evade the normal constraints and consequences of their actions by invoking tribal law, and on the other we run the risk of allowing some of our fellow citizens to suffer unacceptable punishments imposed under principles that are alien to our concepts of justice. A number of Aboriginal people within Western Australia are concerned that such a development is occurring, encouraged by the land rights movement of which these Bills are a part. One Aboriginal Australian, Matron Sadie Canning of Leonora Hospital, has complained that our courts, in passing light sentences on Aboriginals, are in fact `giving the green light' to savage tribal punishments. She has stated: There should be one law for all the country. Vengeance spearings and killings are increasing when they should be going out. We should think very carefully as to that principle of one law for all Australians. Also relevant to this debate is her comment that `there's good and bad in every culture-and the bad side of Aboriginal culture is coming out. Culture is being rammed down people's throats at the moment'. At the same time the Aboriginals of the Goldfields and Western Desert Christian Movement have expressed their concern also with the comment that land rights involves a return to an unwelcome traditional culture. I submit that the Senate cannot give its approval to legislation that endorses land rights without, by implication, endorsing the drift to a debased form of tribal law that so concerns these citizens of Western Australia. In assessing the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, we should note that the lease arrangements give a majority of six of 11 places on the board of management to Aboriginals nominated through the Central Land Council. Such a controlling interest cannot but raise doubts as to free access to Ayers Rock. Western Australian senators should realise that this legislation has obvious implications for the future of the foreshadowed national park at Bungle Bungle in the Kimberleys, given the fact that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation recommended in March of this year that it be jointly managed by the National Parks Authority and the Aboriginal community. I agree that this sandstone massif has a fragile environment that must be protected from indiscriminate access and development. I also agree that the development of Bungle Bungle as a national park should take into account the interests of Aboriginal people who are living there. It would, however, be a matter of concern if any Aboriginal community were to enjoy the kind of veto power or special privilege now being accorded in respect of Ayers Rock and the Uluru National Park. National parks should belong to all Australians and we cannot afford to lose sight of this basic principle. In themselves, these Bills devalue the Australian heritage of us all by removing Ayers Rock from the common ownership of the Australian people. In their broader implications they are another stem in the tragic separation of Australian Aborigines from their fellow citizens, which is the inevitable result of Australian Labor Party and Australian Democrats policy. I urge the Senate to reject them. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.58) —I must say that I find some considerable objection to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and the accompanying National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and will ultimately vote against them; however it is not substantially for the reasons that Senator Knowles, who preceded me, and some of the other speakers have given. I do not hold with the general views which Senator Knowles has expressed, although in regard to a number of specific criticisms of the Bill I think she is on very sound ground. I want to put my own position on this matter. I have taken a consistent position since 1975 when this Senate carried a motion which I will read to honourable senators. The motion which Senator Bonner, as he then was, moved and which was carried unanimously by the Senate, read: That the Senate accepts the fact that the indigenous people of Australia, now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, were in possession of this entire nation prior to the 1788 First Fleet landing at Botany Bay, urges the Australian Government to admit prior ownership by the said indigenous people and introduce legislation to compensate the people now known as Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for dispossession of their land. The resolution was applauded at that time and in the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill by Senator Chaney and by many other present Opposition-then Government-senators. I continue to applaud it and to stand by it. I believe we must recognise that we have an obligation to the Aboriginal people. It is not enough to say that everyone has equal rights in this country. There is no doubt that in the last 200 years we have seen, on a monstrous scale, the deprivation of the rights of Aboriginal people. For the sake of those people's dignity and worthiness alone, they must be granted substantial rights in land. I was one who supported most strongly what followed from that resolution-the Bill of the Fraser Government which brought in Northern Territory land rights. That legislation had the strong support of the Fraser Government parties and I think was substantially a bipartisan issue. I did not speak to the motion for the second reading of that Bill, although I had taken an active part in its formulation, because there was a limitation on the number of speakers. In my short contribution at the Committee stage I said that I strongly supported what had been said by Senator Chaney and Senator Peter Baume and what they had done in regard to these matters. I remind the Senate of what Senator Chaney said in the second reading debate on that Bill, because I think it is relevant to the general argument before us today, if not to the details of the Bills with which we are now dealing, which are very flawed in their concept. He said: Unlike Senator Ryan, I am not at all worried about saying that I am extremely proud of the fact that this Bill is before the Parliament. I would say to her that there are moments of satisfaction in being in the Senate. There are occasions when legislation comes before us which does represent a contribution to the improvement of the lot of Australians in a particularly important way. I agreed with those sentiments then and I agree with them now. Of course, time has shown some need for amendment of the legislation. Unfortunately, the present land rights Bill goes in an entirely different direction. It short-circuits or removes many of the provisions which would make it feasible for the Government to determine ownership, the correct traditional owners, and matters of that sort. Those provisions were written into the Act and are not being complied with in this legislation. This is one of the primary effects of the present legislation. Nonetheless, I believe that we were right to grant land rights in the Northern Territory, which was in our jurisdiction. We are right to press for them to this day in other areas. I remind honourable senators that it has been a tradition of the Liberal and Country parties over a period generally to support land rights. I also remind honourable members that just a few years ago, in June 1982, Mr Ian Wilson, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, said in a Press release: . . . the Government would introduce legislation which would give effect to a package of proposals which had been the subject of negotiation between the Northern Territory Government, the Commonwealth Government and the Aboriginal Land Councils . . . That related to this particular problem of the Uluru lands. Mr Wilson continued in that Press statement to say that the proposals would provide for the recognition of prior ownership by Aborigines of the Uluru National Park by way of a grant of title to Aboriginal trustees and that the area would be declared and managed as a national park. The Senate might also like to be reminded that Mr Everingham, the former Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, pointed out in an address to the National Press Club in July 1982: The Territory Government will give title to Uluru National Park, including Ayers Rock and Mount Olga and make an arrangement whereby it will continue as a national park, administered jointly by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission and traditional Aboriginal owners. Therefore, there is nothing strange about the concept with which we are confronted and I regard it as sound. I see nothing offensive in granting title to the correct traditional owners, if they can be found properly in accordance with the provisions laid down by law. That is a problem not covered by the present land rights Bill. It is said that because this is a national park it should not be alienated from the Australian people. Of course, the rest of the Australian people have a considerable interest in Ayers Rock and the other features of this land, and that must be protected. That is recognised, and it is recognised in the Bill because there is talk of a lease, but the lease is not set out in the Bill, which is one of its major defects. Nonetheless, I see no objection to a national park being transferred by way of title. In fact it was done in the Cobourg Peninsula and it has also been done in Kakadu. There are precedents and there is nothing strange about it. However, we must recognise that we live in a period of a white backlash. Throughout Australia-and this happens in all parties-the idea is being inflamed that no separate rights must be given to any people. A great attempt is being made to make those separate rights appear as some sort of apartheid, whereas in effect they are compensation to peoples who have been dispossessed of many assets. The essential asset is their interest in land, which is fundamental to Aboriginal culture. I believe that we will have to pass through this period of backlash and come to a period when we recognise that reasonable and moderate steps must be taken to ensure that ownership of land is an essential right claimed by Aboriginals. Senator Knowles in her speech said that we must not exploit Aboriginality. I do not see why the respect and love of Aboriginality should be any different from the love people have of their ancestry, whether it be Czech, Yugoslav or whatever. I believe that multiculturalism is an essential part of Australia and that we should not fear differences which may be allowed to continue. I do not intend to go into the provisions of these Bills at length as they have been covered fairly extensively by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Puplick. I rely considerably on the matters they have raised as throwing up substantial defects in the Bills. I am afraid that this is part of the shoddy work of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). It is all very well for the Labor Party to claim some virtue in this way. For example, I heard Senator Reynolds yesterday extolling the Bonner resolution, but she should have pointed out that in 1983 her own Queensland Labor Party caused the defeat of Senator Bonner. The electors may have chosen wisely, I am not saying that they did not, but the Labor Party, through its own preferences, caused Senator Bonner, whose resolution Senator Reynolds extolled, to be removed. Therefore, there was no Aboriginal spokesman in this Parliament, and I think the Labor Party in Queensland took that step deliberately. It thought it better to have no spokesman if it were to be an Aboriginal Liberal spokesman. One must be careful not to extol our own internal virtue all that greatly when such inadequacies are displayed by the Labor Party. Unfortunately, that Party is now in government and shows no direction or certainty. It is prepared, it says, to put down certain provisions fornational land rights, but when the Government is met with States that do not like such provisions the Government goes back on that. There is no certainty in operation or policy whatever. This is seen in the land rights Bill that is now before us. Surely one of the essential aims of the Bill should be to set out the terms of the agreement providing that certain rights for other Australians would be observed, such as the rights to inspect and view, and the right to go onto the lands. However, those matters are not contained in the Bill. The present land rights Bill is premature. The people of this country are entitled to know that if this Parliament is to adopt a land rights decision in respect of Uluru and Mount Olga, at the same time it should set out in the legislation the terms of the lease under which these matters are to be implemented. Later I will say something about the Opposition's amendment, which unfortunately has the same defect. That is the essential defect in the present Bill, as I see it, and it needs to be cured before one takes the matter any further. Moreover, as has been pointed out by other honourable senators on this side of the House, and at length, these provisions will mean that ultimately control of this area will be in the hands of the director, and the so-called board will be a nothing. The board's ideas can be overturned and the directors will ultimately make the decision. That is insulting to the Aboriginal people and it is a totally inadequate way of going about the matter. Further, a method is set out in the existing land rights legislation of determining who are the traditional owners. There is at least grave doubt whether the traditional owners to whom it is proposed to give this land have a just and rightful claim. Senator MacGibbon —There is no claim; that has been established. Senator MISSEN —I am putting it mildly. I am saying that it certainly has not been established that they have such a claim. There is a suggestion that what has been manufactured is a constructed form of group which has no long claim to the area. These matters could and should be determined under the provisions of the land rights legislation. They should not be done by an Act of Parliament that determines things in this way. When one considers the terms laid down in the light of the recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward years ago, and by Mr Justice Toohey, one concludes that these factors should be considered more carefully and should not be passed through Parliament in order merely to get legislation through. I believe therefore that the Bill is inherently defective and cannot be supported. I will not be voting for it. I must say that I have seen the Opposition amendment to the second reading motion, which is by way of an in principle amendment, and I find that I cannot support it either. I do not intend to vote on it because I believe it is subject to the same vice as the Bill. It wants the ownership of the Uluru National Park to be vested in the Northern Territory subject to an agreement being entered into-an agreement about which we do not know what the terms will be. The Opposition amendment has the same defect as the Bill. I am not at all satisfied that one can rely merely on the goodwill of the Northern Territory Government, which may or may not enter into an agreement. If that is a proposal for redrafting the Bill, I think it is inadequate. Nonetheless, I believe the Bill does not adequately provide for proper Aboriginal demands in regard to Uluru and Mount Olga. I do not believe it should be passed at this stage and consequently I shall vote against it. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.12) —I am in opposition to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985. The National Party of Australia is prepared to support the amendment but would prefer it if the Government deferred consideration of the Bills because we feel that the proposal gives the land to the wrong people, which of course negates the whole effect of the two Bills. We prefer their being deferred particularly as implementation of the Bills would be unfair, not only to the Aboriginal people but also to the particular Aboriginal people to whom it is intended to give the land. It would be unfair to the people of the Northern Territory and it would be unfair to the people of Australia generally. The Aborigines in Australia had a well known and well recorded system of land administration which extended over many, many centuries. We were lucky enough as Australian people to identify the kinds of systems they had. Tribal areas were governed by a group of tribal elders who reached their decisions by consensus. They had people in authority who were in charge of dancing rites, singing rites, initiation rites, hunting rites and disciplinary rites. They recorded the boundaries of their tribal areas very accurately. They kept records of these things in their sacred sites and the sacred sites that I have seen are quite small-no bigger than the size of the Senate table. That is where they kept all their relics, their precious possessions and their records of land rights. We have had maps constructed from this sort of information. Those maps are available but I understand they have not been studied by the people who formulated these Bills. I think it is because of this that we have made the mistake of identifying the wrong traditional owners, so called, in the main Bill. The Aborigines guarded their territories jealously and if any Aborigine wanted to cross from one territory to another he would have to stand on the boundary. He knew very well where the boundary was. Others could tell what he wanted to do from the way he was standing, the direction he was facing and the way he held his equipment or his spear whether he wanted to pass through the land, whether he wanted to hunt, whether he wanted to visit or whether he needed food. If he did not get permission to do whatever he wanted to do and he trespassed on the land, the penalty was death. They did have quite severe and stringent rules on policing their own territories. These are the territories I am talking about that we have been fortunate enough to be able to identify. The problem arose when we decided to establish land councils because we established new tribal areas and boundaries that overlapped the traditional tribal areas. Not only did we do that, but also we had elections for people to control the land councils. The traditional tribal elders did not even stand for election because they said firstly `that is not our land and we cannot be seen to be in control of that', and secondly they said `we are already the tribal elders of this land'-their traditional land. We have now elected a whole lot of people to land councils who have no authority over the tribal people whatsoever. This has created an enormous amount of difficulty for our Aboriginal people, so much so that the tribal people have retired from talking to the white man and now just hope that all this nonsense will go away over the next thousand years and then they will get back to some semblance of sanity after that. In the construction of these Bills certainly there is a procedure established that is supposed to identify, firstly, all the land. This is to be established at a hearing, the procedure for which is laid down under the existing Act. They then have to identify the traditional owners. After the hearing they are supposed to make conclusions and recommendations and take them to the Minister. In this case that procedure has never been followed, either in the identification of the land or in the identification of the traditional people. As I understand the position, three tribes were involved in the area originally. It can be clearly shown in the existing maps of traditional tribal lands that Ayers Rock and the Olgas lie within the tribal territory of the Jankuntjatjara and those Jankuntjatjara administered that land as far back in history as we can possibly tell-many, many years in our terms, but it could be thousands and thousands of years that they were there. The Pitjantjatjara lived to the west and north-west of the Jankuntjatjara and for one reason or another came out of their country and assumed control of the northern part of the Jankuntjatjara territory where Ayers Rock and the Olgas lie. They were not highly regarded by the Jankuntjatjara. They were regarded as evil spirits. They were regarded as the people who knew nothing and the Jankuntjatjara migrated largely southwards. I saw in the evidence taken to formulate the boundaries for the recognition of the traditional owners that people made the mistake of assuming that the people who were forced off that land went northwards and eastwards. That is not so. A few did, but the bulk of those people fled south into South Australia where they are to this day in the Macdonnell Ranges where they operate under an incorporated body called Anatakirinja Incorporated. People there should have been consulted before we got ourselves into all this trouble. If this legislation is passed, feelings are running so high that I think it is likely that there could be a constitutional challenge to it because the people would be maintaining that the Government is not complying with its own Act, and had given the land to the wrong people. I do not think we should be in a hurry to do this sort of thing. The legislation is perfectly capable of being deferred. Evidence exists that those people are there. The Government can consult those people in order to correct the anomaly that has occurred, without throwing everybody into a whirlpool of discontent. I note that there are no Australian Democrat senators present at the moment. I understand the Democrats are supporting the Bills. In light of all the circumstances, I do not see how they can, particularly as the main Bill identifies the wrong people who are having this land directed to them. The National Party stands opposed to the Bills. We are prepared to support the amendment; nevertheless, we prefer that the Government defer the Bills and further investigate them. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.20) —The Senate is debating the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985, the purpose of which is to give title to the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park to an Aboriginal land trust. The transfer of title from the Commonwealth to the Aboriginal land trust is conditional on the national park being leased back to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act provide for a management plan for the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park which also will apply to any other park containing Aboriginal land which in the future is declared a prescribed park for the purposes of the Act. The area of land containing Ayers Rock and the Mount Olga monoliths was first set aside for the purposes of a national park in 1958 and was controlled and managed by the Northern Territory Reserves Board. Under the 1975 National Parks and Wildlife Act, in May 1977 this area was declared a national park with the name Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park. The administration of the park has continued under the successor of the Northern Territory Reserves Board, the Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory. Ayers Rock, of course, is one of Australia's most important-some would say the most important-landmarks and its importance as a tourist attraction has increased dramatically, particularly in recent years. This has been reflected in the investment of some $150m in the Yulara tourist complex which provides accommodation and facilities for over 3,600 visitors to the national park. There has also been a substantial Commonwealth investment in the national park. Since Uluru National Park was declared in 1977, the Commonwealth has allocated some $7.8m to the capital and operational costs of the park. The significance of Ayers Rock for both Australian and international tourists was summed up in the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service plan of management for Uluru in 1982 as follows: For many Australians, Ayers Rock continues to be associated in indefinable ways with `the outback experience', and is often used in advertising both within Australia and overseas. Tourists commonly believe that not only is the area worthy of a visit because it is spectacular and different, but also because one somehow becomes more `Australian' having seen Ayers Rock. The management plan also notes that Ayers Rock and the Great Barrier Reef are major tourist destinations for overseas visitors to Australia. In the period from 1960 to 1975 the number of visitors to Ayers Rock increased by an annual rate of 19.8 per cent. From there being just over 2,000 visitors to the national park in 1958, almost 80,000 tourists went to Ayers Rock during 1980-81. A land claim for the area of the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park was first lodged by the Aboriginal Central Land Council in February 1979. This land was added to land claimed by the Land Council in November 1978. Fourteen persons belonging to threeparticular linguistic groups, including the Pitjantjatjara group, were named on the original claim presented to Mr Justice Toohey who, in his report to the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and to the Minister for Home Affairs on the Uluru (Ayers Rock) National Park land claim in 1979, noted: As the hearing progressed other people were added as claimants until in the end more than 100 persons were said to be traditional owners of land within the claim area. I understand that the Central Land Council has identified `about 300' traditional owners. According to the March edition of the Aboriginal newsletter published by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Although the Multitjulu people are the most important traditional owners of Uluru, Aboriginal tribes from all the Pitjantjatjara land which extends into South Australia and Western Australia have religious and cultural links with Ayers Rock and Mount Olga. The original claim was lodged under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which is subject to amendment under the legislation we are now debating. Section 50 of this Act permits land claims to be made by Aboriginals in regard to unalienated crown land. The effect of declaring the Uluru National Park, however, was to vest the park in the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. In his submission to Mr Justice Toohey, Mr Barker, QC, stated: The land was neither Crown land nor was it unalienated Crown land. It was not Crown land because the vesting in the Director effected an alienation from the Crown of an estate in fee simple and also it was land set apart for a public purpose under the National Parks Act. If it was held to be Crown land, it was not unalienated because a person other than the Crown, viz. the Director, had an estate or interest in it. Mr Justice Toohey therefore concluded: The land within Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park is not unalienated Crown land and is not available to be claimed under s.50 of the Land Rights Act. The purpose of this legislation is to amend the Act to provide that the area of the Uluru National Park held by the Director `shall be taken to be an estate or interest held by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth', thus overcoming the obstacle to the original claim and enabling the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park to be granted to an Aboriginal land trust. As I have said, the grant of this land is conditional upon the trust leasing the park to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The Federal Labor Government, thus having given Ayers Rock away, will now be renting it back on a 99-year lease at an annual rental of $75,000 plus 20 per cent of the gross proceeds of park entrance fees. This is expected to amount to $100,000 in 1985-86, with an additional $50,000 needed for the administrative expenses of the management board. This is, of course, additional to the operational and management costs of the park which in the past two years have amounted to something like $1m a year. The amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act provide for the introduction of a management plan for the Uluru National Park. A management board will be established which is to have a majority of Aboriginal members nominated by the traditional owners of the land. I would have thought that this could give rise to some very practical difficulties, given the comment of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in its Uluru National Park management plan that: Aboriginal associations with the Park are complex, variable and widespread. They are still evolving in response to changing circumstances. It is difficult to quantify this in terms of numbers of people with an attachment to the area . . . The Bill further provides that meetings of the board may not be held or continue unless the majority present at the meeting are Aborigines appointed by the traditional owners. The board, of course, will have a very powerful role in the management and operation of Uluru National Park. In conjunction with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, it will have the responsibility of constructing and implementing a management plan for the park. Should a disagreement arise between the Director and the board, this is to be referred to the Minister who, if unable to resolve the dispute, may appoint an independent arbitrator. The plan of management will also require the approval of the Australian Federal Parliament. While I do not necessarily question the need for the Aboriginal communities to have a voice in the management of the national park, I question whether they should have a majority on the board. The administration of the park covers a whole range of issues, from geological aspects and the management of flora to the needs of visitors to the park and administrative matters. Many areas are involved which, of course, do not necessarily impinge upon matters which may be presumed or claimed to affect the Aboriginal community. If the park is to continue to run for the benefit of all Australians perhaps more weight could have quite properly been given to these other factors. The inescapable conclusion, as with all the matters contained in these two Bills, is that decisions have been made primarily with regard to political expediency. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, in a Press release issued by his office in February last year, was reported as having said: The transfer of title to Uluru was more than just a recognition of the rights of the Pitjantjatjara people to Ayers Rock, it was a clear commitment to the general principle of Aboriginal land rights. It is clear that giving title to Ayers Rock and Mount Olga National Park to Aborigines, regardless of the feelings and wishes of all other Australians, is a political gesture made in the face of increasing opposition to uniform land rights legislation. Ayers Rock is very much a symbol of Australia, both at home and abroad, and is something that I believe all Australians have a share in as part of their national heritage. That is not to deny the importance and the significance of the area to many Aborigines. This has been recognised and provision has been made to protect areas of special significance. In 1974, for example, Aborigines requested that certain areas around the base of the rock be off limits for tourists and that other areas be periodically closed for periodic use. Subsequently this was done. To say, however, that Ayers Rock does not belong to all Australians and that it is not part of our national heritage but belongs to a small group of Aborigines who will allow us to rent it from them is to me quite deplorable. I think many Australians will find it hard to understand why Aborigines need to have title to the land on which they are already able to enjoy their traditional and cultural pursuits. This is surely contrary to the concept of a national park which is held by the Government in trust for present and future generations. The very fact that the land has now been granted to the Aboriginals, who have promptly and expeditiously rented it back to the Australian Government at $100,000 a year, to me is a reflection not of the cultural and spiritual association the land has for the Aboriginal community, but of the fact that they claim it of right and seek to exploit that claim in a material and financial way. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.33) —The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill raise the essential judgment as to how to express the interest of all Australians in an important area of Australia in which the Aboriginal community has and has traditionally had an interest. I do not see this judgment as occasioning the beating of drums and hyped rhetoric. Rather, I would like to put my views to the Senate in terms of this important judgment, which is to be made by us between two important interests and how those interests can best be accommodated together. There is no doubt that there is a substantial Aboriginal interest in Uluru and Katatjuta. There is also no dispute that this area-especially Ayers Rock-has become a symbol for all Australians and that all 15 million Australians have a very substantial interest in this area. In this judgment the Australian Labor Party Government has decided to transfer ownership to the local Aboriginal community of about 100 persons-the so-called Mutitjulu association. The Opposition has made a different judgment. That judgment is to keep ownership of this national park with the Crown and to ensure full provision for the local Aboriginal community to have access to the area for all traditional, personal and community reasons, but, by it continuing as a national park, to ensure that it is seen as owned by the Crown for all Australians alike. I was a part of the Opposition's decision-making process which came to that judgment. I support the Opposition's stand in this matter. I oppose the two Bills before us and I support very sincerely the terms of the amendment we have put forward, to which I will return later. In the seven years I have been in the Senate I have been constantly involved with Aboriginal matters on the policy committee of our parties. I was fully identified with the Aboriginal land policies which were put forward last year by the Opposition. I represent the Senate as a member of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. I have attended discussions with anthropologists, with other interested people and with Aboriginal people about the question of land in Australia. I am not happy with the Labor Government's statements in the last two years, especially on questions of Aboriginal land. I will come to that matter also later in my remarks. Firstly, I refer to Mr Justice Toohey's findings of 1979 with regard to Uluru and the associated areas at Lake Amadeus and the land claim which was sponsored by the Central Land Council and to some extent the Pitjantjatjara Council in late 1978 and which was amended in early 1979 to become wider in its scope. I have carefully reread all of that report. No one in the House of Representatives or the Senate debate on these Bills has found any criticism of Mr Justice Toohey's findings. I agree with my colleagues who have said that this matter contained in these Bills-that is, the transfer of the national park-has not been considered with the thoroughness we have all seen given to land claims being processed under the Northern Territory land legislation. I agree with that. In Mr Justice Toohey's thorough and substantial findings he starts with the rejection of any dicussion of the national park area, the area that is involved in these Bills before the Senate. In his appendix No. 1 he sets out the exact legal grounds for the definition of the national park as not being unalienated crown land. The parties to that land claim-the representatives of the Aboriginal people, the representatives of the Central Land Council-all accepted it. Therefore, that matter was not pursued. So I support the criticism of other Opposition speakers. The Government made the judgment to transfer the land, I think, for essentially political reasons. There was no thorough examination along the lines of that done for all the other land claims that have been considered in the Northern Territory. For that matter, the same applies in my State of South Australia, where again I am happy to identify myself with the Tonkin Liberal Government's decision with regard to the Pitjantjatjara land. I have one rider to that-that none of us intended the power of veto for the Pitjantjatjara people with regard to exploration on that land. That is a matter in relation to which I am still seeking amendment in the South Australian Parliament. I come to the text of the land claim findings, which is the most substantial evidence before us in this matter. Mr Justice Toohey's findings are set out very clearly and are very carefully reasoned. He took up, as we would all expect, Professor Stanner's definition of the notion of an estate. He described the four estates that relate to this area-Ulurunya, Katajutanya, Aparanya and Aputjilpinya. Those four estates are set out on page 9 of his report. Eventually, upon examination, he saw them all as having overlapping territory and all having a claim to a traditional relationship with Uluru and Katatjuta; that is, Ayers Rock and the Olgas. As is well known in land claims and with anthropological evidence presented to land commissioners, this means a detailed scientific description of the traditional relationship that Aboriginal people currently hold with regard to that land. It means tracing areas of movement through the land from waterhole to waterhole, from significant site to significant site, and it also means accepting the description of why those sites are significant. For the most part, the sites are significant because of dreamtime mythology. That is of very real significance to the Aboriginal people. Particular individuals among the 100 or so who are named person by person in the report as having such an interest in one of the four estates did see their direct ancestors moving from waterhole to waterhole in certain patterns year by year in this region and they had religious or mythological significance vested in various points in that cycle of movement. That is all described in the land claim which Mr Justice Toohey considered. The name Mutitjulu is the name given to what is otherwise known as Maggie Springs, on the southern face of Ayers Rock. Because these four estates, four Aboriginal descent communities, have an overlapping interest in Ayers Rock, Uluru, and because this source of water focuses more upon the Mutitjulu community-no one has explained this in any of the debates in the House of Representatives or the Senate-apparently it is the case that the Central Land Council has chosen this name to describe people who are from all four estates. Senator Kilgariff —It is not a tribe. Senator TEAGUE —It is not a tribe; it is the name of a place. By describing it as the Mutitjulu association it is taking people from four communities or estates as all having an interest in that site of significance. I quote from Mr Justice Toohey's finding which appears at page 9 of his report: The country is not divided into a series of exclusive estates. There are examples of joint ownership, particularly where water is to be found. This is most evident in the case of Uluru and Datatjuta. Now we come to the question that I must face honestly, that is, Mr Justice Toohey's discussion of the role of Uluru and Katatjuta. They were the most significant of all the sites involved in this land claim which was essentially about Lake Amadeus. Page 10 of the report states: The hearing and determination of this claim- the national park was excluded from the area to be handed over to those four estate peoples, the local Aboriginal people, and did not provide a basis for what the Government now brings before us by way of this legislation. It was complicated in this way: have been made especially difficult by the excision of the area of the National Park. Within the park lie Uluru (Ayers Rock) and Katatjuta (Mount Olga). Both places are of enormous significance, not only for the local descent groups immediately responsible for them, but for the claimants generally and for a wider range of Aboriginal people. Inevitably, witnesses spoke about them, at times almost to the exclusion of other sites and other country. Because Ulurunya and Katatjutanya- that is, the two estates- are both estates and members of which claim ownership of part of the unalienated Crown land, the question is one of assessing the extent to which those estates have responsibility beyond the immediate vicinity of Uluru and Katatjuta. In other words, when Mr Justice Toohey considered a vaster area of land, about the size of two cattle stations, in this hearing, he gave assent to that land claim. He said that it was very difficult to make an assessment regarding those peripheral lands because the central features of significance were in the national park. He ruled from the outset that that was not available for claim. So I honestly face the dilemma of the Land Commissioner in that matter. There was another matter which was of very real importance. At the time of this claim and, in fact, for a whole generation preceding it, Aboriginal people did not live in that area. That is still the case. No one in the Parliament has put that the people mentioned as the Mutitjulu association are actually living at Ayers Rock or in the Olgas. Mr Justice Toohey put that point very carefully. There might be one or two people who live there, as it were, on an outstation for short periods. Because of the development in the 1920s of reserves and cattle stations and the coming of the missions, particularly at Hermannsburg, the people from this area-the population was sparse anyway; only about 100 people are involved now-moved out to Hermannsburg, Areyonga, Docker River and Ernabella. Even those who are now being put forward as the Mutitjulu association have not lived for any considerable period in the area of Uluru and Katatjuta. No one is claiming that, but no one has addressed himself very exactly to that matter. Mr Justice Toohey did and, therefore, he had to debate the strength of contemporary claim to the area by those people. Eventually he found that there was some strength because there is a real memory, a substantial memory, and a substantial personal affirmation by the people of their involvement in that area. On those grounds-that is, on their affirmation and their recalling of dreamtime stories involved in that area-on that testimony eventually he found strength in their claim for adjacent areas to Ayers Rock and the Olgas. Mr Justice Toohey was discerning enough to hear evidence about another estate group; that is, the members of Atilanya who are mentioned at page 16 of the report. He excluded them from any traditional ownership or relationship with Ayers Rock and the Olgas. They are somewhat to the south and east of the area. At pages 23 and 24 Mr Justice Toohey talked about the strength of traditional attachment. At page 23 he said: The assessment of the strength of traditional attachment is not made any easier when members of a land-owning group no longer live on their traditional country . . . At page 27 he stated: In the present case the desire to live on the claim area is, in my view, not strong. So Aboriginals are not living on the area; they have not lived on the area for a considerable period and, Mr Justice Toohey says, they do not desire to live on the area. Nevertheless, I support that part of the Opposition's amendment that states that this Bill should be withdrawn and amended to provide freehold title on the national park's Crown land that would provide for their living there even temporarily, or permanently if that is the wish of the local people. I could continue but time prevents me from further emphasising that the Aboriginal people have a substantial interest in this area. That fact is established. In contrast I turn to the interests of all Australians in the rock. Let us not get too carried away by this because very few Australians had visited the area before the 1950s. One had to have a camel, an expedition and be like the grand explorers of the last century in order to get to it. It is only very much in the living memory of honourable senators that the rock has been of enormous significance to all Australians. So let us not get too carried away by some `ageless tradition' on our part. A road-a dirt track-was put through to Ayers Rock in the 1950s and a ranger was eventually appointed to a national park. It was Crown land; it was a Federal Government decision. Even then, to get to the rock one had to have a four-wheel-drive vehicle, and they were not abundant in the 1950s. Also, Australians were working very hard. It was a frontier activity and few people were able to get to this most remote but increasingly exciting part of Australia. As I have said, by the time people went there most of the Aboriginal people had left. The few who had an association with the area had gone to Hermannsburg, Docker River, Ernabella and, to some extent, Areyonga. When people arrived they took photographs. It was like many societies which have high mountains; young people climb a mountain and they take a sprig of a plant from it to show that they have achieved something, that they have got to the top. It was as a result of an association by some brave Australians who could get to the rock in the 1950s that people came back with their photographs and said: `I have been to Ayers Rock and it is magnificent'. We now have a new railway to Alice Springs from Adelaide. By next year we will have a fully bituminised road to the Northern Territory border. The road is already bituminised from the Northern Territory border to Alice Springs. A new road is being planned from Curtin Springs Station across to the brand new space-age village, Yulara, that is a few miles to the north of Ayers Rock. I think most Australians have seen advertisements suggesting they should go to lie in a swimming pool and look at the desert and Ayers Rock in the background. I am not attracted by that kind of tourism. I do not support Yulara but I acknowledge that it provides for many Australians who might not otherwise be able to express their interest in this significant site. However, I do not choose a tourist approach to this matter. We now have aeroplanes. I have landed at Ayers Rock a number of times. It is possible to fly there, go by car or go by train. It has become an international and national tourist centre. When Australians heard about this furthest-out area of achievement to visit it was photographed and those photographs, I believe, are in the minds of almost all 15 million Australians. They see it-I see it-as a central symbol of all Australia. It happens to be geographically in the middle of the country. It happens to be unique and if a picture of Uluru or Ayers Rock is seen overseas, it will be said: `This is Australia, the orange rock that changes colour with the light and is surrounded by semi-desert'. The Olgas, in their sweeping, rounded forms, are beautiful to see and are symbols for all Australians. The documentaries, photographs and now the enormous accessibility of the area have led to Ayers Rock being a symbol for all Australians. I have tried to demonstrate that about 100 local Aboriginal people, who have a legitimate traditional and personal relationship with this area, have a substantial interest in the rock and all 15 million Australians have a substantial and legitimate interest in it. A judgment has to be made about how to accommodate both interests. My judgment lies with the Opposition's amendment; it does not lie with the Government's pair of Bills. I read the Opposition's amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `the Bills be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (a) ownership of the Uluru National Park to be vested in the Northern Territory, subject to (i) an agreement ensuring effective Aboriginal involvement in management of the Park . . . I fully support Aboriginal traditional representatives having an effective share in the management of that area. The amendment continues: (ii) adequate and appropriate portions of the Park being vested by freehold title in Aboriginals for the purposes of living areas; I have referred to this and I support it. The amendment continues: (b) a right of entry to all persons subject to protection of sacred sites and the Park . . . The third amendment is not as relevant to what I have been saying but I also support it. It states that the agreement to be entered into between the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the Land Council is not to come into effect until approved by the Parliament. It is a matter of judgment and a lot of our judgments are about symbols. Should the ownership of this important area of Australia be vested in all Australians through the Crown or should it be vested in about 100 local Aboriginal people who have legitimate interests? A reaction has been provoked from some Opposition members and the community at large. People are propagandising others in a way which is harmful to white-black relations in Australia with the statement that `land rights have become land wrongs' and `we should stop giving land to Aborigines'. That is a ridiculous notion. Some people call the reaction a white backlash. I am not one for slogans. It has occurred because the Hawke Labor Government and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, for all their good intentions, messed up the operation and were provocative. That is why there has been such a reaction and that is why so many people have focused on the Opposition's position in this matter. We want ownership of the Rock to remain with all Australians; we want the symbol to go in that direction; we want the judgment to be made in that way. No one has resisted my suggestion that, if the Crown has ownership of the Rock and the national park continues, the Aboriginal people have full access, that there be freehold areas where they can live, that they be fully involved in the management of the park and that they not be disturbed in their particular religious and significant rituals or relationship with the land and the area. What has damaged this debate first of all has been the raising of expectations by the Australian Labor Party. It has alienated the Premier of Western Australia and 80 per cent of Western Australian people from any notion of Aboriginal land rights. I believe it is cruel to raise expectations in Aboriginal people which cannot be met. The land rights issue is causing a reaction in the wider community. I refer to the dividing of Australia, as it were, into two nations. I reject utterly the notion of two nations. We are one nation. We ought to work together to ensure that the interests of both groups can be provided for. I reject also any recent notions of land being given to Aboriginal communities on the basis of guilt, compensation or restorative justice. Why cannot we give land to Aboriginal communities on the basis of their current need, to meet practical situations which may arise? I think we have even got to the point at which the phrase `land rights' is counterproductive in regard to Aboriginals winning substantial gains in the ownership and use of land in Australia. I want to see Aboriginal communities prospering, with land secured for their own use because of their direct practical need. I urge the Senate to de-escalate provocative actions based on political slogans and to act substantially and sincerely in the interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia and all Australians. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.03) —It is a sad day when such poorly researched, misdirected and shoddy-to use a word used by Senator Missen in this debate a short while previously-legislation is presented to the national Parliament. As a late speaker in this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985 I do not intend taking much of the time of the Senate in covering the ideas that I hold in relation to this debate because the salient points have been covered by previous speakers on the Opposition side. I oppose both these Bills and support the amendment moved by Senator Peter Baume. It is an interesting fact that we on this side have had to restrict the speakers' list. However, no honourable senator from the Australian Labor Party has come forward and effectively defended the Bills. We have heard only two Labor speakers. Of course, we have heard the surrogates of the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, paying their dues and homage to the Labor Party with a ritual speech in support of the Bills. The speeches from this side have been excellent. Of course, Senator Peter Baume led for the Opposition. He has been the most gifted Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that this Parliament has seen. Senator Teague and Senator Puplick both brought their great scholarship to this debate. Senators Crichton-Browne, Knowles and Missen have all made valuable contributions to this debate. I am opposed to the two Bills simply because they are illegal. They contravene the land rights legislation of the Federal Parliament. Put very simply, these Bills break the requirement of the land rights legislation that only unalienated land can be distributed as a result of a land rights claim. Secondly, they do not establish the title or who does own that land, as is required under the Act. Let us be perfectly clear on this point. The Opposition is not opposed to helping the welfare of Aboriginals in any way at all. As Senator Peter Baume said in his speech, we recognise that the Aboriginal community is the most disadvantaged group in the Australian community. Our record in government is very clear. I think it is a fair comment to make that some of the steps taken by the Parliament in the past have, in the light of experience, proven to be not the most appropriate steps that could have been taken. This country is still groping towards a means of helping the Aboriginal community. That point is not at issue at all. What is at issue is the illegal action of the Labor Government in contravening the land rights legislation. If I could have the temerity to offer the Government a bit of advice I suggest that if it does not like the legislation it has the numbers to change it. I ask the Government not to go down the illegal path of flagrantly and blatantly not conforming to the legislation. As I said earlier, there are two fundamental points over which the Government is in breach of the law. Firstly, the Ayers Rock-Olgas area happens to be a national park. As a national park, it is alienated land. The inquiry by Mr Justice Toohey, to which so much reference has been made by speakers on this side of the House, found that the land was not available for distribution. That is the first point. If the Government did not want to change the legislation it could have taken steps to set that part of the law aside and then go to the next stage. It is a very serious business to take alienated land and distribute it to the Aboriginals. It means that no national park in Australia is safe. A national park set up for the benefit of all Australians will now move under the control and be for the financial benefit of a small group of people. The second point is that if this practice is followed it means that no one is safe in respect of land ownership and tenure in Australia. It means that the private ownership of land will be subject to the whim of a Labor Government; land can be alienated in precisely the same way as this national park has been alienated. Let us make no mistake about the importance of Ayers Rock to the people of Australia. How many times driving in Australia have we seen a sticker on the back of a car which reads `I have been to Ayers Rock'? Such stickers can be seen on large numbers of cars. Research on tourists, from Europe, Asia, North America or South America shows that when those tourists are asked what they know about Australia and what they want to see there are only two areas they nominate. They do not nominate Sydney or Melbourne-for good reasons. They nominate Ayers Rock and the Great Barrier Reef. The Uluru National Park ranks with other national parks of the world such as the Kruger park in South Africa as something which has an appeal and recognition right throughout the world. The law is being broken to give this park away to a group. The second illegal action by the Government relates to the fact that it has not established who is entitled to the land. To put it euphemistically, the group the Government proposes to give the Park to may or may not be the group which is entitled to receive the land under the existing legislation. I go back to the old Scottish legal status of not proseen; the group may be, it may be not. The evidence would tend to suggest that this group is probably not entitled to receive title of the land. That matter has been covered by Senator Sheil and Senator Teague at some length. The evidence, put in simple terms, is to the effect that the present Aboriginal inhabitants of the region-the so-called Mutitjulu community-have moved in within the recent past, within the last decade or so. There is good evidence as to whom the traditional owners are. Most of that evidence is incorporated in the research work of Professor Strehlow. I have read his article in the June-August 1969 edition of the Inland Review written prior to the politicisation of land rights, dealing with the mythology of centralian Aboriginals. Professor Strehlow grew up at the Hermannsburg Mission. He was the son of Lutheran missionaries. He was born out there and spoke Aranda fluently. He mixed with the Aboriginal tribes. He spent a lifetime as an anthropologist studying Aboriginal culture in Australia. Professor Strehlow's scholarship has never been criticised. His credentials are impeccable. On that basis, it is worth considering to whom he attributes the traditional ownership of this area. He made this attribution long before there was any argument about it and before there was any prospect of commercial gain from this matter. He defined the principal owner as the Jankuntjatjara with the lesser owners being the Anderkerinja, the Pintubi and the Pitjantjatjara. The people who are now claiming title to this land, some of the Mutajula community, may be descendants of the principal owner and the lesser owners. But the important point is for them to establish that before the judicial inquiry as the law provides. That has not been done. So we have the abrogation of a piece of alienated land, a national asset, and it is being given to people who have not established their legal entitlement to it. This has some very serious consequences. First, one really cannot have governments being negligent in the application of their legislation. How can we expect the community to obey the law if the Government will not obey it. In simple terms, that is precisely what this Government is doing. It is breaking the law. The discussion on the entitlement to the land does not need to proceed further. For the sake of the debate, I would like to deal with some of the points made by previous Labor speakers from the Opposition's point of view. Senator Cooney made the best speech for the Australian Labor Party, but despite a lifetime as a barrister Senator Cooney, a person of undoubted ability and professional competence, spoke for only five minutes. Interestingly, he said nothing at all in defence of the Bills. He found it impossible to defend the Government's actions. With legal skills, he chose instead to attack the Opposition's amendment. Even Senator Cooney will be embarrassed in the light of day to read in Hansard what he said. He made two points. First, he said that the Opposition's suggestion that the title to the land be handed from the Aboriginals to the State Government or to the Administration of the Northern Territory was wrong. I am sure that on reflection he will see the transparency of that argument because there is an enormous difference between private ownership in the hands of a few people such as the Mutajulu community and the holding in trust for the community at large that is encompassed in the transference of title to the Administration of the Northern Territory, or to a State government for that matter. His second point was the way we were proposing that Aboriginals be involved in the management of the land yet, at the same time, seemingly saying that we were not prepared to advance Aboriginals. That is a rather imprecise argument. There is an enormous difference between saying to the Aboriginal community `You can participate in the management of the project to the limits of your desire' and saying `You, a small group, own this. You are the beneficial owners. To you will accrue all the financial rewards from its commercial operation. You set the standards on who comes in, who takes photographs, and even who has health care facilities'. The latter point was emphasised when the Aboriginals would not allow some sort of cardiac support system on top of the mountain for people who need it. It has happened that people have had cardiac arrests climbing Ayers Rock. The interesting speech was that by Senator Reynolds. It is well known in the north that Senator Reynolds is the protagonist of any extremist Aboriginal view. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would be well aware of Senator Reynolds' actions in north Queensland and the great embarrassment that she causes the Labor members for Leichhardt and Herbert in the House of Representatives. It is no exaggeration that Senator Reynolds will play a part in the next election in the loss of those two seats by the Labor Party. Senator Reynolds denied the expression of any view contrary to that of her party. The Government, in its traditional Labor way, is allergic to any criticism of a view that does not emanate from the central Caucus. Earlier this week I was reading a good article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Mr Paul Sheehan on the sitting of Parliament. The average number of sitting days has declined from 67 between 1901 and 1982 to a mere 50 days under the present Hawke socialist administration. It has declined for the very good reason that the Government does not want to be brought to account before the Parliament and the Opposition to defend its actions such as those concerning the Uluru National Park. Senator Messner —It is scared of the Parliament. Senator MacGIBBON —Yes, Government members are frightened of the Parliament and they tend to run away from being challenged on what they are doing. So we have an enormous decrease in the number of sitting days. We are down to 50 days this year. It is absolutely scandalous to be running an institution of this size and not to be using it. At the same time, they have lifted the number of Bills going through by 35 per cent. They are ramming legislation through. They are using the gag and they are denying the elected representatives of the people the right to challenge and debate that legislation. We could see that clearly in what Senator Reynolds was doing yesterday. Yesterday, it was very interesting to see the way that Senator Cook in the Mudginberri debate dismissed opposition to the Labor policy of letting strikers having free rein in Mudginberri by saying that there were only two dozen people involved; they were nothing; the Government had nothing to fear from two dozen people. What about the rights of the individual? They count for naught with this Government. What really upset me in Senator Reynold's speech-I am glad that Hansard is now available-was that she accused the Liberal Party of being party to what she described as an absolutely racist document. I took the trouble to get the document to which she referred. There is no doubt that Senator Reynolds is not one of the leading intellects of the Labor Party, but even she would be well able to read this document which is written in almost monosyllabic words, and come to a clear understanding of what is involved. In no sense is it a racist document. It is the oldest trick in the book to accuse an opponent of being disloyal, a traitor to the country, or a racist. This is precisely the cheap, shoddy, debating trick that Senator Reynolds used yesterday. This document is not racist. It does not mention or imply race at all. Senator Reynolds ought to recognise that there is genuine concern in the community about the consequences of land rights legislation. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the matter, the controversy is there and as a politician she ought to be aware of it. The second matter to which I objected very much was that she attributed this document to the Liberal Party. It is not a Liberal Party publication. I am not trying to distance the Liberal Party from it. I would be quite happy to have my name and photograph on that document because I do not think that it is offensive to any of the accepted political standards of this country. Senator Kilgariff —She's a fraud. Senator MacGIBBON —She is a complete fraud. I have taken the Senate's time today because no one else in this debate has picked up this point, but to me it is untenable that this sort of debasement should take place in a debate on what is really quite a serious matter. As I said at the outset, these Bills are based on an illegal action by the Government. It is not conforming to the law. All the evidence that has been presented from this side supports that argument. It is important because, if the requirement of the law that only unalienated land can be distributed is not observed, it will undermine the stability of land ownership in this country. No one has security against the ravages of this Labor Government if we go on in this way. Secondly, we are conferring financial gain on a group of people. When we do that we must be scrupulously careful that we are operating with respect to the law. In some ways this legislation is almost a parallel to what occurred a couple of months ago when the Morosi housing scandal blew up. Again we had the disbursement of public funds without accountability. Obviously the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is very confused and this legislation is the product of some very confused thinking. I oppose this legislation. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(12.21) —We have before us the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill. I must commend many of the honourable senators who have spoken already today. There have been some excellent speeches right across the board, including those from honourable senators on this side of the chamber. I was particularly interested in Senator Teague's presentation. A lot of work went into the preparation of that speech. I suggest that the people who read the record of this debate take care to read his thoughts on the matter. Today I wish to speak on this legislation both as a representative of the Northern Territory and as a representative of what I see as the wider Australian community, because this legislation will have an impact on all Australians. I believe that the fact that, with another senator, I represent the Northern Territory, and know what has been happening there as a direct result of this Government's Aboriginal policies, allows me to bring the facts, which some have ignored so far, to the attention of honourable senators. As someone who has lived in the Northern Territory for most of his life, I have seen the development of the Aboriginal affairs policies of a number of governments. I have also witnessed the development in the Aboriginal communities of a sense of purpose and a desire on the part of the Aboriginal people to have a real and effective say in the management of their lives. This, I believe, has been frustrated to quite an extent. But, sadly, over recent years I have also witnessed the development of racial tensions not only in the Northern Territory but over the whole country. I believe that there has been a general lessening of support within the Australian community for certain Aboriginal policies. I am quite convinced that the disharmony which has developed in the Territory is due mainly to the operation of the land rights legislation presently in effect there-I have spoken on this before-because, I believe, it should have been overseen more thoroughly. The legislation has led to the granting to the Aboriginal people of inalienable freehold title to land, which includes stock routes on pastoral leases, reserves, national parks, public rivers and roads, et cetera, and has created divisions and resentment in the Territory and, most of all, has created uncertainty. For instance, pastoralists with stock routes running through their land can never be sure that a claim will not be lodged on those stock routes. The effect of such claims is to fragment their land holdings, sometimes literally cutting the property in half. Mining interest can never be sure that, if they proceed with expensive and time consuming exploration for minerals on land which is available at the time, their efforts will not be thwarted by the effective right of veto which Aboriginal organisations have over land use in the Territory under the current legislation. Figures from the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines bear witness to that fact. Since the introduction of the original legislation in 1976 no new mining operations have been commenced in the Territory. This is a direct result of the difficulty which the legislation causes those mining interests which might wish to proceed with exploration and development. In almost ten years not one new mining permit has been granted. There have been administrative endeavours to overcome these problems but they have not been overcome. The confusion and anxiety which exists in the Territory and which is spreading to the whole Australian community is an undeniable result of the present Federal Government's approach to the whole question of land rights, including the Bills before us today. The Federal Government is clearly unable to come to any agreement within its own ranks as to how best to deal with the question of land rights and, because it also has been unable to establish a consensus amongst the various groups involved in the Aboriginal land rights debate, there has been talk of the Government deferring any decision on land rights legislation for up to 12 months. Such a move would only add to the disharmony and appprehension which already exist in the community. It would only lead to more confusion and disillusionment in the Aboriginal communities who have already been built up to expect far more than the Government is reasonably able to deliver. There has been the fiasco of the Western Australian Government's proposed legislation. No one knows what will happen in that State now that the Burke Government's legislation has been rejected. Mr Holding has made references to the Federal Government's intention to bring in a national model but, of course, this has become controversial and has not the support of the Western Australian Parliament and others. There has been the suggestion that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is to be amended, yet no specific details have been forthcoming. Quite simply, none of us, Aboriginal or otherwise, knows what to expect. The Government's vacillation and confusion where Aboriginal matters are concerned seems to extend to the understanding of its Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) of the legislation which we are now debating. The Minister has assured us all, in the other place and repeatedly in the media, that these Bills will return Uluru to the control of its traditional owners. I beg to differ with the Minister on two points. Admittedly, the land has been granted to the people, but it is leased back. Let us look at the situation. Firstly, this legislation will return Ayers Rock not to its traditional owners but to a group of Aboriginal people known as the Mutitjulu community. I say that this community is the creation of the white man and can in no way be said to represent the traditional owners of Uluru, even though it may include some traditional owners from the area. Is it not a fact that the true traditional owners are the Yunkantjatjara people and others who, it seems, have been forgotten by the anthropologists? I will say a little more about that later. I believe that-I doubt whether anyone can deny this-if the law of the old Aboriginal ancestors were applied to Ayers Rock, the type of legislation that is before the Senate now could not possibly be passed. Secondly, the Aboriginal community which is to be given control of Uluru will get no such thing. Control will rest with the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service-the ANPWS-and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. As I have said, scrutiny of this legislation will show this. No doubt the Labor Government will pat itself on the back and proudly announce its generous decision to grant a majority of positions on the new board of management of the Uluru National Park to Aboriginal representatives. What it will not make quite so public, however, is the fact that these Aboriginal representatives, along with the Northern Territory Government representatives on the board, are quite powerless in the face of any opposition from the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Director has the power to veto any decision that the rest of the board might wish to take. If the Director disagrees with the rest of the board the matter must be referred to the Minister, who is entitled to arbitrate. So the real power is in the hands of the Director and the Minister. Apart from the fact that the Aboriginal people are being denied real control of the management of the park, there are other elements in this legislation which give cause for concern. Under the present arrangements for the management of the Uluru National Park, which was approved by both Houses of this Parliament only two years ago-honourable senators will remember this-the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service is obliged to carry out certain specific administrative functions. They are not functions which the Director can perform at his discretion; they are statutory obligations which should be fulfilled, directions to the Director on management. In particular, the Director is required to establish an Aboriginal advisory committee, to be known as the Uluru Aboriginal Advisory Committee-the UAAC-which is to be consulted in relation to decisions on the development and management of the park. There are numerous references throughout the existing plan of management to the UAAC and its role in the administration of Uluru. But the Committee has never been formed. Another blatant example of the failure of the Director to comply with the plan of management has been in his approach to the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. Under the plan the NTCC was to be responsible for the day to day management of the park. The Director refused to delegate his powers to the officers of the Conservation Commission, which left them in a situation where they were carrying out their duties without any authority. Only after two years of representations to the Minister were Conservation Commission officers finally issued early this year with warrant cards. Even more recently the Director of the ANPWS has indicated that he fully intends to wrest control from the Northern Territory Conservation Commission for even the day to day management of the park. Only a few weeks ago he announced that under the new arrangements he expected his own Commonwealth officers to take over their duties. It is ludicrous to suggest that Northern Territory officers, paid by the Nothern Territory Government, should work under the direction of the Commonwealth. In addition to these matters, the Director has failed to implement programs and activities which are outlined as essential in the plan of management. This situation also applies to Kakadu National Park and is placing both parks at environmental risk with increasing visitor pressure. The Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has, by his consistent failure to comply with the plan of management, shown that he is determined to do as he likes with Uluru national park-he certainly has the power-regardless of his obligations under any legislation. I am saying that he has his obligation under legislation but is not carrying it out. He is running it according to his own whims and wishes. Under this legislation we are now debating he will enjoy at least as much authority as he does under the present legislation. Given events to date, I think there is little chance that anyone on the new board of management of Uluru, including the Aboriginal representatives, will have very much to say in the running of the park. Already I believe the wishes of the Aboriginal people have been ignored in the preparation of this legislation. It is well known in the Territory, and I suspect in the Minister's office, that the Aboriginal people living near Uluru wished to have representations on the Northern Territory Conservation Commission on any new board of management. Instead the Federal Government has insisted that the Northern Territory representatives come from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, one member each from the Government and the Opposition. One has little criticism of the members of the Legislative Assembly, but it is difficult to see the logic of appointing politicians who have not nearly the wealth of experience in the management of the national park as is held by officers of the Northern Territory Conservation Commission. I believe that the decision to overlook officers of the Conservation Commission as members of the new board of management amounts to an unfortunate and ill-advised snub to the wishes of the Aboriginal people. I understand that at a meeting they indicated clearly to the Minister at one stage that they wished the Northern Territory Conservation Commission to participate. So I would expect them to, because I believe that the relationships between the officers of the Commission and the Aboriginal people are extremely good. The Opposition seeks to amend the Government's legislation to provide for ownership of Uluru National Park to vest in the Northern Territory Government, which would preserve the park, as its custodian, for the benefit of all Australians. The Territory Government itself has already given an undertaking that it would provide for real Aboriginal representation on a board of management, which would be headed by a representative of the Northern Territory Conservation Commission, which would be given the responsibility for the management of the park. The Territory Government has clearly indicated that it would also establish community living areas for the Aboriginal people in the area, which would have a separate lease. They would be private areas in which the Government would provide accommodation and facilities for the Aboriginal people. The private lease would be exactly what it is said to be; that is, a private lease under which the Aboriginal people could live their private lives and not be subjected to anybody going into their village whom they did not want there. I would say that the Aboriginal people would have real input rather than the illusory control offered by this legislation. The management of the park would be in the hands, on a day to day basis, of the Conservation Commission, which has already shown its commitment to the development of Uluru, despite the lack of any support or encouragement from the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Northern Territory Conservation Commission should be commended for pressing on, despite the attitude of the Director of the Service. It is the Conservation Commission and its predecessor, the Northern Territory Reserves Board, which deserve the credit for the development of the Uluru area over many years. In fact the Reserves Board initially took over the rock and brought it to what I believe to be its present fulfilment as a conservation area. This valuable national asset should be preserved for the benefit of all Australians, not just a small interest group, with ownership vested in the Northern Territory. On that note I shall address some of my remarks to senators opposite, and specifically to the Australian Democrats. Honourable senators will recall that when the Franklin River in South West Tasmania was threatened by the development of a dam senators opposite, particularly the Australian Democrats, were among the most vehement opponents of the dam. They were on their feet almost daily in this chamber calling on the Federal Government to intervene to prevent this valuable wilderness area from being `exploited' by a small interest group; namely; the Tasmania Hydro-Electric Commission. There were constant calls for the area to be declared within the province of the Commonwealth so that it might be preserved for the benefit of Australia and the world. When the Hawke Government came to power it announced its decision to seek to prevent the building of the dam in Tasmania. The Hawke Government apparently takes the view that while it is wrong for a special interest group in Tasmania, such as the HEC, to have control of a wilderness area, it is quite okay for the Federal Government to hand over to a small group of people, with a questionable claim to the area, a site which is already of great cultural significance to all Australians, Aboriginal or otherwise. The double standard which is quite apparent in the Government's actions is appalling, and its decision to hand over Uluru in this way can be described only as a betrayal of the Australian people. I oppose the legislation and support the Opposition amendment, as I believe that it is more representative of the situation most Australians would like to see exist in relation to Ayers Rock. Speaking of the views of the Australian community, I have in my arms a large number of petitions. When I say a large number of petitions, that is exactly what it is-a heap of them. Senator Teague —They would be about a foot thick. Senator KILGARIFF —Well, there are thousands. I have one bundle with 2,229 signatures, another with 1,051, others with 1,070, 1,233, 1,033 and 1,501. In all, the total number of signatures is 7,036. The interesting thing about these petitions, which will be lodged in the Senate tomorrow, is that they come from the people of a particular area, Townsville. In my view this is indicative of the strength of feeling in the Australian community on this issue. The petitions were circulated in Townsville through a local newspaper. If the exercise had been carried out in the Australian and various other newspapers throughout the Commonwealth, I wonder what number of petitions this Senate would have received. The fact that there were some 7,000 or so signatures on petitions in Townsville is most illuminating. The petitions are addressed to the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled and read: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the Government's stated intention to hand over to the Mutitjula community ownership of Ayers Rock and Uluru National Park, which have until now belonged to all the people of Australia. We believe that Ayers Rock and the Park are the natural heritage of Australia and should be retained by the Crown on behalf of all living and future generations of Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate oppose any action that would give ownership of these national treasures to any single group in the community. As I have said before, I doubt whether there is anyone in Australia who is against Aboriginal participation. However, the fact is that it is a significant landmark in Australia and it should belong to the Australian community. The strange thing about all this of course is the action that the Government has taken. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has indicated, despite the fact that he has not yet the authority, that he will hand over a lease to the Mititjulu Association, perhaps in October or November. This legislation has not yet been passed. I say that handing it over to such an Association is not in accordance with Aboriginal law, which is what most people desire these days. In fact, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 is based on the fact that there are traditional owners. As I understand the situation, the fact is that this matter has not been before any court, nor has evidence been taken on the facts, The Government has decided to take this move, a political move, which might I say is a strange move. I suppose there is a lot of concern these days at the way the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act has been practised, the way it has been extended through High Court decisions and the like. I remember that it was the judgment of the person who introduced this legislation some years ago that there was going to be some 23 per cent of land claimable. We know that it has gone much higher than that. With land that has already been granted, land that is going to be claimed and the claims that are being processed, together with the fact that the legislation is so open-ended, one can easily see that although the figure is not up to 50 per cent yet, it is up to perhaps 47 or 48 per cent. Because the situation is open-ended claims can go on and on. Because the legislation is open-ended the solicitors representing various groups can pore over maps of the Northern Territory, and any land that is claimable is going to be claimed. I will take some five minutes or so to mention a very interesting and illuminating debate which is occuring now which is referred to in the Bulletin of 27 August 1985. On page 34 is an article headed `Aboriginal Affairs, Anthropology on trial in land case'. The article describes an interesting situation; interesting because I believe this is the beginning of a review of Aboriginal land rights on a national basis. This review is not going to occur within the House of Representatives or the Senate, where there always should have been a committee, which I have stressed, but which did not happen. The review of Aboriginal land rights is now going to take place in the community and not within the Parliament. This article is a clear indication of what I see is going to happen in the future. It is most interesting. The article refers to a challenge thrown out to anthropologists. I believe it is a rightful challenge because clearly within the ranks of anthropologists one sees that there are very many cases-that may be an exaggeration-where anthropologists clearly do not agree with claims that have been made before the Northern Territory Land Commissioner. The article in the Bulletin reads: Australian anthropology is on trial in the Northern Territory. For the first time in a land-claim hearing, the Northern Territory government has requested access to the raw data that anthropologists collect from their tribal informants. To the great surprise of the anthropologists involved, who specialise in the understanding of traditional Aboriginal society, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner Justice Maurice has decided to take the request seriously. He has asked anthropologists with some knowledge of the Warramungu people (who are claiming about 10,000 sq km near Tennant Creek) to show cause why they should be immune from having to disclose to the court their field notes and confidential working documents. Both as an applied profession and as an academic discipline, anthropology has been put on notice and the stakes are very high. The notion of anthropological immunity from disclosure has been the central topic for debate in hearings conducted by Maurice in Alice Springs over recent weeks. As far as the lawyers acting for the numerous concerned parties are aware, there is no direct legal precedent in English common law for such a case. . . . . Why did the Northern Territory government request that anthropologists produce their field notes? To an extent, this unprecedented pressure on the profession reflects unabated concern, not just in Darwin, over the general impact of the territory's land rights legislation, now 10 years old. Sir Edward Woodward, whose landmark inquiry prepared the ground for the legislation, only last month made clear his fundamental reservations. Times have changed when the chief architect of Australia's Aboriginal land legislation is moved to suggest that the Aboriginal land councils and their advisers should consider forgoing or even surrendering some land already claimed or granted. The article continues, and no doubt other people will read it. But I believe that the Government should heed the experts in this field, particularly Sir Edward Woodward and others. Before the Government proceeds with this legislation it should reconsider it along the lines that have been suggested by the Opposition, for very many reasons. Clearly, the majority of the people of Australia wish this legislation not to be passed. On a wider note, the legislation and the practices that are being carried out now within Aboriginal land hearings and the evidence that is being presented by some anthropologists to the land commissioners are now under challenge. I believe that there is every right for a lot of this evidence to be challenged. Debate (on motion by Senator Ryan) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.48) —Mr Deputy President, I raise today the supply of a telephone service to a family living in an extremely remote part of Australia, the upper Tuross valley in south eastern New South Wales; the saga that has accompanied this story; the attempt to get a telephone; and the procedures which Telecom Australia is following which may not impact well upon isolated rural Australia. I understand that one of the papers which has been tabled today and which will be discussed later in the Senate is a Telecom report entitled `Service and Business Outlook for 1985-86'. Without discussing the report I note that at page 23 Telecom sets out, under the heading `Network Development Outlook' a section on the rural and remote areas program. It identifies that program and states that it comprises three parts, the conversion of remaining manual telephone services to automatic, the replacement of part privately erected lines by wholly Telecom provided plant, and the connection of new services in areas not practicable to serve previously. It states that 33,000 services fall under these categories which will need the new Telecom program. It states further that a vital component of this program is the digital radio concentrator system and describes that. The story that I will put before the Senate probably covers all these problems. The upper Tuross River in my State is a very beautiful and isolated area, sitting inland from the town of Bodalla and beneath the Monaro. The upper Tuross and the Belowra valley used to have a telephone service provided by a manual exchange operating out of Nerrigundah-a very small hamlet, itself inland from Bodalla. I used to call the area without difficulty when I was a doctor. One of my patients lived in Belowra. I was able to go through the Nerrigundah exchange and talk to my constituents or, as they were then, my patients. But for about seven years now they have had no service at all. People who previously had a telephone service now have none. They have had many promises but those promises have not been acted on adequately. We have the extraordinary circumstances now of Telecom actually offering a service to people who have not got it but who had it some years ago under a system which Telecom says it wants to replace because it wants to improve the service. It might be worth while setting out the background of this case to the Senate. Until June 1977, a telephone office operated at Nerrigundah. It closed because of the retirement of the postmistress or some other equally fortuitous event. There were two subscribers, including my constituents who had a private line from Nerrigundah to their property, a distance, perhaps, of 15 or 20 kilometres. The situation applying at that time is set out in a letter of September 1977 from the State Manager of Telecom to the former honourable member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Murray Sainsbury, when representations were first made. I seek leave to incorporate that letter which sets out the situation which applied in the valley. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Telecom Australia Telephone 922 6688 Area Code 02...State Manager Telex 20751...Box 5333 GPO Reference N293/1/135...Sydney, N.S.W. 2001 September 1977 Mr M. E. Sainsbury, M.P. Member for Eden-Monaro, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr Sainsbury I refer to your personal representations on behalf of Nerrigundah subscribers concerning closure of the Nerrigundah telephone office. When the Nerrigundah telephone office closed in June 1977 there were two subscribers connected and five persons in the area waiting for new telephone services. One subscriber was transferred to the Bodalla automatic telephone exchange and the other, Mr Thompson, was connected temporarily to Narooma manual exchange pending an examination of the area to determine the most efficient and economical method of providing automatic telephone services. At the time of the closure of the Nerrigundah telephone office, Mr Thompson was advised during an interview that the use of privately erected lines for automatic telephone service had been discontinued and that connection to Bodalla would be dependent upon the provision of a Commission line. This would involve Mr Thompson in the payment of a cash contribution of $2,400. Mr Thompson indicated during the interview that he would be willing to conduct a telephone office in his residence. However, it is the policy of Telecom Australia to extend the benefits of automatic telephone service with subscriber trunk dialling facilities to all subscribers throughout Australia and the establishment of small manual exchanges with limited facilities and hours of service is being avoided where possible. The examination to determine the best method of providing telephone service in the area is continuing and the Customer Services Manager, Nowra will advise Mr Thompson of the results as soon as they are known. In the meantime, it would be to Mr Thompson's advantage to maintain the privately erected section of his line to the best practicable standards to ensure a reasonable service from Narooma. Yours sincerely W. T. SCHMIDT State Manager Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. I draw the attention of the Senate to the last sentence of that letter which stated: In the meantime, it would be to Mr Thompson's advantage to maintain the privately erected section of his line to the best practicable standards to ensure a reasonable service from Narooma. Telecom was switching the service between exchanges. The clear implication at that time was that the service would continue and that these people's telephone connection to the world would remain. This was a period of drought and hardship for those on the land. In 1981 a letter from the Telecom customer services branch indicated that the service was not operating, that this was probably due to the condition of the privately owned section of line and that in that time of drought the people had not paid their rental on the non-operative service. I am not sure that I would pay rental on a non-operative service either. In any event I happen to know that these people, who were graziers, were, as were many other graziers at the time, out on the road with their cattle, trying to keep them alive. By 1978, the Commission was thinking differently. It was no longer thinking that the people concerned should maintain their privately erected portion of line for land connection. Telecom was now thinking about a radio link from the Narooma exchange and it was talking about converting the old telephone service and including a new service for another member of the family. I have two letters from Telecom-one dated 12 April 1978 and the other 14 April 1978-to members of the family which set out the new proposals. I seek leave to incorporate those letters in Hansard. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- TELECOM AUSTRALIA Telecom Busines Office Telephone 2 5111 Area Code 044...31 Kinghorne Street, Telex 26463...Nowra, N.S.W. 2540 Reference AS:PA...Postal Address: P.O. Box 533, Nowra 2540 12.4.78 Mr E. D. Thomson ``Belowra'' Nerrigundah, N.S.W. 2545 Dear Sir, Telecom Australia is now preparing to proceed with the connection of a telephone service to your property ``Belowra'' using a radio link from Narooma telephone exchange. The Yowrie telephone exchange is the closest to your premises and although Narooma exchange is to be the actual connection point, the charge for provision of the telephone service has been assessed as though the link were provided between Yowrie exchange and your premises. Similar quotations for telephone services are being prepared for Mr. H. Burns, Mr. N. R. Broomham, Mr. W. F. Dance, Mr. M. Collett and Mr. F. D. Thomson. A charge for provision of telephone facilities is assessed on the radial distance between your premises and the exchange site, the first 16 km radial distance provided for a standard service connection fee currently $120.00, which applies to any applicant in the Commonwealth of Australia. A surcharge of $160.00 per half kilometre or part thereof beyond the 16 km radial distance is chargeable. As your premises are not in excess of 16 km radial distance, no cash contribution is chargeable. You would be required as an applicant to pay the normal service connection fee and annual rental for a telephone service. Current rates are, service connection fee $120.00 and annual rental (at a base rate for a single telephone instrument) $120.00. I wish to emphasise that this letter is intended to advise you of the charges applicable and should not be taken as indication that a service can be provided in the near future. Your acceptance of the terms would be appreciated, but it is not required that you forward any remittance at this stage. The intention of the letter is to allow you to confirm your application under the conditions stated above before final arrangements are made for special radio link equipment to be obtained. Indications are that at least 12-18 months delay would occur before the equipment becomes available. Yours faithfully, A. STIRLING for Customer Services Manager Telecom Australia Telecom Business Office Telephone 2 5111 Area Code 044...31 Kinghorne Street, Telex 25463...Nowra, N.S.W. 2540 Reference AS:PA...Postal Address: PO Box 533, Nowra 2540 14.4.78 Mr F. D. Thomson ``Belowra'' NERRIGUNDAH, N.S.W. 2545 Dear Sir, Telecom Australia is now preparing to proceed with the conversion of the telephone service to your property ``Belowra'' using a radio link from Narooma telephone exchange. The Yowrie telephone exchange is the closest to your premises and although Narooma exchange is to be the actual connection point the charge for provision of the telephone service has been assessed as though the link were provided between Yowrie exchange and your premises. Similar letters for telephone services are being prepared for Mr W. F. Dance, Mr H. Burns, Mr N. R. Broomham, Mr E. D. Thomson and Mr M. Collett. A charge for provision of telephone facilities is assessed on the radial distance between your premises and the exchange site, the first 16km radial distance provided for a standard service connection fee currently $120.00, which applies to any applicant in the Commonwealth of Australia. A surcharge of $160.00 per half kilometre or part thereof beyond the 16km radial distance is chargeable. As your premises are not in excess of 16km radial distance from Yowrie, no cash contribution is chargeable. As an existing subscriber you would not be required to pay the normal service connection fee and annual rental in advance. Your existing contract for telephone service Nerrigundah 1 will continue. I wish to emphasise that the letters are intended to advise each of the residents of the charges applicable and should not be taken as an indication that a service can be provided in the near future. Indications are that at least 12-18 months delay would occur before the equipment becomes available. Yours faithfully, A. STIRLING, for Customer Services Manager Senator PETER BAUME —I am grateful to the Senate. By 1980 nothing had happened. Those people, with no telephone service, had been told that they were not paying the rental for a non-operative service and then told that they were going to be put on some radio connection, but nothing had happened. So the former member for Eden Monaro, Mr Murray Sainsbury, wrote in February 1980 to the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the Hon. Tony Staley, seeking some follow-up. When that letter elicited no response he wrote again in June 1980. The Minister had an answer from Telecom by September 1980. I seek leave to incorporate the answer which Mr Sainsbury received from Mr Staley at that stage, which included, among other things, apologies for the inordinate length of time it took to respond to representations. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Minister for Post and Telecommunications Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr Sainsbury, You wrote to me in February 1980 and again on 12 June 1980 on behalf of your constituents living at Belowra, west of Nerrigundah concerning the provision of a radio telephone link to the Narooma Telephone Exchange. I am sorry that I have not been able to reply earlier on this matter. The advice that I have now received from Telecom Australia indicates that because of the very high costs involved in providing telephone communications to this isolated part of the South Coast, the programming of the required work has of necessity been given a low priority in Telecom's annual capital works program. It has not been possible for the work to be programmed in this present financial year and as a consequence the telephone services in the Belowra Valley could not be provided before the 1981-82 financial year. I realise that this will be disappointing advice for you and your constituents in the area and I have asked Telecom Australia to keep the works program under review to see if some way can be found to bring the project forward. Yours sincerely, A. A. STALEY Mr M. Sainsbury, M.P. member for Eden-Monaro Parliament House, CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. The Minister regretted that Telecom's capital works program could not accommodate the work. The letter stated: . . . the programming of the required work has of necessity been given a low priority in Telecom's annual capital works program. That is pretty cold comfort to people living in this kind of remoteness who previously enjoyed a telephone service but who, with the march of progress, lost it. Telecom indicated further that the 1981-82 financial year would be the first opportunity to provide the service. In 1981 I started taking up the matter. In fact I took it up with the then Minister for Communications, Ian Sinclair. His response indicated that Telecom expected to undertake the work to connect these people to a service sometime in the 1982-83 financial year. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter from Mr Sinclair to me setting out those matters. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Leader of the National Country Party of Australia Leader of the House Member for New England 20 Jan. 1981 Senator The Hon. P. E. Baume, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 My dear Minister, You wrote to me on behalf of residents of the Upper Tuross Valley situated west of Bodalla concerning telephone services. Telecom Australia has informed me that a telephone service to the area was originally provided from the Nerrigundah Post Office and manual telephone exchange by a long aerial line for Mr D. Thompson of ``Belowra''. The service is now leased in the name of Mrs M. H. H. Thompson. Following closure of the Nerrigundah Post Office on 30 June 1977, as a result of the resignation of the Postmistress, temporary telephone service was provided from Narooma telephone exchange until 27 November, 1978 when the line was connected to Bodalla automatic exchange. The service was provided in 1947 under conditions whereby the subscriber erected and maintained a section of aerial line. For some years this maintenance was carried out infrequently until the circuit became inoperative. In accordance with Telecom's policy regarding privately erected and maintained lines, field staff have given technical advice to Mrs Thompson and her sons on many occasions regarding repairs to the line, and in October 1978 written advice was forwarded indicating what repairs were necessary and providing a telephone number on which Telecom could be contacted for further advice if required. Plans to provide services for the seven waiting applicants in Belowra Valley and a wholly maintained Commission replacement service for Mrs Thompson have been prepared. These involve provision of radio telephone facilities requiring the establishment of a radio transmission site and individual radio telephone equipment at each residence. Telecom has also advised that current programming provides for this work to be undertaken in the 1982-83 financial year. Prior to installation work commencing, Telecom Australia will advise the residents concerned of the terms and conditions applicable to provision of a service. Yours sincerely IAN SINCLAIR Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. Obviously, nothing happened in the 1982-83 financial year or I would not be making a complaint. In February 1984 Telecom wrote to the family again indicating that a radio telephone concentrator-yet another proposal-was to be established at Mt Wandera during the financial year and that it would enable the provision of a full telephone service. This information is set out in a letter from Telecom to the family dated 7 February 1984. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- TELECOM AUSTRALIA District Telecommunications Branch Wollongong Telephone 21 5111 Area Code 044...Nowra Business Office, Telex 26463...27 Kinghorne Street, Reference CFG/RVP...Nowra Postal Address: PO Box 533 Nowra, N.S.W. 2541 7 February 1984 F. Thompson Nerrigundah Dear Customer, Present plans provide for the establishment of a radio telephone concentrator at Mt Wandera this financial year. Following the installation of this equipment, it will be possible to provide you with an automatic telephone service and access to the Subscriber Trunk Dialling (S.T.D.) network. The policy with respect to the provision of rural lines provides for applicants for new automatic telephone services who are located within a radial distance of 16 kms from the nearest exchange to pay the Standard Connection Fee for a basic exchange line service. Applicants beyond 16 kms are required to pay a Rural Connection Fee in lieu of the Standard Connection Fee, currently $150.00. As your residence has been measured at more than 16 kms from the nearest exchange a Rural Connection Fee of $375.00 is payable. The normal rental of $115.00 per annum for a domestic service will apply. A list of ``Special Conditions'' applicable to telephone services provided by radio is attached which should be read before completing the enclosed application. Should you wish to proceed with a connection to the automatic system under the conditions outlined, please complete and indicate on the enclosed ``Application for a Telephone Service'' form, the Automatic Colorfone of your choice. This form may be returned in the ``Business'' envelope provided. Please note that only a standard telephone may be connected to your telephone service. Yours faithfully, C. F. GALE for Customer Service Manager, Nowra Senator PETER BAUME —I am grateful, Mr Deputy President. On 10 September 1984 another letter indicated that the final connection was expected within three months, that is some time during 1984. So that we can keep the story straight I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that letter. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- TELECOM AUSTRALIA District Telecommunications Branch Wollongong Telephone 21 5111 Area Code 044...Nowra Business Office, 27 Kinghorne Street, Nowra Postal Address P.O. Box 533 Nowra, N.S.W. 2541 10.9.84 Dear Sir, I refer to my letter of 7th February, 1984 in which you were quoted the connection fee payable for your telephone service. The enclosed quotation sets out the charges involved. In anticipation of your acceptance of the charges, and as final connection is expected within the next 3 months, instructions have been issued for the connection to proceed. If you: (a) decide not to proceed with your application, please advise the Telephone Business Office, Telephone-Nowra 044-21 5111 (Free Call). (b) wish to proceed, the ``Amount Now Required'' as indicated in the quotation should be forwarded to this office or paid at any Telecom Business Office. Cheques should be made payable toTelecom Australia. Any other form which has been enclosed with the quotation should be completed and returned. Yours faithfully, F. GALE for Customer Services Manager, Nowra Senator PETER BAUME —By October 1984, one month after the letter which I have just had incorporated was sent, Telecom was advising that the project was delayed because-I will give its reasons-the Jilliga repeater tower installation was held up awaiting an answer to a Telecom proposal from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It was held up because of duck shoving within the Public Service. Senator Kilgariff —How much did all that cost? Senator PETER BAUME —I do not know how much it cost but I know that almost seven years have passed since people who had very real reasons to need a telephone-reasons to do with health, particularly-used to have a service under a manual exchange. Then they did not have one at all. This matter was held up while Telecom worked out the interdepartmental problems. In December, I understand, the obstruction was overcome and, according to another letter dated 29 October 1984, the installation was scheduled for completion `by Christmas 1984 or shortly after'. At that stage Telecom sought payment from my constituents as the installation was seen to be imminent. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Telecom's letter of 29 October 1984. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Telecom Australia District Telecommunications Branch Wollongong Telephone 21 5111 Area Code 044...Nowra Business Office, Telex 26463...27 Kinghorne Street, Reference CFG/RVP...Nowra Postal Address PO Box 533 Nowra, N.S.W. 2541 29 October 1984 Mr F. Thomson ``Belowra'' via Bodalla, N.S.W. 2545 Dear Sir, I refer to your letter of 16 October 1984 concerning the installation of your telephone service. An accurate estimation of the date of connection cannot be given at present because of circumstances beyond our control. The Jillaga Radio Repeater Tower installation is held up awaiting an answer to a Telecom proposal from the National Park and Wildlife Service. On receipt of an answer from this Department, a better estimation of a likely connection date can be made. I will write to you as soon as further information is available. Yours faithfully, C. F. GALE for Customer Services Manager, Nowra Senator PETER BAUME —Of course, Mr Deputy President, nothing very much happened. In January 1985 the installation date was set back to March. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter of January 1985 from Telecom advising that Telecom expected to have the installation completed by March. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- TELCOM AUSTRALIA District Telecommunications Branch Wollongong Telephone 21 5111 Area Code 044...Nowra Business Office, Telex 26463...27 Kinghorne Street, Reference CFG/CF...Nowra Postal Address PO Box 533 Nowra, N.S.W. 2541 Mr F. Thomson...7 January 1985 ``Belowra'' Bodalla, N.S.W. 2545 Dear Sir, I refer to our letter of 4 December 1984 quoting the Rural Connection Fee and Rent in Advance for a telephone service to your premises at ``Belowra'' Via Bodalla. As Telecom now expects to have this installation completed by March this year it is imperative that we know your intentions regarding this matter. Should you have decided against proceeding with this installation, your early advice would allow the equipment to be diverted to another waiting applicant. If you wish to proceed, your early remittance of the quoted sum of $403.75 would be appreciated. Yours faithfully, C. F. GALE for Customer Services Manager, Nowra Senator PETER BAUME —So the saga goes on. In March 1985 telephone numbers were actually allocated and the installation should have been completed by March. The installation date was amended further to late May 1984. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the letter from Telecom of 1 March 1985 to my constituents advising of these matters. This is my last incorporation. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- TELECOM AUSTRALIA District Telecommunications Branch Wollongong Telephone 21 5111 Area Code 044...Nowra Business Office Telex 26463...27 Kinghorne Street, Reference CFG:JA...Nowra Postal Address PO Box 533 Nowra, N.S.W. 2541 1 March 1985 Mrs Y. Thomson ``Belowra'' via Bodalla 2545 Dear Madam, I refer to your letter of 12 January 1985 regarding your application for telephone service at the above address. Telephone number 77 9312 has been allocated to the service in the name of F. D. Thomson, and it is expected that installation will be completed in late May 1985. Installation work on the ``Jillaga'' concentrator has recommenced and should be finished at the same time. Telecom has already made a considerable outlay in both labour and capital cost toward this project, and although a definite completion date cannot be guaranteed because of the many factors involved which are beyond our control, I think it is not unreasonable to expect payment shortly now that final connection is expected within 3 months. Yours faithfully, C. F. GALE for Customer Services Manager, Nowra Senator PETER BAUME —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I visited Belowra in July. As I said, it is a very beautiful area. This part of the State I represent is extremely beautiful. It is always a great place to visit. The roads are terrible. One travels over bush tracks. The people live in a very remote state. They are about equidistant between Cooma and Bodalla. One would not think it was very far from anywhere but their children cannot go to normal schools; they are learning by correspondence. They do not know what they will do when their children, who are now nearing high school age, require schooling other than correspondence schooling. They still did not have their telephone service in July. It did not matter about the promises, it did not matter about the date, it did not matter about the fact that they had been asked for money and it did not matter that they had been given telephone numbers. They had been promised again and again and still the telephone was not there. The Thomsons at that stage had no idea when they could expect to be on the telephone again. Knowing their telephone number, we actually tried it this morning. I still do not know whether the service is connected. All I know is that the number is ringing but we cannot get an answer. When I visited them a month ago, they certainly were not on the telephone. This tale does nothing to enhance the reputation of Telecom as an efficient operator that delivers to its clients what it promises. I commend to Telecom that it examine this saga. Whatever else it does, it should understand that there are people in isolated pockets of my State and in many other States who are waiting for the rural and remote areas program to be more than just a section in a glossy report which we are to discuss this afternoon and to become a reality for them. Whatever else happens Telecom should get the people of this isolated valley and others like it on the telephone now without any more delay, without any more broken promises and without any more mucking around over dates of completion that never come to pass. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(1.03) —Water is a multi-use resource. National, State and local development is dependent upon water. This means that choices must be made about our management of the resources surrounding water. Water is used in mining, agriculture, tourism and in many other competing areas. Large developments are planned in the Darling Downs area and those underway at Roxby Downs and the Cooper Basin are causing concern about the use of artesian waters. Choices have to be made between the recreational use of rivers and the necessity to maintain vegetation and habitats for water fowl and fish. Such choices are not simple. These choices can be made sensibly if they are based upon proper management planning of the water resource itself. The River Murray flows for 2,350 kilometres. Whilst it is impossible to get exact figures, the total area irrigated in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia from the banks of the River Murray is of the order of 730,000 hectares. Different States have alternative uses for water resources. New South Wales and Victoria draw water from the River Murray to irrigate pastures and to grow cereal crops. They also use it for flooding in the red gum forests and as a means of creating wildlife sanctuaries. South Australia, on the other hand, is dependent upon the River Murray for up to 80 per cent of its surface water. In an average year the river supplies just under half of the State's total irrigation, and water for stock and domestic and industrial consumption. Ninety per cent of the Iron Triangle's water comes from the River Murray. The rest of South Australia's water comes from streams and ground water basins. We have an enormous problem in the management of this water resource in Australia. My own State is the driest State in the driest continent in this world and yet very little is said about water in our parliaments. I was fired into saying something yesterday in response to the report of the interim council of the Institute of Freshwater Studies. On consulting my files on this subject I found some very disturbing facts which could not be brought out in five minutes. The three States which were originally part of the Murray Valley management system have been quarrelling since 1880. Attempts by the Federal Government to end such disputes have been strongly resisted by both States and local governments alike in areas surrounding the river. Parochialism, convoluted legislation and fragmented administration have been the inevitable result of these quarrels. Consequently, the problems of water management have become far worse. Yet, there is widespread agreement in all parts of our society that something must be done. Consumers, governments, scientists and researchers, are all adamant that we must do something to rectify the lack of adequate water management. However, nothing of real consequence has followed, and the report which was tabled yesterday is exactly in line with this. It does nothing. It is about time we all faced the facts. The lack of a coherent and comprehensive water management program in this country is traceable to one source-the failure of Federal governments of all complexions to take decisive action. Federal governments, in the past and currently, have shied away from biting the bullet on this issue. Without exception, Federal governments have ducked any responsibility, preferring instead to allow the situation to worsen by allowing it to be handled on a local and parochial basis. The serious problems of salinity, land degradation, soil erosion and water-logging, have escalated alarmingly during the last few years, despite the admirable efforts of the River Murray Commission. The end result is that various States and local pressure groups are left bickering over an ever-diminishing resource. The costs of inaction are immeasurable. Hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural production are at stake. The estimates of the cost to find the solution to such problems involve quite large sums, but nothing in comparison to the types of losses which we would incur. The very latest figures for current salinity control plans for the River Murray are of the order of $50m to $60m. We should remember that this is only one of the problems facing our waterways. We have vast numbers of expert opinions on water. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation maintains that it has and will find the answers to the country's water needs. The Australian Water Resources Institute suggest that it is the body best suited to make decisions on our water resources. Tertiary institutions also claim jurisdiction in water matters. The Murray Valley League has held excellent seminars and written books and articles. It is continually pressing for more funds for water studies. I support its approach. I attended one of its conferences recently where I was very impressed with its knowledge of the problems of the river. But again, no solutions. The River Murray Commission has been pushing for water quality recently as well as quantity. The issue of quality has been ignored until two or three years ago. There is also a plethora of State agencies involved in water research. The average person could be well excused for believing that with all these resources, with all this `planning' and with such frequent discussions our water resources would be effectively managed. However, we still have this task ahead of us. I am not criticising the specific activities in which many of these organisations, research institutes and voluntary organisations are engaged; there just is not enough activity. It is a herculean task. With the best will in the world, there is little we can do to improve drastically this sorry state without some central co-ordinating body. This was proposed by Ralph Jacobi, in the other House, considered by the Senate and an interim council was set up for an Institute of Freshwater Studies. The proposed Institute was to have performed a number of these crucial functions. I say that it was to have performed them-it has never got off the ground. I do not know whether there is much in a name but we need something like an institute of freshwater studies, some central place where people can carry on multi-disciplinary research into the area of water management which includes many disciplines and activities-microbiology, fisheries, tourism, preservation of the banks of rivers and the management of aquifers in the artesian basin, to mention but a few. I earlier pointed out the problems in my own State with Roxby Downs using vast amounts of underground water in its mining operations. Many other mining companies do the same. We do not have any proper control over the use of water. The Rivery Murray is reasonably well handled by the River Murray Commission. But the artesian basin is left pretty well to the mercies of commercial interests. Senator Peter Baume —You will need a lot of resources. Do you think government should provide them all? Senator VIGOR —I think that government and private industry can supply the resources which are necessary to do this. But I believe that the proposed cost of the Institute of Freshwater Studies was very small compared to the losses which will be incurred if we do not have such an institution. The proposed Australian Institute of Freshwater Studies, it must be stressed, was not an attempt to undermine the States water responsibilities. Instead, it simply attempted to boost Federal involvement in this area. Its suggested positioning was in the Renmark-Mildura area, close to both parts of the artesian basin and in the River Murray basin. It would actually bring some industry to that area which is suffering currently from many problems, a number of them due to salinity. I bring to the notice of the Senate the fact that neither of the major parties seems to have taken this issue as seriously as I would like them to. Both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party said in the past that they wholeheartedly supported the need for better water management. John Kerin, speaking in another place, on 4 June 1981 said: I fully support my colleague, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), in putting forward his proposal for the establishment of an Australian Institute of Freshwater Studies, and I congratulate him for the speech he has made and the arguments he has used. The case he has made is one that deliberately avoids party politics and wrangling and seeks a solution to one of Australia's most important problems. I would like the Senate to think about those words for a moment. For once party politics were put aside for the good of our nation. I believe we need to do that now. Following in the same footsteps, Malcolm Fraser told his electorate, on 22 November in the same year, of his Government's commitment to ascertaining Australia's water resource needs to the year 2000. In fact, nothing has happened from either of those two commitments. I would like to act somewhat as a conscience to get us back again on the course of considering, on a tripartisan basis, this issue which is vital to the survival of Australia and to the development of a better future for all of us. I point to what is happening overseas. The most glaring omission in Australia is that we do not have a national body which formulates guidelines for the future development of water resources. In this we badly lag behind other countries. Canada, Hungary, Holland, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have national organisations which co-ordinate all their water resources, and yet they do not have the problems that we have. Such bodies undertake research, determine water quality standards and regulate the usage of water. They also `plan'-a word which we seem to use very loosely-in the context of future water resource strategies. Currently, the management of our water resources is fragmented, narrow, haphazard and unco-ordinated. The ramifications will be catastrophic if this does not change soon. Every time we have a drought, there is a panic. We have no planning for drought mitigation that I know of. I would be delighted if the Government, or anybody, could tell me what is being done to solve, or at least to lessen the effects of, the next drought. It is as inevitable as night following day that we will again be subject to drought. We are in an unusual period right now. No area of Australia has been declared a drought area, so we sit back and feel good. The no-drought situation has happened only in the last five weeks. For many years previously there was hardly any time when no place in Australia was affected by drought. We must stop the constant squabbling and bickering amongst all the research organisations and other organisations associated with water jurisdiction. Our water resources are for all Australians. Water is inescapably linked to our economic, social and environmental needs and future. It must be used wisely. The Government must realise this. A government which spends $30m on the Americas Cup should be able to find $5m for research into our most vital and scarce resource, fresh water, and to provide some type of body to co-ordinate its research. The Government's proposals for the taxation Summit included a proposal to cut soil and water conservation concessions to our rural industries, yet we are giving tax cuts to the horse and dog racing industries. It's priorities are wrong. I recommend to the Senate that it take up this issue as soon as possible to get our water resources properly managed at a Federal level and in the best way for the Australian people. Sitting suspended from 1.18 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I address my question to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the Minister's answer yesterday to the question I asked about the centrally important issue of discounting wages for any devaluation-induced rises in the consumer price index. The Minister will recall saying that if compensation for that component was deferred at the September and March wage cases it could be made up within 12 months. Has the Minister seen reports this morning indicating that `Government sources' or `other Ministers' reject this view? I now ask the Minister: Did the answer he gave yesterday represent Government policy, as he claimed, or was it a personal opinion not endorsed by Cabinet? Senator WALSH —I do not have the Hansard report with me but I did not say that it would be made up within 12 months. I said that it would be deferred for a period until it could be absorbed and that that might be about 12 months due to productivity increases. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask the Minister to address himself to that part of the question where I asked whether this was a personal view or whether the answer he gave yesterday, which he has explained today, is in fact Government policy? Senator WALSH —Government policy has been stated here by me-it has been stated by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and I think the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations as well-and that is that the Government will seek discounting of that component of the CPI increase attributable to devaluation of the dollar in the September and March hearings but that in the long term real wages would be maintained. What that longer term is nobody at this stage can accurately predict. Nobody to my knowledge has attempted to accurately predict it. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, refers to the family income supplement. Is the Minister aware that there are still many low income families unaware of the family income supplement? Is there at present any new initiative within the Department of Social Security to alert more low income families of the financial assistance available to them? Has any consideration been given to co-ordinating an information program with State housing authorities whereby families receiving rental assistance can receive notice of the supplement? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Elstob says, the family income supplement take-up rate has been low. It has been low ever since the scheme was introduced. This has been worrying to the Government. It worried me when I was Minister for Social Security and it is now worrying Mr Howe. It seems that schemes such as this always suffer from this difficulty. The take-up rate is low, first of all, because of inadequacy of information. Secondly, I suppose some people are a bit put off by the paperwork or the necessity to give information under these circumstances. I recall that last year the Government tried to provide more information at the work place by means, I believe, of publicity through trade unions. It also tried to provide publicity at places where people meet frequently. I think that an attempt was made to do this at neighbourhood houses, et cetera. I do not know what has happened in recent times. I will certainly find out for the honourable senator. However, certainly his idea of a co-ordinated approach, using the communication facilities of housing authorities, seems to me to be a very sensible one. I will let Senator Elstob know when I have communicated with the Minister for Social Security. Senator BROWNHILL —I refer the Minister for Finance to the comment by Mr Simon Crean of the Australian Council of Trade Unions that for the sake of discounting wages by `a miserable 0.5 per cent of 0.8 per cent' the Government risked destroying the prices and incomes accord. Has the Minister also noted the comments of Mr Harry Quinn of the Transport Workers Union and Mr Jack Kidd of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union that neither of their unions would accept less than full indexation at the wage case hearings? Given the apparently unanimous view in this Parliament that discounting is fundamental if Australia is to gain the benefits of the devaluation, will the Government argue for full discounting even if it is unable to get agreement from the ACTU? Senator WALSH —A fair measure of the desperation of members of the Opposition as they attempt to make some political headway against the best Budget which has been brought down in this country for decades is that they spend half their time saying that this Government is a prisoner of the ACTU and the other half saying that the ACTU does not agree with the Government, or at least one or two people in the ACTU do not agree with the Government. The Government policy and the submission which the Government will put to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has been clearly stated, as I have already said today and as a large number of other people have said at different times and in different places. The ultimate decision on the indexation adjustment or the indexation figure which flows on in the September national wage case will be decided by the Commission. Senator BROWNHILL —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I do not think I got the answer to my question-that is, if he is unable to get the agreement from the ACTU. The PRESIDENT —What is the supplementary question? Senator BROWNHILL —My question ended with the words `if the Government is unable to get agreement from the ACTU'. I ask that question again. The PRESIDENT —If the Minister can answer that supplementary question, he may do so. Senator WALSH —Mr President, I am not sure that the question asked by the honourable senator was in the form of a sentence. Perhaps I can make an inspired guess as to the meaning. The case which the Government will put to the Commission has been decided and has been stated many times by many people. The ultimate decision will be a decision of the Commission and not of either the Government or the ACTU. Senator ZAKHAROV —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Considerable concern has been expressed by sections of the ex-service community about the impact on war widows of the 14 May economic statement and the Veterans' Entitlements Bill now before the Parliament. Can the Minister reassure the veteran community that changes to be announced are of minimal impact and will enable the Government to improve pensions and services now provided? Senator GIETZELT —The 14 May statement very clearly expressed the view, as have the Prime Minister and I on many occasions, that no existing war widow will be affected by that statement or by any proposed legislation, including the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. However, some concern has been raised that the introduction of the 40-year rule will in some way impede or debar from entitlement to a war widow's pension the widows of veterans who subsequently die. Firstly, I want to state quite categorically that the widows of totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners will automatically get their war widow's pension on the death of veterans. In the case of a veteran in receipt of a disability pension who dies as a result of an accepted service related cause, the widow will also automatically get the war widow's pension. For example, if someone in receipt of a 20 per cent disability pension dies from an accepted disability condition such as emphysema, that person's widow automatically is entitled to the war widow's pension. However, in the case of a person who dies 40 years after his period of service from a disability which is not already accepted as being war caused, the widow has the opportunity of using the veterans' determining system-that is, the single determining officer and a Veterans Review Board-to test the claim on the basis of the civil standard of proof. I want to stress that the legal opinion given to me, in response to the reaction that has taken place following the general review of war veterans' entitlements, substantiates the view that the Government had on 14 May-that the onus of proof will not be placed upon those applying for a war widow's pension or a general disability pension. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to reports last week of the smashing of a large and well organised drug ring by Australian Federal Police, with some assistance from the Australian Customs officers, resulting in the arrest of over 30 people around Australia, including a prominent Sydney doctor and a prominent Sydney solicitor. In view of the obviously complex nature of the investigation leading to the arrests, I ask the Minister: Was the material on which the investigations and arrests were based, referred onto the National Crime Authority by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union? What action was taken by the National Crime Authority on the referral? Senator BUTTON —I am able to say that last week's announcement by the Federal Police and the charges which have been laid are a result of months of investigative work by the Australian Federal Police. The result so far has been the arrest of some 30 people suspected of being connected with a well organised drug ring in Australia. The drug syndicate is suspected of being involved in the importation into Australia of more than $40m worth of hashish. I know that in the Press other figures have been placed on the value of the drugs concerned. There is a likelihood of a connection with an international terrorist organisation. I should say that the events of last week are a credit to those involved in tracking down the people engaged in this drug ring. In respect of the other parts of the question, yes, the matter was, as I understand it, investigated by the Costigan Royal Commission and was referred-- Senator Peter Baume —To be fair, it is an alleged drug ring at this stage. They have not come to trial yet. Senator BUTTON —I did not say that. Senator Peter Baume —You said `a drug ring'. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is answering the question. Senator BUTTON —Yes, the matter was investigated at some length by the Costigan Royal Commission. I understand it was a reference to the National Crime Authority. I am unable to say what the National Crime Authority has done in respect of that reference. I think it is a matter which the parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority would appropriately examine. Senator Chipp —Does that mean it has done nothing? Senator BUTTON —I am not able to say that. Senator Chipp —You ought to be able to. Senator BUTTON —I think that is a matter which the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority would probably wish to look at. Senator Chipp —How long has it had to look at it? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to tell Senator Chipp exactly that but of course that matter has been with the National Crime Authority since that Authority was established. It is clear, however, that the investigation and the results of the investigation, which were publicised last week, have been a result of a long-standing effort by the Federal Police. As I have said, I am unable to say what the National Crime Authority did with the reference, but the parliamentary Joint Committee may well look into that matter. Senator SIDDONS —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Can we get any assurance from the honourable senator that the parliamentary Joint Committee will be given the reference and will report on the matter forthwith? Senator BUTTON —I am not sure-I will certainly find out-whether it is an appropriate matter for me to refer to that Committee. It ought to be alert to what I have said today, I assume. There are members of that Committee in the Senate. Senator Missen, who is a member of that Committee, is nodding his head. Undoubtedly the Committee has been alerted by this answer. To that extent, Senator Siddons's question has made a very pertinent point for the members of that Committee. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Without making the obvious preface to my question I would like to know whether the Government no longer supports the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General, under the mandate of the 1982 General Assembly resolution, to consult with all parties to find a solution to the Timor question. If not, does the Government believe that a just and lasting solution will be achieved in this process without the involvement and agreement of the East Timorese, including the Fretilin? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand that the Portuguese Ambassador has today suggested on the Australian media that the Prime Minister's statement of 25 July has undermined Portugal's efforts to reach a settlement of the problem of East Timor with Indonesia. No doubt that, amongst other things, has stimulated Senator McIntosh's question. I simply make the point in answering him on behalf of the Foreign Minister that the legal fact that Australia has since 1979 recognised Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor has not previously hindered either our ability or Portuguese ability to seek a settlement of this problem. The Government sees no reason why a statement of that legal fact now should in any way change the situation. In other words, it is still possible for active negotiations of the kind which are sought to be advanced under the umbrella of the United Nations to occur. Perhaps I should supplement that answer, in anticipation of possibly further questions on this matter, by saying that the Prime Minister did state in a radio interview on 25 July that `we recognise the sovereign authority of Indonesia' over East Timor. In December 1978 the then Foreign Minister, Andrew Peacock, stated that Australia would recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. That de jure recognition took effect in 1979. It has not been revoked by any subsequent government. The recognition of the fact of Indonesian control over East Timor has been repeatedly demonstrated over the last several years. Australian delegations, including parliamentary delegations, have obtained Indonesian permission to visit East Timor and so have representatives of the Australian media. The Australian Government has pursued human rights and aid issues in East Timor through the Indonesian Government. The very important family reunion program from East Timor was agreed with the Indonesian Government. The negotiations between Australia and Indonesia over the unresolved seabed boundary adjacent to East Timor have continued with the Indonesian Government. These negotiations, whose successful conclusion is of importance to Australia, can in practice only be conducted with the Indonesian Government. Of course the Government has, however, expressed to Indonesia on a number of occasions its concern at the way East Timor was incorporated. It has raised and will continue to raise the question of human rights in East Timor. It has sought free access for the media, international organisations and aid workers to East Timor and it has-I conclude my answer as I begun-supported international initiatives to settle the Timor problem, including extensive discussions with the United Nations Secretary-General, Indonesia and Portugal. Senator McINTOSH —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The latter part of my question asked: Does the Government believe that a just and lasting solution will be achieved in this process-without the agreement of the East Timorese, the people who are most affected? After all, the Secretary-General has been charged with the responsibility to discuss with all parties. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing to add to my previous answer but I will refer the honourable senator's supplementary question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to see whether he wishes to add anything. Senator PETER RAE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister agree that should wage discounting not be accepted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at the next two wage case hearings the Government's only real option will be a tighter monetary policy leading to higher interest rates and even more unemployment? Will the Minister ensure that the inevitable result of failing to discount will be fully and forcefully explained to the Australian Council of Trade Unions when it meets with the Government prior to the September hearing of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether I will be directly involved in any such meeting with the ACTU, so I cannot guarantee that that suggestion will be forcefully put to the ACTU. But I will certainly pass that on to the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and Mr Willis, who I expect will all be directly involved. If the Commission rules that there should be no discounting for the devaluation induced component of the consumer price index increase, it can be expected that the rate of inflation in this year and in the year after will be somewhat higher than it would otherwise have been. Indeed, as I said yesterday, the inflation forecast built into the Budget Papers does assume that there will be no discounting. The Government had to make a somewhat arbitrary decision, if you like, as to whether it would write in that figure or alternatively, a discounted figure. At the very worst, if there is no discounting the rate of inflation could not be expected to exceed that forecast in the Budget; that is, for June 1986 or June 1985 I think the figure was 8 per cent which, I might add, is very much below the 11 1/2 per cent inflation rate which prevailed when this Government came into office and lower than the inflation rate in all but one of the seven years in which the previous Government was in office. For all but one of the seven years and three months that the discredited former Government was in office Australia's inflation rate was higher than the worst likely outcome for this Budget. These things should be seen in proportion. At the worst, the record that this Government is likely to establish in this financial year will be better than the record of the Fraser Government in six of the seven years that it was in office. I do not think that the hypothesis which Senator Rae put up is the only option. If the Arbitration Commission makes a decision not to discount, obviously that is something which the Government will have to review. One thing that I do not believe this Government will do is fall into the futile trap that the previous Government fell into and adopt a sterile policy of doing nothing but screwing down economic growth in order to attempt to contain inflation. In the end, of course, it is a matter of record that the discredited former Government failed miserably to achieve either of those objectives. It screwed down economic growth in an attempt to control inflation. It ended up killing economic growth all right but it did not control inflation. This Government has both accelerated the rate of economic growth and reduced the rate of inflation. Senator PETER RAE —I ask a supplementary question of the Minister. I asked: `Was not the only real option a tighter monetary policy leading to higher interest rates and unemployment'? Is it not a fact that at the moment the Government is engaging in tight monetary policy which is forcing up interest rates to the highest level of real interest rates that this country has ever experienced as a nation? Is it not a fact that that is already the precedent set by this Government? Senator WALSH —I am trying to remember what the interest rate was in the desperate dying days of the Fraser Government. About six months before that discredited Government was swept from office, short term interest rates hit 20 per cent; that is, almost double both the inflation rate and the unemployment rate over which the previous Government presided. It is the Government's view, and it has been stated very firmly, that the interests of the economy and the nation as a whole would be best served if the devaluation induced component of the consumer price index were discounted from the wages increase in the next national wage case. Even if that does not occur it does not necessarily mean, as Senator Rae seems to assume, that there will be, for all time, a higher rate of inflation. Even if the Government's argument is not accepted by the Commission there will be, in time, because of productivity growth, no increase in real labour unit costs. I am afraid that I do not have the precise reference here, but somewhere in Budget Paper No. 1 there is a table which sets out, over the previous 14 years, average real unit labour costs; that is, labour costs adjusted for both inflation and productivity gain. At present that real unit labour unit cost index is below 100-the base was the period 1966-67 to 1972-73-and is lower than it was in the entire period that the previous Government was in office. The PRESIDENT —I do not wish to detract from the right of honourable senators to ask supplementary questions, but I point out that of seven questions asked so far in this Question Time five have had supplementary questions and answers thereto. This does consume a lot of time. I merely mention the matter and draw it to the attention of honourable senators. Senator FOREMAN —My question is to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the $4.9 billion deficit in the Budget and the 1.3 per cent real growth in government spending. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the benefits this restraint can be expected to bring to Australians? Senator WALSH —I think the benefits that Australians can expect from the Budget will be sustained high economic growth and, as a corollary of that, a further reduction in the level of unemployment which, at just above 8 per cent at present, is higher than anybody would like it to be. However, it should be noted that it is appreciably lower than the 10 1/2 per cent unemployment rate which this Government inherited from our discredited predecessors. As a result of the very large reduction in the Budget deficit in real terms-a fall of 34 per cent, or 36 per cent as a proportion of gross domestic product, if one wishes to put it that way-obviously there will be substantially less pressure on financial markets and interest rates arising from the government sector. The reduction in the deficit has been achieved by a combination of expenditure restraint and the automatic benefits from both expenditure and revenue that flow from the sustained higher growth rate. It is a matter of record that the Opposition continually calls for large reductions in government expenditure and always declines to name the areas in which the reductions should be made. I have noted that at its last meeting the Federal Council of the Liberal Party, carried a motion calling for a 4 per cent reduction, as a proportion of GDP, in government outlays, which amounts to about $9 billion. I have written to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer inviting them to nominate where the $9 billion should be cut from the 1984-85 expenditure figures. They have not responded and I do not expect they will. I notice that the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 August stated, in the context of the Liberal Party's call for a reduction in outlays of 4 per cent of GDP, or $9 billion: The Deputy Opposition Leader said he and Mr Peacock did not support the resolution when it was raised at the meeting but neither did they oppose it. So it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer has a similar view on government expenditure to his view on changes in the Liberal Party leadership; that is, he is neither for it nor against it. Senator VANSTONE —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask him whether he accepts the view put by the Confederation of Australian Industry in its April review that: `It is dangerous in the extreme for an economy to attempt to distribute past productivity growth' and `Any attempt to do so leads to a slowing of economic activity'? If so, will he resist the suggestion put forward by the Minister for Finance yesterday that deferral of wage rises as a result of devaluation could be made up within 12 months from productivity gains? I ask the Leader to bear in mind in his answer that the Minister for Finance has already said that he did not say `made up'; he said `absorbed'. Will the Leader answer the question as to whether he will resist any suggestion that deferral of wage rises as a result of devaluation could be made up within 12 months from productivity gains? Senator BUTTON —The question comes in three parts. The answer to each part is no. Senator COOK —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to claims published by way of advertisements and copy in major newspapers today that `Australia is going broke'? Can the Minister see any truth in these extravagant claims? Senator WALSH —I have noted the advertisement and read most of it. Mr Leard, who inserted the advertisement, has one valid point, that is, the size of Australia's current account deficit is either an actual or a potential problem. In the period of the discredited former Government Australia began incurring current account deficits of the order of 5 per cent of gross domestic product. That has continued to the present but it is anticipated there will be a substantial decline in the current account deficit as a proportion of GDP in this year due largely to the floating of the Australian dollar and its more recent devaluation. However, the remaining text of Mr Leard's advertisement is riddled with errors. For a start, he asserts that `governments have run up on our behalf' almost $70 billion of the foreign debt currently owed. That statement is quite wrong. In fact total external debt owed by governments and publicly guaranteed-that is, State and Federal governments and their statutory authorities guarantee debts owed externally-amounts to $26 billion, not $70 billion, of which slightly less than half is Commonwealth Government debt owed externally. Moreover, the $70 billion-which is in fact $64.5 billion in round figures-is a gross figure making no allowance for Australian holdings of foreign currency reserves. When that figure has been deducted our net indebtedness is $52 billion. I am certainly not saying that that does not pose actual or potential problems. However, of the gross indebtedness $42 billion is owed by the private sector-not by governments in total as Mr Leard's advertisement asserts-and, of course, almost all of the official reserve assets and most of the other foreign assets held in Australia are held by governments. On a gross basis, only $26 billion of the $68 billion is owed by governments; the net figure is a good deal less than that. Mr Leard has claimed in the advertisement that gross foreign debt represents `nearly $15,000 for every Australia family' and asserts that this is: . . . in addition to our own family debts and mortgages. In making that statement he fails to make the important qualitative distinction between whether the debt is public or private, owed overseas or in Australia. The servicing of domestic debt represents a transfer payment, whether it be public or private, and not a leakage from the economy. For the benefit of honourable senators later, the figures I have quoted on debt can be found on page 65 of Budget Paper No. 1. I think it is unfortunate that such a highly misleading advertisement was inserted in a newspaper in the first place because it discredits, and diverts attention from the extent to which we have a real problem with foreign indebtedness, albeit most of it, of course, being private indebtedness, not government indebtedness. If that is to be taken as an indication, it is probably fortunate that Mr Leard is a retired businessman because it is chilling to think that major decisions would continue to be made by somebody who, apparently, cannot understand the difference between public and private debt or domestic and foreign debt. Senator JESSOP —Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted the growing scepticism of business leaders as the full implications of Tuesday night's Budget are clarified and understood? In particular, has he seen the comment by the Chief Executive of Sunbeam Corporation Ltd, Mr Kevin Cashman, that there was nothing in the Budget which makes us more competitive? I remind Senator Button that this is the man he appointed to head a Government inquiry into computer-aided manufacturing and therefore his credibility must be undoubted. Senator Aulich —Get on with the question. Senator JESSOP —I will get on- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Jessop, will you ask your question? Senator JESSOP —Having regard to the importance of private sector investment for achieving the Government's growth target, does the Minister now agree that it is essential to avoid new tax proposals which will be seen as anti-business and that, in particular, a capital gains tax and the proposed fringe benefit tax on employers should not proceed? Senator BUTTON —Senator Jessop's question has been orchestrated by a series of adulatory remarks of `good question'. If that is a good question I am very grateful because we on this side of the chamber will not have very much to worry about for a very long time. I am asked, first of all, whether I have seen signs of growing scepticism amongst the business community as the full impact of the Budget is absorbed by people. Like everybody else, I read the newspapers. I do not regard newspapers as the best and most relevant factor in the scepticism filter which one might wish to run over a lot of comments. I am asked whether I have seen the comments of Mr Kevin Cashman, whom the honourable senator described as being a person of high credibility. It is a description with which I totally agree. Mr Cashman runs an innovative and successful business and that is very much to his credit. According to Senator Jessop, he is alleged to have said that there is nothing in the Budget which has made us more competitive. That does not surprise me. If honourable senators look back over many Budgets they will probably see that, if one makes a pronouncement about it within 24 or 48 hours after it has been brought down, there is nothing in it which necessarily makes us more competitive. I take no objection to Mr Cashman's statement. This Government has done a lot of other things which have helped to make industry much more competitive and the honourable senator is very well aware of that. For example, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Australia Bank Quarterly Survey of Business Conditions which was published recently gave some indications of the sorts of things which Mr Cashman, and hopefully Senator Jessop, might be looking for. In that survey, of the respondents asked, 8 per cent expected lower labour costs in the next quarter, 48 per cent expected labour costs to remain unchanged and 43 per cent expected higher labour costs. On the question of profitability, 51 per cent of respondents said that the levels of profitability were satisfactory, 31 per cent were not satisfied and 16 per cent anticipated profitability being good. I will explain those figures. If one asks businessmen whether their levels of profitability are satisfactory most are not likely to say yes, particularly as they have grown up in the environment of and have developed their businesses in this country under years of Liberal Party government. That is not a bad answer in terms of their anticipations about profitability. Seventy-three per cent expressed the view that there would be a satisfactory supply of labour; 69 per cent said that they took the view that employment levels would be unchanged; 17 per cent expected higher levels of employment. So it went on. We could go through any of those surveys. It might be a very good thing if Senator Jessop did that at some stage. He will find, for example, that results for the last 12 months are totally consistent with the trends revealed in that survey. Finally, I was asked, on the basis of Senator Jessop's subjective view of the world, whether it is essential to avoid any new tax impositions on business. My answer to that question is no. It is not essential in the current climate to avoid any new tax impositions on business. What is of the utmost importance is that the taxation package announced by the Government is relevant to and supportive of business growth. There may be all sorts of subjective views as to what that may mean. As far as I am concerned, I will do everything I can, and the Government will do everything it can, to ensure that the taxation package is helpful towards containing and improving the environment for economic business growth which this Government has established since it came to office. Senator Chaney —Containing and improving? Senator BUTTON —Probably I misused a word there. Senator Chaney has made a devastating assault on my accuracy in these matters. I think that Senator Jessop, if he cogitates about what I said, will slowly understand what I mean. Of course, what this Government is concerned to do, whether it be in respect of the taxation package or the encouragement of improved conditions for business generally, is to avoid what Mr Jim Carlton described quite recently in a speech as `the trends of the last 50 years towards bureaucracy, corporatism and imprisonment of the human spirit'. What Mr Carlton did not mention in that speech was that there were Liberal Party governments for 42 of those 50 years. Senator CHILDS —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to his calls earlier this year to veterans and veterans' organisations publicly to oppose demands by powerful vested interests for savage cuts in public spending in order to accommodate an unrealistic reduction in the Budget deficit. In particular, did he refer to the Business Council of Australia and its call for cuts in veterans administration? Is the Business Council of Australia correct in its denial of ever having made such a demand? Senator GIETZELT —Since the Hawke Labor Government came to office a consistent demand has been made of it by Liberal Party spokesmen, particularly Mr Peacock and Mr Howard, for cuts in government spending and expenditure restraint. That has been echoed to a great extent by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia. Of course, as Ministers, we have to take those matters into account when demands are made for cuts in the deficit and in government spending. Therefore, when I addressed the national conference of the Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-servicemen and Women in Canberra earlier this year I drew attention to the persistent claims made on the Government to reduce expenditure. That organisation then wrote to the Business Council of Australia repeating my remarks that that organisation had insisted that there were considerable savings to be made in Defence and Veterans' Affairs administration. Mr White of the Business Council of Australia subsequently denied that the Council had made demands for cuts in Veterans' Affairs spending. At the ex-service summit which I attended in Canberra a month ago and at which all the veterans organisations were represented I was challenged to produce proof. I then referred to a document put out by the Business Council of Australia which stated: With political will considerable savings could be found in defence and veterans administration. In reply to the veterans' organisations Mr White denied that the Council had made such claims. Of course, now he has been placed on the defensive he claims that he was speaking about the administration costs in respect of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I inform Senator Childs that the administration costs of my Department are something like 3 per cent of its total expenditure. When one looks at the organisation within the Department of Veterans' Affairs and sees that there are 12,000 personnel operating in six States, including those conducting the Defence Service Homes Corporation and the repatriation hospitals, it can be seen that any suggestion that the Business Council of Australia was referring only to administrative costs is begging the question. Some people might put it more strongly than that. However, it is pretty clear that the Business Council of Australia was in fact calling for further cuts in the pension and entitlement areas in my Department. The Council ought to have the honesty to stand up and say so. Senator SHEIL —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate why foreign aid of over $8.5m in 1985-86 is to be given by the Hawke Government via the United Nations to the Government of Vietnam in addition to a projected subsidy of $300,000 in non-government aid while Vietnam continues its illegal occupation of Laos and Cambodia and continues to kill Cambodian patriots? Will the Minister deny that our Foreign Minister has assumed the role of Hanoi's chief apologist, despite the concern conveyed by both that the Malaysian and Indonesian governments and despite the fact that the Vietnamese army has now expanded to become the third largest in the world and threatens the security of South East Asia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I certainly do not accept the crude and vulgar description of our Foreign Minister just advanced by the honourable senator opposite. The reality of the matter is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been playing-and has been acknowledged to be playing-a thoroughly constructive and useful role with the other countries of South East Asia in helping to resolve what is manifestly an extremely difficult, sensitive and intractable problem. To the extent that a specific question has been asked about our aid policy in relation to Vietnam I will seek a specific answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and ensure that Senator Sheil gets it at an early opportunity. Senator VALLENTINE —I address my question to the Minister representing the Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs. I direct the Minister's attention to a statement made this morning at the Australian National University Conference on the Future of Arms Control by Andrew Mack- Senator Tate —We were all here at work. Senator VALLENTINE —Former Senior Research Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, and now the newly appointed Director of the Peace Studies Centre at ANU which is funded by the Australian Government. Dr Mack stated: The DSP system at Nurrungar has been officially described as . . . a key element in the world wide military command and control system, and the only space system which is . . . tied formally into the United States (nuclear) warfighting structure. He was quoting from a statement by General James Hartinger, Commander of the United States Air Force Space Command. In light of that statement I ask, two questions: First, why does this Government not reveal quite frankly to the Australian people all the functions of the Nurrungar facility? Secondly, how does the Government reconcile its support for the comprehensive test ban treaty, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the provision of facilities which tend to undermine the very bases of those treaties? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not hear what Andrew Mack had to say at the ANU this morning for the reason, as Senator Tate said by way of interjection, that `we were here at work' while Dr Mack was engaged in speculating, as is his wont. As to the general subject of Nurrungar, I can say that the Government is satisfied that it has been kept informed and properly consulted about United States plans for Nurrungar and any proposed changes affecting the functions or purposes of that station do require our agreement. We are satisfied that the operations of the Nurrungar station are in accord with the agreed arrangements between Australia and the United States and that those operations support the security of Australia and the United States. Australian personnel are fully integrated, as is well known, into the operation of the station with standing requirements that there be at least one Australian Service officer on each shift crew in the operations room. At present three of the four shift directors are Australian officers. The general contribution of Nurrungar and the other joint facilities to Australia's perception of world strategic necessities has been made the subject of numerous previous contributions in this place. No doubt I will find further opportunities, with Senator Vallentine's presence in this chamber, to debate with her at more length than I am properly entitled to today the justification for those facilities. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer him to the Budget figures that reveal a 10 per cent or 1,600 cut in naval personnel under only three Hawke Government Budgets because of its destruction of the Fleet Air Arm's fixed wing component and the reversal of the previous Government's policy to replace the aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne. As the number of naval personnel has now fallen to only 15,500, the lowest level for 20 years, will the Minister inform the Senate of the level to which the Royal Australian Navy's strength is to be reduced under this Government's present policies? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry to let the honourable senator's maiden question go through to the keeper, but in this instance I think discretion would be the better part of valour. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. Has she seen the Press report in yesterday's Courier-Mail which states that capital works in Queensland universities have been cut for the second year in a row? Is this an accurate report? Senator RYAN —I thank the honourable senator for his question because as he is a new senator he has not been exposed- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! It is Senator Morris's first question. He is entitled to hear the answer. Senator RYAN —Senator Morris's question has caused quite a furore amongst Opposition members. As Senator Morris unfortunately will learn when he has been in this place for some time, the Queensland media seems to persist in reporting very inaccurate claims about funding for education in Queensland. I have often had cause in this place to correct misrepresentations made by the State Minister and other persons in Queensland about the level of funding going into Queensland higher education in particular. In fact, there will be not a cut but an increase for higher education capital funding in Queensland this year. The Government has so far decided only on global increases in funding for the higer education sector for 1986 and 1987. The final decisions on the allocation of these extra funds between States and sectors will be made only after the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission reports in September 1985. The Government has focused its plans on the higher education sector in general and substantial growth has been approved. The Budget papers reveal that for 1985-86 Queensland higher education institutions, that is, both universities and colleges of advanced education, will receive increased capital grants from the Commonwealth of 22.4 per cent on 1984-85 levels-a substantial increase in real terms. In technical and further education, the Budget papers show that capital grants to Queensland in 1985-86 will increase by about 11.3 per cent on 1984-85. In terms of total grants to higher education, that is, recurrent and capital, Queensland will receive a funding increase of 9.3 per cent in 1985-86 on 1984-85 levels compared with the six-State average increase of 7.4 per cent. In conclusion, I am very pleased that we are able to make this contribution to higher education and to technical and further education in Queensland because after years of undoubted neglect by its State Government, when the State Government had responsibility for higher education, it has fallen behind other States. We are very pleased to be able to overcome that backlog by giving an increased proportion of tertiary funds to higher education and TAFE in Queensland. However, it is a bit hard to take when we go to these lengths to increase the level of higher education funding in Queensland and are then accused of reducing it. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the paper from which she quoted. Senator RYAN —I table the paper. Senator TEAGUE —I ask the Minister for Education about her support for her ministerial colleagues in matters of education for which she is responsible. First, will the Minister recount the circumstances in which she failed to maintain the Cabinet approved staff ceilings in the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority? Was the Minister for Finance justified in his reprimand of her? Secondly, will the Minister recount the circumstances in which the Minister for Trade broke through a union imposed picket line to help his child attend school? Did the Minister for Education support the Minister for Trade in this action and did she facilitate this attendance at school? Senator RYAN —I suggest that if Senator Teague has a real interest in Australian Capital Territory education matters he ought to find better sources than those on which he has obviously drawn heavily. I refer to Richard Farmer, a writer for the Bulletin, who consistently writes in a very biased way about Australian Capital Territory education matters. If Senator Teague is interested in the details of staffing levels within the Australian Capital Territory school system, both before and after the May economic statement, he is perfectly welcome to be briefed by officers of the Schools Authority and to discover these matters for himself. The fact is that there was a reduction in the overall level of staffing that prevailed in May, according to a formula that had been previously determined. Now that the August Budget has been brought in, it is clear that, despite the reduction in the formula announced in May, there will actually be a greater number of teachers in the Australian Capital Territory school system for the 1986 year than there is this year-in the vivinity of 70 or 72 more teachers. The number cannot be stated precisely because the number of teachers is pupil generated and, depending on the number of enrolments, there will be over 70 more teachers-a net increase. So that is actually good news for those of us who have a serious interest in the Australian Capital Territory. In respect of Senator Teague's other question I have no comment. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. I take it that the Minister feels that the Minister for Finance was not justified in his reprimand of her. I also take it from her answer that she did facilitate the Minister for Trade. Senator RYAN —I pointed out to Senator Teague that he should not believe everything he reads in the Bulletin. In respect of the other matter, the person involved has made it quite clear that he was acting as a parent on that occasion and not as my ministerial colleague. Senator AULICH —I refer the Minister for Education to an article in today's Melbourne Sun in which the Australian Teachers Federation states that the Government has not tried to increase retention rates for years 11 and 12 beyond the figure of 34 per cent. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether this is the case? Senator RYAN —I am surprised by that report because it is wrong. I would be surprised if the Australian Teachers Federation made such a claim because, like all other education bodies in Australia, the ATF is well aware that it has been our Government's policy to increase retention rates in the last two years of schooling. We have pursued this in a number of ways-by extra funding under the participation and equity program, by instituting a method of per capita recurrent grants for children enrolled in state schools, which means that with every additional enrolment there is an extra grant from the Government, and by placing an improved retention rate as one of our highest priorities. For example, we accepted the Karmel Quality of Education Review Committee report that improved retention rates in years 11 and 12 should be one of the four national priorities to which extra Commonwealth funds should be directed. All these strategies have been successful. I am sure that the ATF is well aware of this success and has welcomed it with the Government. The national retention rates, which were in the vicinity of 34 per cent when our Government came to office, have now increased to 45 per cent. This is a very satisfactory increase of over 12 per cent in the two years that we have been in office. Of course, the figure is higher in some States. The national average is 45 per cent. In Victoria, for example, retention rates are up to almost 50 per cent. In the Australian Capital Territory they are in excess of 80 per cent. Strategies for increasing retention have been consciously pursued by our Government. They have been successful. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to Senator Button as Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the vicious industrial campaign which has been conducted for several weeks in Victoria by the militant left wing union the Federated Confectioners Association of Australia against the small confectionery manufacturer Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd. Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister recently expressed his support for the Dollar Sweets management in this dispute? Is the Minister also aware of a meeting tonight of the Victorian Trades Hall Council at which a request from the Federated Confectioners Association to have its existing illegal picket line recognised is to be considered? In view of the Prime Minister's statement that he would take a personal interest in this dispute, I ask the Minister whether the Government will make urgent representations to the Victorian Trades Hall Council this afternoon to ensure that this picket line is not given legal sanction by other unions. Senator BUTTON —I was not aware that the Prime Minister expressed his support of the Dollar Sweets Co. management in respect of the dispute in question. I am not surprised. I was also not aware that there was to be a meeting of the Melbourne Trades Hall Council tonight to deal with this issue, although I know that it does meet on Thursday nights, so it is quite possible. I am asked whether the Government will intervene in order, as it were, to influence a vote which will take place at the Melbourne Trades Hall Council. The Melbourne Trades Hall Council is a voluntary association of unions which has its own meeting procedures, and I do not think it would be particularly encouraged or pleased if a body which had nothing to do with its deliberations sought to intervene in the proceedings of the council as a collective body. Nonetheless, I see the point in Senator Short's question. I will certainly convey the point of the question to the appropriate Minister and see whether the matter can be taken up in a perhaps slightly more sensitive way than Senator Short implies. I will also, of course, take up the broader ramifications of the question, which asked whether the Government will direct attention towards obtaining some resolution of the dispute. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I table a document entitled `Final Report of the Royal Commission into the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam' and seek leave to make a statement relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator GIETZELT —Shortly after coming to office in March 1983, the Government moved to honour its electoral commitment to establish a royal commission to inquire into veterans' concerns about the possible effects of the use of chemical agents on Australian veterans who served in Vietnam and on their families. I now release the report of that inquiry. The Commission's report extends to 9 volumes and some 3,000 pages. There are 56 recommendations for action. Mr Justice Evatt's key finding is that chemical agents used in Vietnam cannot be linked to ill-health among Vietnam veterans, birth defects among their offsprings, cancer, post-traumatic stress disorder or mortality. On the basis of the scientific, medical, statistical and other evidence relied upon by the Commission, the Government accepts that the case for a link between agent orange and health problems among Vietnam veterans has not been established. The Government is not, however, to be taken as endorsing the particular terms in which the Commission's central finding is expressed, or for that matter' the language in which much of its report is couched. Nor is the Government to be taken at this stage as necessarily endorsing any of the other specific findings or recommendations of the Commission, although they will be subject to close further consideration taking into account the views of relevant interest groups. Of the 56 recommendations for action those relating to armed forces procedures will be referred to the Minister for Defence. The remainder will be subject to consideration and recommendation back to the Government by me. The Government will announce its detailed response to all the recommendations as soon as possible. I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the statement. Leave granted. Senator GIETZELT —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.05) —I wish to open my comments on the final report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effect of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam by picking up one segment of the report. It was discussing a particular day when it tried to speed things up and so do something innovative and cost effective and save time. A journalist following the Commissioner's work wrote an article on it which appeared in the first edition of a major city daily. It was axed from the second, third and later editions and the journalist, upon asking her superiors why, was told: `We don't want any good news about royal commissions'. I guess that is indicative of this whole Agent Orange issue. Nobody wanted any good news about it right from the start. I shall give a little history of the chemical. In 1896 chemicals were first used for the control of weeds. In 1921 an aircraft was first used for the dispersal of such chemicals. In 1926 we had the finding of plant hormones with the resultant use of hormone weed sprays and in the 1950s they became one of the major weapons that farmers had in this country and many other countries against weeds. I myself was involved in the control of lantana, noogoora burr, groundsel and that sort of thing. Hormone weed sprays, or agent orange as it has become known-it is a mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T-was used as a defoliant in Vietnam. Insecticides were also sprayed. The opponents of the Vietnam war and the ecologists opposed its use from the middle 1960s onwards. Because of that very intensive research was undertaken into the use of such herbicides as a defoliant, which indicated that there were no toxic hazards although the chemicals were very effective as defoliants. At about that time Vietnamese newspapers started reporting birth defects, and this was taken up by the media in the United States of America. Some time later a veterans counsellor in the United States of America-unqualified, I might add-stated that from observations she believed that Agent Orange had caused cancer in one person. She then blamed Agent Orange for other non-specific symptoms as well. From that report a television special was made entitled: `Agent Orange-Vietnam's Deadly Fog'. It spread such claims very far and very wide. The supposed problem of Agent Orange was brought to Australia by the Rolling Stone magazine. The Australian Press took up the story and sensationalised it and away it went. I might say that at the time farmers were still using it, and they are still using it today. It is a very great weapon in the control of brigalow regrowth in my area, for instance. Nonetheless, the matter had been sensationalised and away the story went. Some academics and some lawyers jumped on the bandwagon. The unfortunate part of this was the distress that it caused to those who came back from Vietnam with war-related problems, both physical and mental. The Senate gave a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. That Committee conducted an inquiry into this matter and reported to the Senate in 1982. I will refer to some of its findings very shortly. Nonetheless, the ALP, which was then in Opposition, took up the cause and went to an election on the basis that notwithstanding that there had been a Senate report, it would set up a royal commission. The turmoil in the minds of people associated with Vietnam veterans was still there. Indeed, the present Government stands condemned for keeping it going. Indeed, this report vindicates what our own Senate Standing Committee said at that time-but more of that later. It should be put on record that the present Government has wasted time and taxpayer's money and has quite unnecessarily upset those Vietnam veterans with problems which they thought were attributable to the effects of Agent Orange. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, when he set up the Royal Commission, said: Notwithstanding the Committee's conclusion, among other things, that it was unlikely that the majority of Australian troops were directly or indirectly exposed to the herbicides used by the United States forces in Vietnam, the Government believes the matter is still not resolved. Then, in a Press release issued by Senator Gietzelt on Saturday, 14 May 1983, he stated: . . . last year the Australian Labor Party made this proposal part of its official platform, and in February this year we went to the people as part of our election package. He went on to criticise the attitude of the previous Government on this matter: For almost four years your Association has been bringing this matter before the public and calling for an inquiry, he said, talking to Vietnam veterans. What was the response of the government of the day? They first ignored the whole issue, they refused to admit that there was any element of doubt in the matter, they stonewalled, they hedged and all the while more and more conflicting evidence came to light. It certainly did not come to light to the Royal Commission. He continued: When forced by the sheer weight of evidence to act, the previous Government again failed to do anything substantial. Its attempts were confused and half-hearted. Senator Gietzelt told the VVAA that in just eight weeks the Government had done more on the issue than the previous Government had managed to do in three and a half years. The Government certainly set up the Royal Commission, but let us look at what it said. In the meantime, the Australian veterans health study mortality report came to light, which vindicated our own Senate Standing Committee's findings. The Royal Commission has now reported, and at 3 o'clock this afternoon it became a public document. The first comments to which I should like to refer relate to dosage. I refer to page XV-13: Any dose of TCDD-- in other words dioxin-- received in Vietnam would have been lower than that received in industrial accidents, where no long term effects have been found. I refer to paragraph (12): The Commission concludes that: (i) contrary to popular belief, only a very limited number of Australian servicemen were ever directly exposed to `colour-coded' herbicides such as Agent Orange; even the most direct likely exposure would not have produced an absorbed toxic dose of the most toxic substance; (ii) all servicemen were indirectly exposed in one way or another but the dose level resulting from such indirect exposure or exposures is so minute that it may, without doubt, be ignored; (iii) all servicemen were exposed to insecticides which, far from causing adverse health effects, prevented health problems which may have otherwise arisen in the Vietnam environment. Paragraph (13) reads: In short, the Commission concludes that the exposure of Australians to chemical agents did not produce dosage levels which would be likely to cause any long-term health effects. The Royal Commission deals with the subject of health on pages XV-16 and XV-17. Paragraph (5) states quite blandly: Vietnam veterans are significantly healthier than the Australian male population. Paragraph (11) states: There is no neurotoxic effect operating on veterans. That is to say their brains and nervous systems have not been organically damaged by chemical agents used in Vietnam. One of the big problems has been the concern about the toxic effects on the children of fathers coming back from the Vietnam war-in other words, birth defects. It is interesting to compare the comments of the Royal Commission with those of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on this subject. The Royal Commission on page XV-19, paragraph (11) states: The hypothesis that exposure of fathers to chemicals in Vietnam caused birth defects in children conceived in Australia is fanciful. I quote page 203 of the report of the Senate Standing Committee, chaired by Senator Jessop, as follows: The Committee concludes that it is highly improbable that the birth abnormalities reported among the children of Vietnam veterans are the result of the veterans' exposure to pesticides while serving in Vietnam. The birth abnormalities reported are primarily teratogenic in origin and, as such, are almost always produced as a result of exposure of the mother to toxic agents while pregnant. The Committee believes that there is no biologically plausible mechanism whereby the father's exposure in Vietnam can lead, years later, to exposure of the foetus in the uterus, as would be required to produce teratogenic abnormalities. There we have the two tie-ups. The major cause of distress in this whole absurd exercise which we have been going through over past years relates to birth defects, but, what is more, young mothers, wives of Vietnam veterans, are not game to have any more children, because of what has been bandied around this country by those who have been seeking to pander to those who think they have been hurt by Agent Orange. This has been a terrible thing to inflict on these people who came back from that war. One other matter inquired into by the Royal Commission was the subject of cancer. On page XV-21 the Commission says in paragraphs (7) and (8): Cancer death rates for Vietnam veterans are lower than the general male population. The cancer rates of veteran and non-veteran National Serviceman are virtually identical. The Commonwealth Institute of Health Mortality Report mentions something similar. I quote from page ix, paragraph 1: There was no statistically significant diufference in the death rates from cancer between veterans and non-veterans. In particular there was no statistically significant difference in the death rates from soft tissue sarcoma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Other studies have indicated that both cancers are possibly caused by phenoxyacetic acid herbicides. These herbicides were sprayed in Vietnam. However, the length of follow-up may have been too brief . . . . for an excuse of deaths from cancer to be evident. There was no statistically significant difference in death rates from motor vehicle accidents . . . . or in death rates from suicides and self-inflicted injury . . . . The mortality section goes on to deal with that subject. Therefore the report is saying that in regard to cancer there are no added probabilities that Vietnam veterans suffer from that disease. As a matter of fact, the report concludes that they suffer from less disease. Another problem related to the area of mental health. The Royal Commission mentions that after every major war-and it is significant that the Senate Standing Committee also arrived at the same conclusion-there are mental well-being casualties. In World War I it was known as shell shock; after World War II it was known as going psycho or troppo, et cetera. The Royal Commission report in XV (24) deals with this. Of course there are problems and we all acknowledge that but they are not caused by chemicals used in Vietnam; they are caused by stress. On page 204 of the Senate Standing Committee report the Committee took up this point. I quote the first part of paragraph 5 on page 203: The Committee concludes that, on the available evidence; it is unlikely that the psychiatric disorders reported by Vietnam veterans are caused by exposure to potentially harmful chemicals whilst in Vietnam. . . . . The Committee has been impressed by the striking similiarities of the veterans' disorders to the psychiatric disorders found among the veterans of World War I, World War II, the Korean War and Arab-Israeli wars. These similiarities include such symptoms as the rage reaction on which the VVAA has placed a great deal of emphasis. Once again we have the Royal Commission some $4m later vindicating the work done by the Senate Standing Committee. Senator Chipp —How did you vote on the onus of proof legislation? Senator COLLARD —If I may say, Mr Deputy President, the Australian Democrats are really running for cover because if any group has moved around the community and stirred this up to the detriment of those people who came back from Vietnam and their supporters it is the Democrats. Now the chickens are really coming home to roost. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections on my left. Senator Collard does not need the support he is getting. Senator COLLARD —Thank you for that vote of confidence, Mr Deputy President. There has also been criticism of the Department. Indeed, a Department as big as the Department of Veterans' Affairs does come in for criticism when things go wrong. The Royal Commission does find on page XV-36: General complaints of departmental bias and misconduct made by VVAA were closely analysed. In general terms they were quite unwarranted. Paragraphs 11 and 12 state: The high client approval rating of the system and the small number of complaints establish that in general DVA functions well. In particular, standards of courtesy, helpfulness and sympathy are high. When the system does break down (as any system with more than 3 million client contacts a year must), complaint procedures are thorough and efficient. Of course there were problems for the people who came back from the Vietnam War. There were problems for people who came back from any war but there were peculiar problems for Vietnam veterans. It was an unpopular war and in fairness to the Evatt Royal Commission it has taken up all these factors. It points out that one had no clearly defined enemy and that women and children could well have been the enemy, but the worst aspect was the way the veterans were treated by the community when they came back to this country, particularly in the major cities. If that did not cause stress, on top of all the traumas associated with those who have to go off to war, nothing would. We find that $4m later-after pandering by this Government to a minority group in the community and keeping in ferment all the problems-those problems could have been laid to rest some time ago. That is $4m that could have been used by the Vietnam Counselling Service, a service that was set up by Senator Messner, a service that is doing a lot of good amongst the Vietnam veteran community. I believe that the $4m could well have gone to expanding that service, to repatriation hospitals or whatever. We have what I hope is the last chapter in this sorry saga of Agent Orange. I hope that the Government accepts the findings and the major recommendations of the Royal Commission set up by this Government and that we as a community acknowledge that there are problems for the Vietnam veterans and that the veterans must be treated with sympathy. We must all work within the system to see that the veterans are treated properly through all the avenues that are available, and even open up new avenues if that is necessary. Let us put to rest the ridiculous situation that has been perpetrated by the Government, aided and abetted by the Democrats who sought to pander to this group; let us put this matter where it belongs-right out of the road-and let us look after the Vietnam veterans, as they should be. Senator Chipp —Like removing the onus of proof. Senator COLLARD —Unfortunately, the Democrats seem to think that there was a gravy train somewhere and that by handing out money with largesse it was going to solve all the problems of the Vietnam veterans. That is not the answer. Even if there had been a gravy train, we now know that it would not have solved their problems. The community would have said: `Well, there you are, they have got their compensation and we do not want any more to do with it'. That is not the way to treat the situation. There is a problem. The avenues are there. Let us now deal with that problem with compassion and with the sympathy that they deserve. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.25) —The Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam has presented a report which is an extremely detailed-nine volumes-very comprehensive and well argued report. The major recommendations deal with a range of items outside, one would have thought, the actual focus in terms of the reference of the Commission itself. Interestingly enough, the major effect of the recommendations of the Royal Commission will probably be in regard to the community and in regard to the veteran community in particular. It is also interesting to note that the Commission deals with the movement of armed forces from combat to civilian life, an area which has caused an enormous amount of concern with the Vietnam war in particular, and which I think has been one of the acknowledged contributing factors to the stress which Senator Collard was talking about and which is detailed fairly extensively within this nine-volume report. Since I have had the report for only a short time I have been able to read only volume 8, which consists mainly of the summary of the items of the various chapters with regard to the findings of the Commission and to the exoneration by the Commission of any adverse effects above that which one could expect of agent orange and the various other chemical agents on the servicemen in Vietnam. That volume also contains extensive recommendations which I hope will be considered carefully by the Government. It also contains a very interesting recommendation in regard to the use of the Commission now that it has presented its report; actually to go out into the community to attempt to sell the report. The Commission has recommended that the Commissioner and the Commission's principal support team be given funds by the Government to go out into the community and to explain to the community what the Commission has found. In the words of the Commission: The Australian Government now has a unique opportunity to lay the Agent Orange Ghost to rest. I think that is probably an over-optimistic view of the ability of the Commission to be able to sell this report. The propositions that are put I think are very useful ones inasmuch as it is all very well to have a report, but if the people who are concerned and who are the objects of that report only have the results of the report filtered to them by the media, I think they will be far less willing to accept the propositions that the Commission has put than if the Commission and its staff put that information directly to the veterans. The cost and the time frame they are suggesting are $40,000 and five weeks. I think that again is an optimistic proposition to be able to sell this extensive report to the veterans in a country such as Australia, given the diverse nature of the community and the veteran community in particular. The report then goes on to attempt to explain how we could have got into this situation. I think it gives a potted history of how the Royal Commission considers we got there. I think it is really an extraordinarily potted history which does not add terribly much to the report. In terms of the usefulness of the report, if the Government accepts the recommendation to explain the Royal Commission's finding directly to the veteran community, this would certainly be a beneficial innovation in the way in which we communicate matters such as this. Undoubtedly many of the responses and findings will create a great deal of controversy within the veteran community. It is obvious that the concerns that the veterans have about this area will not necessarily be laid to rest by reading in a newspaper a potted summary of what the Royal Commissioner has worked through. What is required is a more extensive, deliberate and reasonable method of communication such as has been put forward by the Royal Commissioner. I do not want to carry my remarks beyond that at the moment except to say that the Government has already indicated that it will be making a response to the report. I hope that that response will be made fairly rapidly. At that stage the Senate hopefully will have the opportunity to have an extensive debate on the nine volumes. I know that it might be a bit excessive to ask that the debate be delayed until people have actually read the report. However, I think it would be far better to have an early debate so that exaggerated claims, one way or the other, which are not addressed in the report itself will not be made and thereby further add to the problems that already exist. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(3.32) —I just want to make a few remarks on the report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. I do so having regard to my interest in the report on this subject that was presented by the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment in November 1982. You will recall, Mr Deputy President, that the Senate in October 1981 asked that Committee to go into this question as best it could and report within 12 months. We almost made it. I think the inquiry was carried out within that period but the report was in fact presented in November 1982. During that inquiry we were able to cross-examine many witnesses and specialists in genetics and epidemiology. We talked to people of the calibre of Dr William McBride, the famous gentleman who had something to do with discovering the effects of thalidomide. Senator Button —He was famous over a bull, too. Senator JESSOP —Was he? I do not think that this is a time for humour. I ask the honourable senator not to divert me. Senator Haines —Is he taking up your time? Senator JESSOP —Yes. I promised the Minister who just interjected that I would not be very long. Senator Chipp —Can I have a go then? Why did you vote for the removal of the onus of proof? Senator JESSOP —Do not start that nonsense again. Senator Chipp —I hope Hansard recorded that. Do you think that was nonsense? Is that what you said? Senator JESSOP —I have had a look at the whole Repatriation Act. Do not divert me. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will address his remarks to the Chair. Senator JESSOP —Certainly. During that inquiry we discovered that, of the 43,000 to 45,000 Australian servicemen who went to Vietnam, probably about 5,000 could possibly have been exposed to the defoliant to which the report refers. Of course, we had very great difficulty in determining the exact dose of the chemical that these people may or may not have been subjected to because nobody seemed to have any conclusive idea of the meteorological conditions at the time, whether the aircraft that dropped the defoliant were flying directly over the troops or whether they were some kilometres away. Nobody seemed to know how strong the winds were or how far the defoliant could be carried. So we found it very difficult to make any judgment as to how many of those 5,000 were directly exposed to the chemical. Senator Collard quite properly pointed out that dioxin is a teratogenic chemical. Quite clearly the female must be exposed to that chemical within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in order to give effect to a deformed foetus. So we came to the conclusion, after an expenditure of probably $150,000, that it was highly improbable that 15 years after the event, as Senator Collard quite properly pointed out, war service in Vietnam would have had anything to do with deformities suffered by children of Vietnam veterans. However, we were worried about a few things. Honourable senators will notice that the Senate report was the first report on this matter. I, together with my Committee members, thought that this was an important matter. Senator Mulvihill was very concerned. Senator MacGibbon and other members of the Committee thought that we needed a little more scientific and epidemiological evidence about other matters. We were concerned about the exposure of Vietnam servicemen to anti-mosquito fogging and the ingestion of anti-malarial drugs, both of which are carcinogenic and could, in the long term, possibly have some effect. I am pleased to hear from Senator Collard that the Royal Commissioner has addressed that and has indicated, from epidemiological evidence, that such is not the case. I am very pleased to hear that. As a result of our report the Department of Veterans' Affairs, under the instructions of the then Minister, Senator Messner, made some changes to the Act to ensure that Vietnam veterans were treated equally with other servicemen with respect to matters that arose. So, I, like Senator Macklin, believe that this report, which I have not had the opportunity to digest yet-I do not know whether I will be able to, having regard to the fact that it comprises nine volumes; I will certainly pay attention to the important aspects of it-deserves a longer debate. I think it is very important that we do not alarm the public at large about matters relating to the possible mutagenic or teratogenic effects of matters that occurred in Vietnam over 15 years ago. I believe that that would be a bad thing to do. Unfortunately the Australian Democrats caused a little bit of concern- Senator Haines —Oh! Senator JESSOP —There is no question about that. The Democrats appealed to people. They promoted emotive disturbance amongst people who were having babies 15 years after Australians served in Vietnam. It is no wonder that feminists are creeping into the Democrats and causing resignations right, left and centre. We are very concerned about the welfare of these people. Senator Chipp —Why do you pick on women? What do you have against women? Senator JESSOP —My colleague on my left seeks to distract me again. I choose to ignore him. All I am suggesting is that it is very easy to get carried away on emotive issues which deal with possible mutagenic or teratogenic effects and birth deformities. I think I said in an earlier debate that 75,000 Japanese children whose parents were irradiated by those terrible bombs that horrified us were checked out for birth deformities. The interesting thing was that the epidemiological evidence happened to be that just over 3 per cent of those children displayed either a small or a large abnormality. What is the epidemiological evidence in the community at large? It is about the same. I think it is very easy for us to get carried away without having the basis of scientific knowledge of the subject. I believe that the report deserves a very thorough debate. I hope the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) will encourage the Government to respond to it as quickly as it can. It will probably take six months; I think the requirement is three months. I can understand that it will take a little while for the Government to do that. I hope that there will be the opportunity for the Senate to debate the matter in a much more expansive way. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.41) —I want to say a few words, having been a Minister responsible for the handling of veterans' matters for two and a half years. It is true that the report of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam has apparently brought down a decision in favour of information which became available to the Fraser Government that, in fact, defoliants did not at all affect Vietnam veterans. I must say that I am glad that that information hopefully has been put to rest. I hope that the Australian Democrats will see fit not to continue some kind of vendetta, which is ultimately not against the Government or the Opposition, but against the Vietnam veterans. This problem, which has been erected by the action of this inquiry, by previous inquiries, by political activities, by back benchers, for that matter, front benchers of the Australian Labor Party and by the Australian Democrats, has had an enormous impact upon individual Vietnam veterans. They have been disturbed and have become worried about their job prospects. In some cases of which I have personal knowledge, they have found themselves put out of work because of the fact that they are Vietnam veterans and their employers think there is something wrong with them as a result. Hopefully this report will lay those ghosts to rest. I certainly endorse the remarks in the volume of the report on that matter. The major point I want to make is that the former Fraser Government took the view on this issue right from the start that there was extreme scientific doubt as to the real effects of defoliants. It set about trying to discover whether there were connections between the health problems and defoliants. Various inquiries were instituted. The Government welcomed at the time the formation of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, which you chaired, Mr Acting Deputy President, and which reviewed the whole matter. Secondly, we erected a couple of epidemiological studies-one to investigate the mortality question and the other to investigate the birth defects question. Both of those studies brought down results indicating that there were no connections between defoliants and the health problems of veterans. As a second prong to those measures we took the view that we should do as much as was humanly possible to relieve the problems of those who claimed that they were being affected by their service in Vietnam. To that end we established free hospital care for all Vietnam veterans. We instituted the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service, which I think the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) would acknowledge has been an outstanding success and which has, indeed, contributed a great deal to the health of veterans who have problems. Of course, we broadened the various activities of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to allow for the treatment of Vietnam veterans. We saw that as being the best way in which to spend the Government's dollars to find out the problems of Vietnam veterans and to assist them. That is the reason why the Government at the time refused to hold a royal commission. We saw that as a costly exercise that would only waste money which could be better spent on helping the veterans who were in trouble at that time. So our resources were directed to helping those who had evident problems. In no way was our approach to the matter of a royal commission, as it was held out to be by the Labor Party at the time, an attempt to cover up the facts which underlay the defoliant issue in relation to the war in Vietnam. I want to make only one other point. I have colossal amounts of evidence-I do not intend to make it public at any stage-that in fact the Vietnam veterans of Australia were manipulated for purely political purposes by the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Clyde Holding, in the development of the arguments about the problem with defoliants in Vietnam. I believe that it was he and his staff who manipulated the minds of those people and created such concerns on these issues in the community. I think those occurrences can be traced back directly to his personal involvement and the involvement of his office. I think that will go down as one of the most shameful acts in the history of the treatment of veterans in this country. I believe that it is time that was acknowledged. Indeed, it is for that reason that I have made that situation public. Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to have the text of a statement concerning the Government's legislative program for the Budget sittings 1985 incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- THE GOVERNMENT'S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM As a Government we will be legislating in this session for a very different Australia from that which we faced when first elected in 1983. The policies we have followed, the legislative programs we have implemented have quite literally turned Australia around from the position it was facing when we assumed power. On every indicator, the Australian economy and society, is in a better position than it has been for a decade. We still, however, have a lot to do. The legislative program for the budget sittings is a reasonably heavy and complicated one, and reflects the Government's commitment to reform. I now outline our legislative program. In the field of arts, heritage and the environment, we propose legislation to protect Australian cultural property by preventing the illegal import or export of cultural property. We want also to pass legislation clarifying the collection policy to be adopted by the Museum of Australia and the extent of the national collection to be housed in that museum. The Attorney-General will be seeking passage of the Bill of rights package which will not only give effect in Australia to the international covenant on civil and political rights but will also establish a human rights and equal opportunity commission. Prohibitions on racial and sexual discrimination will be strengthened in other legislation. Privacy legislation will be brought forward setting forth privacy principles in accordance with the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission. In addition, and with the co-operation of the States, the Government plans to abolish the residual constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom. The Evidence Act will be amended to provide for the admissibility in Australia of evidence taken overseas. ASIO's legislation will be amended to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. We will enhance the operation and effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act. We will amend the companies and securities legislation to effect necessary reforms. A Bill will be introduced to improve the existing law related to the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign Governments and Agencies. The now anomalous provision in the Judiciary Act relating to legal aid for defendants charged with federal offences will be repealed. In aviation, various regulatory changes will be accompanied by legislation to establish a statutory authority to plan, develop and operate Australia's major civil airports. The Government will also guarantee borrowings by Qantas for aircraft. There will be substantial amendments to the Communications and Broadcasting Acts. Among other things, we will be clarifying the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and authorising OTC to form and invest in companies carrying on business relating to telecommunications. In community services, we will legislate to set up our home and community care package. In education, Bills will be introduced to provide for cost increases and appropriate grants for both government and non-government schools as well as to spread participation and equity program funding over 1986 and 1987. The structure and administration of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission will be altered. Amendments will enable us to ensure the more efficient working of the Student Assistance Scheme, and amendments will be introduced to facilitate changes to overseas student charges. In employment and industrial relations, we will take further steps to promote occupational health and safety. Superannuation provisions for members of Parliament will be revised. In health, the future role of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will be defined in law. Further changes will be made to health legislation, particularly to facilitate reciprocal health care agreements with other countries, and to modify existing provisions concerning medicare offences and the disqualification of medical practitioners. We will also pass legislation introduced during the Autumn sitting period to provide financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for the tertiary education of nurses. Procedures under the Citizenship Act will be changed. Various stand-by duties and bounties will be modified. There will be customs and excise changes. In Primary Industry, we are introducing legislation to improve the charging system for export inspection services. Comprehensive packages of bills are being introduced to deal with fisheries and with research funding for the wheat, dairy and grain legumes industries. Some aspects of public service employment conditions will be changed. A legislative basis will be provided for the operations of the Australian safeguards office. A successor to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission will be created. We will move to give wider protection to information held by the national crime authority. We will also make changes to the broadcasting and electoral legislation arising from the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. In Trade, we will pass legislation to create an Australian trade commission. We will also upgrade the export market development grants scheme. In Transport, legislation will be brought forward to register vehicle and license operators engaged in interstate transport and commerce as part of the implementation of the national road freight industry inquiry (the May Report). Various aspects of the taxation laws will be amended. A draft veteran's entitlement Bill was tabled in the Senate in the final week of the autumn sitting period, to enable wide-ranging consultations with all affected interest groups to proceed. The Bill altered if necessary to take account of the results of those consultations, will be introduced during this sitting period. As is always the case unforeseen circumstances may cause changes to the program I have outlined. However, it indicates the direction we will be taking during these sittings and consolidates the direction of reform established during the previous parliament. I commend the program to the Senate and look forward to the assistance of honourable senators in its implementation. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.47) —The Australian Democrats are indeed grateful to the Government for putting its legislative program before the Senate today. It is interesting to note that the program is not without its elements of controversy. I see that the Government has rather euphemistically stated that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be seeking passage of a Bill of Rights. A little later in the statement the Government refers to other pieces of legislation actually passing, so I suspect that it is not all that optimistic about the passage of that piece of legislation. I note also with some regret that the Government is intending to proceed with its veterans' entitlements Bill, which is at least in part a rerun of the more objectionable clauses in the late lamented Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill of last session. I hope that the reference made in today's statement by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to the Government's intention to clarify the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal indicates that the Government will act on standards to be applied to children's television programs and advertisements. The statement also includes a reference to the introduction of some sort of privacy legislation, which I suggest is not before time, since it refers back to the Law Reform Commission's report which is nearly a decade old. I hope that in future the Government will move a little faster on Law Reform Commission reports than it has done on this one. Sadly, apparently there is nothing in the Government's legislative program with regard to the preservation of the Daintree or on the wood chip industry, which I think will be a source of some sadness to those of us who are interested in the preservation of Australia's unique environment. However, I must say that our concern is not so much with the contents of the Government's legislative program as it is with the organisation of that program. I am sure honourable senators do not have to be reminded that frequently at the end of a sitting the Senate is forced to sit for an extra two or three weeks because of a buildup of legislation coming across to us from another place. In the past this has meant that the Senate has sat for four or five weeks in a row without a break. In my experience this has happened under governments of all persuasions. I would have thought that with a little imagination and effort the Government could organise its legislative program so that there is not a sudden buildup of the sort to which we have been subjected of last minute legislation being rushed through the House of Represenatives, forcing the Senate to sit longer in order to deal with that legislation. Since some legislation at least is initiated in the Senate-otherwise we would not have Ministers in this place-it ought to be possible to have both Houses considering each other's legislation without the Senate being forced to sit those extra weeks. A further problem arises out of the fact that this occurs because it is frequently possible for the government of the day to imply some kind of blackmail effect on this chamber, threatening it with the fact that rejecting, amending or deferring legislation will result in the recall of the House of Representatives, members of which have frequently headed off either to their own States to continue their constituency business or overseas. We have said before in this place-certainly Senator Chipp has-that we will not succumb to this sort of blackmail effect. We will continue to vote on the merits of the legislation and not submit to the sorts of threats that have been thrown at us in the past of recalling members after House of Representatives has risen and thereby incurring an additional cost. This should not happen if business in the Senate and the House of Representatives is arranged in an appropriate fashion. Unfortunately, the last time the Government employed this tactic it did so with the connivance of the Opposition. It attacked the Australian Democrats for standing up essentially for the rights of veterans. In fact, we saw the extraordinary situation of the Government not only reneging on a promise to consult with veterans' organisations but also, in connivance with the Opposition, trying to rush a controversial Bill through all its stages in half an hour or less. I suggest that honourable senators go back and look at the Hansard. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Order! I ask honourable senators on my left to cease interjecting and to listen to the honourable senator without interruption. Senator HAINES —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Usually I can manage to shout louder than they can, but I appreciate your intervention. I ask honourable senators to look at the Hansard and see what time limit was set up. It was half an hour for a Bill that was of considerable concern to the community generally. This chamber expected honourable senators to deal with all stages of the Bill-the second reading, the Committee stage and so on-in less than half an hour. There is no need for this sort of thing to happen unless a government wants or allows it to. I must say that I am a little concerned at a comment at the end of page 6 of the Minister's statement which says, somewhat euphemistically: As is always the case unforeseen circumstances may cause changes to the program I have outlined. I certainly hope those unforeseen circumstances do not include leaving controversial legislation for the Senate to deal with until after the House of Representatives has risen. Senator Withers —Bring back Mason. Senator HAINES —When Senator Withers has finished his wishful thinking I will ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to consider how best the managers of both Houses of the Australian Parliament can arrange things so that we are subject neither to a stack-up situation at the end of the session, which leads us to a long and pressured four or five weeks end to the legislative program, nor to the additional blackmail effect that results from the House of Representatives rising a week or more earlier than this chamber. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.55) —I congratulate Senator Haines for achieving the apparently impossible. In one speech she has managed to get Senator Withers to ask for Senator Mason back. I would have been prepared to stake my political life that that would never have occurred. I do think that was a notable contribution to the Senate. I thank the Government for putting down a statement on its legislative program, a practice which I think is very worth while. I note that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has told us that the legislative program for the Budget sittings is a reasonably heavy and complicated one. I welcome the statement of intention on the part of the Australian Democrats that they will, in their consideration of legislation, be prepared to vote for amendments to legislation even though the House of Representatives may have gone away. I agree with them that the idea that the Senate should be restrained in its treatment of legislation by the fact that the legislation cannot be dealt with by the other place is not appropriate. I believe we should maintain the stance which we adopted during the last session of the Parliament whereby the Senate will deal with legislation on its merits and, if the Government wishes to bring back the House of Representatives, it can do so, as indeed it did with respect to one Bill. Senator Chipp —Didn't you say in May that it was the fault of the Democrats that the Representatives were recalled? Senator CHANEY —Of course it was. The point about which I am concerned is that a heavy and complicated program faces us and we should not find ourselves in the position in which we found ourselves in May when we sat for four weeks in a row, four days a week. I ask the Government to consider the potentially damaging effect of that on honourable senators and on the health of honourable senators. It may seem a trite point to make, but there are many senators here who were senators in the period of the Whitlam Government. At that time a series of Government Ministers had heart attacks. In fact, one Government Minister was unwell during the May sittings. I think it is highly undesirable that we should get into that pattern. I ask the Government to consider now what pattern it would propose if there were a hangover of business so that we can avoid what occurred in May. I do not think it is at all desirable from the point of view of the Government itself, the Opposition, the Australian Democrats or anybody else to have as prolonged a period of sitting as we had at that time. Unless we plan now for the eventuality, which is very likely to occur, we will be forced into that position and I think that it would be very unfortunate. As to the point that was raised by Senator Haines about the processing of legislation, I think that the only way we will achieve change is if the Parliament itself says that it will not deal with legislation other than on an orderly basis with enough time to consider it properly. Often there are Bills which are relatively trite and which can be dealt with quickly and easily at the end of a session, but when we have proposals such as human rights legislation, which is a matter of very great interest to many, changes to major areas of the law and matters dealing with atomic energy, which I am sure will attract a great deal of attention in the Senate, I think it is highly desirable that we should establish that we will require adequate time for debate. It is quite true that all governments have faced the same problem. The point has been made on each occasion this matter has been raised. It is not a problem which afflicts Labor governments; it is a problem which afflicts governments. I believe we will get a change in the way the bureaucrats behave in terms of getting legislation up only when it is clear that the Parliament will not allow itself to be treated as a sausage machine. That is in the hands of the Parliament. I think it is only when we make a decision that we will not legislate in that way that the system will eventually change. Often there is not very much urgency in the Bills which are stuffed through the Parliament at the dying stages. Many Bills were stuffed through the House of Representatives which remained on the Senate's Notice Paper at the end of the session. Clearly, that need not have been done. The legislation could have been dealt with early in the Budget session. I would simply indicate that I would like to have some discussions with the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and indeed with any independents in the Senate about the program in the course of the sittings so that we can, if possible, deal with things on an agreed basis. I express my complete dissatisfaction with the way we traditionally do things in the Senate so far as its program is concerned. I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that we would be very happy to co-operate with the Australian Democrats, the Government and the Independents to achieve a more satisfactory outcome. Later today when discussing General Business we will have an opportunity to consider a proposal for a slightly different approach to considering legislation in this place. Again I hope that that can be approached in a spirit of co-operation. It is in the Government's interest to have better consideration of legislation. We need to pay some attention to the legislative role of the Parliament as against the political role which occupies most of our time. In making comments on the Government's legislative program I accept the very real difficulties the Government faces but I also assert that we need to have proper parliamentary consideration of legislation which often has a very great influence on the people whom we represent. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(4.01) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate. I have been asked by Senator Haines and the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, to consider several matters; I will consider them. I am perfectly happy to have discussions at an early stage with Senator Chaney and Senator Chipp regarding the program to try to avoid some of the problems that all governments have had. Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —In accordance with the provisions of section 81 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, I present the report of the Reserve Bank Board on the operations of the Bank, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General for the financial year 1984-85. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 22 August, from Senator Hill: 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 matter of urgency: The fundamental importance for Australia, at the Third Review Conference in Geneva of the members of the Treaty for Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to seek to achieve- (a) the renewed commitment of all existing members to the principles of the Treaty; (b) a vigorous effort to attract non-member nations to become signatories to the Treaty; (c) the strengthening of the monitoring, surveillance and safeguards powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency with universal acceptance of its functions; and (d) a positive commitment by all and specifically the nuclear weapons power States, to meaningful multilateral disarmament and surveillance. Yours sincerely, SENATOR ROBERT HILL Senator for the State of South Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.04) —I move: That so much of Standing Order 64 be suspended as would prevent Senator Chipp moving an amendment to the proposed urgency motion. I am moving for the suspension of standing order 64 because the matter we are debating begs the reality that under successive Liberal Party of Australia regimes, the Liberal Party's pathetic attitude has allowed the super-powers to persist with the existing Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a treaty so full of loopholes that it has permitted 50,000 nuclear weapons to be constructed and will complacently accept an additional 20,000 bombs within the next decade. This has been promised by both the Russians and the Americans. Therefore, if this motion is carried, I shall move: Leave out all words after ``achieve'', insert: `(a) compliance with Article VI of the Treaty which requires nuclear weapon states to make, through treaties, genuine progress in arms control, by proposing or supporting a timetable or programme for super power arms reductions; (b) a vigorous effort to attract non-member nations to become signatories to the Treaty; (c) the establishment of the Energy for Development Fund to research and promote alternative energy sources; and (d) a positive commitment by all and specifically the nuclear weapon States, to meaningful multi- lateral disarmament and surveillance through the immediate conclusion of a C.T.B. Treaty, and the need for Australia, to this end, to sponsor a non-government representative to the Conference and hold meetings with interested groups after the Review to discuss the achievement of the Conference.' The reason why Standing Orders should be suspended is that the motion we are debating does not come to terms with any of the substantial issues which Australia should be presenting at Geneva. The matter of urgency raised by the Liberal Party is just too crazy because, although different words are used, it is precisely a restatement of the now infamous Australian Labor Party policy on disarmament. There is no mention in Senator Hill's matter of urgency of making the super-powers comply with Article VI. There is no mention of the problem of Article VI and its advocacy of nuclear energy, or of the enormous problems of nuclear waste disposal. Standing Orders need to be suspended to allow an amendment to the motion because the matters we are debating and will vote on advocate a path which is in the interests of neither Australia nor the world. It is one of the worst and most blatant motherhood motions ever put in this chamber. Senator MacGibbon —You are as wrong on this as you were on Agent Orange. Senator CHIPP —I am comforted no end by the knowledge that Senator MacGibbon opposes me. It totally persuades me that I am right. The matter as it now stands simply ignores the vital issues such as the Energy Development Fund and amendments to the Treaty, which will lapse in 1995 unless some progress is made. It is as if these issues were irrelevant. Australia will have to take some blame for acting negligently if the Treaty collapses and as a nation we have done nothing. Standing order 64 should be suspended to allow amendments to be made to the matter of urgency because it ignores the proposals which other nations-for example, Sweden and Japan-will be presenting to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in Geneva for real progress in disarmament and arms control, such as presenting a timetable for nuclear disarmament. It even ignores the proposal to separate the promotion and safeguarding function of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Standing Orders should be suspended because ultimately it is irresponsible to advocate in all seriousness the path for an Australian government which is suggested in Senator Hill's motion. Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think Senator Chipp is straying into the realms of dealing with the issues in the motion. He has quite adequately explained that he wants to suspend Standing Orders so that he can put his motion instead of the Opposition's. I think you should direct him to address his remarks only to the suspension of Standing Orders, which I think he has already done adequately. Senator CHIPP —May I speak to the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Yes, Senator Chipp. Senator Chipp —I am conscious of Standing Orders, as is Senator Chaney. I point out that during the four minutes I have spoken, six times I have explicitly said the words `the reason why Standing Orders should be suspended'. I submit that I am within the Standing Orders. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think I have heard enough debate on this subject. Senator Chaney has a point. I would like you to stick more closely to the suspension of standing order 64. Senator CHIPP —Thank you for your generosity, Mr Acting Deputy President. Standing order 64 should be suspended so that a vote can be taken on the substantial issues. I understand that the suspension of Standing Orders will be opposed by both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. No other conclusion can be drawn from the fact that we will not be debating compliance with Article VI, we will not be debating the establishment of an Energy for Development Fund and we will not be debating a positive commitment by all, and specifically the nuclear weapon states, to meaningful multilateral disarmament. We will not be debating the need for Australia to sponsor a non-government representative to the conference and to hold meetings with interested groups after the review to discuss the achievement of the conference. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.11) —The Government will not be supporting the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, not just because we were given as big a spray as the Opposition in the course of Senator Chipp's contribution, but, rather, because we take the view that urgency motions and matters of public importance are tedious enough at the best of times without getting into the extravagant further complications for debate that would arise if we started amending them and adding counter amendments. I am perfectly happy and I indicate that I am willing to address the substantive issues raised by Senator Chipp in the course of my own contribution to this debate, to the extent that I have time. For the record I indicate to him that the Government has no difficulty at all with propositions (a) or (b), which is the present motion, or proposition (d). We do have some difficulty with (c) and the final paragraph. However, I would not wish Senator Chipp or anyone else to think that we are so utterly at odds with the spirit of his motion, as his rather extravagant contribution might have led posterity to believe. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.13) —The Opposition will oppose Senator Chipp's motion. Obviously, this is a matter of some embarrassment to the Australian Democrats today. Again, the Opposition-the Liberal and National parties-is taking a lead in this critically important area to Australia-the area of a peace and security campaign and the area of disarmament policy. The Australian Democrats feel that they have been upstaged. Senator Georges —Is this your peace initiative? Senator HILL —We have not got a new peace initiative. What we have done is revise our peace and security platform, which we put down as a revised policy in May this year. I would be pleased to supply Senator Georges with a copy. That is the truth of the matter. Senator Chipp is embarrassed by the fact that we are taking a lead in an issue that is critically important. He has also sought the opportunity to make two speeches-of which he has already made one. Thirdly, he is taking the opportunity to waste the time allotted for the debate. If we look at the terms of Senator Chipp's alternative motion-it is really an alternative motion; it is not an amendment-it can be seen that it is near enough to the same terms as ours except for one paragraph, paragraph (c). He says that we do not deal with Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Of course, we talk about a commitment to the principles of that Treaty. Article VI is part of that Treaty and, as such, obviously is part of this debate. Paragraph (b) simply contains the same wording as our paragraph 2. Senator Haines —We do not object to your whole position. Senator HILL —Paragraph (d), for the information of Senator Haines, again raises the subject of vertical proliferation which brings in Article VI of the Treaty, which brings in the whole question of the debate. We oppose the suspension of Standing Orders because it is simply a tactic by the Australian Democrats to try to get themselves back into a position in which they feel they can lead the country in this field. We are not prepared to let them do that. They will have enough trouble with the Independent senator here on the nuclear disarmament ticket. We understand the tactic that Senator Chipp is attempting to adopt. We are not prepared to allow that to happen. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.14) —I support the suspension of Standing Orders. In doing so I reply briefly to Senator Gareth Evans. I am amazed that a Minister of the Crown could refer in this place to the tedium of a debate in the Senate, especially in relation to a debate on a matter of such considerable importance as this. I agree with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) that any debate on the castrated, wishy-washy motion that the Opposition has put forward would indeed be tedious and inadequate. I will do the Minister for Resources and Energy the credit of assuming that that was his meaning and indeed that it is only when one gets something such as the Opposition's motion that we find the matter to be tedious and wishy-washy. I suggest it is deliberately so. I believe this is an attempt by the Opposition to bring forward a motion which if passed would make us the laughing stock in the eyes of anyone who has studied this issue with any seriousness and who would feel that something-something with guts and meaning-should come out of this chamber before this important conference. I think it is reasonable that I should reply briefly to Senator Hill who said that the wishy-washy motion moved by the Opposition is an embarrassment to the Australian Democrats. Well, it is an embarrassment. Senator Puplick —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Mason has said two things; firstly, that he was replying to the Minister for Resources and Energy and, secondly, that he was replying to Senator Hill. Standing Orders require him to speak to the motion as to why standing order 64 ought to be suspended. If anybody stands accused from his own mouth of debating the matter it is Senator Mason by admitting on two occasions that he was replying to points of debate raised by two senators. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to bring him back to the terms of the Standing Orders. Senator MASON —Mr Acting Deputy President, may I respond to the point of order? I feel that any debate in this place ought to- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jessop) —Senator Mason, I do not need to listen to any further debate on the subject. Senator Puplick has made a point which I uphold. Senator Mason, I ask you to direct your remarks to the suspension of standing order 64. Senator MASON —Mr Acting Deputy President, I accept your ruling that this is a debate in which a speaker cannot reply or make any comment on what previous speakers have said. Do I understand you correctly, Mr Acting Deputy President? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think I have been fairly lenient on the whole question of this debate. Senator Georges —That is the problem; now you have been caught. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, I can do without your comments. Senator Mason, I ask you to direct your remarks to the suspension of standing order 64. I do not want you to ask questions of either side of the chamber. I ask you to proceed in the proper way and I will be tolerant with you. Senator MASON —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. For the time being I accept your point. I will not offend you by- Senator MacGibbon —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is reflecting on a ruling of the Chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I was just about to suggest that Senator Mason should not have made that remark. I expect him to follow my ruling throughout the debate. I call Senator Mason. Senator MASON —Mr Acting Deputy President, the intent of my words was not to dispute your ruling. I will not offend the Chair by canvassing the terms of the amendment moved by Senator Chipp other than to state the matter relevant to the motion which is that there is an urgent need for the matter to be debated in a meaningful form. This is a matter which is very urgent because it is generally acknowledged that the world has travelled so far down the path of nuclear armaments that a major situation of overkill exists. Not only is that so but in the opinion of responsible and informed commentators the risk of nuclear war, possibly from equipment malfunctioning, is so great that there has never before been a risk so great. Probably due to factors that colleagues on my right have not achieved a proper understanding of, the risk is great particularly in relation to equipment malfunction. This is a point we all have to take into account. Honourable senators might ask what effect a practical and realistic motion moved in this chamber will have. I think that has a direct bearing on Senator Chipp's motion. In other words, we are debating whether it is reasonable and justifiable that Senator Chipp's motion should move for the suspension of standing orders at this time. I suggest that that is reasonable, for this reason: I hope the Government will take note of a resolution of the Senate when deciding on its attitudes at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. I think that is the reason why Senator Chipp has sought suspension of Standing Orders at this time. He has not done so for the motives attributed to him earlier in the debate. I note that these are accusations to which I may not reply. Essentially his motion concerns a problem of time. In other words a decision by the Senate on this issue is significant. It would be tragic if the mish-mash of non-statements and half statements of the Liberal motion should emerge from this debate as being the view of this chamber. As I said earlier-I repeat it-it would not be too much to say that support for that motion would make this chamber a laughing stock amongst those people who really understand how important it is for Australian attitudes at the review conference to be firm and realistic. Raising this matter could really contribute to setting the world on the path towards genuine nuclear disarmament. Little purpose can be served whilst debating even the bland generalities put forward as a kind of smoke screen by the Liberal Party. I urge honourable senators to support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.29) —I speak briefly to support both the Opposition and the Government on this matter. My reason is that I have never heard greater hyprocrisy than that coming from the Australian Democrats. They are purporting-and Senator Gareth Evans will join with me in the humour of this-to see some good in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The fact is that their policy opposes it. Senator Cook —I take a point of order. It is the same as Senator Puplick's. The honourable senator should address the issue. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am saying why we should reject the amendment. The fact is that Article IV, which is the key article- Senator Mason —I take a point of order. We are not debating the amendment but the question of the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr Deputy President, I suggest that you ask Senator Sir John Carrick to direct himself to that subject. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In a debate on the suspension of Standing Orders it is proper for the people moving the motion to say what benefits would flow from the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator Sir John Carrick is entitled to refute those arguments. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I quite understand the embarrassment of the Democrats and their not wanting Article IV to be revealed because Article IV enjoins all members to support the peacetime development of nuclear energy and the mining, milling, extraction and export of uranium throughout the world. This is opposed to the policy of the Democrats. There can be no greater humbug than to come forward with a motion that pretends to support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and talks about the importance of this Treaty when the basis of the treaty is underlined by the very policy that the Democrats put forward. Their motion ought to be rejected. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chipp's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Chipp, D. L. Sanders, N. K. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Harradine, B. Vallentine, J. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Rae, PeterCook, 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. Sheil, G. Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Grimes, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.31) —I move: That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The fundamental importance for Australia, at the Third Review Conference in Geneva of the members of the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to seek to achieve- (a) the renewed commitment of all existing members to the principles of the Treaty; (b) a vigorous effort to attract non-member nations to become signatories to the Treaty; (c) the strengthening of the monitoring, surveillance and safeguards powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency with universal acceptance of its functions; and (d) a positive commitment by all and specifically the nuclear weapons power States, to meaningful multilateral disarmament and surveillance. As I said a moment or two ago, it is not surprising but pleasing that the Opposition parties, the Liberal Party and the National Party, are leading this debate, giving us an opportunity to restate our commitment to peace and security and to remind the Senate of the comprehensive policy that we have put down in this area-a policy which reflects principles which we have held for years, and positions which we have put into practice when in government, positions which we are confident are right and still deserve the support of the Australian people, but which perhaps we did not always communicate adequately for domestic consumption. This debate also gives us the opportunity to press the Government towards real and substantive contributions towards world peace. I do not mean just cosmetic contributions such as giving a senior diplomat a new status in the Department of Foreign Affairs by calling him an Ambassador for Disarmament although he continues doing the same work, or negotiating a so-called nuclear-free zone in the Pacific which might be making some people feel secure but which upon analysis gives no security whatsoever from nuclear warfare. There is a chance for the Government to make a real contribution at the third five-yearly conference on the NPT which starts next week. We are urging the Government, in the best interests of all Australians, to meet that responsibility. The Australian Government and the Australian Parliament can have no greater responsibility than to work for the peace and security of their people. Because what was a tyranny of distance is no protection in a world of modern armaments, it is a challenge we must take beyond our shores. True peace and security for Australia can come only with world peace and security. No longer can an island continent be regarded as a protection. In playing our part in the world order to achieve peace and security for Australians we will contribute to the same for others elsewhere. What I have touched upon in those statements incorporates a number of concepts critical to the understanding of the Opposition parties' position in the nuclear weapons debate. The first is that we cannot have peace, that is, real peace, without security. History shows us that without adequate security there will not be peace. We mean, of course, peace with freedom, so we reject all notions of unilateral disarmament. Those political parties or party factions in this country, veiled or unveiled, which advocate unilateral disarmament as providing security are either mischievous or naive. There will be no safety for the neutral countries in a nuclear war. We have, therefore, a responsibility to maintain adequate security. Obviously, the maintenance of that security is necessary to deter a potential aggressor. We believe in deterrence. It may be a term that in becoming somewhat out of fashion, but we believe it to be both proven and effective. We further believe that nuclear weapons are still so much a weapon in their own class that the only effective deterrent against a nuclear weapons state is another state or an alliance with an equivalent capacity. Abhorrent though that may be conceptually, we believe it to be a reality. Policies and decisions in this area must be made in the light of the real world. As much as we might want to change attitudes, as much as we might make efforts to change them, the history of the world has been one of aggressive conquest. To give one state the option of using nuclear weapons because it does not face a nuclear deterrent presents a far greater risk than to maintain a balance of such weaponry. Under our policy Australia will not become a nuclear weapons state, nor will it act as a base for nuclear weapons. That is not necessary because of our place in an alliance which has that capacity. It is through an alliance which has that capacity that we contribute to the deterrent which is necessary to provide us with the security, first from subjugation by nuclear threat, which is sometimes forgotten, and also from nuclear attack or being incidentally enveloped by the consequences of a nuclear attack upon another state. I remind honourable senators that it is the Western alliance, which is committed to peace, with its strength, its capacity and its resolve, which best secures the world against the incomprehensible, horrific consequences of a nuclear holocaust. That is why that alliance and our linking into it, formally through ANZUS and informally through our common political values and ideology, is so precious to us. That is why we are so concerned when it is so recklessly and arrogantly abused by countries such as New Zealand or by the similar path advocated by the Australian Democrats, or flouted by the Labor Government to retain the domestic pleasure of its left wing faction. To ensure peace we must work at, and contribute to, a strong Western alliance. The price we are asked to pay, we would suggest to the Senate, is negligible against the benefits we gain. What do we do? The major contributions we make are to the international communications and monitoring system through the three joint bases with the United States of America, to allow overflight of northern Australia by unarmed aircraft and to provide visiting port facilities for allied shipping and rest and recreation for the crews. That, I would have thought, in anyone's language, is a small price to pay. Yet it is a price apparently far too high for the Australian Democrats, who want all the benefits of an alliance without a contribution. It seems too high a price for Labor to pay, although-I hesitate to say it-depending on its mood. We all recall the embarrassment of not so long ago when Labor was not prepared to offer the repair facilities of this country to the allied British vessel Invincible. So when Labor's rhetoric was put to the test it was found to fail. An adequate deterrent means weapons of comparable capacity and, as the Soviet Union modernises its force, regrettably, but necessarily, that must be matched by the West. The fact that this Government refused recently to facilitate the testing of a more modern delivery system, by performing the small tasks it was asked to fulfil, such as refuelling United States observer planes, shows how shallow is its commitment to the alliance. It was an action which recklessly put at risk the security of this country. We stress that we are partners in an alliance. We are not a compliant partner, but an active partner with a role to play. That gives us the responsibility to contribute to the direction of international foreign policy and safeguards. The position we argue is not always similar to the position adopted by our partners in the alliance. Thus, the Senate will recall that when we were last in government we argued strongly for a nuclear test ban treaty, which was not then the position of the United States of America, nevertheless it was the position we advanced because of our responsibility within the alliance. But we on this side of the chamber are realistic about Australia's middle power status. We recognise that there are some other nations within the alliance which pay a much greater cost than we do, and there are states which are more closely threatened, states which bear the burden of huge foreign military bases, or states which bear the burden of nuclear weapons sited on their soil. However, having said that the deterrent must be adequate, we realise that the world has developed an enormous over capacity of nuclear hardware. The total of 50,000 nuclear weapons far exceeds what is necessary as an adequate deterrent-so many weapons, in fact, that the proliferation becomes a danger in itself. So we have consistently argued for balanced and verifiable reductions. In an environment of great mistrust between the super-powers, there is a role we can play. We must constructively contribute to the development of verification systems that will give the parties more confidence to reduce their weaponry. There are many other ways in which this can be done, such as continuing to advocate a comprehensive test ban treaty. We must contribute to better international trust and understanding. We can do this through continuing our work in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva and by continuing our contribution in the various United Nations committees. We can also do so through the contribution of our research facilities which we can make available from Australia. In fact, we can do this in a myriad of ways, provided we approach our responsibility positively. If we simply reduce our contribution to abuse or to undermining our allies we shall simply be unhelpful. Vertical proliferation-by which I mean the number and quality of armaments of the limited number of states which can be described as nuclear weapon states-increases pressure towards horizontal proliferation. That is what this debate is principally about: How best we can restrain other states not presently nuclear weapon power states from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Opposition parties see that as a risk and a danger at least as great as any vertical proliferation and as something we must work against. That is why we have been such strong advocates and supporters of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We realise that with horizontal proliferation would come a loss of that element of control within existing alliances. We realise that the deterrent would not have the same effect when such weapons are in the hands of more irrational regimes. We recognise that it would greatly increase the potential of regional conflicts to become nuclear conflicts and thus to escalate out of control. The Treaty which the Opposition supports so strongly is under stress. That places upon Australia, upon this Government which will reprersent Australia, a most important role to be played at the review conference starting next week. The NPT has lasted for 15 years. It now has over 120 signatories and, as part of the whole non-proliferation regime, it has played a part in restraining horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has provided a forum for many non-nuclear weapon states to renounce the use of such armaments. It has made it more difficult for a non-nuclear weapon member state secretly to develop such weapons. It has therefore given some confidence to member states that other non-nuclear weapon states are not abusing their undertakings. As I have said, it is under stress, and principally for three reasons. First, it was premised on the legitimate right of states to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. On that basis they are entitled to help and support from other states. In other words, there must be benefits in becoming a party and, in exchange, they are prepared to submit their installations and fuel stocks to international monitoring, which must be to our benefit. That incentive, which goes to the very heart of the Treaty, is threatened by those, for example in this country, who would deny such countries fuel stocks, who want the super-powers to meet their obligations under the Treaty but who conveniently forget our obligations. My Party and the National Party do not forget these things. That is why we support the export of uranium for peaceful purposes under the international safeguards regime. In doing so we positively contribute to horizontal non-proliferation. The second reason the Treaty is under stress is that the quid pro quo for non-nuclear weapon states forgoing nuclear weapons was the undertaking that the United States of America and the Soviet Union would-and, for the benefit of Senator Chipp, I quote from Article VI: . . . pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date . . . That would continue to eventual nuclear disarmament. The non-nuclear weapon states feel let down. That only emphasises our responsibility to urge the super-powers, particularly our ally the United States, with which we have some influence, towards compliance with Article VI of the Treaty. The third reason that the Treaty is under stress is that nuclear technology is advancing so rapidly that the capacity of the regime is severely pressed to keep pace with meaningful safeguards even with the goodwill of member states. So there is a clear role there which Australia could and should embrace. In fact, in our revised policy issued in May of this year we set out a number of steps that we advocate for Australia to contribute to a stronger non-proliferation regime. An obvious weakness in the system is that some states have failed to join. Australia can make a greater effort to explore the individual concerns of non-member countries and therefore seek to overcome those concerns and induce them to join. Where they will not join, we could strive to persuade them nevertheless to agree to International Atomic Energy Agency supervision of their nuclear cycles and to comply with IAEA safeguards. We can seek to persuade countries party to regional non-proliferation agreements to link such safeguards to the world-wide safeguards administered by IAEA. We could look to much more work by Australia in the development of international agreements giving legally binding security assurances for non-nuclear weapon states. We, in government, would work, and argue that this Government should work, for the application of full IAEA safeguards on all civil nuclear facilities operated by all states including nuclear weapon states, whether or not they are members of the NPT. We advocate that this country should be working to ensure international agreement not to provide nuclear items to non-nuclear weapon states which are not members of the NPT or whose facilities are not under IAEA safeguards. We advocate that we should explore other ways in which Australia can increase the advantages of being a member of the NPT, particularly through regional assistance or in areas of our existing expertise, such as in nuclear physics and nuclear medicine. We argue that we should provide greater levels of scientific and technical support to the IAEA and in so many other ways that I have not time to detail today. What is this Government proposing? To date we do not know. We hope that we shall hear the answer to that question. We hoped that today we would have forced them to put the Government position to the Senate, but I remind the Senate that the conference to which I referred is due to start only next week. Our proposals have been on the table for months. Rhetoric in this field is cheap. By contrast what the Opposition puts forward are constructive roles that Australia can realistically play towards achieving a safer world. The contrast can be seen no better than in relation to the United States SDI-a search for a non-nuclear defence against nuclear weapons, a search for a better alternative to deterrent and a more moral alternative to the security of a mutually assured destruction. What do the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats say? They say that they are opposed to it, that Australia will not help in any way. Members of the Liberals and the National parties will always be looking to search for progress in this critically important area. I commend our policies to the Senate and I urge the Government on this occasion, on behalf of the Australian people, to make a constructive contribution at the conference starting next week to further enhance nuclear non-proliferation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.51) —The Government fully supports the motion put forward by Senator Hill, although we have to say that we do not believe that the Opposition's credentials on peace and disarmament questions really quite justify the degree of self-congratulation that we heard in the course of Senator Hill's speech. However, we fully share the view that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is fundamental to Australia. That view is clearly articulated in the preamble to the motion. Beyond that we believe, as Mr Hayden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, said in a Press release on 15 August setting out the Government's approach to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference-a release which Senator Hill does not seem to have caught up with-that the NPT has made a crucially important contribution to international and regional security and stability for the past 15 years. The NPT is the centrepiece of efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries. It provides the essential framework for international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and is a major element of Australia's nuclear arms control policy on the basis of our strict bilateral nuclear safeguards policy applied to uranium. Perhaps the Treaty is best understood as fundamentally constituting a deal between nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states. Under its terms there were three basic elements. The first element was that non-nuclear weapons states which became party to the Treaty gave up the option of acquiring nuclear weapons. They undertook to accept strict safeguards on the civil nuclear fuel cycle in order to ensure that materials used in that cycle were not diverted for military use. The second element was that the nuclear weapons states promised under Article VI that they would make significant progress towards arms control and disarmament. I will come back to Article VI in a moment. The third element was that all parties to the Treaty agreed under article IV that they would facilitate the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful purposes of nuclear energy. This included, of course, the supply of raw material such as uranium. As was pointed out in the earlier debate, Article IV is obviously the stumbling block for the Australian Democrats in terms of their response to this motion, but it has to be understood that Article IV was an integral component of the basic balance of responsibilities and obligations that lay behind the very theoretical foundation of this Treaty. To try to talk about the Treaty in the absence of that commitment to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology is to misunderstand the cement that in many ways holds it together. As to this forthcoming conference, Mr Hayden has said that Australia will aim to use the conference to defend and strengthen the effectiveness of the Treaty. Disarmament and nuclear safeguards questions will be given the highest priority and attention by the Australian delegation, with the review conference affording another major opportunity to advance the Government's nuclear arms control and disarmament objectives, particularly the objective of a comprehensive test ban treaty. To that extent I indicate, as I did earlier, that I have no difficulty at all with Senator Chipp's desire to write into the terms of our resolution today some specific commitment to that objective. The major Australian intiative we will be taking at the conference is one that is entirely consistent with what Senator Hill was talking about just a few moments ago, and that is that we will seek conference endorsement of an initative to require the application of NPT or International Atomic Energy Agency full scope safeguards to the supply of all nuclear items. Endorsement of this initiative, which if I have time I will explain in more detail later, would constitute a major additional step in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The other major element of the Treaty, as I have said, concerns co-operation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. On this matter Australia's position is and will remain one of seeking to foster a positive and practical discussion stressing the essential link between safeguards and co-operation. IAEA and NPT safeguards provide the necessary confidence that the results of co-operation will remain peaceful, particularly if they are upgraded to the extent we would like to be the case. The other thing that I guess we will be doing at this conference is, in common with the other South Pacific Forum countries, informing it of progress achieved in establishing a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. We will be saying how proud we are of an agreement of so much practical significance, so compatible and expressly compatible with the objects of that Treaty. Senator Chipp —It would be a free zone through which Cruise missiles sail. Senator GARETH EVANS —The cynicism and scepticism of the Democrats on this matter are well known. However, one can say that their objectives are praiseworthy in wanting to ensure a genuine nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. Regrettably, one cannot say that of the Opposition's stance, which has also sought to attack the achievement of a nuclear-free zone, but from the other side of the coin. It has to be said that the Opposition has adopted a divided, a divisive and, I believe, a very dangerous approach to this Treaty. On the 15 May the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) said this of such a Treaty, a putative Treaty as it then was: We are committed to it, we always have been. It was the Fraser Government which was at the first South Pacific Forum meeting which agreed that a draft treaty should be drawn up. What has happened since, of course, is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) by contrast has taken a characteristically negative, small-minded view on the same issue and in so doing has effectively dumped on this instance, as on a number of other instances, his spokesman on foreign affairs. Back in September 1984 Mr Peacock referred to the zone as a Mickey Mouse proposal; an elegant phrase which was repeated by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) just a few days ago on 5 August. On 7 August 1985, again just a few days ago, the Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government's support for the Treaty now agreed to at Raratonga, allegedly because it indicated a wrong sense of priorities. In that statement the Opposition's vaunted interest in peace, arms control and disarmament really was exposed for the sham that it is. On 7 August 1985-almost 40 years to the day after the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima-the Opposition Leader chose to indicate not only that he would not rule out but that he supported the installation and storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory. The context of his statement of course was home-porting, which he alleged was inconsistent with the Treaty and which certainly is against Australian Labor Party policy. We believe that the Opposition's position on this, its willingness to contemplate its preparedness to install and store nuclear weapons in Australia, demonstrates in a dangerous and really very irresponsible way the situation that the Liberals have got themselves into. One hopes that the Liberal Party is divided- Senator Hill —What statement is that? Senator GARETH EVANS —The statement of 7 August on the response to the South Pacific nuclear-free zone. I would be delighted if Senator Hill looked it up and saw for himself the enormity of the position to which he has been committed by his Leader, unless he is now prepared to stand up and resile from it. I think it is one of the more disgraceful contributions to public debate on this issue and a demonstration once again of the very clear choice, the clearest possible choice, that now exists between the major parties on these fundamental questions of peace and disarmament. Let me get back to the issues about which we seem, at least for the purposes of this debate today, to be able to agree. The motion before us has four specific elements. I will deal quickly with each in turn. The first element is a renewed commitment. I suggest that we endorse a renewed commitment of all existing members to the principles of the Treaty. I was a little surprised to note the omission of that expression from the Democrats' preferred motion today, but of course once again the spectre of Article IV clearly stood in their way. I repeat the points I made earlier in this respect. From our point of view I simply reiterate that the principles of the NPT continue to be of central importance to international peace and security. They have become a clear yardstick of responsible international behaviour and the Australian delegation to the review conference will certainly be working to see that the Treaty parties reaffirm at the conference their commitment to the important principles of non-proliferation and disarmament embodied in the NPT. The second element in the motion before us is that we should seek to achieve a vigorous effort to attract non-member nations to become signatories to the Treaty. That is something about which it appears everyone in this chamber is united, and properly so. There are now 130 members of the NPT. This is a substantial increase, in fact, since the last review conference in 1980. The NPT is now, by far, the most widely adhered to disarmament treaty that has ever been written. Australia has been very active over past years in contributing to this increase in membership. We have urged non-members in all five continents to adhere to the Treaty. There have been successes in our immediate region. Brunei, Kiribati and the Seychelles have all adhered to the NPT this year. In our own region, all the Association of South East Asian Nations countries and all the South Pacific Forum countries, with perhaps the surprising exception of Vanuatu, are now members of the Treaty. This is a very important element in the security of the region and we certainly hope that Vanuatu will shortly join in. Mr Hayden raised the NPT issue during his recent visits to India and Pakistan-two very important non-NPT states, as we all know. We have also made approaches to Israel, Argentina and South Africa in this respect. Particular attention has been given to the attitude of Spain. Australia has recently engaged in bilateral disarmament consultations with that important non-party. Representations have also been made to a number of African countries. It is clear beyond doubt that the Government has been very active in this area and will continue to be so. The Australian delegation to the review conference will be taking the opportunity to discuss with other members of the Treaty renewed efforts to attract non-member states. The next matter dealt with is one that apparently causes the Democrats some embarrassment, but one to which the Government is very strongly committed-that is, the strengthening of the monitoring, surveillance and safeguards powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency so as to secure universal acceptance of its functions. The role of the IAEA in verifying the non-proliferation commitments of Treaty members is really crucial for the effectiveness of the NPT. The Australian delegation to the conference will work very hard and very vigorously to enhance support for and effectiveness of IAEA safeguards. As I mentioned a little earlier, Australia will pursue a specific initiative to seek a new political commitment from NPT parties to require the application of NPT of full-scope IAEA safeguards to all nuclear transactions with non-nuclear weapons states. I can explain in just a little more detail what that is about. Our supply policies at the moment require non-nuclear weapons state customers to be members of the NPT and to have IAEA safeguards apply to all their nuclear facilities at all times. Several major uranium suppliers, however, require IAEA safeguards and other controls and conditions on supplied nuclear items but do not require recipient states to be members of the NPT or to accept IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear facilities at all times. Australia simply does not consider this approach satisfactory and I am glad to acknowledge that Senator Hill does not seem to think it is either. Permitting non-nuclear weapons states which have not made binding non-proliferation commitments to acquire nuclear items-I should have used the expression `nuclear items' rather than `uranium' a couple of sentences ago-on less stringent conditions than countries which have made such commitments lessens their incentive to join the NPT. So what we will be doing is pursuing the proposal at the review conference that no NPT member state shall ever supply nuclear materials, equipment and technology to any non-nuclear weapons state which is not a party to the NPT or which does not accept full-scope safeguards of the kind I have described under the IAEA. We believe that endorsement of this Australian initiative would constitute a major additional contribution to the non- proliferation regime. Australia will also be seeking a reaffirmation of the importance of co-operation between parties to the Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency and the application of IAEA safeguards. We will urge all parties to ensure that the IAEA has the necessary human and financial resources to enable the agency to fulfil effectively its responsibilities in the future. A number of parties, including Australia, provide extra budgetary assistance to the development of improved safeguards equipment and techniques and we will be calling on all parties in a position to do so to undertake similar activities. It is because of the central role that we perceive for the IAEA in this respect and because of our recognition of the fact that nuclear energy is a fact of life with some 297 nuclear power reactors in operation in December 1982, according to the most recent figures I have seen and with another 216 then under construction, that we believe it is absolutely crucial that we have in place this kind of safeguards regime which recognises the reality of the nuclear industry and seeks to do something about controlling it. The Democrats proposal, by contrast, which simply talks in terms of the development of alternative energy sources, as worthy an objective as that might be, is simply not a sufficient alternative to contemplate writing into this motion at the expense of any reference to IAEA safeguards. Similarly, in terms of the particular organisation that the Democrats talk about-the development for energy fund-we would simply make the point that, as committed as we are to ensuring the development of alternative energy sources, a large amount of work is already being done internationally in this respect. A number of international institutions like the IAEA are working on it. We simply do not believe that there is much utility in contemplating additional institutional arrangements of the kind that are proposed in the Democrat version of this motion. Finally, the motion before us seeks a positive commitment by all, and especially the nuclear weapons states, to meaningful multilateral disarmament and surveillance. I fully acknowledge that this is at the heart and soul of what the whole NPT process ought to be about. This will be, as it has been for years, a major priority for Australia and a major priority for the Australian delegation. We want to see a re-affirmation of the disarmament goals of the Treaty and, as I said during Question Time yesterday, we will be making it very plain in that respect that we share the disappointment of many NPT parties that there has been no evident process betweem the super powers towards nuclear disarmament since the last review conference. There has been a very disappointing approach to the obligations imposed by Article VI of the NPT, which is the commitment which primarily is as relevant- Senator Chipp —That is our point. There are virtually no obligations under Article VI. Senator GARETH EVANS —There are obligations to enter into bilateral and multilateral arrangements to pursue the cause of disarmament. The reality is that progress in that respect has been extraordinarily slow. We acknowledge that. We are disappointed about it. We will be saying so and will be joining in the framing and passage of a resolution at the conference which will make that point of view extremely clear. Beyond that, Senator Chipp, I do not think I can really be much more explicit. We will not be supporting or presenting a proposal for a timetable and program for disarmament at the review conference itself of the kind that Senator Chipp would like us to be contemplating and which in fact has been mooted, although not recently, by some of the Scandinavian countries. But we certainly will be supporting the inclusion of an admonition to the multilateral conference on disarmament in Geneva to expedite its negotiations on a comprehensive program of disarmament. We are very keen for that to be presented, as it is due to be presented, to the forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly for adoption in 1986. I think it is well known just how deeply Australia has been involved in those negotiations. We are extremely keen to progress them and to use every available opportunity to do so, including the forthcoming review conference. We have proposed, in the context of the Geneva multilateral disarmament conference, both a mandate and a program of work for resuming substantive work on a comprehensive test ban as well as the establishment of an international seismic monitoring network to verify any future treaty. We are also sponsoring with New Zealand a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly on the urgent need for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. We accept that the NPT review conference itself does not present a forum for effective disarmament negotiations. They have to take place bilaterally between the super powers and multilaterally in the specific international body concerned in Geneva. But the NPT conference is certainly an appropriate forum for expressing the concern, which I think everyone in this chamber shares, that Article VI be implemented not only as to its letter but as to its spirit, both of which have been somewhat lacking so far. So in summary, Australia will pursue its disarmament and safeguards concerns vigorously at the review conference. In doing so we are not going to endanger in any way the fabric or the integrity of the NPT itself, with all of its different dimensions. The contribution of the NPT to international peace and security is too crucial to jeopardise. It must be preserved. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.10) —It is entirely appropriate that the Parliament of Australia should be debating the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons at this stage, given that the review conference is to be held in five days time. To that extent the Senate should be indebted to Senator Hill. However, it is unfortunate and tragic that such a blatantly shallow motion should be before the Senate and supported by the Australian Labor Party. Senator Hill and Senator Evans made several mentions of safeguards and surveillance. I have never been one to doubt Senator Hill's integrity or sincerity, but I say with great respect to him: How naive can a person get when he says that United States aircraft crossing Australia are unarmed? I would be fascinated to know how he knows that. Has he received an assurance from the United States Government? I think it has been that Government's policy for a long time neither to confirm nor to deny that proposition. All we have is a gentleperson's agreement signed in 1981. In answer to a question I asked some months ago Senator Evans, reading a brief from the Department of Foreign Affairs, admonished me for even asking the Government to ask the United States whether B52s are armed or loaded with bombs. He virtually said: `How dare you, Senator Chipp, ask us to question the United States on such a delicate question'. Senator Evans said that Senator Chipp knows very well that the Americans will neither confirm nor deny that proposition. So how can we talk about surveillance when we have these aircraft which we know next year will be loaded with cruise missiles, one of the most deadly of modern weapons? How will we be able to find out whether they are carrying these weapons on low flying exercises over Queensland and the Northern Territory? The Government will not even ask the United States whether its aircraft are carrying weapons or whether they are armed. I am astonished at the breathtaking naivety of Senator Hill who says simply that the aircraft are not armed. He then said that by being in the NPT and not rocking the boat we can influence the United States. Again, I would have been fascinated to hear from him the last time we influenced the United States on anything. That Government treats us with absolute contempt on every proposition we put. Senator Evans and Senator Hill talked about safeguards. I want point out how dangerous it is even to assume that we can place any reliance on the International Atomic Energy Agency. As Senator Evans just usefully informed us, there are 290-odd reactors in the world today, and 200 more are being built. Senator Gareth Evans —That was in December 1982. Senator CHIPP —I thank the Minister and acknowledge the interjection. That is over 500 reactors. Yet the IAEA has fewer than 150 inspectors to protect the world from that sort of danger. I find it mindboggling that any adult person can rely on the IAEA or the NPT to protect the non-nuclear states. I believe that our position at this conference could be crucial to the future of the of the world. I believe that the Government has been intentionally vague and secretive about what specific proposals it will be supporting and the initiatives it will be taking. It has chosen not to consult at all with any non-governmental groups or organisations vitally concerned with peace issues. I find it incredible that the Government will be going to this conference, the most important conference this planet will have this decade or maybe this century, and it has not consulted the expert people in the Movement Against Uranium Mining and the People for Nuclear Disarmament, or the dozens of other respectable organisations such as the women for peace, the doctors for peace and the scientists for peace. There are dozens of them. They are respectable organisations whose members are pledging their whole lives to this cause. They have not been consulted and they will not be assisted with observer status at the conference. Yesterday, less than a week before the conference starts, the Government, in reply to my question, said that no non-government person will be going as a member of the Australian delegation of 12. Other nations have seen fit to include a non-government delegate but not ours, even though it has been asked and has discussed the possibility. It is my belief that the Government has decided to underplay the NPT review so that its performance at the conference will not be compared with the initiatives and proposals of other nations, as that would show that the Government's disarmament and peace policy is all words and no action or bright ideas on actually doing anything. I ask the Government now a simple question. After the review will the Government be briefing non-government groups on the review and discussing with them moves or initiatives for the second last conference in 1990 so that the Australian public can be informed? Will the Government discuss with these groups the implications for the Government's policy arising out of the Geneva review? The matter before us today includes the proposal that there should be a renewed commitment of all existing members of the Treaty to the principles of the Treaty. These principles include Article VI, under which each of the parties undertakes to pursue negotiations on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. This article has been flagrantly ignored by the super-powers over the past several decades. The pathetic reliance placed upon it by people such as Senator Hill and Senator Sir John Carrick is hard to understand. Maybe one can understand that pathetic reliance placed upon it by those on the conservative side of Australian politics. It confounds me that a party such as the Australian Labor Palrty is placing the same reliance on a treaty which allegedly has an article designed for disarmament and to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons when there has been allowed to develop a situation where in 1985 50,000 nuclear weapons are in existence. Some treaty! What a sham to say that it is working. What a sham to say that this is the possible saviour of mankind. Yet this Government and this country are going to Geneva and we will not say a word about enforcing Article VI. That seems to be the view of both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in this Parliament. I would be more than delighted if all honourable senators were to make this the number one principle of the NPT and to urge our Government to propose or support any proposal for the immediate conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. Yet when I moved to suspend Standing Orders so that I could have my amendment included in this motion which is before the Senate, it was overwhelming defeated with every member of the Liberal Party, most members of the Labor Party and all members of the National Party voting against it. Senator Sir John Carrick —All members of the Labor Party. Senator CHIPP —No, it was not all members of the Labor Party. I pay tribute to one very sincere member who at least had the decency to abstain. Maybe there were more. There are 50,000 bombs now in existence. Such weapons have flourished under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I remind honourable senators that we are talking about a situation the danger of which can be compared to what happened in 1945. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima killed 200,000 people. By today's standards that was a toy. On average each of the 50,000 bombs in existence now is 30 times move destructive than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. In theory such a bomb could kill in one hit something like five million human beings. That is the magnitude of the problem we are facing. It is my hope that the Australian Government will see this review conference as a step towards a new treaty. Otherwise the world will march inevitably down the path of nuclear destruction. One principle of the Treaty which is so flawed as to actually put in jeopardy the world's ecological survival is Article IV. I was refreshed to learn after eight years in this place that Senator Sir John Carrick discovered today that the Australian Democrats are totally, inequivocally and passionately opposed to the export, milling and mining of uranium. I am glad that after eight years we have got that through to him. I hope that will give him some extra cause for concern. One principle of the Treaty, which Article IV advocates, is nuclear energy for civilian purposes. I am opposed to a treaty that has allowed 50,000 nuclear bombs to be built under it. How many times do I have to say that to at least suggest to people of average intellectual capacity to contemplate whether this Treaty been a success or has been the grossest of failures? A treaty that is failure is of no use. It is a positive danger, because what the Treaty does to men and women of goodwill throughout the world is give them a sense of complacency. The pro-nuclear people say: `Don't worry about the nuclear extinction; we have a nuclear non-proliferation treaty'. That allays the concern of the populace and to that extent it is a positive danger. The IAEA safeguards procedures should be amended to include greater funding and open reporting procedures and the promotion of energy should be the domain of the energy for development fund, which we support. I was disappointed to know that the Government would not agree to the amendment which the Democrats wanted to make to the original motion. If the matter of urgency proposed by Senator Hill is to have any meaning at all, it is not enough that Australia and members of the Treaty commit themselves to `meaningful multilateral disarmament and surveillance'. What the hell does that mean? That is classic bureaucratic gobbledegook for not touching the Treaty now. What the Liberals are saying is: `For God's sake, don't amend Article VI. Let the Soviets and the Americans keep their promise made by President Reagan, supported by Mr Gorbachev, to build another 10,000 to 20,000 nuclear bombs in the next decade'. Not touching Article VI of the Treaty will allow both of them to do that. I would not like to live in that sort of a world. One of the saddest facts of life on the planet earth at present is that the two super-powers-the United States of America and the Soviet Union-disagree on almost every topic that is ever put before them. However, it is even sadder and totally ironical that at the forthcoming nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference to be held in Geneva five days from now these two nations will be desperate to achieve a common purpose; that is, to ensure that no meaningful alterations will be made to Article VI of the Treaty which would place any constraints on them in the next decade in restraining the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They do not want a thorough evaluation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and they must especially fear a thorough evaluation which would enhance their compliance with Article VI. Will our `peace loving' Government be, through its inaction, helping the super-powers get through this conference unscathed and, in so doing, reducing this vital conference to a four-week talkfest? Is it any wonder that at the end of his life Albert Einstein, the reluctant father of the atom, when asked would he do it again, said: `No, I think it would have been better had I been a plumber'. If this conference fulfils the hopes of the United States and the Soviets that the loopholes remain in Article VI, if the conference makes no real strengthening of the Treaty and if it is allowed to remain the farce that it is, it will be to the external shame of Australia to have helped such a non-result. If the Soviet and the United State plans to reduce it to a talkfest succeed, the chilling words of Arthur Koestler could have keener meaning; namely, that man's self-induced extinction of life on this planet will have become a statistical certainty. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.24) —The prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout this world is the paramount issue of our time and of generations to come. No issue now or for the future is of a greater magnitude. Against that terrifying background, the Liberal and National parties have brought forward a matter of urgency to this Senate. The motion comprehends the fact that a conference of immense importance will take place in Geneva next week. That conference is a month-long conference of signatories and ratifiers of the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That Treaty is, at this moment, the centrepiece for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in this world. It is vital that the Treaty itself and its strengths and weaknesses be understood and that those who go to the meeting and who represent the various countries, particular Australia, work for the strengthening of the Treaty. Accordingly, the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia have brought forward a matter of urgency in these terms: That Australia seek to achieve the renewed committment of all existing members to the principles of the Treaty; a vigorous effort to attract non-member nations to become signatories to the Treaty; a strengthening of the monitoring, surveillance and safeguards powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with universal acceptance of its functions; and, fin- ally, a positive commitment by all and specifically the nuclear weapons power states to meaningful multilateral disarmament and surveillance. This is a very powerful motion in itself. Its strong aims and goals strike right at the heart of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To understand the challenge to mankind, it is now generally accepted by the scientists of the world that the threat of the nuclear winter is a reality. The nuclear winter is based upon the fact that a first strike by an aggressor would be of such magnitude in its strike, in number and in megatonnage of the nuclear weapons that not only the areas on which the missiles landed would be destroyed but also the trophosphere would be so scattered with carbon particles that the world would be put into a nuclear winter and all life, flora and fauna, would be destroyed. That has been accepted by the Australian Labor Party and by its spokesmen. I believe that it has been accepted by the Australian Democrats and by the nuclear disarmanent parties. It is certainly fundamental to the Liberal and National parties. Once that acceptance occurs it is fundamental that the real aim of everybody wanting to secure peace in this world must be to stop the first bomb from falling, wherever that first bomb may fall. It is irrelevant, once the first strike occurs, where the strike took place. Everybody suffers. No nation gains immunity by any nuclear free zones. There is no immunity by isolation. There is no immunity by having no military facilities or ships in ports. The very fundamental beliefs of the Liberal Party and the scientists of the world is that once the first bomb has fallen the world itself and its ecosystem will be perilously in danger of total destruction. Those who seek unilateral disarmament and nuclear free zones are talking a pretence or, at the most, a naivete that they do not understand. The fact of the matter is that we must stop any bomb from falling, no matter where. Against that background we are seeking to ask the Australian Government to do a number of things at this very important conference. Firstly, we are asking the Australian Government to enthuse the existing members of the Treaty to stay in it and to strengthen it. The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, has said that the Treaty is no good. He said that the ANZUS Treaty is no good. He rejects the ANZUS Treaty and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Instead of wanting to strengthen those treaties he rejects them. He rejects the existence of any facilities in Australia and the presence of ships in ports. He has taken an isolationist view which is totally incompatible with the theory of nuclear winter which all the scientists uphold. In fact, it is the defeatist's view. What we are saying to those 130 members is: `Stay inside the Treaty even though you think it has some weaknesses. Help to strengthen the Treaty and identify the weaknesses'. I have talked to many of the diplomats who represent the countries which will be attending this conference. I have talked to diplomats in various countries who represent nuclear non-proliferation. Some 40 nations are not signatories to the Treaty and they include France and China-two nuclear weapons states, although France has said that she will observe the essential terms of the Treaty. One of the worries is that some six nations at least are outside the Treaty-they include Argentina, Brazil, India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa-and are giving no commitments that they will support in principle or otherwise the spirit of the Treaty. Those six countries come into the category of threshold nations, nations that almost certainly have not only the capacity but also, to a certain stage, the ability to produce a nuclear explosive. That is a fundamental danger. In the history of the Treaty no new weapons state has emerged and identified itself as such. We worry about the threshold nations. We must look at getting nations together to form a strengthened treaty. I do not refer to only the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; there is a Latin American treaty of great significance, the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Only a month ago I was in Tlatelolco, Mexico City, where that Treaty was signed. It has the same fundamentals as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but, regrettably, a number of the signatories have not ratified it. We should work towards their ratifying it. We should work towards gathering together more and more nations to strenghten it. The second point to Senator Hill's matter of urgency is: . . . a vigorous effort to attract non-member nations to become signatories . . . That is what Australia should be doing wherever its diplomats are throughout the world and wherever we travel. Here is a real chance for us to do crusading work. A fundamental point that the Democrats sought to leave out of their motion-it is at the very heart of things-is the strengthening of the monitoring, surveillance and safeguards powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency with universal acceptance and functions. The Democrats criticised the existing IAEA for not having enough teeth but they are not willing to support a motion which aims to give it teeth, to give it more members, to give it more inspectors to go around the world. The Democrats want the key to the whole motion-the key to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is that the IAEA, a watchdog, shall be strengthened and work-taken out. I have been to Vienna and discussed with the IAEA how best it can be strengthened. I am passionately in favour of strengthening the IAEA. If it is not strengthened there is no hope for us. Two articles of the Treaty must be observed. There is great dissatisfication amongst the member nations of the NPT, first of all amongst those nations which are pledged against horizontal nuclear arms proliferation; that is, the non-weapons states. They see themselves being forced to observe the Treaty, and they are, as far as one can see. Senator Chipp —West Germany? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —As far as we can see it has. A number of nations outside the Treaty are getting benefits that NPT nations cannot have. They see that the weapons states are not carrying out Article VI of the Treaty and so there is dissatisfaction. The NPT nations want no privileges for being outside the treaty. The Liberal and the National parties fundamentally support the provision of sanctions by Australia against those countries which are outside the Treaty. We support in toto the recommendations of the Australian Science and Technology Council report which state that we should strengthen the IAEA. It is easy to talk about the super-powers, the fact that they have a proliferation of weapons and that they have not reduced their weaponry. The horizontal non-proliferation states have a real grouch. It is very important to know that in the past two years the breakdown in the strategic arms reduction talks was not due to the the United States of America; it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that walked out of the START talks. It is very important for honourable senators to look at the offers made by America in terms of the strategic arms reductions talks to see what it was offering-halving the weaponry, cutting down the megatonnage enormously. Senator Chipp —Going into Star Wars. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It is easy for the honourable senator to interject on Star Wars. Let me say this: It is strange that the only attack both the Labor Party and the Democrats have made on Star Wars is against the United States of America. They have never admitted that fundamentally it was the USSR that led research into Star Wars and into laser beams. The Democrats were silent when the USSR was testing missiles in the North and South Pacific. Not only has the USSR advanced its research into Star Wars but also it has actually developed Star Wars. If honourable senators look at the radar set at Krasnoyarsk in central Siberia they will find that it is directly against the terms of the treaties. Yet all honourable senators opposite are silent about what Russia does; they are silent because they know that the aim of the laser beam experiment is to do away with an offensive system of nuclear missiles and put in its place a defence system based on high density light beams. Who could want a more shining moral goal than that? We are saying that we should strive to get the super-powers to reduce their armament under Article VI of the Treaty. I come to Article IV because time does not allow me to develop my argument much further. Both the Labor Party and the Democrats stand condemned on Article IV. Article IV enjoins any member nation to supply nuclear materials to other member nations without limit. That is fundamental to Article IV. Of course, the Labor Party does not do that; it limits the amount of nuclear materials it will send to member nations. So the Labor Party is in breach of Article IV. It is jeopardising its position on the governing body of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It should do everything it can to keep and strengthen that position. What a nonsense it is for the Democrats to say that somebody ought to go to this treaty conference when they are opposed to Article IV. They are opposed to any kind of nuclear material moving around; they are opposed to the total Treaty. I call upon the Australian Government to go to this conference with the strength of will and the kinds of policies that Senator Hill has put forward-they are the policies of the Liberal and National parties-to achieve a strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime around the world and to seek meaningful and very significant nuclear disarmament in this world and therefore work towards peace. We will not get that by unilateral disarmament; we will not get it by talking about zones. I want to correct one point: What the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, said, is not true. We are in favour of a non-proliferation zone in the South Pacific, and that is what it is. Mr Peacock queried whether or not that would affect home porting of ANZUS vessels in times of crisis. Senator Chipp —Well what did he say? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is what he said. My time has run out. Senator Chipp —We will give you an extension of time so you can put on record what he said. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I would be happy to do that if I had the indulgence of the Senate for half a minute. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Chipp —He is seeking leave to make a statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Have you sought leave? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator Sir John CARRICK —I simply want to say that in the 7 August statement Mr Peacock said: . . . that the Prime Minister must give a categorical assurance that the agreed nuclear free zone will not rule out any possibility of future United States home porting within the zone or Australia. I remind the Senate that it was a Liberal Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, who actively introduced and supported the nuclear non-proliferation zone in the South Pacific. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.40) —The Government welcomes the opportunity to debate the motion moved by Senator Hill this afternoon. I join with all of the previous speakers who have indicated seriously that there is no more important issue than the survival of the globe and, what touches most on the survival of this planet, the threat of nuclear extinction. However, we need to say that this presents for us yet another opportunity to debate our role and our run-up to preparations for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. We do not shrink from this debate. We welcome it. However, it is not the only occasion on which we as a government have declared our position, our interest and what we propose to do at the conference. However, the debate presents us with the further opportunity to explain our attitude. We support the four points in Senator Hill's motion, although they do not constitute the complete, total points we will be raising at the conference. Nevertheless, in our view, those four points are sound. It should be observed, however, that the Senate is a political forum. As a political forum one needs to be careful to delineate one's precise political position. We do not believe we identify at all with the Liberal Party of Australia on this issue. We identify with the words in the motion moved by Senator Hill. However, our performance in regard to the subject of nuclear proliferation, disarmament and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a performance vastly different from that of the Liberal Party when it was in government. Senator Chipp —How is it different? Senator COOK —We welcome the Liberal Party's support for the stand the Government now takes. Senator Chipp has interjected asking how our role has been different. I will give one example. The very Treaty which we have heard praised to the rafters here-and rightly so- was first ratified by the major powers in 1970. In this country there was then a Liberal Government. We had to wait until 1973, when the Whitlam Government came to office, before Australia adopted that Treaty. The distinct difference is that a previous administration-a Liberal administration-had the opportunity in 1970 to put Australia's name in support of the Treaty. We had to wait for a Labor government to do that. The other distinct difference is that the Liberal Party now has a burst of enthusiasm on the subject. We welcome that enthusiasm which is a constructive change. However, the Liberal Opposition has based its argument in this forum on a new policy brought down in May. We congratulate the Liberals for moving, as they have, to new ground on this subject. Perhaps it is because they have read the election results correctly and interpreted them as meaning that in the community there is a strong move for governments and for political parties to do more in this field. In order to try to capture some of that support the Liberal Party has moved to try to delineate a more progressive policy on nuclear disarmament. Of course, to answer further the question posed by Senator Chipp as to where we are different I say that we have just heard a statement by Senator Sir John Carrick describing the Liberal Party's view of the nuclear-free zone. Of course, that is a statement that stands for what it says. However, it is also true, as Senator Gareth Evans said, that both Mr Sinclair and Mr Peacock have described the proposal for a nuclear free zone as a Mickey Mouse proposal. We do not retreat from the need for a nuclear free zone. We do not regard it as a Mickey Mouse proposal; we regard it as a serious, constructive and important new change in the world in terms of limiting the areas where nuclear proliferation can occur. Senator Chipp —It is a Clayton's treaty. Senator COOK —While Senator Chipp may interject that it is not a perfectly pure and pristine example of all the things he would want to embody in such a treaty, I make it quite clear that it is a decisive break from the past and a positive move to the future. Everyone in international fora has to work along those guidelines and not live in a land of idealism which is not achievable in the real world. Let me say that we distance ourselves from the Liberal Party, while identifying with the words in the motion moved by Senator Hill. We distance our position quite decisively from the position occupied by the Liberal Party in the past, although we welcome its new-found enthusiasm for this subject. However, the Australian Democrats have seized on this opportunity, not to initiate a debate themselves-which is an option they had-but to amend the motion. Senator Gareth Evans, in putting the definite case for the Government, described our attitude to the Democrats' proposal. Perhaps a couple of aspects need to be enlarged on. Generally, we do not take exception to the terms of paragraph (a) of the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. However, we say that the best way of dealing with any proposal for a timetable is to attend the Geneva Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to expedite the negotiations on a comprehensive program of disarmament and to present that to the forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly for adoption in 1986. That is a strategy that Australia has been internationally active in promoting. That seems to us to be the logical and proper course of action to take in respect of that proposal. In reply to some of the assertions made by Senator Chipp, I am advised that no country has put forward a positive timetable for the NPT Review in terms of disarmament, although some countries did flirt with such a proposition. However, that has now been overtaken by other issues at the Review Conference such as the comprehensive test ban treaty issue, the question of chemical weapons and the question of radiological warfare. Broadly, we favour and are not too separate from the Australian Democrats in regard to paragraph (a). We support paragraph (b) of the motion. However, in regard to paragraph (c) concerning the establishment of an energy for development fund, we have a number of points which I believe are important here. Of course, Article IV is a central core article of the Treaty. The Australian Government recognises and supports that. Also we recognise that Third World countries and the Group of 77 which have articulated their concern at previous review conferences about particular expressions by countries in regard to Article IV are concerned to generate and meet the energy needs to develop their economies to lift the standard of living of their peoples. That is a legitimate concern on their behalf. However, we recognise that conventional energy sources will be the main area in which those emerging countries will find their energy needs in the future. That does not mean to say we do not support funding and efforts to find alternative energy sources. We do support that. In fact, this Government, through Minister Evans's Department, is committed to such a program. However, we believe that there is no point in establishing yet another international body when a lot of work in this area has been done. Therefore, in the positive sense we do not support the commitment that the Australian Democrats would have us make in regard to paragraph (c). Finally, in regard to paragraph (d) of Senator Chipp's amendment, we say that this Government has a lot to say and lot to be proud of in respect of how it has dealt with non-government organisations on the disarmament issue. After all it was this Government that created the post of Ambassador for Disarmament. It was, after all, this Government which instituted a division within the Department of Foreign Affairs to deal expressly with the question of disarmament and to provide regular and continual dialogue and contact with non-government organisations in Australia. That division of the Department of Foreign Affairs has been fostering that dialogue. I say on behalf of the non-government organisations themselves that one does not need to be pro-active as a government to encourage them to come forward. They are not shrinking violets. I do say that to condemn them; I say that to praise them. They are organisations with a keen idealism and a zealousness to put forward their point of view. They seek out governments; so that dialogue is a rich and widely flowing stream. Senator Chipp —You will not talk to them. Senator COOK —Yes, we do. That is not true. We talk to them constantly. We talk to them constantly through the Department. In fact, this week at the Australian National University there is a seminar on this subject. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) himself has addressed it. The Department has an officer at the conference to present a paper and to engage in a continuing dialogue. Senator Chipp —He talks to them but he will not let them talk to him. Senator COOK —Senator Chipp has said that we do not talk to non-government organisations. Senator Chipp —I am saying you will not let them talk to you. Senator COOK —Yes, we do. We hear what they are saying. If the Democrats are saying that we have to adopt all the things that the organisations put to us to show that we have listened to them, that is preposterous. As two examples of the dialogue we have had in the recent past we have had direct contact with scientists against nuclear arms and lawyers for disarmament in New South Wales and Victoria. This Government will be conducting a debriefing round of discussions after the NPT review conference, as appropriate. The Government stands on its previous record of availability for discussions. The last item of the Democrats' proposal is redundant. The words I now utter will never be gainsaid at any stage by proof of reluctance. I believe that there is no doubt that the Government will move directly and rapidly to overcome any blockage in the system of dialogue that is so necessary for this country to unite its voice in international fora on this issue. I want to say a number of things about our concern as a party for nuclear disarmament because as the oldest political party in Australia the Australian Labor Party is the peace party by tradition. We have not discovered the issue recently. We have constantly been the party that has supplied people for most of the marches and demonstrations for peace over the years. It has been a major preoccupation of all our party conferences. It remains the most vibrant debate we ever have. To say that we are committed to the subject of peace is to be trite because the Labor Party by definition is known to stand four square in that field. In fact ever since the Minister for Foreign Affairs became Minister in 1983 he has traipsed the world to promote the NPT, to encourage by personal diplomatic contact countries to sign the treaty to deal with those countries reluctant or difficult to convince to sign the treaty to do so and to pursue an orderly, rational strategy to make the treaty strong by making it more comprehensive with more countries becoming signatories. That is the first leg of our commitment. As far as we are concerned, the Treaty is the vital cornerstone in the field of nuclear disarmament. Our strategy to make it an even stronger Treaty can best be described as having four prongs. The first is to hold the Treaty together. That is the vital precondition. The Treaty is under threat and it cannot be assumed automatically, simply because it is being reviewed, that it will continue. Some countries have raised serious criticisms of it, in our view justly, under section (6), Article VI. We too are not satisfied with the way in which the major super-powers have addressed the question of vertical proliferation. We also see the Treaty as a major opening for Australia, as a small to medium power in the world, to use its influence to bring about a tighter control over horizontal proliferation. So the first leg of our four-point strategy is to hold the Treaty together. The second leg is to pursue a more comprehensive coverage of the Treaty, as I described it a moment ago, by bringing more nations within its ambit. It troubles us greatly that a number of nuclear weapons states remain uncommitted to the Treaty. A number of countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, South Africa, Libya, and a number of other countries, which retain programs to develop nuclear weapons or have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons decline to sign the Treaty. One of our main efforts has been to encourage them to sign and to use all diplomatic methods to do so. With Spain especially we have mounted a major effort. It is pleasing to report that in the Pacific and the Association of South East Asian Nations area every country except Kiribati is a member of the Treaty. Many of them have joined recently. Thirdly, our strategy is to hold all signatories to their Treaty commitments. Here, in particular, we will be joining those voices raised at the review conference to express concern and to bring pressure to bear for better results and a more fertile flowering of needs under Article VI. Fourthly, our key strategy is to strengthen the Treaty. So our strategy is to hold the Treaty together, push for complete coverage, hold signatories to their commitments and to strengthen and bolster the Treaty to make it a more effective device for nuclear disarmament. I said that the key question for Australia is: How do we best use our influence in the world? There are various arguments. Some would say it should be done by symbolic gestures and others by supporting the arms race in the mutually assured destruction type of approach. We say that the best way of expressing our concern about disarmament is to work strenuously in all the fora available to bring pressure to bear to build block upon block for disarmament in the world. Senator Chipp —I take a point of order. Senator Cook unwittingly misrepresented the Australian Democrats' point of view in saying that we had not taken the initiative on this question. I seek leave to make a statement, no longer than 30 seconds, to correct that. Leave granted. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I thank the Senate. The record will show that we have 11 items on the Notice Paper expressing our concern at nuclear proliferation, three of which specifically relate to the review conference next week. They were put there before today. The simple facts are that we do not have the numbers to bring them on. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.56) —For 20 years or so the world has had the capacity for self-destruction. We have perhaps got used to living in the atmosphere of such a possibility but is it extremely disturbing and deserves the closest attention of the whole world community. I do not know whether the scientists are right in saying that there will be a nuclear winter, with the probable destruction of all flora and fauna on the earth, in the event of a nuclear exchange between the super-powers, but I do know that all previous estimates by nuclear physicists of the likely results of their weapons have been underestimated. We must assume that a war between the super-powers will result in the end of civilisation and possibly of life on earth. One of the disturbing features about all the debate on nuclear war is that a lot of it is about things which are not in dispute. No sane person wants to consider the possibility of a winnable nuclear war. We must assume that a war between the super-powers will inevitably escalate into an all out nuclear exchange. The issue is this: if there is a war between the super-powers there will be no place on earth to hide. The suburb next to me, Richmond, has a large sign which says `Nuclear Free Zone'. I do not think that in the event of a war between the super-powers my prospects of escaping will be enhanced by moving a few hundred yards to Richmond-or to New Zealand. In the event of a nuclear war there will be no place on earth to hide. Therefore, our overriding objective must be to ensure that such a nuclear war does not take place. There is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war. No sane person wants a nuclear war. Australia can make contributions to preventing such a war and we would be criminally irresponsible if we did not take the opportunities open to us to reduce the likelihood of such a war. That is why we contribute to deterrence with our communications facilities at North West Cape which have the capability of communicating with missile firing submarines in the Indian Ocean. These are second strike weapons. While on station they are invulnerable. By their existence and their enormous retaliatory power they are a tremendous deterrent to the possibility of a surprise nuclear strike on the United States of America. As for surveillance facilities, United States bases in central Australia can provide a warning of a surprise launch of Soviet missiles. This, too, is an enormous deterrent to the outbreak of such a war. Some people, the Australian Democrats among others, would have us throw them away and say that we will not have these bases. They would increase, unwittingly perhaps, the likelihood of the outbreak of nuclear war. In my view it would be totally irresponsible for Australia, while these nuclear weapons exist, not to do all we can to make their use less likely. What we are discussing today in particular is the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That is a matter of considerable importance, because the reconsideration of this Treaty is starting next week. It is important to remember that this Non-Proliferation Treaty does not deal merely with the proliferation of nuclear weapons in new countries; it deals with the level of nuclear armaments in the existing nuclear powers. It is a two-fronted attack on the problems of nuclear weapons. I think it is worth summarising what the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty does, in fact, do. Under Article I the nuclear weapons states undertake not to transfer nuclear weapons to the control of another country or to assist a non-nuclear weapons state to acquire them. Certainly, as to the first part of that article, so far as I know there has been no transfer of nuclear weapons to the control of another country. Actions have been taken by some countries that would appear to assist non-nuclear weapons states to acquire nuclear weapons. This is the thing we must pursue and do all we can through diplomatic means to prevent. Article II says that non-nuclear weapons states undertake not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. As far as I am aware, none of the signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty has attempted to acquire nuclear weapons. There are non-signatories-I will come to this point in a moment-which will be in a position soon to acquire nuclear weapons. Article III of the Treaty requires non-nuclear weapons states to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on all nuclear activities in their territories for the purposes of verifying the terms of Article II. Each member country is to require IAEA safeguards on exports of nuclear items to non-nuclear weapons states which are not a party to the NPT. Personally, I do not like that second provision. I do not think countries that are signatories to the NPT should export any nuclear items to non-signatories to the NPT. I think that is the sort of pressure we must apply to try to bring people under the umbrella of the NPT, to encourage them to sign it. Article IV affirms the rights of all countries to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and requires countries in a position to do so to contribute to the development of nuclear energy in member countries. This is partly being breached by Australia. We are not freely exporting uranium. The free and economic availability of uranium is important to prevent the misuse of uranium, particularly the necessity for re-cycling or fast breeder reactors which would much increase the danger of proliferation to new countries. Senator Chipp —Would you export it to Iran? Senator HAMER —No. I am coming to that. The conditions under which we export uranium are very tight, much tighter than in most other countries. In particular, I would like to see the members of the NPT not accepting any uranium from countries that are not signatories to the NPT. The most obvious exporter of uranium which is not a signatory to the NPT is South Africa. I do not think any signatories to this Treaty, which is designed to prevent the misuse of uranium, should accept uranium exports from countries that do not abide by the requirements of the NPT. That is the sort of pressure that we can and should put on countries to join in this Treaty. Article V of the Treaty says that each party undertakes to ensure that the potential benefits from peaceful applications of nuclear explosions are made available to non-nuclear signatories on a non-discriminatory basis. The charge should be as low as possible and exclude research costs. Article VI is the one about which there is the most controversy. Under that article all parties to the Treaty undertake to work for a cessation of the nuclear arms race, for nuclear disarmament and ultimately for general and complete disarmament. There is no question that since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was negotiated 15 years ago the level of nuclear armaments under the super powers has risen quite sharply. This is a very disturbing trend. Our power influence it is relatively small, but there is one thing that we can and must do. It is quite inconceivable that an open society like the United States of America could enter into a treaty with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is a closed society, unless it was sure that there was some verification that agreement reached with the USSR would be enforced. If America were to breach such a treaty, something would fall off the back of a truck very fast and it would be widely known that the Americans were not adhering to the treaty. That is not so in the case of a closed society such as the USSR. We can contribute to influencing this trend because, through the surveillance facilities of satellites monitored by the stations in central Australia, we can monitor the testing of new weapons, the trial flights of new missiles. This is a very great contribution to making it possible for the United States to enter into meaningful bilateral negotiations for arms reduction. I think that, as with the other contributions we make, it would be irresponsible of us not to make this contribution, to think that in some way we can opt out of the world, and that not to set an example like this would, in some way which I have never understood, result in universal nuclear disarmament. But the real problem of the Non-Proliferation Treaty concerns the people who are not signatories. There are 122 signatories at the moment and 45 countries are not signatories to the NPT. Notable among the countries that are not signatories are France and China, both nuclear weapons states, though France has indicated that it will behave as do the NPT signatories. The non-signatories include six countries with well-developed nuclear programs. These countries are Argentina, Brazil, India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa. It must be our great purpose to bring these countries within the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I have suggested two ways in which pressure can be exerted on them-that countries should not accept uranium exports from countries that are not signatories the NPT and that Article III should be amended so that nuclear items are not exported to countries that are not signatories to the NPT. These are steps that can be made to try to make it more desirable for countries that are now signatories to the NPT to become so. But our leverage is relatively small. Our main contribution at the moment to dealing with this horrifying situation, the possibility of the destruction of life on earth, is to aid the deterrent, to make it less likely that this nuclear arsenal will be used and also to provide facilities so that the United States can honestly enter into negotiations to reduce the level of its nuclear arms by our providing the verification that any such treaty is being adhered to by the Soviet Union. Finally, by making our uranium available at a fair price on the world market, we can make the development of peaceful energy possible without all the distorting effects that artificial restrictions on the availability of uranium for peaceful purposes would cause. These would be very damaging to the cause of non-proliferation. We can make a substantial contribution to the prevention of a nuclear war, to making disarmament possible and to making the peaceful use of nuclear energy safe. These are contributions that we must make, and to fail to do so would be an act of criminal irresponsibility. I am sorry that Senator Chipp has left the chamber. He said that he could not get the numbers in this chamber to have his Bills debated. As a matter of fact, the Australian Democrats declined to take the General Business time available to them today. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(6.10) —Despite our reservations-or, more correctly, because of them-about the efficacy of the International Atomic Energy Agency, we who have been most critical of Australia's role in the international nuclear fuel cycle must support this urgency motion which seeks a strong and positive role for Australia in the forthcoming third review conference in Geneva of the members of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In 1976 the Fox report detailed the weaknesses of the Treaty and the IAEA, and there is no need to rehearse those deficiencies during this debate. Although international fora are rarely able to report progress of any great magnitude in the short term, my limited experience of United Nations negotiations has convinced me that we should treasure and nurture even the smallest steps towards better understanding between nations, greater recognition of the human rights of individuals, and wider sensitivity of the vulnerability of planet Earth to the past and potential onslaughts of technological and scientific discoveries. Generally speaking, an immense amount of effort at the United Nations is expended on holding on to hard-won agreements and fighting off forces actively bent on regression, as Senator Cook has so eloquently explained. To those who take a cynical view of the United Nations and its agencies, I strongly recommend Dr Keith Suter's book Alternatives to War: the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, which was published in 1981 by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. This is an explanation of our only international arbitration system, as poorly understood, I believe, as our industrial arbitration system but similarly defusing potential conflicts, with little fuss and fanfare. Another publication of great value is The Forgotten Treaties by Allan McKnight, which details United Nations disarmament treaties. It is not a startling success story, but an indication again of the persistence and doggedness without which nothing can be achieved internationally. Suggesting a role for the International Atomic Energy Agency, Allan McKnight refers to the need for an international disarmament treaty, the protocol of which he suggests in his publication. As he explains, the non-proliferation treaty is concerned with two forms of proliferation, horizontal and vertical. The NPT has been successful on the well-publicised former type of proliferation, but the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America have failed to keep their end of the agreement, 15 years after concluding it. Additionally, accounts by officials closely connected with arms control negotiations, show just how much effort the negotiations consumed, and for so little achievement. Twenty years after the completion of the partial test ban treaty, for example, the USSR and the United Kingdom have still failed to conclude a test ban treaty including a ban on underground tests. It could be said that in disarmament terms never before have so many worked so long and achieved so little. The alternative, however, is unthinkable. In 1981, at which time there were 115 signatories to the NPT, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said: Progress towards promoting the universality of that Treaty and the generalised acceptance of International Atomic Energy safeguards would go far to allay anxieties that the spread of nuclear technology and material might open the door to potential military capabilities. It is also important to give urgent consideration to ways of ensuring that advanced technological means will not be used to circumvent the safeguards system. He drew attention to the growing consideration of nuclear weapons-free zones and cited the new-at that time-Treaty of Tlatelolco. He referred to these as significant measures of non-proliferation and regional nuclear disarmament. The recently developed treaty on a nuclear-free South Pacific agreed to by Australia is an outstanding example of a valuable step in that direction, limited by national aspirations in some cases and by some overriding conventions, such as the Law of the Sea, but in the long term highly significant. Why else would it have engendered such violent opposition? International Atomic Energy safeguards must obviously provide the maximum possible confidence and the removal of at least some of the sources of mistrust and hostility between nations. Given the opportunity Australia must, and I have every reason to believe will, exert every effort to strengthen the safeguards. This is not only because of their inherent weakness otherwise in preventing horizontal proliferation, but also to help promote the climate in which negotiations on strategic arms limitation can proceed and prosper. To quote again from the Secretary-General of the United Nations: The maintenance of dialogue is an essential part of the effort to remove the causes of suspicion and hostility . . . It must be recognised that the search for absolute security can, in fact, breed further insecurity. History demonstrates that there are times when an arms race can acquire a mementum of its own, quite independent of the political causes which initially provoked it, and lead inexorably to disaster. As the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) said earlier in this debate, there are now 130 signatories to the NPT, an update on the figures given by Senator Hamer. These include all the ASEAN nations in the South Pacific Forum and the South Pacific Forum countries, with the exception of Vanuatu. The Minister in this debate also emphasised that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has, without prompting from the Opposition, raised the question of the NPT with non-signatories including India, Pakistan, Israel, Spain and Argentina. It is the duty of the international community, in the words of the Secretary-General of the United Nations: . . . to attempt to break, at every possible point, the deadly cycle which leads from suspicion and hostility to increased armaments and from increased armaments to a further heightening of suspicion and hostility. At the same time, a renewed and concerted effort by the international community, conducted at every level, including the very highest, to deal directly with the threats posed by the arms race in all its forms seems to me in order. It seems that way to the Australian Government. Senator Chipp's proposal for an Energy for Development Fund is not an objectionable suggestion, but is hardly necessary in view of the fact that there are already a range of United Nations activities geared towards development and alternative sources of energy and Australia, so far as I am aware, is a donor to each of these funds. Some years ago the United Nations completed a study of the question of the economic consequences of the arms race-a question not unrelated to that of the development and promotion of renewable energy sources. The report was adopted without vote by the General Assembly on 9 December 1981. Since then France has taken the disarmament and development exercise further by proposing an international fund for development. A resolution was adopted at the last General Assembly in December 1984 providing for a conference on disarmament and development to be held, and for a preparatory committee to be established to recommend a provisional agenda, procedure, place, date and duration of such a conference. Australia attended the first meeting of the preparatory committee, which took place in New York between 29 July and 6 August this year. Australia agrees that a major conference such as that proposed by France could go a long way towards examination of the relationship between disarmament and development, and therefore supports the holding of a well-prepared conference on this subject. We have serious reservations about the establishment of a fund at this stage. In the absence of meaningful disarmament, a disarmament fund for development would either be empty or consist of moneys that would have been devoted to development assistance in any case, but through one of the existing mechanisms. At the recent world conference in Nairobi on the end of the United Nations Decade for Women, a recurrent theme was the necessity for women to participate fully in all aspects of the formulation of monitoring, review and appraisal of national and international policy issues and activities. One of the many contributions made to the Nairobi conference by Australia was a resolution calling for all nations to include women on their delegations to all United Nations conferences concerned with peace and disarmament. We made this move from a position of some strength, the disarmament delegate on our delegation being Tonia Shand, First Assistant Secretary in the disarmament section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. She and other officers of the Department are constantly in touch with non-governmental organisations, among which there are forceful and effective women's organisations whose contributions we value and solicit. Those non-governmental organisations with observer status at the United Nations-those that are genuinely international organisations-are invariably represented by their permanent delegates in New York and in Geneva. Senator Chipp's reference to pathetic reliance on the Non-Proliferation Treaty might be correct if it were not for the fact that this is only one of the many initiatives of the Australian Government in the crucial sphere of disarmament. There is no argument with supporting and strengthening all such attempts to ensure a secure world for us, our children and our children's children. Australia goes to the forthcoming conference determined to do the best that it possibly can do to avoid the farce feared by Senator Chipp, taking the constructive and positive approach that has characterised the current Australian Government's role in international affairs. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.22 to 8 p.m. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.01) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The two-volume report entitled `Future Directions for Commercial Television' produced by the Forward Development Unit of the Department of Communications represents one of the most significant reports in the communications area to come before the Parliament and, indeed, to potentially shape the broadcasting sector in Australia. The report deals with a series of significant policy determinations to be made by this Government as far as the future development of commercial television in Australia is concerned, particularly given the impact of the domestic satellite which is to be launched on Saturday and which hopefully will usher in an entirely new era in broadcasting in Australia. The report identifies two basic approaches to the question of equalisation. The Government has made equalisation the prime goal of its communications policy. In a statement issued on 30 April, Mr Duffy, the Minister for Communications, indicated that the equalisation of services is the most significant long term goal which this Government has in mind. The report of the Forward Development Unit of the Department of Communications indicated that there were two approaches that could be taken. It describes the first approach as aggregation, which essentially is to allow a linking of the broadcast areas of particular commercial television stations. The second, which it calls approach B, involves multi-channel services-that is to say, to allow an existing broadcaster to provide three services, or certainly that sort of number of services, within the area in which he already has a monopoly position. The report comes down very clearly in favour of the process of aggregation-that is to say, to aggregate existing television markets with their different ownerships in order to create markets which are big enough to support three competitive television services, thereby equalising for non-metropolitan Australia the services which are available to metropolitan viewers. An important number of considerations arise from this. The first and most important is that a process of equalisation on the basis of aggregation means the death knell for the philosophy of localism in television broadcasting. The enthusiastic adoption of the recommendations of the Oswin report a couple of years ago, which dealt with the preservation of localism in broadcasting, will have to be set to one side if the process of equalisation by aggregation continues. Equalisation by aggregation will mean the development of local super networks. In my view, the economics of regional networking are such-I think this is clearly shown in the two reports themselves-that there seems to be no doubt it will only be a prelude to the introduction of a system of national networking whereby the principal networks already existing in Australia, which are at the moment confined primarily to the metropolitan areas, will be allowed to extend their influence into the non-metropolitan areas. In fact, the Government has now clearly signalled its approval of the fact that Australian commercial television will inevitably become a system of national networking. Time does not permit me to indicate the extent to which the whole philosophy of supplementary licences has now collapsed with these changes in new broadcasting technology. The workload of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which has been allocated only an extra $160,000 in this year's Budget to discharge all of its additional responsibilities, is such that it is heading for a situation in which it will be unable to control, monitor and to direct television services in Australia in the way in which it has in the past and as its set requires. The adoption of the aggregation recommendations of this very significant report, together with the Government's commitment to the philosophy of equalisation of television services, means that this country is now headed in the direction of super-networking and thence national networking as far as commercial television in Australia is concerned. That will require some very sensitive policy adjustments by any government and some very sensitive supervision of those policy and legislative initiatives by this Parliament. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.06) —I would like to agree with Senator Puplick on this matter. I think it is extremely important to realise that we are moving towards a situation of total dominance of our media by networks. The Forward Development Unit of the Departments of Communications has presented a report which is moving us definitely in this direction. The Forward Development Unit was supposed to concentrate on two time frames when it was set up by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in February-the medium term future, which was 1988 to 1997, and the long term future, from 1997 onwards. In May the Minister issued a Press release indicating that the way was now open for three commercial television services to operate in regional Australia. Extra resources were to be made available to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and to the Department of Communications in order to assist the acceleration of new services. It was the Government's hope that the majority of regional areas would have three commercial television services in three years time. This is another example of Hawke trilogies. This particular trilogy was to come about before 1990. The buzz words at that stage were `equalisation' and `as soon as possible'. As a result, the Forward Development Unit looked only at the short term options and this has been a disaster. It is important to recognise that vast developments are taking place in the area of communications. One example of this is optical fibre technology. Australian researchers are difinitely in the forefront in this area. Optical fibre technology will make it possible to obtain greater diversity of programming in metropolitan and near regional areas. Cable subscription services and public television will be readily possible. Innovative programming options such as those used by Britain's Independent Broadcasting Authority should not be ruled out because of a lack of infrastructure and broadcasting facilities. I believe that while Telecom Australia is putting in new fibre optic cables it should be required to install broad-band cables capable of diversified television transmission. I note that the European Commission has a research and development program that it hopes will create by 1992 an integrated wide band communications network. This will replace the radio frequency type of network. Glass and optical fibre links which transmit voice and image at the speed of light will replace copper wires. We must be careful to look far enough ahead to ensure proper planning. A satellite is about to go up and fundamental decissions are only just at the public discussion stage. At page 22 of the Forward Development Unit's report it is suggested that it may eventually prove to be necessary to treat the supplementary licence approach as an interim step towards aggregation. Senator Puplick covered this area quite effectively. There is also the question of the way in which supplementary licences are granted and the opportunities, if any, for independent licensees to enter the field. Some of the statements contained in the current report, I feel, will make this more and more difficult. A striking feature of the report is the absence of detailed work on the impact that various options can be expected to have on the quality of Australian programming. Clearly, if enormous capital costs are required for capital equipment and overseas programs, that will make Australian content much less. This is already happening with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I believe that in the current situation more effort must be placed on examining what we will do in the medium and distant future. I wrote a letter to the Minister asking him a few questions on this matter. I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE Senator David Vigor 10 Pitt Street, Adelaide South Australia 5000 Telephone (08) 211 7656 30 May 1985 Parliament House Canberra Australian Capital Territory 2600 Telephone (062) 72 6595 Dear Michael, I was interested to read the speech that Bob Lansdown gave on your behalf on Tuesday, and in particular, the pivotal role of the Forward Development Unit in adumbrating future broadcasting system blueprints prompted me to seek some further information about the operation of the FDU. I believe that it is crucial for the general public to learn more about the work of the Forward Development Unit, including the extent to which it is pursuing various issues, well before the release of its report. Consequently I raise with you some questions about economic implications and the degree to which these have been rigorously analysed, and other questions relating to the amount of choice and sources of diversity to be sought in future arrangements. I hope that a speedy response will be forthcoming in each case. 1. What work is the Forward Development Unit doing to examine opportunities for increasing the diversity of media ownership sources and the consequent better media access available to community groups, through disentangling and making more competitive each of the areas of programme production, programme distribution and purchasing of programmes overseas? 2. To what extent is the Forward Development Unit analysing options in which there are more than three major commercial networks in Australia? 3. Is the Forward Development Unit addressing the question of how independent film producers may be better able to sell their product in the television market-place under the various schemes being studied? 4. What note is being taken of the effect that the burden of financing new technology will have on the capacity of licensees to support Australian-produced drama and other feature programming of high quality? 5. Among the officers attached to the Forward Development Unit, how many have advanced qualifications or substantial expertise in economic analysis, and to what extent have they been called on to analyse various proposals for their economic implications? 6. What is the professional background of all the paid or honorary consultants to the Forward Development Unit, and in each case, on what basis and after what degree of advertising was it decided to engage or utilise the services of the particular consultant? 7. Is a public record being kept of the representations, especially those in written form, from the various interest groups that have been consulted, and is each major meeting with such groups being documented in some detail? Apart from written answers to these questions, I would be grateful for the opportunity to be briefed again before the Forward Development Unit releases its report, to be given some notice of the seminar which the Department of Communications intends to hold in relation to all this work, and to obtain a copy of the report, under appropriate confidentiality conditions, at the earliest possible time. Yours sincerely, Senator VIGOR —I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that part of the written reply which dealt with those questions. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Mr Duffy's answer to specific points In particular you will note that I have called for submissions from interested parties by 11 October 1985. The Government will not make decisions on the various issues raised in the report until after that date. This should provide ample opportunity for public and industry comment. I should add that it was always my intention that the FDU's report should serve as a basis for further discussion. This is why the FDU's terms of reference required it to consult with interested organisations but not to recommend options or to argue for particular policies, nor to operate as an inquiry or seek submissions from interested parties. Rather the FDU was required to identify options and their implications for Government policy. The Department engaged the following consultants to assist the FDU's study: (i) Nigel Dick and Associates Pty Ltd-to examine the viability of various options for equalisation in selected markets (see Appendix D in Volume 2). (ii) Hart, Frankel and Company-to examine the likely impact of equalisation and program distribution options on Australian production and employment (see Appendix H). (iii) Mr Michael Thompson-to provide general input to the development of policy options, with particular reference to services for remote areas (see Appendix J). Shortage of time did not allow for the advertising of these consultancies. The consultants were selected on the basis of their particular expertise. You would be aware that Volume 2 of the FDU's report also includes financial studies by Coopers and Lybrand and BT Australia Limited commissioned by industry groups. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Senator Macklin) adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(8.12) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report of the Law Reform Commission is in great part the work of Mr Tim Smith of the Victorian Bar. It is a comprehensive and vital work and he and his colleagues deserve great praise for producing it. There is pressure for change in the law of evidence. Some of this pressure comes from developments such as that brought about by technology. It is appropriate that the law be reformed to accommodate such developments. Other pressures are not so appropriate-for example, the pressure which seeks to impugn civil rights in the interest of more readily obtaining convictions. This report deals with with concepts fundamental to the character and quality of our society. These rules which determine such questions as how we deal with people charged with criminal offences, what weight we give to privacy, what powers we give to police and public authorities and where the onus of proof is to be placed deal with concepts fundamental to the quality and character of the community in which we live. Society needs protection not only from criminal activity but also from the activity which is perpetrated, often with the best of motives, in an attempt to curtail that criminal activity but whose nature is such as to be oppressive and dangerous to the values of society. Mr Smith and his colleagues in producing this report have dealt with those concepts and the balance to be observed between public interest and private rights. I simply want to mark in the Senate the gratitude the community owes for the work he and his colleagues have done in producing this report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. My interest and that of all the Liberal senators from South Australia, of course, is in the provision, through the forthcoming satellite development, of commercial television services in the remoter parts of South Australia and in particular the Eyre Peninsula area, which has been an area of great contention with both this Government and former governments over the last 10 to 15 years. I have not had time to review this report to see what it says about the institution of commercial television on Eyre Peninsula. But all indications lead us to believe that this will not be easily obtainable by the people on the Eyre Peninsula of South Australia, except through a lot of personal expense. Indeed, it seems as though in the main the residents of Eyre Peninsula will not get anything better than an Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast via the satellite communication when it comes into place. That is little more than they have available at present. It might seem somewhat strange to Senator Tate from Tasmania to learn that the residents of Eyre Peninsula in such out of the way places as Streaky Bay and Ceduna in fact watch Newcastle ABC television. That makes it very difficult to relate to one's State's activities. One gets a totally wrong idea about the nature of football as a result of watching such programs. This is a very important problem for a vast sector of South Australia. This is a part of the State which is rich in minerals and resource development potential and deserves a very great deal of consideration. As I have said, I am not certain what this report has in store for us in relation to commercial television. I hope that the Government will have all its antennae out to try to make sure that, to the ultimate degree possible, it gives the people of Eyre Peninsula in South Australia-the electors chiefly of the seat of Grey, a marginal Labor seat-the opportunity of viewing commercial television through the forthcoming satellite facilities. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(8.17) —Perhaps apropos of what Senator Messner has said it ought to be remarked that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has acted admirably in this area. Firstly, he has established television for remote areas on a regional basis rather than on a network system. There was considerable pressure on him to adopt the network system. I think it will be agreed that the route he has gone down-that of regional television-is the correct one. Secondly, he has made sure that the remote areas of Australia are provided with television. In the light of what Senator Messner has said, we are happy that more than one station will be beamed to remote areas and that Australians in those areas will have the pleasures that are available to us in the city. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(8.18) —I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Human Rights Commission for 1983-84 is a fairly innocuous document. It does not cover the activities of this year. I believe the Human Rights Commission has been lowered so much that it is now a thoroughly discredited body. It is costing the taxpayers of Australia $6m. The Commission went out the back door as a serious, impartial body concerned with the ordinary Australian's everyday rights when it allowed itself to be used as a political puppet of the Federal Government in the Queensland power dispute this year. We saw the amazing spectacle of the Commission, despite constant cries of how busy it was, drop everything, scurry to Queensland and take a quickie reference from the Hawke Government to inspect the Queensland industrial laws. The report which came out defied rational thought. Some clauses in an obscure international treaty were tried out and the Commission even said that the slavery treaty was being invoked in Queensland. I am sure that everyone in the Senate would agree that was absolutely ridiculous. Any vestige of respectability which the Human Rights Commission retained vanished when it banned the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Neil Brown, from its offices. The very body that supposedly supports and is concerned with freedom and openness was banning and restricting people. No wonder it was ridiculed and disgraced right through the nation. It is important to realise that bodies such as the Human Rights Commission have enormous potential to enact social changes in our country, social changes which may not be the wish of the overwhelming majority of all Australians. The communist countries lay down their human rights under a Bill. The other day I went with some of my Queensland colleagues to a rally for the Baltic states. It was pointed out that Russia has a Bill of Rights. It certainly did nothing to protect those people. I am deeply alarmed that the Human Rights Commission could have its powers extended under Labor's proposed Bill of Rights. For instance, one of its new powers would be the right to call people before the Commission to answer its queries without legal representations and under threat of imprisonment or fine. It would give the Federal Government a vehicle to interfere in the affairs of State and local governments. One could imagine how the current government would react when given the opportunity to interfere in and hamper the operations of the Queensland Government. The Human Rights Commission has already shown itself to be a body that has misused its powers and positions. Any attempt to extend this discredited body's powers deserves the strongest opposition from all people who are genuinely concerned with the protection of individual rights in Australia. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.22) —I do not intend to contribute too much at this point, but I cannot let Senator Boswell's remarks pass without comment. I refrained from rising on a point of order when the honourable senator made the remark that the Human Rights Commission has completely abandoned independence and has become a puppet-I think that was his word-for the Government. I find that offensive in the extreme. I think it is particularly offensive on behalf of the people on the Human Rights Commission. I do not believe that that term or description applies to anybody on the Commission and, in particular, it does not apply to the matter in hand; that is, the review of 1983-84. I certainly do not think it pertains to the work of the Commission in this recent year. The honourable senator may wish to comment on points of difference to add to his commentary, but I think that a crass slur on the members of the Human Rights Commission is untenable. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.23) —I wish to express my very great regret that someone for whom I have had a considerable respect for a very long period should have fallen into a situation of what I can only regard as entrapment. I understand that Dame Roma Mitchell acted on advice which was not as accurate as it might have been. I believe that Dame Roma Mitchell is a person of great concern who has endeavoured to do a genuine job in an area of importance in this country. It was of even more importance in other countries; this country was to give a lead. She became entrapped in a situation as a result of some faulty advice, I believe, which was given to her. She became engaged in something which held up to ridicule and contempt the Human Rights Commission in this country. What this did was to deny the very thing that the Commission is supposed to exist for. Senator Giles —I think thou protesteth too much. Senator PETER RAE —Without going into the details, what it did was to deny the right of examination and of consideration. I do not want to go into the detail of what happened. I do not want to make a political argument about the matter. I wish to express my regret that what happened happened in the way that it did. I had a very pleasant brunch with Dame Roma Mitchell after she opened and was the principal speaker at the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education, since renamed, on a Sunday morning. I talked to her about these issues. I was amazed to find that shortly thereafter the decision was taken to which reference has been made. I simply take the opportunity to make an earnest plea. I hope that the Human Rights Commission, under Dame Roma Mitchell, will show that it has some regard for human rights, including the particular one to which reference has been made. If it does not do that I think it will have disqualified itself from having the credibility which it ought to have in Australia. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.26) —I rise only because of the interjection by Senator Giles who said that she thinks we do protesteth too much. I believe that if Government members are backing the action of Dame Roma Mitchell we need to hear that from them. I can only take it from Senator Giles's interjection that there are members of the Australian Labor Party- Senator Giles —I agree. Let us have her side of the story. Senator WALTERS —Senator Giles says that there is another side to the story. I beseech Senator Giles to put that other side of the story. The side of the story I know is that Neil Brown, as shadow Attorney-General, visited the department. Indeed, officers of that department welcomed him and gave him a gift, as he left. Senator Tate —I rise on a point of order. Many of us have come prepared to debate the papers that have been presented to the Parliament. We are now getting into a debate on something which is not before us as a result of the presentation of papers. We are getting into a general debate on something that occurred in relation to a period following the period covered by the report which we are considering. I think it is a damned cheek for some senators to come in and turn this into that sort of forum. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Commentary on it is not required. Senator Harradine —I wish to speak to the point of order. I acknowledge the point that Senator Tate made. We have before us the annual report for 1983-84 of the Human Rights Commission. It is now August 1985. I thought that we would have had the 1984-85 report by now. There is not only the matter that is being talked about now but also the question of the Human Rights Commission's activities of investigating the abortion issue in Queensland that I would have liked to have addressed. I believe it is proper for members of Parliament to discuss the activities of the Human Rights Commission if a report of that Commission is tabled, whether or not reference is made in that report to the issues that have arisen as a result of the Human Rights Commission's activities in the last year. Senator WALTERS —I was going to suggest that it would be quite within the Standing Orders in debating the annual report of the Human Rights Commission for me to debate and bring to the attention of the Senate any action taken by the Human Rights Commission of which I am aware. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question of relevance is very difficult for the Chair to rule on as the particular document is not before me. As a matter of principle, debates should be confined to the actual document before the Senate. There are other opportunities in the Senate's procedure for debating general issues in relation to organisations. If the debate became wider than merely consideration of the actual paper before the Senate it would be a very wide ranging debate. I am not in a position- Senator Tate —I am not asking for a ruling; I am just appealing for general common sense. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I was merely going to say that the time for the consideration of papers has expired. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that later when we are considering General Business it would be in order to move a motion concerning any of the papers on today's list about which no motion was moved. Senator WALTERS —I seek leave to continue my remarks later on the Human Rights Commission. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —I lay on the table explanatory notes of departments and authorities relating to the estimates of proposed expenditure for 1985-86. A list of departments and authorities from which notes have been received has been circulated to honourable senators. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 150 Mr President, The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled ``A Bill for an Act to amend the `National Crime Authority Act 1984', the `Taxation Administration Act 1953' and the `Income Tax Assessment Act 1936' in relation to the provision of information by certain Commonwealth authorities to the National Crime Authority, and for other purposes'', and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has disagreed to the amendment made by the Senate, but, in place thereof, has amended the Bill as indicated by the annexed schedule. The House of Representatives desires the reconsideration by the Senate of the Bill in respect of the amendment disagreed to, and the concurrence of the Senate in the amendment made by the House. H. A. JENKINS Speaker House of Representatives, Canberra, 22 August 1985 Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That consideration of the message in Committee of the Whole be an Order of the Day on the next day of sitting. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President informs the Senate that he has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) stating the changes in membership of Estimates Committees. Motion (by Senator Ryan)-by leave-agreed to: 1. That the following senators be discharged from further attendance on Estimates committees: Estimates Committee A, Senator Cooney; Estimates Committee D, Senators Aulich and Zakharov; Estimates Committee E, Senators Colston and McKiernan; Estimates Committee F, Senator Richardson. 2. That the following senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36AB be appointed members of Estimates committees: Estimates Committee A, Senator Richardson; Estimates Committee C, Senator Devlin; Estimates Committee D, Senators Colston and Morris; Estimates Committee E, Senators Aulich and Zakharov; and Estimates Committee F, Senators Foreman and McKiernan. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President informs the Senate that he has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) nominating Senator Michael Baume to be a member of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Motion (by Senator Ryan)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Michael Baume; having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 25 May 1982, be appointed a member of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —I announce that the Government has agreed to the appointment of a second Government Deputy Whip in the Senate. This arrangement accords with the practice of the previous Liberal-National Party Government which was also served by three Whips, as is the current position. Senator Jones has been appointed as the second Government Deputy Whip. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare, I present a report dated June 1985 on children in institutional and other forms of care, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ELSTOB —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I have the honour to present to the Senate the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare entitled `Children in Institutional and Other Forms of Care-A National Perspective'. The Committee's report represents the culmination of an extensive inquiry into the circumstances and needs of children who, for a variety of reasons, are removed from their family homes-either by their parents acting voluntarily in a private capacity, or by the State acting in accordance with certain statutory provisions-and are placed in alternative or substitute forms of parental care. The types of substitute care examined by the Committee included the practice of adoption, short term and long term foster care, institutional or residential care, care provided by a child's relatives or friends, and care provided through community-based refuges. The Committee has estimated that over 30,000 children are in substitute care in Australia today. This represents a welcome decline over the past decade in the overall number of children in the traditional categories of care, such as adoption, foster care and institutional care. However, this estimate does not take account of the fact that there has been an increase in the number of children requiring substitute care in youth refuges-a matter of considerable concern to the Committee. It is also significant that two groups of children continue to be over represented in care-Aboriginal children and children with disabilities. The declining trend in the overall number of children in substitute care also tends to disguise other problems facing those children remaining in substitute care: First, that too many children continue to spend too long in care; secondly, that such children are subjected to too many changes in care arrangements; thirdly, that they are too readily discharged and re-admitted to care; and, fourthly, that they have too little contact with their parents while in care. Many of these criticisms are symptomatic of deficiencies in policies and practices that limit the effectiveness of the present substitute care system. Problems highlighted during the inquiry included: The lack of adequate government funding, particularly for the non-government sector which bears a disproportionate share of the burden of providing substitute care services; the lack of evaluation of programs and services; the inadequacy of statistical collections in this area; the poor standard of care provided by some agencies and the lack of appropriate training for substitute care personnel; the insufficient educational support available for children in residential institutions; the absence of proper assessment and planning procedures for the placement of children in care by some welfare organisations; and the minimal exchange of information and ideas between welfare agencies and between the States on recent developments and changes in substitute care policy and practice. In an attempt to overcome these shortcomings the Committee has made a series of recommendations relating to each of these matters. In particular, it has recommended that the Commonwealth Government introduce a uniform and increased foster parents' allowance; promote improvements in the quality of substitute care by supporting the development of pre-service and in-service training for both government and non-government substitute care personnel; introduce a special substitute care grants program to assist government and non-government welfare agencies in the implementation of proper assessment and planning procedures for the placement of children in substitute care; promote the evaluation of substitute care services by assisting State and Territory government and non-government welfare departments and agencies to determine appropriate evaluation criteria and develop procedures for the establishment and maintenance of ongoing evaluation programs; and improve educational programs for children resident in institutions by firstly providing greater encouragement and assistance to enable them to participate in education or training-at least until they have completed a full secondary education or its equivalent-and secondly by preparing and equipping older children leaving residential care with independent living skills. As part of the inquiry, the Committee investigated the reasons why children are placed in substitute care and examined the effectiveness of present public policies and programs aimed at preventing or avoiding the need to remove children from their home evironment and place them in care. In evidence received by the Committee, the three most frequently mentioned reasons for the placement of children in substitute care were firstly, parental and family conflict or breakdown; secondly, concern for the child's welfare, for example, because of parental neglect, child abuse et cetera; and thirdly the inability of parents to cope with the demands of family life. The Committee found that these factors are invariably linked to a family's immediate economic and social circumstances. Today, as in the past, the families of children in substitute care are still predominantly the poorest, the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable. The Committee concluded that, as children are placed in substitute care primarily because their families are unable to provide adequately for them, the provision of substitute care services must be viewed in the broadest preventive context. This in turn means that public policy must address more rigorously such problems as unemployment, income maintenance, the provision of adequate housing and the capacity of the education system to equip all members of the community with the necessary skills and knowlege to cope with the demands of adult family life. It also means that effective and accessible community-based family support services must be available where children are at risk of of being removed from their families and placed in substitute care. In this respect, the Committee welcomes the development in the States and Territories of recent child and family welfare policies that reflect a growing emphasis on the need for preventive programs. However, it is a matter for concern that despite these changes in public policy, for the most part resources continue to be channelled towards providing stop-gap measures to families in crisis. Because the demands for assistance by families in immediate need must necessarily take priority in the planning and delivery of state welfare programs, the Committee considers it is unrealistic to expect State governments to assume sole responsibility for the development of longer term preventive strategies. It therefore believes that the Commonwealth, through such programs as the family support services scheme, should play a greater role in this area. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the family support services scheme be continued and expanded by the Commonwealth Government. Finally, in bringing together the findings of the inquiry, the Committee considers that the most serious problem facing governments and others in the development and implementation of Commonwealth and State government and non-government welfare policies and programs for families and children, including those aimed at improving the type and quality of substitute care services, concerns the lack of co-ordination in this area at the national level. Closely allied with this problem is the fact that despite the Commonwealth's increasing involvement in child and family welfare matters, particularly through the children's services program, the Commonwealth has failed to make any clear statement of national policy regarding its role and responsibility vis-a-vis the States and Territories in the long term planning and provision of child and family welfare services. As a result, the delivery of such services in this country continues to be beleaguered by confusion, fragmentation, duplication, and inefficient and inequitable use of resources. In an attempt to rectify this situation, the Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth Government introduce legislation providing for the establishment of a national statutory authority to be known as the Australian Children and Families Commission to advise the Government on matters of policy concerning the development of welfare programs for children and families and to develop strategies to improve the overall planning and co-ordination of such programs. In making this recommendation the Committee has stressed that it is not intended that the Commonwealth assume direct responsibility for the delivery and administration of community services for children and families. Rather, the proposal recognises the need to address child and family welfare problems at the national level and to ensure that, through consultation and co-operation with the States and Territories, the future provision of services through the present multiplicity of Commonwealth, State and Territory government departments and non-government welfare agencies is achieved in a more planned and co-ordinated manner across Australia. In this sense, the body would be similiar in purpose to the proposed National Children's Commission for which legislation was passed in 1975 but which was never established. Further aspects of this proposal, particularly the reasons why the Committee does not believe the functions of this national body can be carried out by an existing Commonwealth department, will be discussed by my colleague, Senator Giles, in her speech to the Senate during the debate on the Committee's report. Before concluding my remarks, I would like to record, on behalf of the Committee, my appreciation of the co-operation and assistance provided by all witnesses who gave evidence at the Committee's public hearings and by others who contributed to the inquiry through written submissions. During the inquiry the Committee received over 150 submissions and heard evidence from more than 100 groups and individuals. One aspect of the inquiry that was of particular value to the Committee was the series of visits the Committee made to the States where it held informal discussions with many people, including children in substitute care, their parents, foster care agencies and foster parents, and institutional care personnel. I know my colleagues on the Committee would wish me to express our appreciation of the constructive and forthright approach taken by these groups towards the inquiry. At this stage I would like to thank all honourable senators who worked on the Committee. It was very enlightening work and I am certain that all honourable senator's hearts were touched in the course of this inquiry when listening to the many tragic experiences of people. Finally, I thank the Committee secretariat for its support and guidance during the inquiry. Mrs Doreen Russell, the Committee steno-secretary, gave magnificent support to the Comittee. I thank her very much for all the work she has done. I thank the Committee's two research officers, Mr Peter Hallahan and Mr Peter Short, who both provided magnificent help and who worked for very long hours. Both are very worthy of the Commite's commendation. I would also like to thank Monica Darmody for her valuable work. She was attached to the Committee for three months. I would also like to thank a former research officer, Miss Pam Gulloni, who now resides in Italy. I am certain that all members of the Committee would thank her very much for her very dedicated work and her great love of children. Finally, I consider that our Committee Secretary, Mr Chris Shrosbree, is one of the finest secretaries in the Senate standing committee system. He works unceasingly. If it were not for people like Chris Shrosbree the Senate committees would be unable to function correctly. On behalf of the Committee, I thank him and all members of the research staff. All that remains is for me to commend the report to the Senate. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.51) —First, I would like to congratulate Senator Elstob on his chairmanship of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare because he carried out his duties in that position in a most appropriate and unbiased manner. I enjoyed working under his chairmanship. During the homeless youth inquiry the Committee was concerned at the ages of some of the children who ended up in refuges. We were told by some of the police who were giving evidence that it was now considered inappropriate to put young girls into institutional care. Instead, they took them to refuges. We were told that 27 per cent of children in refuges were aged between 12 and 15 years. I assure honourable senators that refuges are not appropriate places for children of that age to be sheltered. We were also concerned during the inquiry that such a large number of them had spent time in institutional care. We were told that 12 per cent had previously resided in residential or foster care. The fact that they turned up as homeless youth in refuges was most unfortunate. We sought terms of reference that would give us the opportunity to inquire into the whole area. The reasons for placement of children in other forms of care were, as Senator Elstob said, very similar to those in the homeless youth area-parental and family conflict, family breakdown or concern for the child's welfare because of parental neglect or child abuse. There were many reasons. There was an unwillingness or, in some situations, an inability by parents to accept the responsibility of bringing up their children in a responsible fashion. Since 1940 there has been a slow movement away from institutional care and an emphasis on keeping children with the parents whenever it was at all posssible. There has also been a move away from big institutions towards smaller institutions. We saw many children in small cottage care instead of in the larger institutions that had been so prominent in years gone by. We were told that this was a very good move and that it was essential to keep children with their parents. Some people gave evidence that children should be with their parents at all costs. It was only as a very last resort that they should be taken away from their parents. I will elaborate on that in a few minutes. We were told that there was a decline in the number of children entering institutional care. Data compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that in 1984 at least 30,309 children were living in some form of substitute care. Senator Peter Baume —Did that include adoptees? Senator WALTERS —Yes. Other figures given to us by the Bureau of Statistics-I point this out to Senator Baume-the Department of Social Security and State welfare departments showed that the overall number of children available for adoption or placement in foster or institutional care had fallen from approximately 39,600 in 1972 to 22,500 in 1984. Similarly, the number of children under State guardianship in 1972 was 26,846-an estimated rate of 5.9 per thousand of population under 18 years of age-compared with 22,661 in 1979, or 5.1 per thousand. That figure had fallen by 1982 to 3.6 per thousand. We were told that there were various reasons for this. One was the fall in the fertility rate, but the main reason was that there was a movement away from putting children in care. There was a definite attitude that a child should stay with its parents at all costs. In 1982 the Victorian Department of Community Welfare Services stated that children requiring residential placement in 1980 appeared to be more in need of intensive care and treatment than the residential care population 10 years ago. This concern was expressed to us on many occasions by various groups looking after children. They said that it is all very well to say that children should remain with their parents at all costs but that they were now finding that greater numbers of children coming into care needed more intensive care. They had great behavioural problems. It was even suggested that we were just putting off the evil hour; that we were not putting them into care early enough; and that as time went by we would find more and more problems. The Committee stated in its report: The Committee believes they highlight the dangers inherent in policies that underestimate the role of substitute care and early childhood intervention, and place undue emphasis on the maintenance of the child within its natural family or promote the early and, at times, premature restoration of children to their families. Foster care parents have told us the same thing-that the children are perfectly happy while they are with the foster parents and seem to improve. Suddenly, the parents want them back. They are restored to the foster parents at some later time when further and greater problems are exacerbated. We were also well aware that while the numbers of children in institutional care were coming down the numbers of homeless youth appeared to be increasing. Between October 1980 and September 1981 there were over 12,000 requests for emergency accommodation at refuges funded under the refuge scheme. But the estimate was that the figure was more like 15,000. It was suggested that perhaps many of the children could have been successfully fostered or placed in some form of institutional care rather than roaming from shelter to shelter. As I said earlier, shelters are not appropriate places for young children 12, 13 or 14-year-olds. As Senator Elstob has said, the Committee was also very concerned that Aboriginal children were over-represented in all the States we visited. In Western Australia, for instance, Aboriginal children represent 54 per cent of children in foster care and 57 per cent of children in residential care, although the Aboriginal people constitute only 2.4 per cent of the population of that State. So there is a great over-representation. In taking evidence from the Aboriginal people in charge of the Aboriginal child care agencies we were told that historically it was usual for children to be taken away from Aboriginal people and given to white foster parents. They objected very strongly to this having occurred. However, since the mid-1970s, Aboriginal based child care agencies have been set up. They must now be approached before an Aboriginal child is fostered in any way. While in the majority of cases they are able to make sure that these children are put with Aboriginal families, not enough Aboriginal families are available or willing to come forward so, unfortunately, in certain situations Aboriginal children still have to be put with white families. Despite all the efforts that have been made since the early 1970s, Aboriginal children in care are still at this stage over-represented in all the States. The one area that I found most rewarding was that of the foster care parents, for whom I formed a tremendous admiration. They are a magnificent group of women and men who look after these children-sometimes they are problem children, sometimes they are just children who have been deserted. They look after them, bring them up with their own children and are usually well out of pocket through doing so. They have the biggest hearts, I think, of any people in our community. Our report commends them very highly. It says: In all the States it visited, the Committee was impressed by the commitment of foster parents to the children for whom they were responsible and the considerable personal sacrifices willingly made by them in fulfilling their role. In every case, their prime concern for both the immediate and future well-being of the children placed in their care, whether on a short-term or long-term basis, was evident. The Committee strongly believes foster care provides an essential form of substitute care for many children and, when compared with the cost of alternative forms of care, such as institutional care, is a highly cost-effective substitute care arrangement. It certainly is cost effective because foster care parents pay out of their own pockets on so many occasions for the children for whom they are caring. Our Committee recommended the upgrading of finance for this group of parents. But I found it most interesting that some of the foster care parents said to us: `Well, don't put it up too much. If you do, if you make it a financial incentive, you will destroy the true love, care and affection that must be there when fostering children.' There was only one area in which several of us found that there was a need for a minority report. Senator Bjelke-Petersen, Senator Messner, Senator Sheil, and I joined in a minority report because the committee, as Senator Elstob has said, recommended that a commission be set up to co-ordinate and advise the Government in this area. We believe that there is no need to set up separate bureaucracy, another commission. We believe that the Office of Child Care and the Institute of Family Studies could certainly take on this extra role and that it is essential for plain government control that we should not set up yet another bureaucracy, another commission. I believe that this has been a very happy Committee. I have very much enjoyed serving under Senator Elstob's chairmanship and I join him in his praise of the staff. We have been very fortunate in our staff. They have worked very well. Again, I join Senator Elstob in his praise of Mr Shrosbree. Honourable senators may or may not be aware that the Committee was in a very difficult position because it had two terms of reference at the same time. Mr Shrosbree took on the other reference and ended up doing so much on the children in institutional and other forms of care reference that he was virtually running two committees at once. It was all done so cheerfully and competently that I congratulate him on his secretaryship of the Committee. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(9.07) —I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate on the tabling of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare entitled `Children in Institutional and Other Forms of Care-a National Perspective'. I am particularly gratified that Senator Walters has had the opportunity to comment on this report. We have spent very many hours together on this reference and it is altogether fitting that she should contribute her impressions of the Committee's conclusions. I wish to highlight a number of the Committee's findings and then, as foreshadowed by Senator Elstob, discuss what the Committee found to be the most serious problem affecting the present and future development and implementation of Commonwealth and State welfare policies and programs, including those designed to improve the quality of life of children in institutional and other forms of care. Our greatest concern has been the lack of a co-ordinated approach in this country towards the planning, delivery and evaluation of community services that will promote the well-being of children and enhance the stability of families. As part of its inquiry, the Committee examined the provision of substitute care services, particularly the practices of adoption, foster care and institutional care. With regard to adoption, three major issues were brought to the Committee's attention: The inadequacy of present inter-country adoption procedures; the implications of adoption for ethnic minorities, especially Aboriginal children; and the right of access to original birth records and personal documents by adopted persons. Most witnesses who commented on these matters were critical of the differences between the States in adoption laws and practices. The Committee agrees that such variations are unsatisfactory and has urged both government and non-government welfare agencies to seek greater uniformity in official adoptive policies and regulations throughout Australia. The Committee found that foster care provides an appropriate form of substitute care for many children and, when compared with the cost of alternative forms of care such as institutionalisation, is highly cost effective. The Committee also considers that fostering has wider potential application than present policies and practices in most States would indicate. In this respect, it applauds the initiatives taken in South Australia through the development of the intensive neighbourhood care scheme which selects and trains foster parents to care for young offenders who would otherwise be committed to juvenile corrective institutions. Two matters of special concern in this area were: Firstly, the variation in the value of foster care allowances between the States, notwithstanding differences in the cost of living; and, secondly, the overall inadequacy of the level of allowances. As at October last year, the base rate of the foster care allowance fell between the range of $30 and $55 a week depending on the age of the child and the State or Territory in which the child lived. Research by such organisations as the Children's Welfare Association of Victoria and the Institute of Family Studies has shown that in 1981-82 the cost of maintaining a child was $41 per week for primary school age children and $66 per week, which is $80 in 1985 prices, for teenage children. Other evidence received by the Committee not only supports these findings but also shows that it is not uncommon for foster parents to be out of pocket through meeting the expenses of children in their care. Since the completion of the inquiry I have had an indication that the cost of repairs and replacement is also high for foster parents, bearing in mind that severely disturbed children can be very destructive. The Committee regards this as an untenable arrangement and considers that the value of foster parent allowances should reflect more accurately the real and increasing costs involved in providing proper care for a fostered child. In this respect the Committee has made a number of recommendations concerning the introduction of uniform and increased national foster parents allowances. With regard to institutional care, this form of substitute care has long been the subject of criticism by those concerned with child care theory and practice. Much has been said and written about the disadvantages of institutional care and the detrimental effects it can have on the emotional, cognitive and social development of children. Conversely, it has also been demonstrated that, for some children, a good institution may be a more satisfactory environment for a child's growth and development than a poor home. Whether institutional care per se has a beneficial or harmful effect on children is therefore debatable. Recent reforms in both protective and corrective institutional care, such as the movement towards de-institutionalisation and the development of family group homes, have attempted with some success to redress negative aspects of this form of care. Overall, the Committee found that institutional care plays an important role in providing a form of substitute care for children with special needs, and may often be the best and most appropriate type of care for certain children at a particular point in time. In the Committee's view, institutional care is, and should continue to be, an appropriate alternative method of substitute care. It is, however, necessary to recognise the distinctiveness of its role within the wider spectrum of child care and community services and to ensure that it does not, as in the past, constitute the only choice because of the unavailability of alternative forms of care or the absence of adequate community-based family support services. With regard to the provision of family support services, it became apparent to the Committee that there is a growing demand within the community for a wider range of such services than is presently available. In particular, local agencies and neighbourhood groups identified the need for more resources to be directed towards preventive welfare programs, such as those provided through the family support services scheme, including parent education courses, pre-marital and family counselling services, respite care services for families under stress, child abuse prevention programs, and homemaker services, which I believe are among the most cost-effective of all the forms of assistance that can be given to families at risk. In the report the Committee has argued that the Commonwealth should play a greater role in the development of such preventive services and has recommended that the family support services scheme should be continued and expanded. During the inquiry it became evident to the Committee that the provision of child and family welfare services in this country, including the provision of programs and facilities for children requiring institutional and other forms of care, is an area in which there is little communication between the States and Territories and the Commonwealth, and that it is one in which service delivery is fragmented, lacking in design and cohesion, and leaving significant gaps in its coverage. At the local level, the Committee found that community services are often reactive, show little, if any, evidence of forward planning and tend to operate in isolation from other services. As a result the potential of many new initiatives in this area is not fully realised, especially in terms of their possible application in a wider context. Further, it is not possible to state with any degree of certainty whether financial resources now allocated, either by the Commonwealth or the States, are being used efficiently, effectively or equitably. The Committee believes many of these problems can be attributed, in part, to the fact that, despite its increasing involvement, especially through the provision of child care and family support services funded under the children's services program, the Commonwealth has failed to make any clear statement of national policy regarding its role and responsibility vis-a-vis the States and Territories in the long term planning and the delivery of community welfare services. In the report the Committee noted that the Commonwealth has seen fit to legislate in the area of human rights through the Human Rights Commission, and in the area of family law through the Family Law Act 1976, which involves the regulation of family life as it relates to divorce and custody and maintenance of children. Action has been taken in these areas in response to certain changes within the community and in recognition of the need for a national approach. Similarly, the Committee believes that the Commonwealth should respond to other recent developments that have affected the welfare needs of the Australian community, and accept greater responsibility at the national level for ensuring that the overall framework within which public welfare policies and programs are devised is capable of both responding to changing social needs and facilitating a more rational approach towards the provision of welfare services. The Committee has therefore recommended that the Commonwealth legislate for the establishment of a national body, to be known as the Australian Children and Families Commission, with responsibility first, for the development of policy and the provision of advice to the Commonwealth Government on matters affecting the well-being of children and the stability of families, and, secondly, for the promotion, through co-operation and consultation with the States and Territories, of a better planned and co-ordinated approach towards the delivery of community services throughout Australia. It is the Committee's view that a national body with this role should be independent of existing Commonwealth executive departments and thus be in a position to provide the government of the day with impartial advice on the welfare needs of children and families. During its deliberations on this matter the Committee questioned whether it would be preferable for the functions of this body to be carried out by an existing government department or agency, including the Department of Community Services. After long and serious consideration, the Committee concluded against this proposition. Its reasons for this decision are listed in the report, but they go very much to the question of independence of particular governments and of autonomy in making decisions that are appropriate and acceptable, not only to State government departments but also to the very wide non-government organisation network which is involved in the care of children. The Committee envisages that as part of its function of promoting the stability of families the new body should be required to examine the means of maintaining the family entity as the fundamental group unit in society. This would involve the continuing review of the effect on family functioning. In this respect we use the term `family' to encompass households within which there are family relationships and not the narrower notion of a nuclear family. We include here the economic status of families in Federal and State legislation and family support programs. With respect to the welfare of children, the new body would be required to develop a set of guiding principles to formalise national standards and goals for their well-being. It is envisaged that these would be based on the principles adopted in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child. As an ongoing function it would also have responsibility for assessing the needs of the Australian community for welfare services for children, particularly those whose needs may not be met through the development of policies and programs directed towards ensuring the stability of the family unit. Such special groups include children in institutional and other forms of substitute care, children who have offended against the law, homeless children, disabled children, migrant children, Aboriginal children and children who are victims of abuse. It may be useful in this regard to note that the Committee has interpreted `a child' as being one under the age of 18 years. In carrying out this function, the new body would obtain a national overview of the adequacy of children's services and would be in a position to identify changing needs and gaps in service delivery. On the basis of such assessments, it would make recommendations to government concerning the need for special purpose programs that could be developed and implemented, either by the new body or by the most relevant Commonwealth department or authority, in consultation and co-operation with the States and Territories. We do not envisage just another commission. We envisage a body, probably quite small, which would carry out these functions and fulfill a crying need in the community in the way that the Schools Commission has demonstrated its utility. The proposed national body could also have the function of educating the community and acting as a public watchdog of government activity, for example, in relation to the effects on the family of government policy decisions concerning income maintenance, taxation, law reform, housing, education, health and employment. To assist the new body in its public watchdog role and other policy analysis, it is proposed that the Institute of Family Studies be subsumed as the national body's research arm. Among the publications utilised by the Committee, research papers prepared by the Institute of Family Studies have proved to be of immense and unique value. Recent papers from the Institute of Family Studies include papers on the role of fathers in raising children, the problems of step-families, families and the taxation summit, family values of Australia's ethnic groups, a call for an improved level of child-family policy debate in Australia, the cost of children and divorce property law. These are all very much the concerns of this Committee and its terms of reference. Finally, the Committee believes a national body of this nature-and I refer here to the Australian Children and Families Commission-could serve as an important point of central focus for community organisations and client groups as well as for government and non-government organisations directly involved in the delivery of child and family welfare services. It is becoming increasingly apparent that under existing arrangements the welfare needs of children have been gradually submerged by other competing interest groups seeking assistance from government. It has been estimated that of all children in Australia, a disturbing 15 per cent or approximately 800,000 now live below the poverty line compared with 8 per cent or approximately 250,000 when the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty carried out its inquiry in 1972. Studies by the Department of Social Security, the Institute of Family Studies and others also reveal that children and their families now represent the new poor in this country and the Institute has pointed out that Australia's expenditure on child care and other family support services is well behind that of countries with which it is often compared-for example, Sweden, France, Germany, Denmark and Israel. The Committee believes that if Australia is to have a sound basis on which to build its future, the growing number of children living in poverty and the long term consequences of this for the nation as a whole must be addressed in a more comprehensive and forward-thinking way than has been the practice in the past. The formation of a statutory authority at the national level is seen as a mechanism through which greater effectiveness and equitability can be achieved in the distribution of the community's resources for child and family welfare purposes. In making a recommendation for the establishment of an Australian Children and Families Commission, the Committee has stressed that it is not intended that the Commonwealth assume responsibility for the delivery and administration of community services for children and families. Rather, the proposal recognises the need to address child and family welfare problems at the national level and to ensure that, through consultation and co-operation with the States and Territories and the non-governmental organisations, the future provision of services through the present multiplicity of authorities is achieved in a more planned and co-ordinated manner across Australia. In this sense, the body would be similar in purpose to the proposed National Children's Commission for which legislation was passed in 1975 but which was never established. Before concluding, I endorse Senator Elstob's remarks concerning the degree of co-operation and the level of assistance received by the Committee from all witnesses who gave evidence at the Committee's public hearings, and by others who contributed to the inquiry through written submissions. In particular, I acknowledge with Senator Elstob the contribution made by children to whom we spoke in institutional and other forms of substitute care, their parents or foster parents, and other individuals and representatives. I also record my appreciation, and that of other members of the Committee, of the assistance and advice received from Ms Monica Darmody whose knowledge and understanding of the problems faced by children in substitute care, her long experience in that field, their carers, as well as those responsible for the administration of substitute care programs, helped clarify many complex issues for the Committee. Finally, I give my personal thanks and those I am sure of the other Committee members, for the excellent service given us by the Committee Secretary and his very conscientious staff. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.25) —As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare I would like to speak briefly to this report, and together with the other speakers, compliment the Chairman, Senator Elstob, and the Secretary, Chris Shrosbree, and other members of the staff for the good work they have done in the compilation of this report. I guess all honourable senators realise that the very best care that any child can have is that of parents in a good home. We acknowledge that, and as we have been around as members of the Committee we have realised that there are occasions when other care, substitute care, of course is necessary. We know this is brought about by many reasons-sometimes perhaps beyond children's control, where there are parental problems, perhaps where there is divorce or child abuse or family breakdown in many ways. There are reasons why children have to go into institutional care. Even apart from the occasions I have been around with the Committee I have had the opportunity, as I am sure other senators have in the course of their work, of looking at many institutions. We have a very fine institution in Boystown in Queensland. I have had the opportunity to go there on numerous occasions and see the tremendous work that is done for children who are in institutional care there. I certainly am very happy to pay a tribute to the work that is done there. There is also the case of foster parents. They have been mentioned on a number of occasions during the debate this evening. There are very many foster parents who give very fond care to the children they look after. I agree with other senators who have spoken this evening and said that they feel that foster parents are not really paid enough to help make up for the care they give at times when children are lacking their own particular parents. As a signatory to the dissenting report, along with Senator Walters, I want to say that we do not feel that there is the need for the establishment of another Commonwealth statutory authority in this regard. We feel that there are enough Federal departments to look after the problems that have arisen. I was pleased to be able to attend some of the hearings of the Committee and certainly appreciated the tremendous amount of work done by members of the Committee. I appreciate that there are institutional and other forms of care available to children who are badly in need of it when there is a break-up in their homes. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(9.28) —I add my remarks to those of my colleagues on the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. In particular I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Elstob, for his efforts. I think it should be remarked-and those who know will understand-that Senator Elstob practised remarkable patience in chairing this Committee. I would also like to extend thanks to the secretariat, in particular Chris Shrosbree and the assisting staff. They too portrayed a fair ability at being patient. It is a very useful report because while it focuses on those children who for one reason or another finish in institutional or other forms of care, it does emphasise not a welfare or problem focus but the needs of all children in our community. That, of course, is why the principal recommendation reads as it does. Senator Bjelke-Petersen made the comment that many of the reasons children finish in institutional or other forms of care are often not their fault. I can almost never think of a case when children are the cause of being removed from home, unless perhaps when they commit some kind of criminal offence; and even then we have to be careful not to see children as the only players. For the most part, children in institutional or other forms of care are victims. They are victims of the many points listed in the report, including parental neglect, child abuse, homelessness, and parental and family conflict or breakdown, or they are victims because the general family, however we describe it, proves to be improper, unfit or incompetent in providing care for children. For all those reasons and many more, children, the innocent victims in large part of those problems, are removed from the family where the problem exists. They in large part would suffer as a consequence of that removal. Certainly their physical and social welfare may be better attended to, and I am not suggesting in any way that children in institutional or other forms of care are grossly disadvantaged. In fact, we would say that it is mostly the lesser of two evils. Even so in some ways we have, until this point, focused on solving a major problem of society by taking the principal victims and placing them elsewhere. Not only is it inappropriately the focus for solutions to those problems; it is also very costly. The report's comments and sections devoted to emphasising the importance of the preventive focus in providing services, I am pleased to see, are stressed, and I certainly add my emphasis. I think an emphasis on the need for parental education, for pre-marital and family counselling, for respite care services, particularly for parents with disabled children, for the programs we are now putting in place to deal with child abuse, for economic assistance and counselling, for budget advice, for homemaker services and for much more is a better way to focus on the problems which kids come up with when they are in families which, for one reason or another, are not coping. Of course, we will probably continue to need institutional and other forms of substitute care for quite some time, but it is to be remarked that the number of children in such places has fallen dramatically over the last 10 to 12 years. I think it quite likely that that fall will continue. Hopefully a shift of emphasis to a preventive focus, at least to the same extent as the way in which we address the problem at the moment-by providing care for children-might see a continuing and increased reduction in the number of children who need this type of care. The principal recommendation addresses the need to establish an Australian Children and Families Commission to advise governments on matters of policy and all such things necessary to develop programs for the welfare of children and families, including strategies, planning and all other things as may be judged necessary. The principal recommendation has the benefit of taking into account the needs of all children in Australia. It will move away from a focus on dealing with only those children who are seen to be problematic, who are in a welfare need, or who are bad children. That is particularly appropriate in this International Year of Youth. I add my voice, as a Government member on this Committee, to support for that principal recommendation, but simply make the comment that the dissenting report suggests that many of the functions suggested in the report and proposed by Government members on the Committee to establish an Australian Children and Families Commission principally are objected to on the grounds of establishing another bureaucracy or statutory authority. The dissenting report says: Many of these functions are currently being conducted by the Office of Child Care, through the Children's Services Program, and the Institute of Family Studies. I have no dispute with the fact that those bodies are working very well but, as this report documents also in some considerable detail the inadequacies of our current system, I do not believe that we can rest on the present system. If in fact we judge that the provision of services is inadequate, we then have to judge that the mechanism for dealing with those services, for providing the best care for children in this country, really needs to be reviewed or overhauled too. A commission to act as an umbrella, if you like, to overview and to focus on such places as the Institute of Family Studies and the Office of Child Care seems to me a very useful addition. So it has my support. There is much in this report that is worth further and more thorough reflection. I will not extend the Senate too much tonight by dwelling on those points. They have been adequately covered by Senator Elstob and Senator Walters. It will be a very useful document for honourable senators to know they have on their shelves. It contains some very useful data and some focusing on the problems of children and of children in care in this country. I commend the report. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.35) —I am the first senator to speak on this report who is not a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. I have not read the report and therefore I will not go into detail. But it is clear on the surface from listening carefully to what has been said by those who have already spoken that this is an important and hallmark report as far as the committee system of this Senate is concerned, that it shows that a great deal of care and attention have been given to it by members of the Committee and that obviously, as Senator Crowley said, it will be a very valuable report for honourable senators to read and take into account. There are one or two things that I want to refer to. I listened with care to the statements by a number of speakers this evening. In the first place, Senator Elstob referred, among other things, to the reasons for the investigation as to why children are put into care. He gave as the first reason as family conflict, family breakdown, and so forth. I took it that that was one of the most important reasons why it occurs. It seems to me that that links inevitably with the investigations which the Institute of Family Studies does. It is clear from both sides of the chamber that the works of the Institute of Family Studies were valuable to the Committee in this work. This is clear from the recommendation of the majority report for the setting up of an Australian Children and Families Commission. After detailing the research that should be done the recommendation goes on to say, in connection with the proposed Commission's research function: The Committee recommends that . . . the Institute of Family Studies be incorporated as the research arm of the Australian Children and Families Commission. Obviously the Committee has come to the conclusion that the Institute is important and that it should play an increasingly important part in the work which it sees for the proposed Commission. On the other hand, the other members of the Committee who do not think there is a need for a commission place the same obvious value on the Institute of Family Studies. I note that Senator Walters made a particular comment about the value of its work. This is one matter I want to refer to tonight, because it is curiously apposite that at the time this study comes down, the importance of which is fundamental to families in this country, there appears tonight in the Melbourne Herald an article headed `Fund cuts hit family studies' which says: The Federal Government has sliced the budget of its Melbourne-based Institute of Family Studies by almost a half, according to Institute director, Dr Don Edgar. Dr Edgar says virtually all research as well as all travelling, lectures, and publishing will have to be halted. And, he says, the Government's action could be part of a major shake-up involving the Law Reform Commission, the Institute of Criminology and the Human Rights Commission. I imagine that what is perhaps in mind is the amalgamation in some glorious heap of those four organisations. Consequently, one can imagine that the work done by the proposed combined organisation would be very much less than that done today-not more, as is obviously contemplated. The article goes on: A review of all four bodies has been ordered which could lead to bringing their research activities into one body. Dr Edgar says the IFS will insist on a broader public inquiry into the commissions and institutes because `we do not consider this to be an open or representative enough review panel'. Finally, Dr Edgar is reported to have said: Apart from salaries, which are fixed costs, our administrative expenses budget item thus takes an effective cut of over 40 per cent in 1985-86 after the upgrade is carried out. This, I submit to the Senate, is a scandalous situation. It is one that is particularly inappropriate when one considers the importance which is placed upon this body by this report which has been brought down in the Senate tonight. As I understand it, at the moment the Government is conducting a so-called inquiry which is being undertaken by two persons-one from the Attorney-General's Department and one from the Department of Finance. Using someone from the Department of Finance is, if I may use the unfortunate analogy, like putting a child-molester in charge of child-care. It seems to me that it is quite obvious what is intended. There is an intention to cut and slice this body, which has a very good record in the community. It is not as though that body does not want its functions to be analysed. In fact, if one looks at its 1983-84 report one finds that it sets out the way in which it believes amendments should be made to the Act, to set out the various matters which it believes should be functions of the Institute. Although it has sought these things from government for some time, it has not succeeded in getting them. Now at a time when an important report has been presented by the Social Welfare Committee, a report which obviously has involved many hours and weeks of work, one finds that the government is working in the opposite direction. I hope that honourable senators will read this report and take note of this fact. I hope that they will take note of the reports of what is going on in regard to the actual work which the Institute of Family Studies is doing in child-care and other areas. I believe that this is a most unfortunate situation. I raised this matter during debate on this report because I think it is important to draw the attention of the people to the fact that the Government's actions must match its words. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Harradine, I would like to give a ruling on relevancy in respect of a matter which arose during debate on Government papers. It has been the practice to allow wide-ranging debate on the subject matter of Government papers, largely, I think, because the Chair cannot possibly be aware of the detailed contents of the many papers presented. I will follow that practice and will not rule remarks out of order, provided they are relevant to the institution reporting or being reported on. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.43) —Mr Deputy President, I shall be very brief. This is a very important paper. It is one which I would like to discuss at some length, having regard to the features of the paper itself. I also wish to refer to the book entitled `Recombinant DNA: an Australian Perspective', which was published by the Australian Academy of Science in 1980. However, I understand that tonight there is a desire by at least two honourable senators to deal with a substantive motion. I simply flag that at some stage I want to question the fact that, I believe, the committees established and detailed in this document are heavily and unduly weighted in favour of the scientific community. I believe that is an issue which in a matter of such importance as this deserves a full-scale debate in this Parliament. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Draft Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.47) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(9.48) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to speak on the report of the Family Law Council entitled `Creating Children'. I believe the Council is to be congratulated on the presentation of this report to the Parliament. I believe that Mr Justice Asche and his committee members are to be commended for undertaking the study of a very significant feature of Australian society which so far has not been subject to such an assessment and a set of proposals which attempt to express an Australian rather than a State, a fragmented or piecemeal view. It is quite clear that the recurring theme of this report is that too often the approach to this wonderful breakthrough in medical technology, which is well-known to all honourable senators, is often spoken of in narrow medical procedure categories and the wider and serious legal, social and ethical issues are not addressed. I believe that this Family Law Council report addresses this issue for the first time, and does so in a very sound and comprehensive manner. The Council speaks, for example, of the fact that this technology is concerned not just with the medical procedure but also with creating a child with family formation. It is therefore said that it is essential that all the interests which are vitally concerned in these matters be represented in any body which proposes the legal, ethical and social framework within which this activity should occur. The reason that I am taking some time with this matter-I will be only a couple more minutes-is that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has before it at the moment a reference from this chamber which touches on some of the issues covered in this report. Only this week we are advertising for written submissions and perhaps witnesses on the issue of the legal status of children arising out of in vitro procedures and the need for a national or uniform approach in the way in which the Commonwealth might be able to help. That is only a very narrow aspect. It is well known that in the debate in which the chamber gave us that reference Senator Harradine's Bill was particularly excluded from our purview of this topic. However, I think this report falls within the general supervisory jurisdiction of this Committee. It may well be that the Senate will find it an advantage to have the Senate Standing Committee look at this report as a whole. That may help the Senate in coming to some conclusions in relation to it. We would be prepared to devote very considerable resources and give some priority to the review of this very important report. That is all I wish to say to indicate to the chamber that my Committee stands ready to aid the chamber in its review of the issues raised by this report. Maybe that matter can be taken up at a later time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.51) —In view of the time constraints I will be extremely brief. I wish only to refer honourable senators to the letter that has been written by Mr Justice Fogarty to the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, which appears on page v of the report of the Family Law Council. In that letter the judge congratulates the members of the sub-committee which dealt with these very complex issues. They are issues of great technological complexity and of considerable complexity so far as jurisprudence is concerned. The committee, of course, did not actually address the latter matter. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the summary of conclusions and recommendations which are attached to that letter and are contained on pages vii to x of the committee's report. In that summary the committee recognised that the questions raised by reproductive technology, which enables the creation of children and the formation of families, are not exclusively or even primarily medical or scientific matters. Rather, they raise fundamental social, moral, legal and ethical issues which involve the whole community. It is of considerable concern to me and, I believe, to all members of the Senate who represent the people-the whole of the community-that certain scientists appear to regard these questions as being primarily scientific or medical. Indeed, honourable senators will recall the debate on Huw Evans's show Pressure Point in which Dr Trounson indicated that parliamentary consideration of these questions would be regarded as interference with academic freedom. I also draw attention to the point that was made in Mr Justice Fogarty's letter. The penultimate sentence of Mr Justice Fogarty's letter to the Attorney-General stated: The Council supports the recommendations which would prohibit the production of human embryos for the sole purpose of research/experimentation or the use of spare human embryos for that purpose . . . That is a clear indication by a group such as the Family Law Council, with which I do not always agree, that this is a matter of concern to the whole community and ought properly be determined by the representatives of the community-namely, the Parliament. Also in the report concern is raised about reproductive technology being exposed to commercial exploitation. The inference is that it is referring to the Monash University group which has established the company IVF Australia Ltd to market reproductive technology in the United States. One might ask why it would market it in the United States. Why cannot the United States undertake these experiments? As honourable senators would know, the Government of the United States has long since placed a ban on Federal funds for human embryo experimentation. It seems very strange indeed that, on the one hand, scientists can claim that what is being attempted by the Parliament on behalf of the community, for the very minute individuals of our species, is somehow an interference in academic freedom and, on the other hand, can set up a company which will be able to attack that very concept of academic freedom. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.57) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. As a Senate representative on the Council of the Australian National University and a member of the finance committee of that university I want to give a very brief explanation to the Senate without holding up the Senate tonight because it wishes to get on with other business. The fact that there is an interim annual report is in no way the fault of or a default by the university. Rather, a number of developments are taking place in improving the form of presentation of accounts at the university and a number of legal questions in relation to the way in which trust accounts are prepared have involved the obtaining of both legal and auditing opinions which have held up the report. In every other way the university has, as that excellent university has done over many years, produced an effective, efficient, appropriate report on time. It has no reason to be chastised in any way by the parliament for being late in the presentation of its report. I briefly make that explanation with a view to making a more detailed explanation at another time. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I point to the fact that the reports concerning the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund, the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund, the Services Canteens Trust Fund and the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund are late in their presentation. I would be interested if the Minister responsible for their presentation would give some explanation at some stage as to why they are late. I make no further remarks. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.01) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.02) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In relation to the very encouraging report of the Australian Maritime College, I raise one question which I hope will be answered by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in due course. I ask: What is intended in relation to the application of the travel allowance aspect of the tertiary education assistance scheme for the future of the college? As it is a national college it involves the opportunity for travel allowance for the students who attend the college to be able to travel from the various parts of Australia. It is my understanding that at the moment this has been denied and a $32m investment could be put at stake. The college is a major national institution. It does what I believe is an excellent job. I raise the question in the hope of an answer in due course as to what special arrangements may be made to ensure that travel allowances in relation to national institutions are dealt with on a special basis. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.03) —I move: That the Senate- (a) notes: (i) that it is 40 years since the liberation of the prisoners of Nazi concentration and death camps, (ii) that from those camps and other evidence there emerged knowledge of the full horror of the holocaust against the Jewish people and the persecution of other minorities, and (iii) that some have sought in recent times to deny that there was an attempt at the systematic extermination of the Jewish people; and (b) declares: (i) that historical evidence has determined beyond doubt that the holocaust occurred, that it was an attempt at the systematic extermination of the Jewish people, and that it involved the use of means including gas chambers, and (ii) that a major task for any civilised people is to prevent such events happening again. Almost exactly 40 years ago, on 15 April 1945, the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp was liberated and the populaces of the Western world learned, through photographs and films, of unbelievable horror, of Nazi inhumanity in Europe. But Belsen was not an extermination camp-the liberation of these followed. People learned then what their officials had long known and ignored-that a regime, as an act of state policy, had determined upon the total extermination of an entire peoples. Now, 40 years later, it is proper that we recall the horror of those events and of that regime, that we recall the systematic nature of the extermination, that we recall the gas chambers and that we recommit ourselves to the twin messages-`Never forget and never again'-that are the positive heritage of that catastrophe. But further, it is desirable that this Senate asserts the accuracy of the evidence of history, not least because of revisionist interpretations that would have us believe that there was no holocaust, no gas chambers, no `final solution', no mass crematoria and no systematic program of extermination, and that Jewish deaths occurred only in the usual course of hostile occupation. The facts of history are so fantastic, so hard to comprehend, that it should not be surprising that one cunningly written denial should find acceptance with some people. To journey in one lifetime from Auschwitz to Entebbe is a miracle. If it seems almost impossible to believe that the terror actually occurred, then the martyrs' and heroes' memorial at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem provides the harsh and moving evidence. In it are to be seen much photographic and documentary evidence of the catastrophe, or the Holocaust as we know it today. Because the Germans were meticulous, the records are extensive. They are stark and they are eloquent in their testimony of the horrors which one group could and did inflict on another. But the Holocaust did not engulf European Jewry alone. For some of the victims the history is preserved; for some, there is no record and no detailed memory. The gypsies were one such forgotten group. Because of this the Jews of Kibbutz Lohamei Ha'geta'ot in the Western Galilee set up an archive for the half-million gypsies who died and who have no homeland to remember them. All the founders of Kibbutz Lohamei Ha'geta'ot were Holocaust survivors. Mr Acting Deputy President, time is not with us. Part of my speech presents the background, the events and a summary of some of the history. In the interests of the Senate I seek leave to incorporate the middle part of my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- A simple summary of the events can be found from many official documents. One such summary goes as follows: "In January 1933 Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party came to power in Germany with consequences that are now a matter of recorded history. The Second World War broke as a direct result of Hitler's expansionist aims. In that war, some 40 million people lost their lives, and millions more were forced into slave labour. More than six million Jews, including a million and a half children, were systematically murdered, victims of a diabolical scheme for the liquidation of an entire people. The Jews were condemned to death as a nation, simply because they were Jews. As the Nazi armies swept through Europe, the Jews were rounded up, herded into ghettos, starved, tortured and killed regardless of age, rank or station. Those who did not die in the ghettos were deported to the death camps in Poland and Russia. There the able bodied were selected for slave labour; the rest were sent to their deaths in the gas chambers, their bodies cremated or simply dumped into mass graves. Only a very few managed to organize armed resistance against the Nazis. The minority among a largely hostile or indifferent population, the Jews of Europe faced their fate virtually alone, while the free world stood by. Of almost 7 million Jews, in what were once the most vibrant Jewish communities in the world, only 250,000 survived. The final solution was planned and initiated for Jews but caught in its web of death were many other peoples who could have threatened the purity of Aryan blood. This account today is also an account of the fate of Russian prisoners, of gypsies, of handicapped Germans rejected by the Reich on eugenic grounds, and children-innocent, vulnerable and trusting children-whose sin was to be in the wrong place at a time of mass killing and destruction. When I talk of the Jewish Holocaust when I emphasise Jewish suffering, I am always aware of those millions of other innocents who suffered too under the madness of the Third Reich. Today's Federal German Republic is a democracy which has been unequivocal in its rejection of the actions and the values of the Third Reich. Successive German leaders have made this clear and have acknowledged the facts of the past without excuse or any attempt at denial. They have separated post-war Germany and its people from the crimes and consequences they inherited. It is necessary to address this matter now because there are those who deny that the Holocaust occurred. Those people seek to revise and rewrite history-to sanitise these events. Forty years after the liberation of the death camps it is sad and unbelievable that we need to reaffirm what happend in the hope that we can be sensitive to our obligation to prevent the re-emergence of virulent anti-semitism and any recurrence of the failure of civilisation that was the Holocaust. Adolf Hilter laid out clearly his burning hatred of Jews and his determination to preserve the purity of Aryan blood long before he became Reichskanazler, most notably in his book Mein Kampf. His writings reveal a paranoid hatred which was translated into action once he held the reins of power. The Nazi campaign against Jews was in three parts. First there was unremitting vilification, a series of unofficial vigilante style harrassments, and a consciousness raising-or should I say a lowering-designed to prepare Germany for what followed. This phase culminated in 1938 in the Kristallnacht (`Night of Broken Glass') in which 25,000 Jews were arrested, 7,000 Jewish shops and businesses were vandalised and looted and many synagogues were burned down. The second phase was the progressive deprivation of Jews of their legal rights and protections, with the object of making life so unbearable that they would leave. In 1935 the Nuremberg laws deprived Jews of their German citizenship and excluded them from public office, the professions, and the intellectual, economic and artistic life of the country. Jewish property was consficated and Jews were placed outside the protection of the law. Before 1939 some 60 per cent of Germany's half million Jews did leave-sadly many moved to adjacent states and did not escape the Holocaust. Phase three was the deliberate, systematic, calculated, planned `final solution' in which the total destruction of the Jews of Germany and of occupied Europe was undertaken. It was this program which separated the Holocaust from the other sufferings of World War II-for example from the sufferings of Australian prisoners in Malayia. At first the aim was the extinction of European Jewry by crowding, starvation, cold and disease within the period of the war. This plan of systematic extinction applied too to Poles, Russians, non-Soviet communists, the handicapped, and Gypsies, although less urgency attached to the destruction of these groups. But the Nazis decided that the rate of extermination had to be hastened. This led to the use of Einsatzgruppen or mobile task forces to undertake liquidations in occupied territories. They used mass shootings and hangings and hundreds of thousands died, particularly in Poland and Russia. Then followed the final and most abhorrent part of the program-the use of more efficient mass methods of extermination. The first gas chambers had been constructed to accomplish killings associated with Germany's elimination of its own unwanted-the handicapped, the deviant and the criminal. They replaced slower methods of individual killing which were not sufficiently efficient. As finally developed, the gas chambers used cyanide gas in the form of Zyklon B and were generally disguised as shower rooms or disinfection chambers. Gas chambers were established in extermination camps whose names remain burned today into Jewish consciousness-Auschwitz, Birkenau, Belzek, Maidanek, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Chelno. The destruction of Jews was given top priority even over the war effort-trains were diverted from urgent military purposes to Jewish deportation. The evidence for this phase of the Holocaust-the phase of systematic extermination-comes from a mass of historical materials. These include material from the Wannsee conference-a Nazi summit held in a Berlin suburb on January 20, 1942 at which the plan was laid down and agreed in detail at senior level. One paragraph of the Wannsee document translates as follows: `In the process of the final solution the Jews are to be under appropriate directions suitably deployed for work in the east. In big convoys with the sexes segregated the work-fit Jews will be brought into these territories for roadwork, whereby no doubt a big part of them will drop out by natural reduction. The finally remaining rest will have to be-as it doubtlessly will be the most resilient part-treated accordingly as it will constitute a natural selection and would have to be regarded-if ever it became free-as a nucleus of a new Jewish build-up.' Documentary evidence includes much material which was presented and recorded at the Nuremberg war trials about the Nazi extermination program and from evidence given at the trial of Adoph Eichmann. And yet the historical revisionists deny that there was an extermination program, that there were gas chambers, and they claim that inconvenient evidence like that presented at the war trials, was fabricated. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank honourable senators. I did that with some sadness, but I am grateful that the matter has come up tonight. I thank the Senate for the precedence it has given this motion. When the considerable number of scholarly, meticulously documented and detailed accounts of the attempt to exterminate European Jewry between 1939 and 1945 are examined, it is impossible to take the claims of the revisionists seriously. The evidence is too detailed and too extensive to be dismissed as Jewish propaganda. The scholarly works are backed up by the personal experiences of survivors and by concrete data from the camps which were revealed to the world with the defeat of Germany in 1945. I remind honourable senators that I have set out much of that material in that portion of the speech which I have incorporated in the interests of the Senate's program. As a doctor I have had my own experiences of people with concentration camp numbers tattooed on their arms and unable to recall any other member of extensive kindreds who had survived long enough to be able to die from natural causes. I have circulated some other material to honourable senators, for it is not possible to set out the details of the evidence in the time available today. I invite honourable senators to consider the evidence I have circulated, to read the material I have incorporated in Hansard, and to support this motion and to lend the authority of this Senate to the acknowledgement of what happened during the lifetime of many of us. It is desirable that we do so because the crime of genocide has been repeated and is a continuing dark thread through history. If we are aware of the past we have a greater chance to prevent or to limit the re-enactment of this crime in our own country and in our own times. I remind the Senate that Lance Morrow, writing in Time magazine on 20 May this year, observed: . . . There were many voices muttering, `must we hear about the Holocaust again?' There have, after all, been other great tragedies in history-the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians, Stalin's liquidation of millions of Kulaks and the enforced famine in the Ukraine in 1932-33, the destruction of perhaps 2 million Kampucheans by their own Khmer Rouge countrymen. One cannot engage in a contest of comparative horrors. Yet there is about the Holocaust a primal and satanic mystery. And no cheap grace can redeem it. The Third Reich was the greatest failure of civilisation on the planet. . . . Germany represented one of the furthest advances of the culture, yet the Third Reich profoundly perverted the entire heritage of Western achievement. It was as if Goethe had taken to eating human flesh. The scientific method, perfected over centuries, fell into the hands of Dr Mengele and the engineers of the ovens. Hitler was not alone responsible. More than a few Germans enthusiastically followed him, saluted him and died for him. They seized the accumulated trust of 3,000 years and distilled it into unimaginable evil. They sought to extinguish not only Jews and gypsies and the rest, but all the lights of civilisation. That is not easy to forgive. It is not possible to improve upon what Lance Morrow has said but I would like to add one last point to what has been a truncated presentation. In the past few years many thousands have prayed at the Western Wall of the Temple in Jerusalem. I was there this year with a group of senators. Moshe Dayan was one of the first Israelis to visit it, as thousands have done since. I know at least one of my colleagues in the Senate this year left a simple message on a small slip of paper between the great blocks of stone. His message was part of Kaddish prayer, the Jewish prayer of remembrance for the dead. It speaks not of grief but of the hope of the coming of God's kingdom. The last verse, the words left by Moshe Dayan in the Western Wall, were as follows in Hebrew: HEBREW CHARACTERS INSERTED HERE In English that translates to: May he who causes peace to reign in the high heavens let peace descend on us, on all Israel, and all the world, and let us say Amen. I think that the victims of the Holocaust wanted no more than this. It is my hope that the Senate will see its way to supporting this motion. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.13) —The Senate is indebted to Senator Peter Baume for moving this motion tonight. It is a matter for regret that timetable constraints made his presentation shorter than we all would have wished. Let me quite simply and quickly, on behalf of the Government, endorse what Senator Baume has said and add just a few words of my own. Of all the suffering inflicted on the world by Hitler's Nazis the Holocaust was unquestionably the most monstrous crime of all. The millions who perished in the Holocaust-there were not only Jews but also, as Senator Baume has said, Poles, gypsies, Russians and people who were then regarded as social outcasts such as the mentally handicapped-were victims of the calculated nurturings of crude prejudices into a racist ideology of unsurpassed depravity. Attempts to suggest that the Holocaust did not occur or has been exaggerated have never had any credibility, with discrediting occurring as early as and perhaps nowhere more completely than in transcripts of evidence of the Nuremburg and related trials in the 1940s at which the leading war criminals there brought to trial had full advantage of counsel and cross-examination. The evidence of those transcripts gives an incontrovertible picture of the full range, magnitude and enormity of the Holocaust. For example the evidence of Hoess, the Commandant of Auschwitz on May 1 1940 to 1 December 1943, estimated that in that camp alone and in that time 2,500,000 persons were exterminated and a further 500,000 died from disease and starvation. I have no doubt that some of those associated with the so-called revisionist school of history who have challenged or doubted the Holocaust-or at least that part of the Holocaust account which refers to a deliberate program of extermination in the concentration camps-at least initially, had been motivated by genuine concerns about getting the historical record right and assessing the weight and force of the historiographical evidence which, by and large, has not produced quite the amount of documentary evidence that one might have hoped would be available to match the oral evidence of the post-war survivors and accused. A few years ago I was encouraged by some of those whom I believed at the time to be motivated by a spirit of genuine intellectual inquiry to look at some of these so-called revisionist writings and, in particular, the work of that Chicago academic-if he might be so described-A. R. Butz, whose book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century has become and remains something of a bible of revisionists. One ought not to be influenced by a single paragraph when reading a work of this kind which purports to be a work of serious history and serious documentation, but I am afraid that my reading of this volume and my sympathy for the revisionist school of history stopped on page 37 when I came to the following paragraph, a reaction by the author to the Diary of Anne Frank. Anne Frank died, of course, in Belsen in March 1945. As to the Diary of Anne Frank Butz, the most widely quoted revisionist, stated: The question of the authenticity of the diary is not considered important enough to examine here; I will only remark that I have looked it over and don't believe it. For example, already on page 2 one is reading an essay on why a 13 year old girl would start a diary, and then page 3 delivers a short history of the Frank family and then quickly reviews the specific anti-Jewish measures that followed the German occupation in 1940. The rest of the book is in the same historical spirit. Anyone who has read that diary and, in particular, anyone here who has visited the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and been overcome, as I guess anyone would be, by the sheer impact that that physical experience has on any mortal who has any sensitivity at all could not possibly take seriously that kind of rubbish and that kind of account. I have no doubt that what occurred in Germany in the latter part of the 1930s and during the Second World War will rank forever as the most monstrous crime in human history. It is crucially important, as Senator Baume has said-of course this is the substance and theme of his motion-that subsequent generations never be allowed to forget or underestimate the magnitude of that crime. Santayana's dictum has become a cliche by now but cliches do assume that status because of their eternal truth. True it is that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. On behalf of the Government I support Senator Baume's motion. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.18) —On behalf of the National Party of Australia in this chamber I would like to be associated with this motion. I cannot add anything much to what has been said. When one looks back on what has happened one finds it almost incomprehensible. It is more incomprehensible when one understands that probably one of the most advanced nations and one of the most advanced people on this earth perpetrated this horrible crime. As has been indicated by both previous speakers, we should not ever let the young people who are alive today forget what happened and how the crime was perpetrated. I can only repeat what the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, said: Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.19) —It is fitting on the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of prisoners from Nazi concentration camps that the Senate not only remember the Holocaust but also declare, as elected representatives of the Australian people, those views brought to us by Senator Peter Baume that never again should such be caused to the Jewish people. We have a plain duty to perpetuate the facts about the Holocaust. If when the generation of survivors of the Nazi Holocaust die out the world forgets about the six million who died it would have happened in vain; if their children were to forget and the rest of the community did not care any more it would be as if it never happened. Of course that has happened with great tragedies in the past. This should not be allowed to occur with the Holocaust because it has far too much to do with the future as well as the past in a world where the use of torture and oppression of whole groups of people is becoming almost commonplace. One might say that each and every one of the survivors of that genocide, in the act of survival, was a resistance fighter. In spite of the might of the German army and the use of every possible measure at the nazi's disposal, the nazi regime did not succeed in its plan for the final solution of genocide. The survival of these camp inmates to today is an heroic act of defiance. As one reads about this and sees documentaries of what actually happened in those places, it is a miracle that anybody survived them at all. One feels that some survivors must have sought to survive for long enough to bear some kind of witness to history, which indeed they now do. Of course, if the nazi's plans for the Jews had been successful there would have been no such witnesses to history. I think the memory of the Holocaust is important now because a whole generation is growing up which does not really know about it. I think that perhaps in schools now the Holocaust is something which is heard of and of which people are dimly aware but about which they do not know or remember in detail. I think people have no concept now of a time such as that when death became a daily event for hundreds of people and torture a mere commonplace that occurred all the time. On the other hand, there are now new voices for the younger generation to listen to-as I think has been said eloquently by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Evans. These are the people who wish to destroy the past and rewrite the history of the Jews from 1939 to 1945. Here again is another disquieting manifestation of the modern world put forward by the polite euphemism of disinformation. I think that is a word which we should never use. It means the perpetuation of lies and the rewriting of history to suit partisan interests. In this case, as in all such cases, that is to be despised and resisted. I think it is worth looking briefly at the psychological motives of those who, in spite of all the evidence, wish to say that the Holocaust did not happen. Do they wish just to turn back the clock? Perhaps they are anti-Semites who wish to express their primitive hatreds without guilt or without moral restraints. If they could convince people that the Holocaust did not happen and that there is no lesson to learn from the history of anti-Semitism, it would almost certainly start all over again. The world cannot now afford repeated tragedies. We have been most concerned by the fact that the 2,000 or so survivors of nazi concentration camps living in Australia have, under successive governments, had their compensation money from the German Government included as income for the purposes of the old age pension. I wish to mention this practical matter because the Australian Democrats think it is important. In spite of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision to the contrary the Hawke Government refuses to recognise that those recipients are receiving compensation for the most appalling things that happened to them in the past. I say now that we will introduce a Bill to exclude from income assessment this compensation to concentration camp survivors. We hope that all honourable senators voting for the motion of Senator Peter Baume will see that beyond principle also lies duty. I think it is a duty of ours to regard these payments in a rational and sensible way. I hope honourable senators will carry their sentiments into action in a non-partisan way by backing up what we will put forward so that justice is done to the survivors of the Holocaust. Finally, the Holocaust is not removed from Australia. It is not removed from this Parliament. It is not just something that happened to other people at another time. I feel we must all involve ourselves, especially in the world of today, in the injustice and inhumanities which happen everywhere. It is all part of the joint story of humanity at a time when I think more and more people realise that we are living, as people say, on a single lifeboat in space. It is at a time when every person is diminished by every unhappy or tragic event that occurs-especially unnecessary and unhappy tragic events. There are so many of those. We would all be victims if we were to turn our backs on the history of the Holocaust. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.23) —I associate myself with the remarks of previous speakers and give the motion my full support. I think that everything that needs to be said has just about been said. I will be interested to read Senator Peter Baume's incorporated material in Hansard tomorrow. I believe that the world owes a great debt to those Jewish people who suffered in nazi concentration camps. I believe that the world owes a great debt in particular to those people on whom-as Senator Peter Baume indicated-the objectives of scientists such as Mengele were directed. Those were the innocent Jewish people on whom the most degrading experiments were undertaken. I believe that the world owes those people a debt of gratitude because as a result of the Nuremberg trials and the information that came from those there has been established the Nuremberg Code. It was the Nuremberg Code which established certain principles concerning experimentation on human subjects. The judges at the Nuremberg trials all agreed that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts in relation to experiments on human beings. They outlined principles for researchers to follow to ensure the voluntary consent of subjects who had both the legal capacity to consent and the free power of choice. They determined that the subject must be fully informed of the nature, duration and purpose of the experiment in which he was to participate. He must be fully informed of the means and method by which the experiment was to be conducted and the inconveniences and hazards that might reasonably be expected to occur. They said that experiments with human subjects should be undertaken only when the results were unattainable by other means and that they should be based on prior animal husbandry experimentation. The judges insisted on a number of other principles. The overall concept was that experimentation on human subjects should be therapeutic, that is to say, the experiment should be for the benefit of the individual human subject on whom the experiment was to be undertaken. Of course, certain of those experiments gave a great deal of information to the human race about the effect, for example, of x-rays and the effect of freezing on humans. That was used by the counsel as a defence for a number of those people at the Nuremberg trials. It was suggested that that information was to add to the knowledge of the human race. However the dignity of the human subject far outweighs any such knowledge that can be gained. Indeed, as counsel for Eichman suggested at the Nuremberg trials, if Eichman had not done the experiments somebody else in the nazi regime would have done so. That claim, that excuse, was not accepted by the Nuremberg judges. If these principles arising from the sufferings of Jewish people in concentration camps are applied to every human subject, no matter how small, how despised or how impotent, civilisation will have learned from the past and the deaths of these people will not have been in vain. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.29) —I would like to say a few words about this subject because in the late 1970s I was a member of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties when it was set in great turmoil when one of the most prominent members denied the history of the holocaust. In light of that I believe this is a motion which deserves most emphatic support. I congratulate Senator Peter Baume for moving it. The motion deserves support firstly because of the end it achieves in acknowledging an horrific event in history. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order It being 10.30 p.m. under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.30) —I repeat that it deserves support, firstly because it achieves an acknowledgment of an horrific event in history-the cruel, calculated execution of a myriad of innocent people in the name of perverted and pernicious belief; and secondly, because this motion does not descend to the abuse of those who maintain that the Holocaust did not occur. That is a great achievement. It has been debated how those who gainsay the Holocaust should be addressed. It is to be expected that those who accept its occurence will react to it with great emotion. This can lead to calls for censorship of publications inpugning the historicity of the Holocaust. It can lead to claims that freedom of thought, speech and research are prejudiced by the very people condemning the Nazis for their negation of human rights. We can entertain great sympathy for those who might want to suppress publications denying the Holocaust. It ranks amongst the most horrible events in the history of mankind but, in the end, it is best to approach the issue as this motion does. It notes in simple and stark terms the circumstances that have evoked the proposals. It denies no one civil rights and it does not condemn any expression of opinion. It declares positively that about 40 years ago there was a period in history when events occurred which are really beyond description, but which should be kept forever in the minds of people who seek the advance of humans away from the dark and into the light. I congratulate Senator Baume for the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Peter Rae —I ask that it be noted that the question was carried unanimously. The PRESIDENT —Yes, it was carried unanimously. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.32) —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 Bill currently before the Senate is an historic piece of legislation. It represents a major departure from the normal processes for dealing with industrial relations problems in this country. Its objective is to provide machinery for the cancellation of the registration of the Builders Labourers' Federation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or to provide for the effective equivalent of such deregistration in parts of Australia. Such action cannot be taken lightly. However, we have come to a point where the actions of the BLF are, in our opinion-and we would believe, in the opinion of the community as a whole-totally unacceptable. Despite being given many opportunities to do so, the BLF has shown, time and time again, that it is not willing to adhere to the established industrial relations processes. Indeed, it has treated those processes with absolute contempt. In so doing, the Government believes that the BLF has, on numerous occasions, breached undertakings to the Federal Court of Australia, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Industrial Registrar, the Commonwealth Government, building industry employers, and even the ACTU. It is now patently clear that the BLF leadership is utterly untrustworthy and that they regard undertakings and agreements as mere stratagems to achieve a momentary advantage which can then be disregarded at will. Furthermore, its unprincipled, indeed outrageous mode of operation has created havoc in the building industry, thereby causing extraordinary delays in building programs and crippling increases in costs. Its use of tactics such as breaking concrete pours, reckless application of work bans, resort to walk-offs or `Homers', and claims for payment for time on strike, have made industrial relations in the industry a nightmare. Its resort to industrial blackmail, thuggery, violence and intimidation, has added a further ugly dimension to its activities. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated and has resulted in the virtual alienation of the Union from the rest of the trade union movement in some parts of the nation. The building and construction industry occupies a vital role in the Australian economy. The Government has deliberately encouraged the industry as a major force in renewed economic growth since 1983 and activity is expected to continue to grow strongly in 1985-86. The continuation of that expansion and its contribution to the nation's economic prosperity has, however, been put at risk by the industrial disruption caused by the BLF. The Federation has around 35,000 members in non-residential construction, with almost 70% of them employed in the industry in NSW, Victoria and the ACT. It has been the actions of the Federation in these areas which have been most disruptive and which have led to the legislation now before the Senate. The Federation's members are on site at the beginning and the end of projects and are involved in key activities during the course of a job including steel fixing, concreting, scaffolding, crane driving, dogging and general trades assistance. This central position has been used ruthlessly by the BLF. Tactics such as bans on strategic equipment and parts of jobs, broken concrete pours, bans on truck deliveries and unloading and on overtime have been deployed with the objective of `the most harm to the boss, the least harm to ourselves', to quote the NSW State Secretary of the BLF. The BLF has become expert at exploiting the vulnerability of the construction process to press its demands. It has fully exploited the fact that once a project is underway, very often the cheapest alternative for an employer is to succumb to a demand rather than risk losses far in excess of the cost of an industrial settlement. This is not to excuse employers, however, some of whom have been far too willing in the past to accommodate the BLF. BLF tactics have also extended to action against parties not directly involved in the industry and even against other unions. Federation members have occupied buildings of insurance companies, private organisations, the Office of the Industrial Registrar and, at least on one occasion, premises of another union. The Federation has also shown disdain for the processes of conciliation and arbitration. It has continuously refused to abide by orders of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and consistently pursued claims outside the guidelines of the Commission. Further, it has broken numerous undertakings as to its conduct given to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Industrial Registrar and the Federal Court of Australia. These activities of the BLF are not a recent phenomenon-indeed, the Federation has been a major disruptive force in the industry throughout the past decade and a half. In 1974, the Federation was deregistered by the Industrial Court following four years of turmoil in the industry. In October 1976, the Federation was deregistered after giving specific undertakings to the Industrial Registrar to abide by decisions of the Commission and to participate fully in the prevention and settlement of disputes through conciliation and arbitration. Mr Gallagher, the Federal Secretary of the BLF, told the Commission in 1976 that: `I can further submit that the Commission can properly and confidently assume that the policy of this Federation is to resort to concilation and arbitration through the Commission rather than direct action in breach of the Act or in breach of Awards of the Commission.' Mr Gallagher went on to say: . . . the Union gives assurances that the employers can expect that acts of destruction of property, interruptions to concrete pours, interrupting the unloading of vehicles and the use of selective bans on vertical transport machinery, such as cranes, passengers/material hoists, which would inhibit the work on builders' labourers and of tradesmen will be foregone. The record shows that from this time the Union has had scant regard to these undertakings. It has, on a multitude of occasions, engaged in the kind of conduct it repudiated before the Court, and its industrial record contains numerous examples of harmful demarcation disputes, broken concrete pours, violent conflicts with police and fellow unionists and disruptive campaigns over non-industrial issues. The activities of the union over the period were well summarised in the 1982 Report of the Winneke Royal Commission: These tactics find no support or condonation in any industrial legislation in this country. The conduct not only exceeds the bounds of industrial propriety but, in many instances, plainly transgresses the Criminal Law . . . The result has been to place the BLF in a unique position-a position of being above the law. In March 1983 when this Government took office, we were confronted by major difficulties in the industry. Industrial relations were at an extremely low ebb with widespread disputation centring around award renegotiations involving all unions and the ongoing proceedings for deregistration of the BLF initiated by the previous government in 1981. It was clear that those deregistration proceedings-initiated by the current Leader of the Opposition-had little chance of achieving a lasting improvement in the industry. They were strongly opposed by the whole union movement which would have backed up the BLF if it had been eventually deregistered. Despite the fact that the proceedings had already been underway for two years there was every chance they could have meandered on for a number of years. Moreover, the proceedings had been initiated with absolutely no consultation with industry employers who were reluctantly dragged into the case. The general feeling amongst employers at the time was that they had been put into a `no win' situation by the government of the day. This Government adopted a strategy in 1983 and consistently through the next two years that the problems of the industry could best be solved through consultation and co-operation leading to a negotiated settlement involving all parties, backed up by the Government. However, if this approach failed, the Government was prepared to take strong and effective action to achieve stability. In April 1983, the Government established the National Building and Construction Industry Conference (NBCIC) under an independent chairman to look at establishing the basis for a withdrawal of deregistration proceedings and so facilitate the establishment of an industry agreement. Building employers, unions, the Federal Government and the ACTU were represented at the Conference. In May 1983, agreement was reached, including a moratorium on further industrial action, as a basis for adjournment of the deregistration proceedings. As part of this agreement, the BLF reaffirmed, in detail, the undertakings it gave on reregistration in 1976. In the months that followed, negotiations between the parties continued, resulting in the Building Industry Agreement. The Agreement provided, in return for superannuation, the most comprehensive package ever agreed upon in the industry to address the major industrial problems which had bedevilled the industry over a long period. Specific procedures were laid down to handle disputes including a seven day cooling-off period. Practices such as claims for payment for time on strike, cash in hand, pyramid subcontracting, contrived safety issues, no-ticket-no-start and demarcation disputes were specifically addressed in the Agreement. There was also an agreement on no extra claims. It was hoped that, with the support of employers and all unions, the Agreement would lay the foundation for a long period of stable industrial relations. At the same time as the industry agreement was being developed, negotiations continued to seek a satisfactory basis for resolution of the deregistration proceedings, and in December 1983 the Government agreed to accept undertakings given by the BLF as the basis for withdrawing from the proceedings. Central to the Government's decision was the position taken by the ACTU, which supported the BLF's commitment and resolved to take all reasonable steps to ensure its observance by the union. The BLF undertook to recognise its responsibilities as a registered organisation to work within the provisions and spirit of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the national wage principles, and to utilise the means provided by the Act for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes. Earlier, in October 1983, the BLF had given a no extra claims commitment as required under the national wage principles. Again only a few months passed before the BLF repudiated these commitments: During February 1984, the BLF embarked on a widespread and particularly disruptive campaign for a $9 pay claim rather than participating with other unions in negotiations for a superannuation scheme. Eventually, combined pressure from the Government, the ACTU and other unions convinced the BLF to drop its claim. During the first half of 1984, the employer applicants were still pursuing deregistration. However, many employers recognised the problems associated with that course, especially when the necessary circumstances for it to be effective did not exist. In June 1984, the employers withdrew from the proceedings on the basis of a commitment by the Government to take effective action against the BLF if they failed to adhere to the industry Agreement. No sooner had the deregistration been terminated, however, than the BLF launched a widespread campaign seeking superannuation outside the Building Industry Agreement. Although other unions had signed the Agreement, the BLF which had been fully involved in negotiations leading to the Agreement, broke away, refused to sign the agreement, and sought superannuation through an extremely disruptive industrial campaign. Further industrial action was taken in relation to charges against Mr Gallagher arising out of the Winneke Royal Commission. Matters came to a head in September 1984 with vast sections of the industry in all States affected by the campaign. Again the BLF practised its typical style of brinkmanship and, when confronted with a preparedness by the Government to take strong action, the BLF sought a last minute tactical retreat and finally signed the Agreement. However, the BLF's intentions of adhering to the terms of the agreement were soon in question. At the same time as it was signing the Agreement, the BLF continued industrial actions over claims for strike pay and continued employment for its members at the Sydney Police Centre as well as in pursuit of shorter hours on shopping centre sites. On 12 October 1984, building unions in Sydney met at a large combined meeting and condemned the BLF's conduct at the Police Centre and alleged that 14 BLF members at the site had been involved in violence, threats and intimidation against fellow workers and their families. Calls by the ACTU executive and the Commission for an end to all BLF action over the site were ignored. Over 2,000 workers were stood down in New South Wales alone, with major sites all over the rest of the country also being affected. This action led to the decision by the New South Wales Government to deregister the BLF from the State's industrial jurisdiction. It was only at the end of February that bans were eventually lifted with a commitment by the BLF not to pursue claims for lost time-a commitment that was later ignored as other sites were banned in pursuit of such payment. Meanwhile the BLF pursued its national campaign for a 36-hour week on shopping centres with a large number of projects in most States being forced to the point of closure. These claims were in clear breach of both the national wage principles and the Building Industry Agreement. Furthermore, numerous bans and stoppages were imposed in all States in protest at the conviction and gaoling of Mr Gallagher. The union's industrial action was only dropped in July when the resolve of Federal and State governments to act became obvious. The Victorian Government decided at this stage to legislate to deregister the BLF from its industrial jurisdiction. It is abundantly clear that there is absolutely no course open to the Government than to introduce this legislation. The time has passed for yet another `last chance'. Since March 1983, the Government has explored every constructive option for achieving a resolution through the normal industrial processes to the problems posed for the industry by the BLF's behaviour. And yet these opportunities have invariably not been accepted by the BLF. I now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides for two steps. First, a hearing is to take place before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission so that it can be independently determined whether the Federation has engaged in certain forms of serious industrial misconduct. Secondly, where the Commission so finds, the Minister will be able to take action against the Federation to exclude it from the federal conciliation and arbitration system altogether, or limit its capacity to operate within the system. I should stress that the measures proposed by the Government against the Federation are being introduced because the Government believes that the Federation's conduct amounts to repudiation of the federal system for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and of its responsibilities as a federally registered organisation of employees, as well as being utterly disruptive to industrial peace. In the Government's view, the action which is contemplated in this legislation is so serious that it is essential that there be impartial consideration by an independent tribunal of the Federation's conduct. This will occur against specific criteria which are appropriate tests of whether the Federation has behaved responsibly as an organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and in a way which is consistent with the objectives of our industrial relations system. Clause 4 therefore provides that where, on an application by the Minister, a Full Bench of the Commission is satisfied that the Federation has engaged in certain actions, the Commission is to declare in writing that it is so satisfied. The first of the criteria in Clause 4 concerns the Federation's record of compliance with its undertakings and agreements. The Commission will be able to consider whether the Federation has, by engaging in industrial action or by making claims supported by industrial action, contravened or acted inconsistently with the intent of agreements and undertakings to which it is a party. These include the Building Industry Agreement which I referred to earlier, as well as the Federation's various undertakings to the Commission, the Registrar or the Federal Court of Australia. Undertakings given by the Federation to a party to a proceeding in which the Federation was involved before any of these tribunals are also included. And that, of course, includes its undertakings to the Government and to the employers given before the Federal Court in 1983 and 1984. The agreements which the Federation has entered into and the undertakings it has given are all fundamental to its participation in the conciliation and arbitration system. As I have said, the Government, employers and many unions see those agreements and undertakings as meaning little to the Federation and the Commission will have the opportunity to determine whether that is so. Provision is also made in clause 4 for an examination of whether the Federation has engaged in conduct which has seriously hindered or prevented the achievement of an object of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, or whether the conduct of the Federation has been inimical to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. The Federation will be given the opportunity of presenting argument on its conduct. This is provided for in clause 6. For the purpose of clause 4, the Federation is made responsible for any industrial action or conduct by its members if it instigated or encouraged such conduct or action, or the Federation does not prove that it took all reasonable steps to prevent it. Once the Commission has made a declaration, the Bill provides for alternative courses of action against the Federation. Clause 5 provides for the Minister to order the cancellation of the Federation's registration. This would mean that any award applying to the Federation or to its members would cease to have any force or effect in relation to them. After its de-registration, the Federation would, under clause 7, be denied the capacity to be a party to any proceedings before the Consiliation and Arbitration Commission and the Commission would not be able to deal with any industrial disputes to the extent that they involved members of the Federation. Before the Federation could be reregistered, the Minister may, under clause 5, specify conditions with which the Federation must comply. There are alternatives to ordering the cancellation of the Federation's registration. The Minister may under clause 5 terminate or suspend the Federation's rights, privileges or capacities, or those of its members, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or under the rules of the Federation. Under clause 8, the Minister may make orders so that the Federation ceases, while it remains registered, to be able to have coverage of employees engaged in work coming within the Federation's rules in parts of Australia specified by the Minister. Clause 8 also provides that, upon the making of such an order, the Federation is no longer able, for the purposes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to make any claims for or on behalf of any persons or to represent any members in the area specified in the order. The making of such an order will mean that the Federation cannot seek new awards or recruit members in relation to work in the relevant area. As to existing awards, clause 8 provides that any award applying to the Federation or its members ceases to have effect in relation to them unless, within 28 days of the making of the Minister's order, the Commission varies the awards so that they do not apply to the Federation or its members in the area specified in the order. Clause 8 therefore permits a selective approach to be used in relation to the Federation. It will permit the Government to take action against the most disruptive sections of the BLF while allowing the more acceptable sections to remain within the federal system. At this stage, this is the approach which the Government proposes to adopt. The action to be taken under this approach will, together with appropriate supplementary action under clause 5 in relation to the rights, priviliges and capacitites of the Federation, mean that consequences similar to those resulting from deregistration can apply, if necessary, to the recalcitrant elements of the union. Whether the Federation has its registration cancelled or selective action is taken in relation to its representative rights, the Minister is able, by virtue of clause 9, to allocate by way of a declaration to any other federally registered unions coverage of work in an industry in respect of which the Federation is or has been registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The relevant union would be required to consent to the Minister taking this action. Such action may be taken in relation to a particular part of Australia and may involve different kinds of work and different unions. This will enable the continued effective representation for the purposes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of persons who would otherwise have been eligible for membership of the Federation where it is deregistered or has its representative rights removed. The Bill also permits the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to allocate Federation work coverage to other federally registered unions. The Commission may consider such allocation of work coverage where an application is made by a federally registered union or by the Minister. The Commission will have to be satisfied that it is desirable for the union concerned to have that work coverage allocated to it so that the objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are achieved and the employees concerned will be effectively represented for the purposes of the Act. The Act will cease to be in force by virtue of clause 15 on a day to be fixed by Proclamation. This Bill represents positive action by the Government towards securing improved industrial relations in the industry. The Government expects support from the industry to ensure the success of measures taken under it. In conjunction with the measures in the Bill, employers will be expected to adopt a code of industrial behaviour to rid the industry of the improper practices being fostered by the BLF. Although such a code will require no more than stringent adherence to awards, agreements and normal industrial practices, its implementation would be a major step towards improved industrial relations in the industry. The Government is also giving consideration to non-legislative measures designed to ensure that contractors on government projects adhere to government industrial relations policies. We will be approaching State and local governments to adopt similar measures. It is essential that this legislation be enacted with the utmost expedition. The Government will be looking to the co-operation of all parties to ensure its rapid progress through the Parliament. As soon as the legislation is passed, I will be applying to the Commission for the declaration which is required under the Bill before any action can be taken against the BLF. The Bill provides for an expeditious hearing before the Commission and the Government will take every feasible step to ensure that this is the case. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.34) —Earlier today in the Senate I asked Senator Button about the vicious industrial campaign being waged by a small, militant, extreme left wing union called the Federated Confectioners Association of Australia. The FCA's campaign is aimed at the small privately owned Victorian confectionery manufacturer Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd. That manufacturer is well known to people of all ages throughout Australia for its manufacture of hundreds and thousands, amongst other confectionery items. Tim Duncan of the Bulletin has written an excellent article on the dispute in this week's issue. I will not go over all the ground in that article. My purpose tonight is to bring urgent public attention to the highly dangerous relationship which has developed over recent years, and which appears to be strengthening, between certain Australian trade unions and the murderous, terrorist, dictatorship government of Colonel Gadaffi's Libya. The main Australian architect of this relationship is Mr Bill Hartley and the main union involved is the Food Preservers Union. The leading figures in the FPU are Mr Tom Ryan, Mr Hartley and Mr David Grove. All are leading members of the Socialist Left faction within the administrative committee of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria. Mr Ryan is the ALP State Junior Vice-President. It appears that a pecuniary relationship has developed and continues to grow between certain small but important trade unions and Libya. The combination of trade unions that are prepared to use their power recklessly and not in the true interests of their members, together with resources and inspiration from terrorist sources like Libya, is an important and potential force for disruptive activity. Libya is known around the globe- Senator Georges —That is a very serious charge you are making. Senator SHORT —Yes, it is. Libya is known around the globe as the connoisseur and prime innovator of international terrorism. Libya has provided training, money and, in many cases, arms for virtually every group in the world with revolutionary credentials. The close relationship that now exists between some radical trade union leaders, mainly based in Melbourne, and Libyan channels is therefore a matter of grave concern. The spreading of the largesse of the Libyans into the Australian trade union movement is of additional concern, given that the trade union movement is the industrial wing of the present governing political party in Australia-the Australian Labor Party. The Australian-Libyan connection is centred, it would appear, at the joint office of the Food Preservers Union and the Australian-Libyan Friendship Asssociation. Their joint office was for many years in Franklin Street, Melbourne. It also housed the Iraqi News Service and an East German toy company. The office, minus the Iraqis and the East Germans, has recently shifted to 75 Leveson Street, North Melbourne, and I am informed that the new offices contain media studios, teleprinters and other facilities. The Food Preservers Union is led, as we know, by Mr Tom Ryan who was recently elected to the position of junior vice-president of the Victorian ALP. The current Secretary of the Australian-Libyan Friendship Association is Mr Bill Hartley, who is also a member of the FPU and one of its delegates to the ALP's Victorian administrative committee. The Food Preservers Union has limited resources from its members and for this reason alone it would seem prudent business practice at least to share the rent with the Australian-Libyan Friendship Association. However, Tom Ryan himself has publicly acknowledged that the Association has at times not paid rent and for extended periods. The exact role of the Australian-Libyan Friendship Association is unclear but obviously it would be to extend Libyan influence and support within Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —Well, it has not been very successful, has it? Senator SHORT —Let us come to that, Senator Evans. I hope that the honourable senator is correct, but I am not sure that he is. If we look at the role of similar associations overseas, there is reason for very considerable disquiet. For example, the Italy-Libya Association was proven to be a conduit for Libyan money from the Libyan Embassy in Rome to political activists. The extensive overseas trips by certain trade union officials, many apparently offered by the Libyan Government through its agencies, has become a matter of public interest and concern. Bill Hartley and Tom Ryan are important executive members of the Victorian ALP because of the power they wield in the Socialist Left, anti-Hawke faction of that party. They make no secret of their support for the front-line radical Arab states against democratic Israel. They have enjoyed extensive overseas trips over many years. They have not reported their trips in union journals, but these trips can be documented publicly from Bill Hartley's radio programs Par Avion and Union Lines, on what is euphemistically called `Community Radio'. Over the past ten years Tom Ryan has been the self-proclaimed representative of the Australian trade union movement in Tripoli and Damascus. He has met with the Palestine Liberation Organisation in South Lebanon; he was one of the first Westerners to enter Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion; he visited East Berlin on the 20th anniversary of the building of the Berlin Wall; and he has toured extensively through the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Middle East. As I said, he has been on more than 10 such overseas trips. The most recent appears to have been to Libya in March 1985 to celebrate 10 years of the Gaddafi regime at the invitation of Gaddafi himself. Senator Gareth Evans —Where do you get all your information? Senator SHORT —It is all publicly documented information which has been drawn together. None of it is from non-public sources. In July 1984 Tom Ryan visited Iraq and in 1983 Iraq, Cuba and Bulgaria. Rank and file members within the FPU are now asking whether these trips are paid for by union members and, if not, where the money comes from. The FPU is not a wealthy union. Quite obviously, FPU members are given little or no idea where their union subscriptions go or what their officials do. Bill Hartley, whose Australian-Libyan Friendship Association has shared the same office with the FPU for over 10 years, has followed an overseas itinerary that would be the envy of any Foreign Affairs Minister. His favourite ports of call are Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iraq. According to public and verifiable sources, he met the terrorist leader Yasser Arafat in Beirut at the time- Senator Gareth Evans —So has half the Western world. Senator SHORT —For the information of Senator Evans, he met him at the time that the PLO's Black September movement was engaged in a program of terrorism. He visited Libya and met Gaddafi on numerous occasions; he has attempted to recruit academics for Libyan universities from Papua New Guinea; he has visited Eastern Europe for the Soviet-backed World Peace Council; and he has visited African states and others. He was censured by the Australian Labor Party for his attempts to raise Iraqi money and channel it into the ALP election coffers in 1975-76. Mr Hartley is currently on a three-week visit to China and North Korea. In February of this year he visited Argentina and Brazil and in September and October of last year he visited Argentina, Algiers and Iraq. In 1983 he visited Libya, Iraq and the Gulf states. A most interesting meeting took place in August 1979. This meeting was reported on radio 3CR's Par Avion program-the Bill Hartley program-on 1 September 1979. Tom Ryan met the then ALP official, Mr Gerry Hand, now the honourable member for Melbourne and President of the Labor Party in Victoria; the Labor Senator Cyril Primmer; the honourable member for Scullin, Dr Harry Jenkins; and the late Jack Ginifer, MLA, in Gaddafi's Libya. From there they later went on Beirut where they met the terrorist Dr George Habash. Tom Ryan, who, as I said, is now a junior vice-president of the Victorian ALP, said, according to reports on Par Avion, that he was most impressed with the Marxism-Leninism of Dr Habash. Other Food Preservers Union officials have travelled extensively to radical Arab states and Eastern bloc dictatorships-Van Veen to Iraq, Cotton to the Middle East and Franklin to Iraq. Recently the Federal Industrial Officer of the Food Preservers Union, Mr David Groves, returned from a trade union conference for peace in Nicaragua. Another union that has recently come into prominence, and which I have already mentioned, is the tiny Federated Confectioners Association, the FCA. The current strike at the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd, which involves the FCA- Senator Gareth Evans —Ha, ha! Senator SHORT —Senator Evans, you may laugh about that, but many Victorians are very worried about that dispute because of its implications. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to address his remarks through the Chair. Senator SHORT —I apologise, Mr President. It is the tiny Federated Confectioners Association. The current strike at Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd, which involves the FCA, has presented, unfortunately, the uglier side of trade unionism to the public. In recent weeks, the company Dollar Sweets has experienced a fire, which almost certainly was arson. The owner of the company, a small businessman, Mr Fred Stauder, has received a bomb threat. There have been threats of violence against his wife and children. Telex and telephone links to his factory have been severed. A truck driver has been bashed, and there has been general harassment of the company's employees. Mr Stauder has been forced to pay an additional $7,000 each week for armed security guards as a result of these actions by the FCA. The Federal Secretary of the FCA is Mr Carlo Frizziero. In March 1985, he visited Libya with Tom Ryan of the Food Preservers Union at the invitation of Colonel Gadaffi. Mr Frizziero has recently been charged with assault. Mr Frizziero is the nominal leader of the current vicious industrial campaign at Dollar Sweets, but in fact he and his union are merely puppets of the Food Preservers Union and of Messrs Ryan and Hartley. The Food Preservers Union has no legitimate role whatsoever to play in the Dollar Sweets dispute, or in the confectionery industry as a whole, because it has no members in those industries or that company. Despite that, the Food Preservers Union has participated in illegal picket lines at Dollar Sweets, has participated in Victorian Government sponsored talks on the Dollar Sweets dispute, and has participated in talks between the Federated Confectioners Association and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. There is no doubt that the FCA is a puppet of the FPU. The FPU is using the FCA as a Trojan horse to infiltrate the confectionery industry. On 22 July last, on the Channel 10 network news, I called for an inquiry into the activities of the FCA and, in particular, its Libyan connection. On the same news item, Mr Frizziero was questioned about his Libyan involvement. On the following day, 23 July, agreement in principle was reached between officials of the FCA and the management of Dollar Sweets on the dispute at that company. All the officers of the FCA were present at the meeting, and so were all the striking workers involved. Near the conclusion of the meeting, at which agreement in principle had been reached, Carlo Frizziero left to make a telephone call. When he returned, he said that he needed to talk to his members. After that meeting with his members, Frizziero told the Dollar Sweets management that the agreement in principle was no longer on. Whom did Mr Frizziero phone, as a result of which he received orders not to proceed to a settlement of the dispute? There is only one possible answer to that. That call was to Tom Ryan of the FPU or to one of his henchmen. Most of the violence which has occurred at Dollar Sweets has occurred since I called on 22 July for an inquiry. That call was fully justified at the time. In the light of what has happened since 22 July, that inquiry has now become of the utmost urgency. I ask the Government, through the Minister at the table, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), to treat my remarks as a further request for an inquiry. The FPU is part of a network of influence involving other unions. The FCA is one. The Hospital Employees Federation, No. 1 Branch, is another. The Pastrycooks, Bakers, Biscuitmakers and Allied Trades Union may be another. Apart from extensive trips overseas for these union officials, there is also the lavish funding of certain union election campaigns. The most recent election in the Hospital Employees Federation No. 1 Branch, in July, included printing a three-colour brochure sent to every member of the union, full-page advertisements in the Sunday Observer, the Hamilton Spectator and the Herald and Weekly Times. The level of expenditure, I am informed, is most unusual in a union election, especially when it has been suggested that there was no observable raising of funds for that election. There are many unresolved questions. For example, where did the $400,000 to $1m for the Defence of Government Schools High Court challenge, in which Mr Hartley was heavily involved, come from? Where does the money for extensive overseas trips come from? This must now total hundreds of thousands of dollars. How can another minute group called the Social Labor League afford to publish a twice-weekly, sixteen-page journal called Workers News? It consistently expresses enthusiasm for Colonel Gadaffi, and on any reasonable view must be lavishly funded in order to maintain its publishing schedule. The Libyan presence in Australia is extensive. At a time when Australia has closed its diplomatic representation in Tripoli on economic grounds, the Libyan presence is expanding here. Libya now maintains four full-time offices in Australia, apart from its Peoples Bureau in Canberra. Three of these offices are in Melbourne, which is also the home of the extremists in the Socialist Left. I have already mentioned the Libyan Friendship Association which shares offices with the Food Preservers Union in North Melbourne. There is also a `Peoples Congress' in the western suburbs of Melbourne. Furthermore, $70,000 per annum is spent on rented premises for the Cultural Centre in Albert Road, South Melbourne. The functions of these organisations have never been properly explained. Trade between our countries is minimal, and I am informed that there are fewer than 200 Libyans living in Australia. In 1982 the Department of Foreign Affairs gave permission for the opening of the Libyan Cultural Centre in South Melbourne. The condition was: . . . as long as the proposed role does not differ from other countries' cultural centres. I believe that this proposition should be tested to find out precisely what the activities of these organisations have been. Has the cultural centre in any way contravened the original terms of its credentialling? I do not know, I do not believe anyone else knows, and I believe that should be tested. The behaviour of Libyan organisations in host countries is not pleasant. The terrible events at the Peoples Bureau, of which we have one, in London in 1984 must never be forgotten. Bill Hartley condoned those actions. The Philippines, Malaya, Indonesia-nations with large Muslim communities-will not permit Libyan diplomatic representation. In 1980 the United States of America expelled all Libyan diplomats and shut down all Libyan offices in the United States. Already there has been a serious breach of Australian law. In 1981 the then secretary to the Peoples Bureau admitted that the embassy had been involved in the recruitment of mercenaries in Australia, in contravention of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. Australia is a tolerant and open society and welcomes friendly links with other nations. But we cannot afford to be naive. Many questions need investigation. Is there a financial relationship between certain unions and the Libyans? Why is there such an extensive Libyan presence within Australia, when there are fewer than 200 Libyans living here? Should Australia have a foreign agents registration Act, as in the United States, to ensure that those who act on behalf of foreign powers, or who receive money from foreign powers, are required publicly to disclose their relationships? These are important questions and they go to the very heart of Australia's security. I believe they need investigation and answers. I urge the Government to look at what I have said tonight and to look at the need to set in train the necessary inquiries to flush out some of this information. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.56) —We have listened to two extremely important matters of great detail tonight. I rise to add one which is of importance but not of great detail. I simply wish to take the opportunity to refer to a personal explanation made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, Mr Howard, in reply to a statement made by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, who, in this chamber, made certain claims. Mr Howard, in his personal explanation, said: In the Senate yesterday, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, disputed the claim I made on the Carleton-Walsh report on Tuesday evening . . . in which I said that in the first Budget I brought down in 1978-79 the trilogy adopted as holy economic writ by the present Government had been met. The basis for Senator Walsh disputing that claim was that in that first Budget there had been a money increase of $140m in the size of the deficit, compared with 1977-78. That of course is true. However, the deficit of 1978-79 was lower in terms of percentage of gross domestic product than the previous year. The fact is that the condition of the trilogy that the deficit be reduced in money terms, as distinct from a reduction as a percentage of GDP, relates only to 1985-86. Therefore, the basis of Senator Walsh's rejection of my claim is false. For good measure I remind Senator Walsh also that the Budget deficit as a proportion of GDP in the year immediately preceding my becoming Treasurer, was 3.7 per cent of GDP and in the final Budget I delivered in 1982-83, five years later, it was 2.7 per cent of GDP. That is the end of the personal explanation. It is my belief that any member of the other House who has a statement made in this place against him is entitled to have his response recorded in this place. I do this not for the purpose of re-raising the matter but to record Mr Howard's response. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.59) —in reply-Before I heard Senator Short tonight I did not think that anything could induce me to defend Bill Hartley in public or private, a man whose contribution to the Labor movement over the years, whatever it may have been to Australian-Libyan relations, has been less than constructive and valuable. But I must confess that after hearing the rambling grab-bag of bits and pieces of scuttlebutt and innuendo to which Senator Short treated us tonight, it has been a close run thing. Speeches of the quality of Senator Short's, redolent as they are with bile and prejudice of various kinds, are the kinds of speeches that lend incredibility to accounts of events that might otherwise be perfectly believable. I do not know what kind of jurisdiction the Commonwealth might possibly have in relation to the various kinds of inquiries urged upon us by Senator Short. I will refer his contribution tonight to Mr Willis to the extent that it raises industrial relations questions and anyone else I can think of who might conceivably be interested in it to see what action or what reply they might care to make. I make no promises in that respect. As to Senator Rae's retailing of Mr Howard's defence against the calumny to which he was subjected by Senator Walsh yesterday, I have no doubt that Senator Walsh will have a riposte in due course, particularly since Mr Howard's defence seems to be based on a semantic version of the trilogy which lends itself to a debate of that kind. I will draw it to Senator Walsh's attention and see what he might be prepared to say in response to it. Question resolved in the affirmative Senate adjourned at 11.01 p.m. The following paper was tabled: States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act-Direction under sub-section 26 (1) to vary amounts specified in Schedule 3, dated 11 June 1985.